Electric cars

AdrianC

zeupater wrote: »

you're showing your true 'anti-renewables' underwear colours

Umm, quite the opposite, actually. I'm all for sustainability. I just don't much like greenwash.

zeupater

AdrianC wrote: »

Umm, quite the opposite, actually. I'm all for sustainability. I just don't much like greenwash.

Hi

If it's 'greenwash' then there'd be little measurable impact ... if it's a move towards 'sustainability' you'd be able to measure the impact and the trend of change would be appreciable .... a 15% reduction in carbon intensity over the 5 years to 2017 is obviously appreciable as would be the totals for (say) yesterday ... 300gCO2e/kWh & 25% of UK generation from renewable energy sources on a not particularly windy late Autumn, short daylight & low sun incidence day .... just think, considerably higher energy conversion efficiency in the EV drivetrain (kWh/mile) and if charging yesterday an average 25% of that energy would be from renewable sources .... so what will it be next year when even more renewable energy sources come on-line! ....

So, to your claim that it's mere 'Greenwash'? - absolute hogwash! ... that exposed underwear certainly seems to show your true environmental ideology colours and explains why we've been subjected to so many forms of anti-EV distraction posts for what seems like eternity-and-a-half ... you really don't like change do you !?, even if adapting to and adopting change is almost universally accepted as a key sustainability strategy ...

HTH
Z

silverwhistle

You have a funny way of showing it. The resurrection of the same tired arguments, the same tired, dismissive and negative cliches - I mean really, "bunnyhug tariffs"?



Please don't insult our intelligence that it's all about challenging greenwash, although I accept you may believe that in your own mind. Nobody else does though. I might discuss other people's points on here but arguing with you is a futile exercise.


My own opinion on replacement of fuel duty is that it should be done based on mileage. I appreciate some business mileage is necessary, but for all vehicle owners it may concentrate a few minds. Is that meeting really necessary, can a few be done by video-conferencing, can the kids get to school in some other way than by car? As we can see when it is holiday time marginal changes can make a difference.



Cleaner air is a great benefit, particularly in our cities, anyone who is paying attention will have heard of the impact of pollution on children: the rise in asthma in certain locations in London, to make a specific reference. But we mustn't forget congestion as well, and although you may not be pumping out fumes in a traffic jam, there is still a cost involved the more traveling you do.

AdrianC

zeupater wrote: »

If it's 'greenwash' then there'd be little measurable impact ... if it's a move towards 'sustainability' you'd be able to measure the impact and the trend of change would be appreciable ...

I'm not talking about the move to renewable generation as "greenwash".
I'm talking about the claims of "green" tariffs being behind that move as being greenwash. Or, rather, the flipside of them - that without green tariffs, there won't be any move to them.


Green tariffs are a nice way to sell the same electricity for more money. No more, no less.

Martyn1981

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.

More spin and FUD, and of course unrelated to what I said, which was that more RE capacity will be rolled out as demand for it increases, and that for FF generation falls.

So what's your trick answer, pretending I've said it's sitting there curtailed, how sad, how spinny, how FUDdy.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

I'm not talking about the move to renewable generation as "greenwash".
I'm talking about the claims of "green" tariffs being behind that move as being greenwash. Or, rather, the flipside of them - that without green tariffs, there won't be any move to them.


Green tariffs are a nice way to sell the same electricity for more money. No more, no less.

BS. The leccy suppliers bid for the generation from the leccy generators, unless they generate it themselves, such as Good Energy that expands its generation in line with a rising customer base.

As demand rises for RE generation the auction price will rise, and that for FF generation will fall. These may be small differences but any change in price relates in a nudge in generation and supply.

Also, increased demand for RE results in lower subsidisation through the CfD scheme as the difference between market price and strike price (subsidy) will get smaller.

I think it's clear that your knowledge on RE is as weak as your EV knowhow - remember when you said that the difference between Ah's and kWhs was very confusing even for someone like you with a good knowledge? Possibly you don't know enough, to know that you don't know much.

John Cleese on Stupidity (The Dunning-Kruger Effect)

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

remember when you said that the difference between Ah's and kWhs was very confusing even for someone like you with a good knowledge?

I'll remind you of the reality of that, shall I?

It was quite simply that Toyota's specsheets quoted (and still quote) Ah battery capacities, instead of the kWh quoted by everybody else. A simple mis-read - it's almost as if they do it deliberately to make potential buyers think the battery's much bigger than it is. But would marketing people really be so underhand...?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73870290#Comment_73870290

Oh, and have you gone back and actually bothered to look at the original "F150" post yet - quoting sources and giving the maths - or are you planning to continue your deliberate misrepresentation of that again here, too?

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

I'll remind you of the reality of that, shall I?

It was quite simply that Toyota's specsheets quoted (and still quote) Ah battery capacities, instead of the kWh quoted by everybody else. A simple mis-read - it's almost as if they do it deliberately to make potential buyers think the battery's much bigger than it is. But would marketing people really be so underhand...?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73870290#Comment_73870290

Oh, and have you gone back and actually bothered to look at the original "F150" post yet - quoting sources and giving the maths - or are you planning to continue your deliberate misrepresentation of that again here, too?

Regarding Ah's, no not a simple error, you maintained the position despite my correcting you, I (and others) had to point out your lack of understanding. Your response to that was that 'even you' found such stuff confusing/complicated.

Regarding the F-150 claims, anytime you want to defend your claim that US F-150 sales are 22x greater than TM3 production (not 2x) feel free. I await you providing the facts and maths, rather than hiding behind spin and excuses. So, go on!

AdrianC

Ah, Martyn, you are funny.

NigeWick

AdrianC wrote: »

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.

I fully understand what you are saying. But, by paying a company that produces that amount of renewable electricity for me, I know that I can claim to be buying green generation. It does in fact make a difference to the balance of sources otherwise the percentage of wind and solar generation would not be going up while the percentage of coal generation is going down.