Do we have to lease out 24GHz?

On 23 May 2019 19:00:19 -0700, Winfield Hill
<hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

NOAA's Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS),
passively-measures water-vapor levels, using weak
signals at 23.8 GHz. NOAA uses this data for their
critical hurricane forecasting.

A few notes about 5G and similar high capacity cellular networks:

* The claimed throughput / user is about 1000 times larger than the 1G
and 2G speech only cellular networks.

* The total available spectrum is always limited, so spectral
efficiency is critical. There are also other radio spectrum users.

* With a huge number of users especially in densely populated areas
means that the cell size must be very small, so that the same
frequency can be reused at an other close by base stations.

* Especially with shorter microwave wavelengths, the capture area of a
dipole receiver antenna becomes quite small and thus it is incapable
of collecting a lot of signal power. A directional antenna solves
this problem, but a paraboloid at a mobile phone is not very
practical-), but some electronically steerable mobile phone antennas
would help.


IMHO the last two points means that you need to put a base station
(access point) in every (or at every other) lamp post in densely
populated urban areas. This means that such access points must be
cheap.

The problem is how to connect such base stations to each other and to
the land line Internet (fiber). Most people seem to suggest some mesh
based networks (either between base stations or satellites), but this
will choke when more than a few networking (forwarding) nodes are
involved in a path. While AC power is available at the light pole,
fibers would also be needed to be installed to light poles to support
the communication.

 

On Sun, 26 May 2019 04:50:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Since the oceans occupy a huge part of the earth, thus LEO satellites
will fly over the water for quite a long time each orbit, Does the
island and cruise ship users generate enough revenue ?

Yes good question, Elon Musk making profit ? SpaceX does.
Geostationary sats would be an other approach, dish pointing at sea is
possible, for 1000$ you have a stabilized pointing system to a geo sat,
no problem for a cruiseship, gives them TV too.
I am sure somebody at SpaceX did the math...
We will see where it goes.

I am not sure if those "satellite Internet" companies can do the math.

First of all, they seem to assume that they get 100 % market share
(both terrestrial as well as orbital) of both customers and microwave
spectrum.

In high density urban areas, this is clearly impossible. Assuming 10
GHz of spectrum available and 50 Mbit/s for each customer (at least 10
MHz bandwidth), a cell could support only 1000 simultaneous customers.
At high density population areas ten cells on each square kilometers
would be required. Even with LEO satellites thousands of beams would
be required.

This is clearly inadequate to handle urban areas with satellite, hence
most of the revenue sources are lost. Does the rural/cruise customers
make such systems viable ?

 

[John Robertson]

On 2019/05/26 3:06 a.m., Tom Gardner wrote:

On 25/05/19 10:28, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 25 May 2019 09:35:05 +0100) it happened Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
Z67GE.1679598$%SF.1174557@fx15.am4>:

On 25/05/19 08:29, Jan Panteltje wrote:
About sats:
That Space-X thing did a show here in the Netherlands last night:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytUygPqjXEc

He will have to spread those out I think?
How does that work, do those sats have their own propulsion?
I want that internet !


Has he published any figures about the aggregate
bandwidth available? He touts a headline figure
of 50Mb/s, but that's boring.

If you are at sea on a boat that would be great,
if it is a lot cheaper than iridium etc..
I mean places out of reach of 4G and 5G towers.
Competition will get the pices down.

Or in many locations on land where the infrastructure
is inadequate.

Like China? North Korea?

John

 

[Winfield Hill]

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote...

First of all, they seem to assume that they
get 100 % market share ...

They assume 3%, which they calculate works out
to $30B. They'd probably be happy with 1%.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 26/05/19 14:55, John Robertson wrote:

On 2019/05/26 3:06 a.m., Tom Gardner wrote:
On 25/05/19 10:28, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 25 May 2019 09:35:05 +0100) it happened Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in <Z67GE.1679598$%SF.1174557@fx15.am4>:

On 25/05/19 08:29, Jan Panteltje wrote:
About sats:
That Space-X thing did a show here in the Netherlands last night:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytUygPqjXEc

He will have to spread those out I think?
How does that work, do those sats have their own propulsion?
I want that internet !


Has he published any figures about the aggregate
bandwidth available? He touts a headline figure
of 50Mb/s, but that's boring.

If you are at sea on a boat that would be great,
if it is a lot cheaper than iridium etc..
I mean places out of reach of 4G and 5G towers.
Competition will get the pices down.

Or in many locations on land where the infrastructure
is inadequate.

Like China? North Korea?

Don't be a twat.

Possibilities are obvious, if you use your
imagination and intelligence.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 26 May 2019 16:09:11 +0300) it happened
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
<u23leehep3rkqgbld8kt81vf03tdsvc8b1@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 26 May 2019 04:50:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Since the oceans occupy a huge part of the earth, thus LEO satellites
will fly over the water for quite a long time each orbit, Does the
island and cruise ship users generate enough revenue ?

Yes good question, Elon Musk making profit ? SpaceX does.
Geostationary sats would be an other approach, dish pointing at sea is
possible, for 1000$ you have a stabilized pointing system to a geo sat,
no problem for a cruiseship, gives them TV too.
I am sure somebody at SpaceX did the math...
We will see where it goes.

I am not sure if those "satellite Internet" companies can do the math.

First of all, they seem to assume that they get 100 % market share
(both terrestrial as well as orbital) of both customers and microwave
spectrum.

In high density urban areas, this is clearly impossible. Assuming 10
GHz of spectrum available and 50 Mbit/s for each customer (at least 10
MHz bandwidth), a cell could support only 1000 simultaneous customers.
At high density population areas ten cells on each square kilometers
would be required. Even with LEO satellites thousands of beams would
be required.

This is clearly inadequate to handle urban areas with satellite, hence
most of the revenue sources are lost. Does the rural/cruise customers
make such systems viable ?

Yes, almost like Tesla electric cars, the grid here cannot cope with all cars being electric.
But things must sell.
There is an other problem with geosats, and that is latency,
you clearly have to wait for a reply on SSB on QO100, 2 x 40,000 km at least...
Plus the delay for all the digital processing.
So in internet use, a mouse click in a browser would need a few seconds wait to take effect.
For the lower orbiting sats it is not be so bad, but then you need smooth sat switching.
So we will have to see what it does,
For a ship it would be really nice to have weather charts, phone and email exchange at a lower price.
Maybe there are also military applications.
More possibilities is better

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 27/05/19 06:22, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 26 May 2019 16:09:11 +0300) it happened
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
u23leehep3rkqgbld8kt81vf03tdsvc8b1@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 26 May 2019 04:50:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Since the oceans occupy a huge part of the earth, thus LEO satellites
will fly over the water for quite a long time each orbit, Does the
island and cruise ship users generate enough revenue ?

Yes good question, Elon Musk making profit ? SpaceX does.
Geostationary sats would be an other approach, dish pointing at sea is
possible, for 1000$ you have a stabilized pointing system to a geo sat,
no problem for a cruiseship, gives them TV too.
I am sure somebody at SpaceX did the math...
We will see where it goes.

I am not sure if those "satellite Internet" companies can do the math.

First of all, they seem to assume that they get 100 % market share
(both terrestrial as well as orbital) of both customers and microwave
spectrum.

In high density urban areas, this is clearly impossible. Assuming 10
GHz of spectrum available and 50 Mbit/s for each customer (at least 10
MHz bandwidth), a cell could support only 1000 simultaneous customers.
At high density population areas ten cells on each square kilometers
would be required. Even with LEO satellites thousands of beams would
be required.

This is clearly inadequate to handle urban areas with satellite, hence
most of the revenue sources are lost. Does the rural/cruise customers
make such systems viable ?

Yes, almost like Tesla electric cars, the grid here cannot cope with all cars being electric.
But things must sell.
There is an other problem with geosats, and that is latency,

They aren't geosats; their altitude is 273 miles vs 22000
miles. That reduces the latency by a factor of 10.

They also have the same advantage that caused the fintech
sector to buy up the microwave links between Chichago and
New York: the speed of light is ~50% faster than in fibres.

you clearly have to wait for a reply on SSB on QO100, 2 x 40,000 km at least...
Plus the delay for all the digital processing.
So in internet use, a mouse click in a browser would need a few seconds wait to take effect.
For the lower orbiting sats it is not be so bad, but then you need smooth sat switching.
So we will have to see what it does,
For a ship it would be really nice to have weather charts, phone and email exchange at a lower price.
Maybe there are also military applications.
More possibilities is better

I'd like to know how many simultaneous Windows Updates
the spacex system can cope with. To me that is more
interesting than the peak point-to-point bandwidth.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 27 May 2019 07:32:42 +0100) it happened Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in <fwLGE.828682$r72.659383@fx17.am4>:

On 27/05/19 06:22, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 26 May 2019 16:09:11 +0300) it happened
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
u23leehep3rkqgbld8kt81vf03tdsvc8b1@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 26 May 2019 04:50:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Since the oceans occupy a huge part of the earth, thus LEO satellites
will fly over the water for quite a long time each orbit, Does the
island and cruise ship users generate enough revenue ?

Yes good question, Elon Musk making profit ? SpaceX does.
Geostationary sats would be an other approach, dish pointing at sea is
possible, for 1000$ you have a stabilized pointing system to a geo sat,
no problem for a cruiseship, gives them TV too.
I am sure somebody at SpaceX did the math...
We will see where it goes.

I am not sure if those "satellite Internet" companies can do the math.

First of all, they seem to assume that they get 100 % market share
(both terrestrial as well as orbital) of both customers and microwave
spectrum.

In high density urban areas, this is clearly impossible. Assuming 10
GHz of spectrum available and 50 Mbit/s for each customer (at least 10
MHz bandwidth), a cell could support only 1000 simultaneous customers.
At high density population areas ten cells on each square kilometers
would be required. Even with LEO satellites thousands of beams would
be required.

This is clearly inadequate to handle urban areas with satellite, hence
most of the revenue sources are lost. Does the rural/cruise customers
make such systems viable ?

Yes, almost like Tesla electric cars, the grid here cannot cope with all cars being electric.
But things must sell.
There is an other problem with geosats, and that is latency,

They aren't geosats; their altitude is 273 miles vs 22000
miles. That reduces the latency by a factor of 10.

I know, see the previous part of the discussions, but geosats do have some advantages,

They also have the same advantage that caused the fintech
sector to buy up the microwave links between Chichago and
New York: the speed of light is ~50% faster than in fibres.


you clearly have to wait for a reply on SSB on QO100, 2 x 40,000 km at least...
Plus the delay for all the digital processing.
So in internet use, a mouse click in a browser would need a few seconds wait to take effect.
For the lower orbiting sats it is not be so bad, but then you need smooth sat switching.
So we will have to see what it does,
For a ship it would be really nice to have weather charts, phone and email exchange at a lower price.
Maybe there are also military applications.
More possibilities is better

I'd like to know how many simultaneous Windows Updates
the spacex system can cope with. To me that is more
interesting than the peak point-to-point bandwidth.

Yes, that 'auto update' is sort of based on 1) bad software and 2) the fear creating sell more system
Like for example. in my view, the fear for Russian and Chinese hacking and back-doors these days as used in US politics
against Huawei is very similar to what happened in the Joseph McCarthy days:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
national security used or misused.

Soon EU will make MS windows illegal, it is a clear security risk, a system that spies on EU citizens and companies.


Anyways, Huawei now is bringing out their own OS, seems to be droid compatible?
I'd love to see a full Linux on cellphones, I think Ubuntu tried, not sure why that did not take on.
Not much of a droid user, my HTC (with real keyboard) is in storage, using a simple Nokia.
No windows here of course for security reasons
Do have many different versions of Linux in many different partitions on may computers...
Auto update? No Way!
I see software as a part of the hardware, once you have a working system do not fix it!
New features, but really not much is new since win-3.1 and trumpet winsock, now is it?, when Billy the Gates stated
that internet was really not important.
OK sorry for the rant / tangent.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 27 May 2019 07:32:42 +0100) it happened Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in <fwLGE.828682$r72.659383@fx17.am4>:

On 27/05/19 06:22, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 26 May 2019 16:09:11 +0300) it happened
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
u23leehep3rkqgbld8kt81vf03tdsvc8b1@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 26 May 2019 04:50:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Since the oceans occupy a huge part of the earth, thus LEO satellites
will fly over the water for quite a long time each orbit, Does the
island and cruise ship users generate enough revenue ?

Yes good question, Elon Musk making profit ? SpaceX does.
Geostationary sats would be an other approach, dish pointing at sea is
possible, for 1000$ you have a stabilized pointing system to a geo sat,
no problem for a cruiseship, gives them TV too.
I am sure somebody at SpaceX did the math...
We will see where it goes.

I am not sure if those "satellite Internet" companies can do the math.

First of all, they seem to assume that they get 100 % market share
(both terrestrial as well as orbital) of both customers and microwave
spectrum.

In high density urban areas, this is clearly impossible. Assuming 10
GHz of spectrum available and 50 Mbit/s for each customer (at least 10
MHz bandwidth), a cell could support only 1000 simultaneous customers.
At high density population areas ten cells on each square kilometers
would be required. Even with LEO satellites thousands of beams would
be required.

This is clearly inadequate to handle urban areas with satellite, hence
most of the revenue sources are lost. Does the rural/cruise customers
make such systems viable ?

Yes, almost like Tesla electric cars, the grid here cannot cope with all cars being electric.
But things must sell.
There is an other problem with geosats, and that is latency,

They aren't geosats; their altitude is 273 miles vs 22000
miles. That reduces the latency by a factor of 10.

I know, see the previous part of the discussions, but geosats do have some advantages,

They also have the same advantage that caused the fintech
sector to buy up the microwave links between Chichago and
New York: the speed of light is ~50% faster than in fibres.


you clearly have to wait for a reply on SSB on QO100, 2 x 40,000 km at least...
Plus the delay for all the digital processing.
So in internet use, a mouse click in a browser would need a few seconds wait to take effect.
For the lower orbiting sats it is not be so bad, but then you need smooth sat switching.
So we will have to see what it does,
For a ship it would be really nice to have weather charts, phone and email exchange at a lower price.
Maybe there are also military applications.
More possibilities is better

I'd like to know how many simultaneous Windows Updates
the spacex system can cope with. To me that is more
interesting than the peak point-to-point bandwidth.

Yes, that 'auto update' is sort of based on 1) bad software and 2) the fear creating sell more system
Like for example. in my view, the fear for Russian and Chinese hacking and back-doors these days as used in US politics
against Huawei is very similar to what happened in the Joseph McCarthy days:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
national security used or misused.

Soon EU will make MS windows illegal, it is a clear security risk, a system that spies on EU citizens and companies.


Anyways, Huawei now is bringing out their own OS, seems to be droid compatible?
I'd love to see a full Linux on cellphones, I think Ubuntu tried, not sure why that did not take on.
Not much of a droid user, my HTC (with real keyboard) is in storage, using a simple Nokia.
No windows here of course for security reasons
Do have many different versions of Linux in many different partitions on may computers...
Auto update? No Way!
I see software as a part of the hardware, once you have a working system do not fix it!
New features, but really not much is new since win-3.1 and trumpet winsock, now is it?, when Billy the Gates stated
that internet was really not important.
OK sorry for the rant / tangent.

 

Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:qcfs60$p7f$1@dont-email.me:

On a sunny day (Sun, 26 May 2019 16:09:11 +0300) it happened
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
u23leehep3rkqgbld8kt81vf03tdsvc8b1@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 26 May 2019 04:50:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Since the oceans occupy a huge part of the earth, thus LEO
satellites will fly over the water for quite a long time each
orbit, Does the island and cruise ship users generate enough
revenue ?

Yes good question, Elon Musk making profit ? SpaceX does.
Geostationary sats would be an other approach, dish pointing at
sea is possible, for 1000$ you have a stabilized pointing system
to a geo sat, no problem for a cruiseship, gives them TV too.
I am sure somebody at SpaceX did the math...
We will see where it goes.

I am not sure if those "satellite Internet" companies can do the
math.

First of all, they seem to assume that they get 100 % market share
(both terrestrial as well as orbital) of both customers and
microwave spectrum.

In high density urban areas, this is clearly impossible. Assuming
10 GHz of spectrum available and 50 Mbit/s for each customer (at
least 10 MHz bandwidth), a cell could support only 1000
simultaneous customers. At high density population areas ten cells
on each square kilometers would be required. Even with LEO
satellites thousands of beams would be required.

This is clearly inadequate to handle urban areas with satellite,
hence most of the revenue sources are lost. Does the rural/cruise
customers make such systems viable ?

Yes, almost like Tesla electric cars, the grid here cannot cope
with all cars being electric. But things must sell.
There is an other problem with geosats, and that is latency,

Latency is a problem with ALL satellite internet service. So for
'real time' like the game player want, it is a very bad thing...
MAJOR 'ping times'.

you clearly have to wait for a reply on SSB on QO100, 2 x 40,000
km at least... Plus the delay for all the digital processing.
So in internet use, a mouse click in a browser would need a few
seconds wait to take effect. For the lower orbiting sats it is not
be so bad, but then you need smooth sat switching. So we will have
to see what it does, For a ship it would be really nice to have
weather charts, phone and email exchange at a lower price. Maybe
there are also military applications. More possibilities is better

Military? Unlikely... other than NSA style data grabs and
'oversight'.

It would make a great compliment to the GPS system too, inasmuch
as a person needing emergency assistance would ALWAYS be able to
send UP a sitress signal to such a system and it be received.

 

[amdx]

On 5/26/2019 7:42 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On 23 May 2019 19:00:19 -0700, Winfield Hill
hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

NOAA's Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS),
passively-measures water-vapor levels, using weak
signals at 23.8 GHz. NOAA uses this data for their
critical hurricane forecasting.

A few notes about 5G and similar high capacity cellular networks:

* The claimed throughput / user is about 1000 times larger than the 1G
and 2G speech only cellular networks.

* The total available spectrum is always limited, so spectral
efficiency is critical. There are also other radio spectrum users.

* With a huge number of users especially in densely populated areas
means that the cell size must be very small, so that the same
frequency can be reused at an other close by base stations.

* Especially with shorter microwave wavelengths, the capture area of a
dipole receiver antenna becomes quite small and thus it is incapable
of collecting a lot of signal power. A directional antenna solves
this problem, but a paraboloid at a mobile phone is not very
practical-), but some electronically steerable mobile phone antennas
would help.


IMHO the last two points means that you need to put a base station
(access point) in every (or at every other) lamp post in densely
populated urban areas. This means that such access points must be
cheap.

FWIW, The building permit on the pole for the 5G antenna/system near
my home had a value of $24,140.
Mikek

The problem is how to connect such base stations to each other and to
the land line Internet (fiber). Most people seem to suggest some mesh
based networks (either between base stations or satellites), but this
will choke when more than a few networking (forwarding) nodes are
involved in a path. While AC power is available at the light pole,
fibers would also be needed to be installed to light poles to support
the communication.

 

amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote in news:qcgl0c$qth$1@dont-email.me:

FWIW, The building permit on the pole for the 5G antenna/system
near
my home had a value of $24,140.
Mikek

The permit price, or the structure/property value declaration?

 

[amdx]

On 5/27/2019 7:55 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote in news:qcgl0c$qth$1@dont-email.me:

FWIW, The building permit on the pole for the 5G antenna/system
near
my home had a value of $24,140.
Mikek


The permit price, or the structure/property value declaration?

Value of structure/property, it a pretty much standard telephone pole
with the hardware on it.

Here's a picture of both.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w4njypwglbtmu4t/5G%20pole.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g5sq29hlzlcrq2l/5G%20Permit.jpg?dl=0

Mikek

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 1:22:13 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Yes, almost like Tesla electric cars, the grid here cannot cope with all cars being electric.

People who talk about the grid not being adequate for charging electric cars usually know zero about charging electric cars. I don't know where everyone in this group lives, but every place I am familiar with is not running at peak generating capacity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Electric cars have a huge advantage of being charged at times that are optimal for the user or the electrical provider. The only time you can't charge them is when they are being driven.

--

Rick C.

- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Mon, 27 May 2019 21:17:55 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 1:22:13 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Yes, almost like Tesla electric cars, the grid here cannot cope with all cars being electric.

People who talk about the grid not being adequate for charging electric cars usually know zero about charging electric cars. I don't know where everyone in this group lives, but every place I am familiar with is not running at peak generating capacity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Electric cars have a huge advantage of being charged at times that are optimal for the user or the electrical provider. The only time you can't charge them is when they are being driven.

Check the difference between day and night consumption in your
country. This difference is available for charging EVs in the night.
Divide the difference with the number of EVs to get the maximum
charging power available for each car on average. Assume you get 1 kW.

The off-peak power is available for 10-16 hours, thus 10-16 kWh is
available each day. Depending on average commuting distances in your
country on average, this should be just enough.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 27 May 2019 21:17:55 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<6f15a2f4-1e10-4fd5-bf3a-4fc9c07e1d9e@googlegroups.com>:

On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 1:22:13 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Yes, almost like Tesla electric cars, the grid here cannot cope with all cars
being electric.

People who talk about the grid not being adequate for charging electric cars
usually know zero about charging electric cars. I don't know where everyone
in this group lives, but every place I am familiar with is not running at
peak generating capacity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Electric cars have
a huge advantage of being charged at times that are optimal for the user
or the electrical provider. The only time you can't charge them is when they
are being driven.

Much of an illusion.
I have a day-night tariff meter,
and the night usages is only a bit less than the day usage,
Night is cheaper but most is taxes here.
On top of that very few people in for example cities have a charging point near their home,
or even a parking place.

But that is not even the point, just add all the power in kW needed
to replace all combustion type cars by electric.
This is from the UK situation:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/electric-vehicle-car-infrastructure-charging-point

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmbeis/383/383.pdf
page 31 up
Technological issues
Electricity grid impacts
'Worst case' is normal engineering practice, politicians carrying vacuum
thing that never happens.


Anyways, as you will have so much time waiting at a charging station you can use that to google yerselves

--

Rick C.

5000 miles, he was 5000 miles away from Ohm

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 2:08:52 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Mon, 27 May 2019 21:17:55 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
6f15a2f4-1e10-4fd5-bf3a-4fc9c07e1d9e@googlegroups.com>:

On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 1:22:13 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Yes, almost like Tesla electric cars, the grid here cannot cope with all cars
being electric.

People who talk about the grid not being adequate for charging electric cars
usually know zero about charging electric cars. I don't know where everyone
in this group lives, but every place I am familiar with is not running at
peak generating capacity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Electric cars have
a huge advantage of being charged at times that are optimal for the user
or the electrical provider. The only time you can't charge them is when they
are being driven.


Much of an illusion.
I have a day-night tariff meter,
and the night usages is only a bit less than the day usage,
Night is cheaper but most is taxes here.
On top of that very few people in for example cities have a charging point near their home,
or even a parking place.

You are right. Most of what you say is an illusion. It doesn't matter if not everyone can charge their car at home today. There are a huge number of people who can and they will buy EVs. Then as they become more and more common places with poor electric access for EVs will start to provide access and in 10 or 15 years everyone will be able to charge their EVs at home.

But I understand how many people can't get their heads around this. It is a very different way of thinking from gas powered smoke belchers. Having to drive the car to a filling station every few days is a PITA and eventually even the thickest will catch on when they find they are among the very few left pumping gas and breathing the fumes.

But that is not even the point, just add all the power in kW needed
to replace all combustion type cars by electric.
This is from the UK situation:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/electric-vehicle-car-infrastructure-charging-point

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmbeis/383/383.pdf
page 31 up
Technological issues
Electricity grid impacts
'Worst case' is normal engineering practice, politicians carrying vacuum
thing that never happens.

Sorry, your writing is every bit as cryptic as your drawings... I really don't know what you are getting at.

Are you talking about this on page 27?

" Financial Times article claimed that the UK’s generation capacity would need to increase by 70%.107 During our inquiry it has become clear that such concerns are overblown"

Yes, it would appear that at least over the next 10 to 20 years there would need to be no additional capacity added to grids to allow EVs to charge at appropriate times. The most adaptation that is likely to be needed is to have coordinated charging on EVs so they don't all start charging at 7 PM when arriving at home. Instead they should be coordinated to spread the electrical load through the night allowing the generation equipment to continue to run at high capacity all night.


> Anyways, as you will have so much time waiting at a charging station you can use that to google yerselves

Today I had dinner while I charged on my way back from Fredneck. Mmmmm.... But no time to dawdle. It has to be a quick meal.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 28 May 2019 01:27:31 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<0550085f-7d9b-443f-be30-7c7270bb4601@googlegroups.com>:

This is from the UK situation:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/electric-vehicle-car-infrastructure-charging-point


https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmbeis/383/383.pdf

page 31 up
Technological issues
Electricity grid impacts
'Worst case' is normal engineering practice, politicians carrying vacuum
thing that never happens.

Sorry, your writing is every bit as cryptic as your drawings... I really don't
know what you are getting at.

Are you talking about this on page 27?

" Financial Times article claimed that the UK=E2=80=99s generation capacity
would need to increase by 70%.107 During our inquiry it has
become clear that such concerns are overblown"

Yes, it would appear that at least over the next 10 to 20 years there would
need to be no additional capacity added to grids to allow EVs to charge at
appropriate times.

That was my point.

The most adaptation that is likely to be needed is to have
coordinated charging on EVs so they don't all start charging at 7 PM when
arriving at home. Instead they should be coordinated to spread the electrical
load through the night allowing the generation equipment to continue
to run at high capacity all night.

Makes no sense, if you spread charging then the charging times will be shorter and the current must then be higher.
Net advantage gained : zero.
That is compared to everybody charging all night long at a lower current.
kWh

Anyways, as you will have so much time waiting at a charging station you can
use that to google yerselves

Today I had dinner while I charged on my way back from Fredneck. Mmmmm....
But no time to dawdle. It has to be a quick meal.

5 times a day dinner / charging makes you fat...

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 28/05/19 09:27, Rick C wrote:

The most adaptation that is likely to be needed is to have coordinated
charging on EVs so they don't all start charging at 7 PM when arriving at
home. Instead they should be coordinated to spread the electrical load
through the night allowing the generation equipment to continue to run at
high capacity all night.

Ah yes, the fabled "smart grid" which will solve all
problems. The problem is it doesn't exist, and there
are too many incompatible visions of what it might be.

There are too many possible screwup mechanisms w.r.t.
getting to the nirvana of a smart grid. Even the simple
concept of smart meters proved too difficult for the
UK industry and regulators.

But maybe smart grids will arrive after I'm dead; it
is worthy objective.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to fuel my car at, IIRC, 0.5MW.

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 5:06:33 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 28/05/19 09:27, Rick C wrote:
The most adaptation that is likely to be needed is to have coordinated
charging on EVs so they don't all start charging at 7 PM when arriving at
home. Instead they should be coordinated to spread the electrical load
through the night allowing the generation equipment to continue to run at
high capacity all night.

Ah yes, the fabled "smart grid" which will solve all
problems. The problem is it doesn't exist, and there
are too many incompatible visions of what it might be.

The "smart grid" is your idea, not mine. This is a very simple problem to solve. "We can rebuild him. We have the technology. We can make him better than he was. Better...stronger...faster."

There are too many possible screwup mechanisms w.r.t.
getting to the nirvana of a smart grid. Even the simple
concept of smart meters proved too difficult for the
UK industry and regulators.

Again, the "smart grid" is a problem you are bringing to the party. If you don't like it, please leave it at home next time.

But maybe smart grids will arrive after I'm dead; it
is worthy objective.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to fuel my car at, IIRC, 0.5MW.

Hmmm... until you are dead I guess. I only wish people would put stuff like this on their tombstones so their descendants could get a laugh at the things they believed. "from my cold, dead hands"...

--

Rick C.

-- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209