Electric cars

AdrianC

Herzlos wrote: »

You can't chose which electrons come down the grid, sure, but if you're paying a supplier that only supplies renewables into the grid then you've at least got control over which electrons in the system you're paying for. By paying the bill to a renewable company you're pushing the investment towards renewable.

Or are you trying to imply that the renewable-only suppliers are actually supplying fossil fuel power as well?

No, I'm saying that their generation business is not throttled back if they don't have enough supply customers.
They generate as much as they can do. If it's profitable to bring more generation on-stream, then they will, regardless of supply customers.

Herzlos

AdrianC wrote: »

No, I'm saying that their generation business is not throttled back if they don't have enough supply customers.
They generate as much as they can do. If it's profitable to bring more generation on-stream, then they will, regardless of supply customers.

Sure, but does that mean green tariffs are a bad thing?

Car_54

NigeWick wrote: »

Could well be. No doubt HMGov Plc will go for the cheapest option where they can make the most money.

The cheapest option - by far - is to increase an existing tax, i.e. income tax or VAT.

zeupater

Car_54 wrote: »

The cheapest option - by far - is to increase an existing tax, i.e. income tax or VAT.

Hi

Whilst a simple system based on usage could be as cheap & fairer ... fuel duty results in higher users paying more towards the infrastructure that they using (/damaging), so a mileage based tax would likely be a more acceptable solution to most - the system could easily be built around an initial levy on new vehicle purchases with subsequent taxation being set according to MOT returns.

There are plenty of ways of collecting payment due without the huge cost of infrastructure change, for example if through tax code or staged payment of additional MOT cost, it could be a simple modification of the DVLC database with direct interface to HMRC, so relatively seamless ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

Do people really still fall for that?

Who you buy your electricity from makes zero difference to the source of the electricity entering your home, and it makes zero difference to the balance of sources of electricity entering the grid. It only affects who sends you your bill, and how big that bill is.

More spin and FUD. In fact your zero difference claims probably stray further than spin and are borderline lies. In your reality, if everyone switched to green supplies, then there would be no change to the generation mix. :wall:

The more demand the green only companies get, the more RE generation they have to buy, or produce. This drives up demand and supply for RE generation.

ElefantEd

Also, Ecotricity reinvests its profits into further renewable energy generation. So buying from them does increase the green energy supply, which in turn will displace non-renewable sources. I don't know if the same is true of other comapnies. However, recently in the news is Scottish Power that now only generates electricity from green sources (it will still have to buy in non-renewable energy whilst it builds more renewable infrastructure). And this is one of the big six energy companies, not a small operator.


https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/scottish-power-wind-energy-renewable-drax-gas-station-climate-change-a8585961.html

almillar

Interesting that Instavolt charge £0.35/kWh, 3 times the average UK domestic rate. Quite a mark up, eh? That'd make me reconsider the economics of EV but not in a good way.

They have chargers to maintain, call centre, billing etc - charging fast literally costs more. 3x is too much for my liking too, but it's certainly unrealistic to expect it to cost the same as charging at up to 7kw at home.

The pollution is displaced from the roadside to the power station, until and if renewable power generation can keep up with the expanded real world demand of a shift to EVs. All that imported oil calorific value will need replacing with something else... It's a bit premature to imagine EVs are clean energy.

How much ICE energy comes from renewables? How much energy do they use? EVs use LESS in the first place, and they can also be 100% from renewables - charge your own car from your own solar panels. That's the ideal situation, but even at worst (electric from a gas plant), it's less pollution on the planet. The alternative is 100% non renewable in an ICE car.

I think some EV manufacturers actually advertised that in their advert headlines

Most LEAFs have a 'Zero Emmissions' badge on them. ZoE is 'Zero Emmissions'. It's like an HD Ready TV. You can plug in a SNES, or you can plug in a PS4.

that would mean moving all those vehicle emissions into power stations or renewables.

NO! EVs use LESS ENERGY than ICE. So that energy generation doesn't ALL move, it's greatly reduced, even if every EV mile driven is 'dirty'. I think you've been told this before.

Car_54

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Whilst a simple system based on usage could be as cheap & fairer ... fuel duty results in higher users paying more towards the infrastructure that they using (/damaging), so a mileage based tax would likely be a more acceptable solution to most - the system could easily be built around an initial levy on new vehicle purchases with subsequent taxation being set according to MOT returns.

But VED has never been about paying for use of the infrastructure- the government abandoned that pretence 80 years ago. It is simply a means of collecting tax.

The infrastructure benefits everyone, whether a road user or not. An efficient road system is essential to a healthy economy. Transfer of the tax burden from a limited subset of road users to the general public would be fair and could be implemented with minimal cost.

iolanthe07

I drove a EV for the first time over the weekend, a BMWi3, and was very impressed indeed. The acceleration, up to about 40 mph or so, was extraordinary and the drive was smooth, quiet and comfortable. I shall buy one (though a BMW will be too costly); I notice that there are some second hand bargains out there. I haven't read this long thread, but why is the depreciation so bad? It will have to be a second car for local use, though. I wouldn't risk a long run in one.

Martyn1981

Car_54 wrote: »

But VED has never been about paying for use of the infrastructure- the government abandoned that pretence 80 years ago. It is simply a means of collecting tax.

All the better then, so a reduction won't impact infrastructure and can be balanced against reduced NHS and AGW mitigation costs, and fines for failing to meet targets, especially air quality targets - whilst we still have to pay them, but try our hardest to avoid them or argue against them each and every time in the EU.

[Though, of course, your argument against VED is a lot odd as it doesn't seem to fit with the comment from Z that you quoted.]