This is only a preview of the September 2017 issue of Silicon Chip. You can view 59 of the 112 pages in the full issue, including the advertisments. For full access, purchase the issue for $10.00 or subscribe for access to the latest issues. Items relevant to "Fully adjustable, 3-way active loudspeaker crossover Pt.1":
Items relevant to "Dead simple radio IF alignment with DDS":
Items relevant to "LTspice Tutorial Part 3: Modelling an NTC Thermistor":
Articles in this series:
Items relevant to "Arduino Data Logger Part 2":
Items relevant to "Arduino “ThingSpeak.com” ESP8266 data logger":
Items relevant to "El Cheapo modules Part 9: AD9850 DDS module":
Articles in this series:
Purchase a printed copy of this issue for $10.00. |
SILICON
SILIC
CHIP
www.siliconchip.com.au
Publisher & Editor-in-Chief
Leo Simpson, B.Bus., FAICD
Editor
Nicholas Vinen
Technical Editor
John Clarke, B.E.(Elec.)
Technical Staff
Ross Tester
Jim Rowe, B.A., B.Sc
Bao Smith, B.Sc
Photography
Ross Tester
Reader Services
Ann Morris
Advertising Enquiries
Glyn Smith
Phone (02) 9939 3295
Mobile 0431 792 293
glyn<at>siliconchip.com.au
Regular Contributors
Dave Thompson
David Maddison B.App.Sc. (Hons 1),
PhD, Grad.Dip.Entr.Innov.
Geoff Graham
Associate Professor Graham Parslow
Ian Batty
Cartoonist
Brendan Akhurst
SILICON CHIP is published 12 times
a year by Silicon Chip Publications
Pty Ltd. ACN 003 205 490. ABN 49
003 205 490. All material is copyright ©. No part of this publication
may be reproduced without the
written consent of the publisher.
Subscription rates: $105.00 per year
in Australia. For overseas rates, see
our website or the subscriptions page
in this issue.
Editorial office:
Unit 1 (up ramp), 234 Harbord Rd,
Brookvale, NSW 2100.
Postal address: PO Box 139,
Collaroy Beach, NSW 2097.
Phone (02) 9939 3295.
E-mail: silicon<at>siliconchip.com.au
Printing and Distribution:
Derby Street, Silverwater, NSW 2148.
ISSN 1030-2662
Recommended & maximum price only.
2 Silicon Chip
Editorial Viewpoint
A rapid shift to electric vehicles
could be disastrous
Norway and the Netherlands have announced that they
plan to ban the sale of vehicles powered by Internal Combustion Engines by 2025, Germany by 2030 and the UK
by 2040. China is forcing automobile manufacturers to
sell a percentage of vehicles as electric only and India is
talking about banning the operation of petrol and diesel
vehicles altogether in the future.
Leaving aside the question for now of whether it’s feasible to manufacture the
batteries required for all these vehicles in the time frames given, there are still
two significant hurdles which are likely to frustrate these plans.
Firstly, electricity generation and distribution would likely need to increase by
up to and 40% (depending on what assumptions you make) and most sources of
renewable energy would not be suitable without backup, due primarily to mismatches between availability and demand.
Natural gas is currently in short supply in Australia, nuclear fission is unpopular and coal is actively being discouraged. That doesn’t leave us a lot of options
for providing the extra energy needed to run a large fleet of electric vehicles.
But there’s potentially a more serious issue. Have any of the people behind
these plans stopped to consider what would happen in the event of a natural
disaster or a major disruption to the electricity grid? We all know from recent
experiences that neither of these scenarios is unlikely.
These days, blackouts of relatively short durations (ie, up to a few hours) are
frustrating but life can generally go on until the power comes back on. That may
not be so if transportation becomes utterly dependent on the electric grid.
Worse, imagine what would happen if the power goes out for a week or more,
due to a flood, cyclone, earthquake, major bushfire or similar event.
At the time of the disaster, some vehicles will have a fully charged battery that
may be good for several hundred kilometres of travel. Some will have a smaller
battery or be partially charged while others will be close to depleted.
How will people flee from the affected areas? How will food and medicine be
delivered? How will debris be cleared and people rescued? Even if emergency
vehicles were still liquid fuelled, they would have to bring their own re-fills.
Many are now saying that ICE-powered vehicles are obsolete but they do have
some distinct advantages. Even if you don’t keep your tank full, chances are you
could drive a significant distance now if you absolutely had to. If you rely on an
electric car, you’d better make sure to keep it charged in case you need it.
We tend to take for granted the huge, distributed network of petrol stations
that we have. This network stores a lot of energy, is widely distributed and always available. There are challenges pumping fuel in a blackout but it can be
done, while electric charging stations are utterly useless when the grid is down.
And petrol stations can be also replenished during a blackout, as long as road
access is still available. We haven’t even mentioned (and don’t really want to
think about) the potential effects of a coordinated terrorist attack on power supply infrastructure in a city with electricity-dependent transportation.
Plug-in hybrids are a much better compromise than pure electric vehicles, with
the possibility of dramatically reducing fuel consumption without being totally
dependent on a functioning grid. They also make good financial sense. But banning petrol-powered vehicles would eliminate this option.
Perhaps electric charging stations should have backup generators. Sure, they
would not be able to charge many vehicles at a time but at least transportation
would not grind to a complete halt if the grid goes down for some time.
We wonder whether the central planners who are trying to ban ICE vehicles
have thought of and solved all these problems, or if they’re just taking a “damn
the torpedoes” attitude for which many innocent people may suffer when the
inevitable “unexpected” disaster occurs.
Nicholas Vinen
siliconchip.com.au
|