Electric cars

NigeWick

iolanthe07 wrote: »

why is the depreciation so bad?

You could be looking at vehicles where the battery is owned by the manufacturer and you'll have to pay rental on top of the vehicle cost.

AdrianC

NigeWick wrote: »

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.

Yep. It gives that reassurance.

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.

Renewables can currently - when the weather's right - cover damn near half of the UK's total demand. How much of that capacity would you ascribe to "green" tariffs?

No, there's much stronger external forces at play than a bit of marketing to consumers who are already sold on the concept.

NigeWick

zeupater wrote: »

yesterday the EV may have been powered by coal, today could have been gas & tomorrow may be nuclear, wind or solar.

Definitely solar today as the sun is shining and my Tesla PW2 will soon be full. Then the Zappi smart charger will push electrons to the car.

iolanthe07

NigeWick wrote: »

You could be looking at vehicles where the battery is owned by the manufacturer and you'll have to pay rental on top of the vehicle cost.

No, I took that into account. The dealer was very upfront about battery lease.

zeupater

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.

Hi

Actually, what you've been arguing about stems back to your reply to Nigewick's point ... "Then there are those who choose to buy from renewable only suppliers like Ecotricity & Ovo."...

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.

... and whilst others are pointing out to you that there is a measurable difference in generation mix over time which has been partly driven by consumer sourcing preference (ie renewable source tariffs) and the effect that this has on schemes such as the Renewable Obligation Certificates where there's effectively a financial penalty on suppliers that don't meet their mix obligations, you chose to concentrate on the short-termism, which, despite it's irrelevance, suits your argument ...

If consumers chose to move their supply to specialist 'green energy' providers and those providers both assist in the provision of renewable generation capacity & buy up generation from elsewhere, then the larger suppliers, including the 'big 6', are forced to reassess their own energy sourcing strategies in order to avoid penalties - of course this leads to an increase of renewable energy in the mix ...

Take for example Scottish Power's recent divestment of non-renewable energy assets and their stated intent to move their vertical integration model to include 100% renewable generation with considerable investment in the sector .... green tariffs & related customer churn has played a significant part in this considerable change in direction ....

Looking at the energy sector on a minute by minute or day by day basis is simply a diversionary tactic to focus attention away from the big-picture timescale where direction of travel is both apparent & measurable, to a timespan which seems particularly chaotic .... what's important is that on a yearly basis the trend for carbon intensity of UK electricity supply is downwards and this is good news ...

The effect of Mrs Trellis somewhere in Wales moving to a green tariff today, as she has a perfect right to do, may not affect today's generation mix, but alongside all of the others taking the same decision throughout the country, it'll likely have an impact on the future mix, so what you classify as 'greenwash' may simply be a myopic attitude misrepresentation of her own contribution ...


HTH
Z

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

Ah, Martyn, you are funny.

Still no 22x calcs I see? In fact anything but, as always.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

No, there's much stronger external forces at play than a bit of marketing to consumers who are already sold on the concept.

"Much stronger forces", so the backpeddling has begun, you are now acknowledging forces, when previously you claimed zero impact:

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.

When will you learn that your spin and FUD won't work, nor stand up to critical debate ...... never?

almillar

I haven't read this long thread, but why is the depreciation so bad?

As someone who is interested in second hand electric cars, I don't think it is! Can you give an example?
Certainly, if you it from 'list price', there's automatically £5,000 or £4,500 of that that hasn't been paid - the government grant. That's automatic depreciation, but I don't really think you should count that. The i3 is a fast little thing - but they all feel pretty quick at low speeds if you're used to gear changes and stuff. i3 didn't feel that fast to me compared to my Zoe until I was on the motorway - putting my foot down at 60 did a lot more than it did in Zoe!

No, I took that into account. The dealer was very upfront about battery lease.

So you're talking about a Zoe? Yes, the lease means a £3,000-£4,000 hit on the value of the car, compared to a Zoe 'i', where the battery is owned. Pay your money, take your choice, if you can find an 'i'.

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

You seem to be saying that companies are installing renewable power sources because it's profitable, not because it's green - that's fine my me! But being on a green tariff is, at least, a vote to show that customers want green energy. And as I mentioned, with Ecotricity, it brings (some) 'free' access to their rapid charging network. Nobody has argued that these companies wire us up individually to a wind turbine when we sign up.
It seems that supply of renewable electric has outstripped demand. If half the country was on a green tariff, the companies would be REQUIRED (by themselves!) to provide half their electric from renewables. They're ahead now, because it's profitable. Great!

Yep. It gives that reassurance.

Worth it, for many people.

Martyn1981

I know Ade will hate this, but I watched this yesterday and thought it was a very thorough run through of the earnings call, and at a light level. Even if you dislike Tesla, it's interesting to get an idea on the industry as a whole.

Tesla Q3 Earnings Call Breakdown | In Depth


Edit - Bonus article on V2G.

V2G surge: EDF Energy and Nuvve to install 1,500 smart EV chargers


Might as well add another.

Hyundai to launch solar body kits for vehicles

AdrianC

almillar wrote: »

You seem to be saying that companies are installing renewable power sources because it's profitable, not because it's green

Correct. Although the "green" feeds directly in to the profitability, because of the subsidies (rightly) available.

But being on a green tariff is, at least, a vote to show that customers want green energy.

Absolutely. Not that consumer demand (or otherwise) makes a great deal of difference.

And as I mentioned, with Ecotricity, it brings (some) 'free' access to their rapid charging network.

Indeed. And that's a commercial decision Ecotricity make, for all of their customers to subsidise a particular benefit for some customers.


As with anything, consumers need to work out the best value for them, and it may not be the superficially cheapest. Equally, it may be better value for them to ignore these "free" benefits, and simply buy them elsewhere. See also: Premium bank accounts.

Nobody has argued that these companies wire us up individually to a wind turbine when we sign up.

What would you say about a company with "green" in their name, who shout about tariffs offering "100% renewable energy" - then go on in the small print to say... "We're not currently generating energy from renewables in the UK, however we do have tariffs backed by 100% renewable electricity." ?


Misleading? Or absolutely fair marketing?


https://greennetworkenergy.co.uk/help-centre/information-about-switching/100-renewable-electricity-come/



The key is at the end of that spiel...
"So, although we can’t guarantee that what ends up in your home will be directly from renewable electricity sources – no supplier can – we can show that for every unit you use, we’ve bought the equivalent amount of renewable electricity."


And, if they didn't buy it from the renewable generators, somebody else would.


But, of course, they charge more for their "100% renewable" tariff than they do for their normal. And even that's a lot more than I'm paying for electricity from a company that don't make those promises.


Or how about a company who don't just promise "100% renewable", but even seem to slap a "Made in Scotland" sticker on every single one of those electrons?
https://our-power.co.uk/tariffs


If I bought "100% organic Scottish beef", and the small print said on the label "THIS particular meat is neither Scottish or organic, but we do promise to buy in at least as much as we sell with this label"...?

It seems that supply of renewable electric has outstripped demand. If half the country was on a green tariff, the companies would be REQUIRED (by themselves!) to provide half their electric from renewables.

And just watch those brown-outs on still winter evenings...

They're ahead now, because it's profitable. Great!

Indeed. And this is kinda the whole point...just as it would be if nobody was on a green tariff...

Worth it, for many people.

Sure. Lots of people are happy to pay more for affiliate-marketed products. Just so long as that's clear, eh, and nobody's getting misled into thinking that signing up to a green tariff means you get green electricity out of your sockets, or that the amount of green generation is going to change as a direct result.