You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Question - will EV owners all have to cough up for a new “tax disc” (virtual) in March? Or when the previous year finishes?
If you use it a lot you pay more, simple.
Portugal doesn't have a yearly vehicle tax. The more fuel you use the more you pay. Simple and fair.
Yet they still have some of the cheapest fuel in Europe.
I haven't had time to read the whole thread - I'm assuming someone has mentioned a weight-based taxation for EVs (maybe even all cars? I dunno). It strikes me as a sensible way to incentivise more efficient vehicles and perhaps even tackle some of the car size inflation that's taking place. As it is the zero rate for EVs is almost certainly a regressive tax break in that it broadly favours those who can afford a newer car.
So have EVs > £40k not currently had to pay the hefty more than £40k tax? I didnt know that if thats the case.
Hopefully it might make a few brands now reduce their stupid sky high costs.
I assume the £40k + tax was only put on to compensate for the 'free' EV tax, so hopefully more expensive ICE cars are now going to loose the + £40k tax?
They should’ve tiered it on efficiency and kept extra low rates to reward you for buying smaller cars with small kWh batteries to continue the push for efficiency.
Agreed lots of people are suggesting there a massive differences in efficiency of electric vehicles. Start taxing on that and as other has said their gross weight or size.
Just about every EV is bigger than its out going ICE equivalent.
Weight and size would be good
Electric vehicles are not a part of the solution - they are a part of the problem
Yet they still have some of the cheapest fuel in Europe.
That money for Tory donors has to come from somewhere you know.
DrJ - Cars don't have tax disc's anymore.
That money for Tory donors has to come from somewhere you know.
Portugal's tax revenue goes tory donors?
Portugal’s tax revenue goes tory donors?
Eh?
No point quoting 50 year old tales ... I was talking about the late 70s
The 70s was 50 years ago...
Its perfectly possible to have decent rural public transport.
Well, yes, to a point. I bet you couldn't have gone anywhere you wanted on a bus. I mean, I worked on various farms when I was younger, it wouldn't be reasonable to expect every point of countryside to be accessible by bus. But certainly we could do a lot better than we do now, and we should - which was my point. Improve the busses and trains THEN work on the disincentives.
The Welsh Government are sort of doing this. They're deliberately not fixing the massive traffic black spot in South Wales, which is an indirect disincentive, and putting on more trains instead. I hope it works.
Improve the busses and trains THEN work on the disincentives.
You can put on the best buses and trains in the world - hell they can even be free! - and people will still drive. You HAVE to make it more difficult / expensive / inconvenient to drive before you can do much to improve anything else.
Buses are crap because they're stuck in traffic. If you're going to be stuck in traffic, you'd prefer to be there on your own in a comfy car with your own music and no smelly people, so you drive. Which makes the problem worse and you can't fix the buses until you've made life considerably worse for drivers - be that in terms of parking charges, onerous one-way systems, bus priority lanes and junctions or a combination of those measures, you have to come at the problem from both sides.
Same with cycling - if you make it easy and convenient for people to cycle, they will do so provided that it's more convenient than driving. So you have to do something to make the driving less convenient first. LTNs, School Streets, remove a car lane and replace it with a bike lane, or taxes, fuel pricing, pay-per-mile, parking charges etc or a combination of those. Most people aren't going to cycle until you've done something to reduce or eliminate the traffic because that is always the #1 reason people give for not riding in the first place.
Partly true. With our current energy mix, the carbon emissions of ICE vehicles is still many fold that of any electric vehicle charged at any time of day.
By 2030 (assuming the Tories are kicked out) all electric vehicle charging will use renewable energy only.
Needs a lot of work going into grid upgrades and resilience though (again, will happen if Tories are moved on).
Even sooner than 2030 it will be possible for all electric cars to be charged at off peak times without using fossil fuels.
Genuinely interested, do you have a source for this? One of the key things putting me off an EV is the spurious carbon emission claims. It is currently very rare for the marginal gereation of the UK grid to be renewable. So if I choose to put say 10kwh into an EV, that additional 10kwh gets generated by burning more gas, not by solar panels or wind turbines managing to squeeze out an extra 10kwh. Even when the UK grid is being powered 50% by renewables, generating extra power must be done 100% by burning more gas.
So charging an EV is (almost) never done using renewable power. Even if you have a green electricity provider, that just meant that some notional allocation of who bought what power got shifted about. Charging your EV caused additional power to be generated by burning gas.
I even have solar panels, but if I use the power they generate to charge an EV, it means less going to the grid, so more gas must be burned to make up the shortfall.
With all the extra wind and solar coming online, and flexible EV charging helping to align demand with times of excess generation I see how this problem will resolve itself over time, but I have never seen any thoughtful estimates of how long it will take. Months? years? decades?
Molgrips - quoting out of context. He was describing a time when no one had cars ie the 30s - not the 70s. This village was a commuter village in the late 70s.; Perfectly applicable today.
I bet you couldn’t have gone anywhere you wanted on a bus
Actually I could as there was a bus route in every direction from this village. I could go south to Milngavie / glasgow. North to the villages further out and on to stirling which is a hub or along the east west road. It was a perfectly adequate service half hourly buses in each possible direction
Fueled - you are right but folk will deny it. Electric cars can only increase fossil fuel burning as renewables are usually maxed out. Its less that if they were ICE but its far more than zero
Months? years? decades?
Never as we will still have winter high pressure events where there are minimal renewables and high demand
Months? years? decades?
Your possible next government is proposing 100% renewables by 2030... so 5 years is an option... but we have to chose it.
But even if you're using electricity from our current energy mix, and without doing the sensible thing and setting your car to charge at times in the night when gas isn't being used, the carbon emissions are still *far* lower than burning diesel or petrol in an ICE.
One of the key things putting me off an EV is the spurious carbon emission claims. It is currently very rare for the marginal gereation of the UK grid to be renewable. So if I choose to put say 10kwh into an EV, that additional 10kwh gets generated by burning more gas, not by solar panels or wind turbines managing to squeeze out an extra 10kwh. Even when the UK grid is being powered 50% by renewables, generating extra power must be done 100% by burning more gas.
AFAIU this is a spurious argument as even if we accept the premise that EVs are 100% charged via gas the efficiency of the gas to wheel is higher than petrol/diesel to wheel in terms of CO2 output.
Beyond that a high proportion of EV charging is done overnight and this will be significantly provided by wind turbines even now.
Actually I could as there was a bus route in every direction from this village.
Ok but this is not logically possible in every location. You will never be able to get everywhere by bus. It's geographically dependent.
There will always be a need for some cars. We must not penalise those for whom it is unavoidable.
Doesn't have to be 100% does it. Even 25% would be a phenomenal difference.
And FWIW the village i grew up in had bus routes along 4 or 5 of the 7 major routes out of it. 2 heading into the nearest city (with probably 15+ buses an hour) and buses to the villages North and East on a "useful" timetable. The largest of those villages also had direct buses from the nearest city, and through buses heading up to the coast, or further into the countryside. Want to go west, you had to go into town and out. But no one wanted to go west, because there wasn't much there.
Now there are 8-10 buses an hour heading south into the city on one route. And they go to one or two an hour before 7am and after 7pm.
Useful isn't it.
(and i'm 20 years younger than TJ, so not anywhere near as long ago.)
Electric cars can only increase fossil fuel burning as renewables are usually maxed out
It's more complicated than you seem to understand, but even then I think you mean 'EVs can increase fossil fuel burning for electricity generation' because you aren't putting fossil fuels in the EV.
the carbon emissions are still *far* lower than burning diesel or petrol in an ICE
I had a look at this.
A gas power station emits 0.354 kg of CO2e per kwh.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2015-11-26/17799
A very efficient EV consumes 0.25 kwh per mile.
https://ev-database.org/uk/cheatsheet/energy-consumption-electric-car
So an EV charged by a gas power plant emits 0.0885 kg CO2e per mile.
A sensible ford focus mild hybrid emits 0.118 - 0.126 kg CO2e per mile. A bonkers ST non-hybrid is 0.182
https://www.ford.co.uk/content/dam/guxeu/uk/documents/price-list/cars/PL-New_Focus.pdf
So the EV is about 75% of the CO2e emissions per mile of a petrol hybrid.
There is no end of nuance, loss in transmitting over the grid, extraction of gas, refining of petrol, etc etc. But is isn't *far* lower at all.
Yeah, hybrids offer emission benefits over the pure ICE vehicles that most of us use. They’re also a good idea… but still don’t offer what pure electrics can, even if using only electricity generated from gas, which isn’t even possible never mind the ideal charging scenerio.
Charging an EV now, without limiting your charging times to those where gas isn’t in use, results in about a third of the emission of using a non-hybrid ICE. That’s the worst scenario. You can manage much better, right now, with our current energy generation mix. As that mix changes the benefits will keep going up.
Anyway, enough of this cherry picking anti-EV nonsense. I don’t have one, and I‘m likely never to have one. The future needs fewer cars, and fewer car journeys, but the switching of new cars to EV only will also contribute greatly to reducing emissions.
AFAIU this is a spurious argument
Which bit of the argument is spurious?
as even if we accept the premise that EVs are 100% charged via gas the efficiency of the gas to wheel is higher than petrol/diesel to wheel in terms of CO2 output.
The difference is small, see above.
Beyond that a high proportion of EV charging is done overnight and this will be significantly provided by wind turbines even now.
Even if a significant proportion of overnight power is provided via wind, once the wind is maxed out then any additional demand from chagring EVs must be served by burning gas.
It's a complete piss take that EVs were exempt from the luxury tax in the first place. I get a zero rated band for EVs to encourage uptake but the expensive ones are still luxury so should have attracted the tax IMO.
Someone earlier mentioned Golfs (or equivalent ) as coming into the luxury tax range. The tops ones do yes, which are luxury so shouldn't be much of a suprise. The standard to middle don't unless you load them with luxury extras. Plenty of people would consider any Golf a luxury!
I really hope this is being implemented as an alteration of the rate paid by vehicles in the (currently zero rated) tax band most EVs are in. I.e. every EV owner has to pay not just those buying new from now.
Your possible next government is proposing 100% renewables by 2030
This means 100% of capaqcity not of generation. 100% generation is impossible due to winter high pressure events and the drop in wind generation
It’s more complicated than you seem to understand,
No - I understand it perfectly well thanks. EVs mean an increase in electricity usage which means an increase in electricity generated by fossil fuels. Its that simple. Renewables are maxed out most of the time so increased electricity consumption means increased fossil fuel burning.
“most of the time”
You know the answer then.
1) increase the amount of renewable energy generated to reduce amount of time where gas is in use
2) charge when energy demand is lower
Within the next few years we’ll be at the point where we often need to store energy from renewables when supply is greater than demand. We get that some nights already. Car batteries are an ideal place to put some of that off peak surplus.
Where I live in the country in Scotland (due basically the only available property to rent in our price range when we moved for work) it's a 2.5mile walk to the nearest bus and then the service is fairly limited and impossible on an evening. I do use it when I can and my son does for school, but more often it's easier and quicker to ebike the 7 miles to town if the weather is ok. My wife has the car for her work.
Just now I'm at down at my mam's house in a village in the NE without a car. She's in the hospital 15 miles away and I'm struggling to find a way to get there that doesn't take 2 hours and a few buses for visiting. When I was a kid here the buses were ace, now they're virtually impossible. No wonder every house has 3 cars outside them.
Oddly enough 60million people can't all live in cities with excellent public transport options and walk to work.
Unbelievably many people even need cars for actually doing their work, we used to have two cars as we were both essential users for work, though in their wisdom councils seem to have forgotten that and changed it, but still it's essential to have a car to do your job as there are no/or not enough pool cars.
In the mid 90s we had a car strike at the authority I worked at as they were going to remove the essential car users status. We all got buses to our site visits for what seems like a month , that was more or less possible then with lots of walking at either end and between buses, but took a while day to do one thing, but nowadays in the same area it would be actually impossible.
Sorry, a bit of a rant as I'm sitting here wondering how to visit my mam in hospital after a fall and with Alzheimer's with out it taking dawn til dusk on buses and wishing I'd brought my ebike down in the train so I could have done it in an hour each way 🙄😩🤬😤
Why not molgrips? Where is this extra electricity coming from? Winter high pressure event remember? Minimal wind generation for many days or even weeks.
increase the amount of renewable energy generated to reduce amount of time where gas is in usE
Winter high pressure event. Minimal wind generation for days or even weeks
There is no storage solution on the scale needed.
I'm not even bothering with this TJ because it's pointless, you don't engage or even listen you just repeat the same stuff over and over again. We have had this discussion before.
Someone earlier mentioned Golfs (or equivalent ) as coming into the luxury tax range. The tops ones do yes, which are luxury so shouldn’t be much of a suprise. The standard to middle don’t unless you load them with luxury extras. Plenty of people would consider any Golf a luxury!
Exactly the same luxury car tax as a Rolls Royce then. Do you recon a Rolls Royce owner would consider a Golf luxurious?
This is up there with Buck House paying less Council Tax than a band D in Liverpool. Please don’t normalise absurdity.
Molgrips - I completely see how in the future, regular excess renewables, flexible charging and vehicle to grid discharging will make EVs an environmental no-brainer. But it isn't there yet and I have not seen any thoughtful projection of when it might be.
TJ - I'm not so het up about weeks of still weather in winter when renewable generation is rubbish. I get that this happens, and when it does we will have to burn gas. An EV powered by renewables for 10 or 11 months of the year would still be a big win. The point I'm making is that there is still far to go before we get anywhere near that.
Molgrips - because you have never answered this question. Thats why. You just like to ignore the fact that increased electricity consumption means an increase in fossil fuel burning. Wind can never be a complete solution because of variability in generation. there is no storage solution on anywhere like the scale needed yet or on the horizon. tidal is a long way off due to lack of investment, nuclear takes too long to get on line.
the amount of fossil fuel burned to charge your EV will vary from minimal to most of it depending on conditions. thats just the reality .
With our current energy mix, the carbon emissions of ICE vehicles is still many fold that of any electric vehicle charged at any time of day.
I am sure that there are a large number of ICE vehicles that chuck cleaner air out the back than they breath in at the front
The point about EVs is that the demand is flexible. When they are plugged in, charging can be started and stopped whenever the wholesale price is low - and this happens when renewable supply is high. When I plug my car in it creates a charge schedule based on the weather forecast.
This is how come the electricity going into people's cars isn't 100% fossil fuel based.
the amount of fossil fuel burned to charge your EV will vary from minimal to most of it depending on conditions. thats just the reality .
Yes, that is correct. Your earlier assertion that ALL the energy put into my EV is from fossil fuels is not.
Molgrips - do you know of data showing how often renewables plus nuclear is providing over, say, 90% of UK power generation? I get that gas and biomass can't just be turned off.
I get that it will happen more in the future, but I understand is very rare now, and therefore the vast majority of EV charging happens at a time when the marginal power generations is from gas.
If it isn't that simple, please could you give a hint as to what I am missing? Happy to read an article or something.
People have posted the data before showing energy mix.
That's apparently a live tracker.
Mert - I'm very familiar with that. The point is that just because the electricity currently being generated is 50% renewable, it absolutely does not mean that if we needed to generate an additional 10kw, it would also be 50% renewable.
Solar and wind generate whatever they generate based on how sunny and windy it is, nuclear runs fairly constantly, the rest is gas and biomass.
So if we need an extra 10kw, it will be gas and biomass. It's a simplification but is broadly true.
The point is that just because the electricity currently being generated is 50% renewable, it absolutely does not mean that if we needed to generate an additional 10kw, it would also be 50% renewable
Right, but my point is that you don't say 'I need to charge my car now, so give me power' and it turns up a gas power station. I plug it in and say 'I want it at 80% by 7am' and it chooses when to charge. So whenever the wind picks up, I get charge.
Unsure when the VED rules changed last but there was some point where I had to pay the ‘luxury car tax’ VED amount for my Model S in 2018-2022. Like folks say, a small fraction of TCO. And I got all my supercharging at no cost back then.
Sadly for irate motorists, VED doesn’t directly pay for roads and road maintenance. It’s just swallowed up in the government coffers. With the real terms drop of ~40% in central government contributions to councils since the coalition more of the road budget is coming out of council tax.
Shame they didn’t also address the long-abandoned fuel escalator and ongoing subsidy of big oil.
this change in VED and rollback of reforms are more signs of this being an election year. No problem, I’ll remember the brand of government that has put us where we are now.
I plug it in and say ‘I want it at 80% by 7am’ and it chooses when to charge. So whenever the wind picks up, I get charge.
The trouble is its not a few hours that there is no spare renewables - it can be days or weeks,
I plug it in and say ‘I want it at 80% by 7am’ and it chooses when to charge. So whenever the wind picks up, I get charge.
But as I understand it, it is incredibly rare for there to be so much wind that it is not necessary to top it up by gas. Like a handful of times per year. Definitely not every night, even for a few seconds.
Even if you charge you car right now, at peak demand time (because you're an idiot) the carbon emissions running your car is far lower than using a straight ICE engine, or even the most efficient lightweight hybrid. Do what molgrips does, and the carbon emissions are lower still. In the next few years they'll improve year on year. Makes a new car purchase a no brainer... buy electric if you want lower emissions in use. I won't be buying one though... I'm no evangelist... I'll be on old ICE cars all my life I suspect... that doesn't change the truth. Using electric cars results in lower emissions than using ICE cars, even given our current energy mix, even if you don't charge it in a sensible fashion. It's all going to get better in the near future for electric cars as well, something we ICE cars users need to acknowledge.
the carbon emissions running your car is far lower than using an straight ICE engine, or the most efficient lightweight hybrid.
I did some very rough maths on the last page which I am happy to have holes picked in. It's only about 25% lower.
Is 100% renewable grid possible? This chap thinks so https://protonsforbreakfast.wordpress.com/2024/04/10/is-a-100-renewable-energy-grid-possible/
It’s only about 25% lower.
Hmm... "only" 25% if pretending all the energy comes from gas, and cherry picking the best possible hybrid ... that's the worst and best possible situations compared, a very disingenuous comparison, and still you're looking at a 25% saving ... using real world average electric and ICE vehicles, and real charging and generation scenerios, gets you to a 60% plus saving in the UK (already higher than 70% across many European countries)... and that's before we improve the grid and increase renewable production.
If I was buying a new car, and interested in emissions, a worst case day one scenario of saving 25% emission would still be a no brainier... even if that was all that was likely (and it is not). As I said though, I expect never to own an electric car myself... but I'm not joining in with the disinformation to try and make myself feel better. I'll just do what everyone should do... use my old car as little as possible.
Exactly the same luxury car tax as a Rolls Royce then. Do you recon a Rolls Royce owner would consider a Golf luxurious?
This is up there with Buck House paying less Council Tax than a band D in Liverpool. Please don’t normalise absurdity.
No, stuff like RR etc should be charged even more. A percentage of list price tax instead of a fixed amount would have been more appropriate. You could call it super VAT if you like. Though if you can afford a RR or similar the likelihood is even £10,000 more is tax won't be a sticking point. The other thing to consider there is that vehicles like that make a tiny fraction of new vehicles. Probably rate in the small percent of total sales of the current BMW/Audi/Merc knob tank.
a very disingenuous comparison,
My whole point is that at present it is entirely correct and reasonable to assume that the energy will be produced by burning gas.
FWIW I took the numbers for the most efficient type of gas power station listed, so that is in favour of the EV.
Ford focus was just the first car that came to mind, not cherry picked.
Even when burning only gas, there's still a significant saving in emissions. Savings that increase with variable loading and demand balancing, and will increase further as more renewables come online (here in the UK and via interconnects to Norway etc). If one accepts 25% as a current day situation (I don't, it's poppycock) then that is still a strong argument for making your new car an electric car
I wonder how many people would live in rural communities if they weren’t being subsidised by city dwellers?
I wonder where our food would come from if people didn't live in rural communities.
will increase further as more renewables come online
Completely agree with that, it will be a no-brainer one day.
that is still a strong argument for making your new car an electric car
Fair, I can't argue that emissions per mile are indeed lower and even 25% is not to be sniffed at. Especially applicable for high annual mileage.
If one accepts 25% as a current day situation (I don’t, it’s poppycock)
Still keen to hear a rebuttal about the gas thing rather than just being told "it isn't that simple". Like I said, happy to read an article.
I wonder where our food would come from if people didn’t live in rural communities.
Farms. Most people who live in rural communities aren’t involved in farming or food production.
Suburbia and rural communities are massively subsidised.
Winter high pressure event. Minimal wind generation for days or even weeks
Wish it was, seemed to be blowing a gale all through the last 6 months 🙂
"A dirty diesel spewing pollution ends up less than an EV producing nothing."
And THAT is the biggest falecy of the lot. Clean at the tailpipe, yes. Clean overall ? Hardly. With (as of today) 46% of generation being from burning gas, + some from overseas connections (with undetermined mixes or power source), and the losses from turning gas to electricity then transmitting it then charging the car, the C02 emitted overall is not that much different. Just emitted out of you immediate sight.
Then they are typically heavier = more tyre wear (=pollution) and road wear (= pollution), and the process of getting the materials for the batteries themselves is immensely dirty.
robertajob - Actually the emissions will be lower overall. by 50% ish I believe.
You did forget the reduced marginal cost per mile tho with EVs that actually leads to them being used more for short journeys according to one bit of research
The suggestion that EV power is 100% fossil fuel is a fallacy. The grid mix is say 50% renewable. If you allocate the fossil fuel part to the EV, then that surely means that the other things are now being powered renewably? I don't think you can separate the two like this.
You are suggesting that if a car were not charged then a gas power station would be turned down - but I don't think this is the case, because things running overnight - factories, hospitals etc - need constant power and therefore cannot rely solely on renewables; but EV charging does not need constant power.
I did some very rough maths on the last page which I am happy to have holes picked in.
- You forgot to convert the manufacturer's g/km figures in to g/mile.
- Most people don't achieve those manufacturer's figures - anywhere near - in their ICE but 4 miles/kWh is entirely reasonable for an EV (I am averaging 4.8 in total and our daily commute sees over 5).
- You ignored the energy required to extract the oil, ship it to a refinery and turn it into petrol and diesel.
People are also over looking the opportunity to generate at home, when we buy our next car I'm hoping it will be EV and I will seriously considering solar and batteries for the house. We need to think about more distributed generation as the grid is seriously lacking in capacity for the future. Generating some of the power EVs need at home helps reduce this and we have ridiculous amounts of roof space that could be used for solar generation.
You are suggesting that if a car were not charged then a gas power station would be turned down – but I don’t think this is the case, because things running overnight – factories, hospitals etc – need constant power and therefore cannot rely solely on renewables; but EV charging does not need constant power.
Like I said it is incredibly rare that renewables generate all the electricity we need, they are pretty much always topped up by gas.
Suppose I had used a bit less power last night (or didn't need to charge my hypothetical EV). Would the UK have generated any less wind energy? No. Any less solar? No. It would have burned less gas. Even if I had been selective in when I used (or didnt use) electricity.
You forgot to convert the manufacturer’s g/km figures in to g/mile.
Ahh yeah fair point I'll take that back.
You ignored the energy required to extract the oil, ship it to a refinery and turn it into petrol and diesel.
I acknowledged that, I also ignored the energy in extracting and transporting gas, losses during trasmitting across the grid and battery charging. And probably a load of other stuff too.
The nice people at CarbonBrief have done some fact checking aon all the 'EVs are just as polluting as ICE claims (among others).
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-21-misleading-myths-about-electric-vehicles/
They've got actual sources and real calculations and not just 'sometimes it's not very windy' and I urge everyone to actually read some of their very clear reporting.
Suppose I had used a bit less power last night (or didn’t need to charge my hypothetical EV). Would the UK have generated any less wind energy? No. Any less solar? No. It would have burned less gas
I'm not sure it's that simple. But even if it were, it's a pointless argument. In April there was an hour where we generated 97.5% of our electricity without fossil fuels. That kind of event is going to become much more frequent. We have loads of wind and solar generation going in all the time. This time next year, my car (or its counterpart in some other application, if you want) will emit less CO2, and the following year less still. And to gain these benefits I won't have to change my car or do anything to it. We can't have a transport sector using renewable energy without EVs. And if people like me don't buy EVs, manufacturers will not make them.
Of course, we know that the true answer is not to have cars, but until that time comes, EVs are significantly better than ICEs and will become more so.
Like I said it is incredibly rare that renewables generate all the electricity we need, they are pretty much always topped up by gas.
For now. But that time is coming. As for storage - there is about 150GWh in various stages of planning. And of course, EVs are also mobile energy storage.
Suppose I had used a bit less power last night (or didn’t need to charge my hypothetical EV). Would the UK have generated any less wind energy? No. Any less solar? No. It would have burned less gas. Even if I had been selective in when I used (or didnt use) electricity.
But can't you apply that argument to any user? I decided not to cook my dinner last night - so the gas power station wasn't turned on. So cooking can't be said to benefit from renewable energy. The local factory cancelled a shift. Ditto. Etc etc etc. So who does benefit?
Isn't it more the case that the power company buys in energy from a mix of sources according to what they predict the load to be, whether it's cars or meat pies cooking, or tin can manufacture? And then if there are fluctuations away from what was predicted then gas is the marginal source as you say. I'm not an electricity company, so I don't know exactly how they do stuff - but that's my guess.
And of course, EVs are also mobile energy storage.
A guy was round looking at our solar panels the other week and trying to interest me in buying a battery. £5K for 3kWh. Considering I have a 64kWh battery sitting on my driveway, that made no sense whatsover!!
Considering I have a 64kWh battery sitting on my driveway, that made no sense whatsover!!
The French scheme with the Renault Five is interesting… not just using the car battery to shift energy demand in the home, but across the local grid as a whole. Those cars on that scheme will help doubly when it comes to shifting energy use to renewables… they’ll end up meaning that less fossil fuels as a whole will be burnt than if they didn’t exist… they won’t just mean less compared to using an ICE car… but less than if no car was at those households. That’s mind boggling and totally unintuitive.
[ simple version … V2G (vehicle to grid) uses all those car batteries as a distributed storage system for the grid, not just for each home, allowing peak to off peak demand shifting both for the grid and for energy generation ]
I'm not trying to imply that EVs will never be beneficial. They obviously will be an incredible asset in the future to providing low carbon travel, and smooth grid demand so that we can get the most out of renewables and reduce the requirement for fossil fuels. In the meantime, while the marginal method of power generation in the UK is almost always gas, the case is less strong. Perhaps still very convincing if you need to do a lot of miles.
I bought solar panels rather than an EV. I also dont drive that much so the EV would have been a waste of money anway.
£5K for 3kWh
You can get about 20kWh of old Nissan Leaf for that and now you can use it to power your home too. And you can still drive it.
In the meantime, while the marginal method of power generation in the UK is almost always gas, the case is less strong.
But if we don't buy them now no-one will be able to buy them in the future.
Perhaps still very convincing if you need to do a lot of miles.
You don't need to do that many. It's still much much cheaper (if you can charge at home) to drive an EV. It costs us about a tenth the cost of a diesel per mile for my wife to drive to work. And probably an extra couple of k on the purchase price.
And let's not forget the benefits for local air quality.
Oh and they are much better to drive.
I’m not sure it’s that simple.
It is that simple molgrips - when renewables are maxed out then any increase in consumption comes from gas - thats how the grid works. Renewables are maxed out most of the time. gsasd is used top cover shortfalls in generation
What other source do you think the electricity comes from? Nuclear is less responsive and usually also maxed out. Pump storage can do some of it. Otherwise its gas coal or diesel . that increased demand has to be filled from somewhere
But can’t you apply that argument to any user? I decided not to cook my dinner last night – so the gas power station wasn’t turned on. So cooking can’t be said to benefit from renewable energy. The local factory cancelled a shift. Ditto. Etc etc etc. So who does benefit?
Yes, you can apply it to any user. Most of the time, every kwh that you dont use is one kwh less gas generation. This will continue to be the case until we generate enough renewable power such that we dont need to top up with gas.
I wish this was appreciated more widely!
YOu get all of those benefits and more from reducing car useage
Pump storage can do some of it.
Car batteries can also do some of it.
Yes, you can apply it to any user. Most of the time, every kwh that you dont use is one kwh less gas generation. This will continue to be the case until we generate enough renewable power such that we dont need to top up with gas.
My point was actually something different. If you are saying that every user should be counted as contributing 100% to has burning, then my question is who is using all that green energy? Not EV owners (in your argument). Not cooks. Not factories. So who? You end up with a contradiction.
It is that simple molgrips – when renewables are maxed out then any increase in consumption comes from gas – thats how the grid works. Renewables are maxed out most of the time. gsasd is used top cover shortfalls in generation
its not that simple because the guy at the power station doesn’t light up another burner when moly charges his car. He’s already contracted a load of energy from a variety of sources to account for moly and thousands of others charging their cars, cooking their dinners and washing their socks.
This time next year, my car (or its counterpart in some other application, if you want) will emit less CO2, and the following year less still. And to gain these benefits I won’t have to change my car or do anything to it
I'm not sure that's true either. Whilst the marginal input to the grid is still fossil fueled, the impact of you charging your car on a given night is still the same. The overall mix changes, sure, but until that mix is extreme enough that no fossil is being burned on a regular basis (unlikely in the next 5 years), the source for your car is still gas. Even when there is excess renewable capacity, if that capacity can offset fossil fuel at a later date (ie through pumping), your use is still effectively mostly co2 generating (it's complicated due to losses in pumping).
The mix is getting greener. The marginal use is not.