tomo;
Thanks for summarising that Twitter article. Small gensets are probably the only workable solution for remote-ish charger sites with limited incomers. No doubt they run on biodiesel!
I suppose an alternative would be a massive battery on an artic trailer which could be swapped over regularly/as required. Porsche used one recently when they set a bunch of endurance records for EVs at Brands Hatch.
BP (or maybe Shell) are putting 350 KWh batteries onto some of their sites as buffers so that multiple customers can charge at full whack without overloading the mains supply.

I used to do a lot of work with the water industry; all of their major sites were under Triad schemes. It was a major event when an interruption was called. Although most sites had back-up gensets, they would not kick-in immediately - if they even started! That was probably fine when everything was clunky old analogue kit but, as we all know, modern digital stuff does not like power dips. Some sites put in UPS kit to support their controls until the genny was running; others just treated the Triad as an emergency shutdown. A right PITA in anycase.
I think I saw a comment somewhere that the Triad system is being cancelled and that companies will be put onto higher tariffs - another stroke of genius.

tomo: a neat little presentation but she skipped around the point that it needs a lot of (waste) heat to get a high output. Also, towards the end, she started talking of storage as if it was generation, comparing costs to nuclear.....They need to remember Mrs Beeton's maxim: first catch your hare!

I'm a few dozen pages into that book and it is fascinating: loads of insights into key details and verbatim letters, etc from key players of the day. He deploys an absolute treasure trove of original material. I am taking my time, partly because of the wealth of detail and complexities but mainly because it uses the smallest typeface I have seen in a proper book! The reproductions of memos, etc are even smaller and many of the illustrations are superbly detailled but miniscule - magnifying glass needed!
It is definitely not a book for the layman as it assumes a fair degree of knowledge in the reader: of the overall history of the time; of engine design and function and of the various engines in use and development. For example, a timeline and family tree of each manufacturer's engines would help anyone who was not already familiar with those details.
My main criticism is that it is poorly structured, verging on chaotic in places. In two pages of the account of the Schneider engine development the story is interwoven with snippets about Bristol's switch to sleeve valves, a profile of Italy's head of aero design, the establishment of the octane rating system and other intriguing but off-topic items. Again, anyone without a good prior knowledge would struggle to keep track.
It is utterly absorbing!

tomo;
I think you're spot on: too much material tends to overwhelm the structure. I suspect the editing/proof-reading was not at all familiar with the material as there are some obvious faux-pas which anyone knowledgeable would spot straight away. Even so, the author could easily have applied a bit more organisation: covering each company's development story in one section rather than ducking and diving between them, for example.
These are minor issues: it promises to be a great book!

On the liquid air storage, I have seen the odd mention but it's not been at all high-profile. It would be interesting to get into the detail to find out how they have addressed the heat/cold issues and a few others:
~ It takes a lot of energy to get the whole system cooled down to cryogenic temps (-190 degrees +/-) so it doesn't suit start/stop operation. It will have to run continuously at low capacity and/or sacrifice some liquid air to stay cool which won't help the efficiency.
~ The round-trip efficiency is not great, I think I've seen a figure of 50 - 60%.
~ The whole thing will need to be engineered for oxygen in case of separation.
~ Storing liquid air may be a challenge as LOX - liquid oxygen - is about 40% denser than LIN - liquid nitrogen - so there maybe stratification with the potential hazard of drawing off one or the other instead of "air".
~ Energy will be required for vapourisation: the Manchester plant is alongside a CCGT plant so has access to plenty of waste heat. However this would not be available if the plant was located close to some remote windfarms, say.

I can't help wondering if they missed some potential synergy. This plant is almost alongside Air Products' Carrington site where they replaced/refurbished their ASU (Air Separation Unit) a couple of years ago...

Liquid Air: maybe the timing was wrong for any synergy. Had it worked, maybe the battery operation could have been piggy-backed onto the new ASU.
There's no info on how fast it can store energy. The 50 MW output is just a function of vapouriser capacity: how long does it take to fill its 250 MWh storage? From the illustrations, the tanks are not very big but there's no indication of the size of the pre-treatment, compression, etc..
I did check one point....apparently LOX and LIN (liquid nitrogen) are highly miscible so there shouldn't be any risk of stratification in storage.

tomo: brave indeed, if it's genuine.

While his fundamental point is correct, he weakens his case by getting the numbers wrong for Teslas when he says: "For example, a home charging system for Tesla requires 75 amp service". There's no such requirement. Teslas will charge at whatever amperage/wattage is available, like all EVs.
I don't know anything about Canadian electrics but the standard domestic charger here is 7 KW unless the owner wants something different. Quite a few don't bother with a charger - they just take 3 KW from a socket - especially with cars that have small batteries. A few go the other way and pay to have more powerful units installed, with appropriate cabling or even going to 3-phase.
Late last year the GWPF published a report on this issue by a very experienced and qualified electrical engineer. I'd put up a link but I can't access the GWPF website right now, for some reason.
The report basically confirmed that our local cabling is not designed for consistent high loads from multiple dwellings. So widespread EV adoption will be a problem and the move to electric heating & hot water will be even worse.

Here's that report I was trying to get hold of earlier:
https://www.thegwpf.org/net-zero-every-urban-street-and-front-drive-will-be-dug-up/

I have no idea how to get hold of the info but it would be interesting to see the specs for local distribution, etc in France since they went all-electric a few decades back.....

From Autocar:
"The government has downsized the financial incentive package offered to EV owners in the UK, reducing the 'plug-in car grant' from £3000 to £2500 and lowering the upper price limit for eligible vehicles.
Buyers of electric cars costing more than £35,000 will now no longer qualify for an incentive, which was previously available on vehicles costing up to £50,000. The changes come into effect immediately from today (18 March). "

The second part, dropping the price limit, is the bit that will hurt. Reducing the grant by £500 is trivial - dealers may well cover that. Lowering the limit will mean that, for example, all Teslas no longer qualify.
Of course the really big numbers are in the tax benefits for company cars. HMRC loses about £6000 every year when a 40% bracket taxpayer switches from, say, a mid-range Audi diesel to an EV.

tomo; I have just read the part of Calum Douglas' book which covers the dissolving fuel tank problem. A new model of the 109 - the "F" - had gone into service with an uprated engine. At about the same time the formulation of the higher-octane fuel changed.
The problems were first reported as severe engine vibration leading to damage and even destruction. Investigations looked at many aspects: poor control by the pilots; defective engine mounts; etc.. Finally they found that the fuel was prone to deterioration if left in the aircraft for some time. This degraded fuel was prone to detonation which damaged the engines and was felt by the pilots as severe vibration.
One of the changes brought in with the 109F was the adoption of a bag style fuel tank in place of an aluminium one. This was made from a sort of multi-layer, rubberised canvas material. It was done to provide self-sealing protection and (my guess) to gain a bit of capacity as a bag could fill the available space better than a rigid metal tank.
The investigators discovered that the re-formulated fuel tended to react with some of the components of the fuel bag, degrading the fuel and leading to detonation. The book is not very clear on the solution but it seems the squadrons were told to avoid letting fuel stand and they looked at further reformulation of the fuel (this was a moving feast anyway).
Bag-style and lined tanks were not that new so I have a personal "theory" that earlier versions had used natural instead of synthetic rubber which could have been more resistant to the fuels.

Other material issues compelled the Luftwaffe to reduce stresses in a number of key engines by reducing the boost. Even so they were suffering many failures of valves, bearings, etc.. Douglas makes the observation that, even with de-rated and unreliable engines using indifferent fuel, the 109F and FW 190 were a stiff challenge for the Spitfires then in service (1941/2).

It is a fascinating book!

Interesting article on turmoil in the second-hand car market:
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry-news-environment/analysis-used-hybrid-values-slashed-demand-falls-pandemic

It's hardly surprising given the contradictory policies now in force and coming soon. The gov't offers big tax breaks for plug-in hybrids as company cars. Otoh those vehicles will lose their exemption from the London congestion charge in October of this year and, where London leads, others are likely to follow. (Not sure what will be the impact of the expansion of the ULEZ, also in October).

Here's the future - travelling by EV:
"Yesterday I had to drive to Exeter and back to show my daughter the university (under new rules you are allowed to leave your local area but not stay overnight). 570 miles is a long way.
We have a Tesla Model S Performance bought at the end of 2019 with free electricity for life
Highlights:
568.1 miles driven
340 Wh/Mile (This is 78.55% efficiency against Tesla's claimed consumption, it was an 18 deg C day and I had Aircon on) Theoretical max range at this usage 294 miles
10 hours 14 minutes driving time. Left at 7am got back at 9pm, spent 2-3 hours looking round Exeter.

Details:
- 100% Battery Charged overnight, so car was full when we left at 7am
- Drove for 1h25m, 81 miles, consumed 31%, average speed 57mph 69% Battery
- Charged for 12 minutes, added 10%, went to the loo, bought coffee.79% Battery
- Drove for 1h28m, 96 miles, consumed 36%, average speed 67 mph 43% Battery
- Charged for 6 minutes, added 11%, went to the loo.54% Battery
- Drove for 1h57m, 96 miles, consumed 35%, average speed 49mph19% Battery
- Drove around the Uni, 6 miles stop start parking a lot, consumed 4%, average speed 1mph15% Battery
- Parked on a Pod Point 22kwh charger for 47 minutes, added only 8%. Got back to car, Pod Point charger wouldn't release my cable. Waited on phone for 15 minutes with them until it reset. 23% Battery
- Drove to Tesla Supercharger, 7 miles, consumed 1%, average speed 30 mph 22% Battery
- Charged for 26 minutes, added 48%, had coffee and used loo but effectively 11 minutes EV extra time 70% Battery: Now on homeward journey
- Drove to next supercharger, was going to stop at Fleet North but the map showed it only had 1 free charger so stopped at Norton Park which showed 2/2 free. 2h11m, 127 miles, consumed 43 %, average speed 59 mph 27% Battery
- Charged for 8 minutes, added 15%. 8 minutes spent there solely for power Left when another car turned up and the charge rate dropped from 110 to 45 and because wife/daughter were bored and no loos open 41% Battery
- Drove to Fleet which now showed 6 empty chargers, 22min, 23 miles, consumed 8%, avge speed 63mph 33% Battery
- Charged for 29 mins, added 47%, had coffee etc, 14 mins EV waiting time as 15 minutes was loo/coffee 80% Battery
- Drove for 2h5m, 132 miles, consumed 44%, average speed 63mph 36% Battery and back home.

So in all I reckon we had 48 minutes of time added due to using EV rather than petrol, of which 15 minutes was caused by a pod point technical issue and waiting on hold for it to get fixed.
But my total costs for that journey were £3.50 for parking in Exeter plus the original full charge at home (100 x 10p = £10)."

That's a total of 6 stops for charging/refreshing which add up to 128 minutes. However the underlying assumption is that they would have made all of these stops anyway. Hence the claim that using an EV only added 48 minutes over what they would have taken in an ICE car (time they were waiting for the car to charge rather than refreshing, etc).

It would be intriguing to hear how this family used to do such journeys before they had the EV. I rather doubt they would stop quite so often. It makes it clear that there is constant interaction going on looking at range, distances to chargers, availability of same, etc.. Clearly the Tesla charger network is brilliant and integrates seamlessly with the car. This journey would be much more of a challenge using other chargers and with an EV of shorter range. And it is certainly cost effective!

However it's a culture shock for me. I would expect to do that run with one stop for fuel somewhere along the way, depending on the level of the tank at the start. That's how I have tackled long journeys for decades: to the Alps; taking kids to and from uni; visiting friends and relatives; etc..
It's going to be a brave new world, for sure.

Another Tesla battery fire is in the news with many coments about the difficulty/impossibility of extinguishing this type of fire.
So far the implications for home-owners and domestic insurance do not seem to have been recognised. I expect EV advocates are right when they say that petrol fires are more common that battery ones but that sidesteps the issue. If an EV was caught in a house fire it would make things a lot worse. Also some fires seem to start when the EV is charging and the majority of owners charge at home - presumably some have integral or underground garages.
The same technology is used in domestic batteries like Tesla's powerwall and there are plans to recycle EV batteries into domestic units.
To my mind these are factors which should be taken into account by insurers and, indeed, building code regulators. There should also be a means of notifying the fire services so they know what to expect. As well as the control/extinguishing problems, battery fires generate fumes which are pretty toxic.