Electric cars

Martyn1981

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.

Yes, the countries energy consumption is based on the gross input, so the energy in the oil, gas etc, not the energy that is consumed, so 4kWh of petrol giving 1kWh of energy consumed could be replaced by 1kWh of RE generation. [Edit - perhaps 'consumed' isn't the best choice, the 4kWh of petrol is consumed, but only 1kWh as energy to move the vehicle. M.]

[Yes there are system losses and batt losses on the leccy, but the same applies to the FF from extraction to fuel tank.]

zeupater

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.

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.

Hi

Who's talking VED? .... the discussion (/current anti-EV argument) revolves around a perceived loss of fuel duty revenue to the exchequer resulting from the move from ICE to EV!

Regarding the infrastructure benefiting everyone ... yes it does, but to differing degrees - the more you need to use it, the more you personally benefit, so why shouldn't high users contribute a fair share towards their own level of benefit, or should the high users expect everyone else to subsidise their businesses and/or lifestyles?

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Always nice to see the milestones tick by on a journey.

500 LEVC TX ELECTRIC TAXIS ON LONDON’S STREETS

Car_54

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.]

Fair point: I would argue that VED and fuel duty can be lumped together, as both are set to fall (potentially to zero), and neither have ever been hypothecated to build or maintain the road system.

Car_54

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Who's talking VED? .... the discussion (/current anti-EV argument) revolves around a perceived loss of fuel duty revenue to the exchequer resulting from the move from ICE to EV!

Regarding the infrastructure benefiting everyone ... yes it does, but to differing degrees - the more you need to use it, the more you personally benefit, so why shouldn't high users contribute a fair share towards their own level of benefit, or should the high users expect everyone else to subsidise their businesses and/or lifestyles?

HTH
Z

Yes, as I've already said in reply to Martyn, I've tended mentally to lump fuel duty and VED together: they will both need to be replaced.


As for high users of a communal asset contributing more, if you adopt that principle then it's difficult to argue that high users of other "communal" services should pay not more, e.g. for health and education? Governments have generally resisted hypothecation of taxes, not least because it's a slippery slope to set out on.


Yes, heavy road users tend to pay more fuel duty, but again there has never AFAIK been any serious suggestion that it should or would be spent on roads. It's simply another tax, analogous to those on booze'nfags.


In any event, the high users are - for the most part - doing so on business, without which the economy would grind to a halt.

buglawton

Stageshoot wrote: »

And the average Petrol station has maybe 10 pumps with a throughput of probably 10 vehicles and hour each 100 Vehicles an hour with an average of 30 Litres per vehicle.. 5p a litre markup.
100users X30 litre fill x5p litre profit = £150 an hour profit + ancillary sales from the shop etc

Rapid Charger, 1 or 2 per site, average users per hour 0.2 (Figures show 6 charges a day on average at the moment for a busy unit) Average pull 20kwh, lets be generous and say they are making 20p a kwh

0.2 Users x 20kwh fill x20p kwh profit = 80p an hour profit with no ancillary sales,

Yes usage will incease as EV sales increase but with up to 90% of charging done at home its never going to be a mass market proposition its always going to be a niche add on to another location

In fact, motorway services will have the usual car park with a charging point at every parking space. The service area will be able to put it's retail site rentals up based on a 'captive' audience. Admittedly we may have to wait till 2065 for the charging infrastructure to reach this point.

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

So you're seriously saying that a windfarm somewhere is deliberately throttled back... Oh, no, wait... Mrs Trellis in North Wales has just switched tariff to a bunnyhug supplier. Better turn the windfarm up a bit, Cyril.


Just pause and think about that.

Renewables are turned up as much as possible, whenever possible. Renewable generation capacity is being installed as fast as possible. Why? Because it's profitable to do so...


https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Just look at those historical generation graphs, and tell me that they correlate in any way to demand on bunnyhug tariffs, rather than simply to weather conditions.
Let's take the monthly...
Wind - peak of 10GW (about 20-25% of total demand), low of 0.
Solar - peak of 6GW, low of 0.
Hydro - peak of 1GW, low of 0.
Biomass - fairly constant 2-3GW.
So where wind and solar peak together, <points to 22nd October>, that's up to around 20GW of supply, 40-50% of total demand. Other times, it dips as low as 10% of that.


Was the 22nd a day when all those on bunnyhug tariffs turned everything on simultaneously because they could? What do you think happens to those being supplied by those tariffs on still winter evenings?

Herzlos

I don't think anyone ever made the point you're trying to argue against. A single green tariff doesn't mean a RE site is scaled up appropriately. A green tariff means funding a supplier who'll add RE to the grid as required and based roughly on the net consumption from their customers albeit with a lag.

If you have a Green tariff, do you think that money will somehow go towards bringing more fossil fuel plants online?

AdrianC

Herzlos wrote: »

If you have a Green tariff, do you think that money will somehow go towards bringing more fossil fuel plants online?

Of course not. Because very few people are building more fossil generation capacity of any kind...

But lots of people are building RE generation as fast as they can - because it's... profitable.



Whether some of those people are simply generation businesses, or whether they're one half of a generation-and-supply business is a separate question entirely.

zeupater

AdrianC wrote: »

So you're seriously saying that a windfarm somewhere is deliberately throttled back... Oh, no, wait... Mrs Trellis in North Wales has just switched tariff to a bunnyhug supplier. Better turn the windfarm up a bit, Cyril.


Just pause and think about that.

Renewables are turned up as much as possible, whenever possible. Renewable generation capacity is being installed as fast as possible. Why? Because it's profitable to do so...


https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Just look at those historical generation graphs, and tell me that they correlate in any way to demand on bunnyhug tariffs, rather than simply to weather conditions.
Let's take the monthly...
Wind - peak of 10GW (about 20-25% of total demand), low of 0.
Solar - peak of 6GW, low of 0.
Hydro - peak of 1GW, low of 0.
Biomass - fairly constant 2-3GW.
So where wind and solar peak together, <points to 22nd October>, that's up to around 20GW of supply, 40-50% of total demand. Other times, it dips as low as 10% of that.


Was the 22nd a day when all those on bunnyhug tariffs turned everything on simultaneously because they could? What do you think happens to those being supplied by those tariffs on still winter evenings?

Ooh ... calm down dear, you're showing your true 'anti-renewables' underwear colours a little too much to maintain your own dignity! ... ;)

So, if you try to not offend Mrs Trellis and her flock of Texels too much then you may find that they'd not veto anyone supplying a nice new bobble-hat to help relieve the bouts of brain-freeze .... when the grid frequency drops, the nice man at NG turns up the knob, picks up the phone & asks Cyril to release the brakes on another turbine & when there are no more to turn on he'll tell Sid to turn the gas up ... It's all down to the carbon intensity of the grid ... the more the overall renewable energy element of the mix grows, the lower the carbon intensity gets ...

Yesterday you would have been running your ICE car on the same fuel as you did today, as it will also be tomorrow ... the carbon intensity only really changing with the way you've driven & the mpg achieved ... With EVs there's a total disconnect from energy source & the motive process - yesterday the EV may have been powered by coal, today could have been gas & tomorrow may be nuclear, wind or solar. With the ICE you've got the option to pay to convert to LPG or biofuels when/if necessary and that's about it, whilst with the EV the decarbonisation process is seamless ... between 2012 & 2017 the cumulative affect of the electricity supply mix has resulted in an overall carbon intensity of UK grid supply reduction of ~15% and that's what it's all about!

... but then again, deep down you already knew that but chose to segment the issue & argue on a distracting irrelevance anyway - didn't you! ... :whistle::hello:

HTH
Z