Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

1961Nick

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I really don't follow, the middle spec price car I've mentioned a number of times is the long range dual motor variant at around £50k ... dual motor gives you the AWD you're looking for ... 4.8seconds to 60 with a range of around 330miles.

That represents a price which is pretty much in line with a fully loaded Golf-R 2 litre (so as to compare specs on a more level playing field) as well as offerings from BMW, Mercedes, Audi etc .... apart from technology that is! ...

Then again, if the performance decision is based on standing out from the crowd ... don't a lot of people people point at Tesla's as they pass by, whilst having little interest in a run-of-the-mill mass market manufacturer car, no matter what badge it may have on the rear end?

HTH
Z

Unless I'm missing something, there are only 2 variants of the Model 3 on the UK website:

Rear wheel drive - standard range plus @ £38050

Dual motor all wheel drive - performance @ £48590

Looking at other markets, there's an awd model that sits between the UK models which costs $10000 less than the performance version. That one would've been ideal...but it's not a deal breaker.

Other aspects of ownership are looking quite favourable. Servicing is every 25000 miles... but it's things you can do yourself such as pollen filters etc. The mechanical stuff such as brakes is condition based, but with regenerative braking it's likely they would last the 135000 miles I'd be doing in it. The 120000 mile drivetrain warranty is reassuring, although 50000 miles for the rest of the car is a little stingy....18months!

Martyn1981

Coastalwatch wrote: »

Now here's a link to a worrying piece of news which shows that two nuclear plants have been taken offline and may even be taken out of service! Ok if Solar and Wind are allowed to take up the slack, the sensible option, but not if the powers that be continue to rely on FF's.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if this all brought about a government U turn on it's current round of renewable energy bashing.

The whole thing is just getting ridiculous.

The government says (in the article posted yesterday on the PV thread):

Chris Skidmore, the minister for energy and clean growth, said the government wanted to increase the number of small-scale generators without adding the cost of subsidies to energy bills. “The future of energy is local and the new smart export guarantee will ensure households that choose to become green energy generators will be guaranteed a payment for electricity supplied to the grid,” he said. The government also hopes to encourage homes with solar panels to install batteries.

Yet they are happy to pay high subsidies to nuclear in 10(ish) years time, for large scale, centralised generation.

So cut support for smaller distributed generation, some of which could go directly to demand side generation, arguing that they need to stand on their own feet now ....... but not nuclear?

In the case of PV and on-shore wind, I'm pretty sure that a CfD auction with bid caps around the average wholesale price, would work fine. That way, projects would get government support, better finance deals, and a minimum income guarantee, but not add any net burden to the subsidy pot. And this could happen today.

Why is the government avoiding subsidy free RE generation rollout, it makes no sense, and has to have deeper reasoning behind it. My belief is that low price CfD's for RE are embarrassing, and undermine their nuclear plans.

Edit - Just spotted this, kinda makes you want to give up!

Government 'funding fossil fuel-burning plants abroad'

The government has been taken to task by its own MPs for sending billions of pounds overseas to help build power plants that burn fossil fuels while claiming a climate victory on home soil.

Environmental activist Greta Thunberg said in April the UK’s “active, current support of new exploitation of fossil fuels” was “absurd”. The audit committee report found that UK Export Finance (UKEF), which provides lines of credit and insurance to help companies win business overseas, spent £2.6bn in recent years to support the UK’s global energy exports, of which £2.5bn was handed to fossil fuel projects. Only 4% of its funding, or £104m, was used to support renewable energy projects.

Earlier this year, former UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon called on the UK to stop funding fossil fuel projects in the developing world.

He told the committee that UKEF needs “recalibration” to meet international climate trends and obligations.

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Why is the government avoiding subsidy free RE generation rollout,

Because they are in the very deep pockets of nuclear and fossil fuel generators? I believe it's either that or they're stupid.

Zarch

Scottish Power to build vast battery to improve wind energy supply

Energy firm says project will be big step towards continuous renewable power for UK

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/10/scottish-power-build-vast-battery-improve-wind-energy

silverwhistle

Good grief Zarch, you got it in before Martyn! :-) I saw the article and wondered if it had already been posted.



It also reminded me about SSE's Coire Glas pumped storage scheme which would have similar advantages in a high RE environment.. As it says in here https://sse.com/whatwedo/ourprojectsandassets/renewables/CoireGlas/ the scheme requires a

supportive long-term public policy and regulatory framework.

. So don't go holding your breath that that will arrive any time soon.

zeupater

1961Nick wrote: »

Unless I'm missing something, there are only 2 variants of the Model 3 on the UK website:

Rear wheel drive - standard range plus @ £38050

Dual motor all wheel drive - performance @ £48590

Looking at other markets, there's an awd model that sits between the UK models which costs $10000 less than the performance version. That one would've been ideal...but it's not a deal breaker.

Other aspects of ownership are looking quite favourable. Servicing is every 25000 miles... but it's things you can do yourself such as pollen filters etc. The mechanical stuff such as brakes is condition based, but with regenerative braking it's likely they would last the 135000 miles I'd be doing in it. The 120000 mile drivetrain warranty is reassuring, although 50000 miles for the rest of the car is a little stingy....18months!

Hi

Not been on Tesla's configuration site, comments were based on their availability & pricing press releases as widely reported early last month, which included the 3 models mentioned, with OTR pricing being roughly £40k, £50k & £60k depending on options selected (paint etc) ...

Here's the details & pricing on EV Database UK .... Tesla-Model-3-Long-Range-Dual-Motor ... showing the breakdown of pricing VED, Grant, BIK details etc and directly comparing to the performance model as being ~£9k more expensive ...

HTH
Z

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'd like to know what the externality costs of FF usage would be up to 2050.

Continuing to use fossil fuels is the cleanest and most healthy option because a move to wind/pv is going to lower productivity which will ultimately means less goods and services relative to what could have been

The negative externalizes of fossil fuels are mostly grossly exaggerated BS

Take the EV bungs.
What is it, £3-4k per EV plus a substantial amount in avoided fuel duties the result is less money for schools and hospitals and councils doing whatever the fek it is councils do


Having said that, I think you can make an argument that not funding the net fossil fuel exporters is a security premium we should be willing to pay both in £££ terms and in accepting lower spending on hospitals and schools and higher spending on wind mills. Yes....seriously. At some point over the next 30 years there will be technologies coming online that change the face of humanity itself. I certainly dont want those to be created in the OPEC dictatorships so every pound or dollar not sent there is a worthwhile goal

Hexane

GreatApe wrote: »

At some point over the next 30 years there will be technologies coming online that change the face of humanity itself.

The reality is that BEV will not change the face of humanity itself. Not yet.

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

It is not hard to make a case that the UK is responsible for my than 1% of global co2.

I believe the one percent is local production of the gas. Does it include co2 used by Britain's when they fly or when they are abroad? Does it include co2 in the shipping to the UK of all our imports? Does it include the co2 used to produce those imports of both goods and food?

Of course we can offset imports against exports and inwards visits against trips abroad but the structure of the economy with an overall trade deficit and a huge deficit in goods balanced mostly by a surplus in services almost certainly means that an awful lot of our embedded co2 has been exported.

Our share of world GDP is 2.25%, that would be my first approximation for our share of world co2 as well.

It wont be a significant figure

Even in net exporting countries industry is not the primary user of resources, it is heating and powering homes schools hospitals shops offices etc and moving people and domestic consumption goods around

German housing stock alone uses circa 600 TWh of primary energy which is more than German industry.


The truth is we do not use that much manufactured goods compared to consumed services.

A car is 1,500 kg of mostly steel which is 100% recyclable and cars are highly recycled. The same car uses about 10 x that mass in fuel over its life

A 747 is 150 tons of mostly aluminum which is 100% recyclable and the airplane uses 10,000 x that mass in fuel

A light bulb, the old type is what maybe 50 grams of manufactured goods and uses 100 x that in coal/NG to be powered for a year

GreatApe

Also uk imports are exaggerated to the upside or rather they are not as significant as you would think. Trade is measured in pounds/dollars not in kilograms. If we import a £45,000 BMW and export a £15,000 Vauxhall it looks like we imported 3 x what we exported although it was more or less 1 car or about equal resource wise.

We also import a lot of high value stuff which has no huge resource cost.

A 100 gram iphone costs $1,000 which might be offset resource consumption wise by a 5kg pack of $5 export in toilet paper (yes the uk is a toilet paper exporter). So while the headline might look like $1,000 imported $5 exported so we must be importing a lot of embedded energy its not necessarily the case as in this example where we import expensive low mass stuff and export cheap high mass stuff (like chemicals)


Plus the figures are not too bad. $400 billion exported $600 billion imported so about $200 billion net.
But we do not destroy everything we import, eg we import about $20 billion more in gold than we export and about $2 billion more in silver than we export and other precious metals too and these are not consumed but a stock of wealth so shouldn't really be seen as part of a 'trade deficit'