Electric cars

AdrianC

buglawton wrote: »

Then you have the reality of how slow the UK builds major infrastructure, not to mention planning objections British-style. Think Boris estuary airport, HS2, Crossrail sized infrastructure. All perfectly logical projects but either massively delayed or ain't gonna happen at all.

...Severn barrage...

zeupater

buglawton wrote: »

Technically true. Then you have the reality of how slow the UK builds major infrastructure, not to mention planning objections British-style. Think Boris estuary airport, HS2, Crossrail sized infrastructure. All perfectly logical projects but either massively delayed or ain't gonna happen at all. On top of all that it'll the voters having to pay for this new renewables infrastructure. That's why I used the term far off future.

Hi

Have you looked at the build cost or energy supply prices applicable to renewable technologies lately? ... possibly even looked at the amount of renewable energy capacity actually installed and the relative speed of installation & delivery to both cost & schedule vs projects that the government decide to stick their noses into? ...

Almost every property in the UK already has the necessary infrastructure to accept EV charging at basic rates, it's only the fast charging network and that required for those without off-street parking or allocated spaces that needs to be addressed, so for the majority of the population for the majority of the time it's not too much of an issue ...

... it's going to happen, it's going to happen faster than most currently expect & it's going to happen despite the protestations of those in denial .... so far this year the number of public charging points has increased by ~22% (additional ~4000) with the rate of commissioning starting to show signs of significantly ramping up, so maybe the infrastructure 'problem' is more one of anti-EV wishful thinking than anything else ...

Charge Point Statistics - https://www.zap-map.com/statistics/

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

buglawton wrote: »

Technically true. Then you have the reality of how slow the UK builds major infrastructure, not to mention planning objections British-style. Think Boris estuary airport, HS2, Crossrail sized infrastructure. All perfectly logical projects but either massively delayed or ain't gonna happen at all. On top of all that it'll the voters having to pay for this new renewables infrastructure. That's why I used the term far off future.

Not 'technically true', rather 'factually true', unless you'd care to disagree.

Again apologies for having to repeat the same information over and over again.

Speed - The rollout of RE at approx 3%pa for the last decade is approx 10x faster than even my optimistic suggestion for BEV demand in 10yrs time. So you can claim that they are not being deployed quickly but the facts are entirely against you.

Cost - As explained (carefully), the cost* of current deployment which is already reflected in our bills is vastly greater than any future costs.

*Cost relates to subsidy additions, since we were already paying for leccy, so it's only the extra that is relevant.

PV and on-shore wind are already roughly £50/MWh, so effectively subsidy free, though a net subsidy free scheme to give them (and their backers) reassurance would allow for cheaper financing costs and even cheaper deployments. PV costs and panel efficiencies are still improving, so the cost per MWh will continue to drop, and on-shore wind (if it wasn't effectively blocked by the government) could now start to deploy WT's of 4MW or even 5MW, with reductions in generating costs due to less WT's per windfarm. Some windfarms now being decommissioned in Europe (built 30(ish)) years ago are, for example about 0.4MW (20 x 20kW WT's), compare that to a single modern day WT of 2+MW.

And as previously explained, off-shore wind, the technology that is expected to provide the bulk of UK RE leccy has reduced its subsidy from £110/MWh down to £14/MWh already, and still falling in cost. If you want a comparison, then that £14/MWh subsidy for 15yrs starting in 2023 is pretty good v's new nuclear (HPC) with a £50/MWh subsidy starting in 2028(ish) and for 35yrs, and that's after 60yrs of subsidy support already, so I think you'll agree that RE has done very well on the subsidy front.

So, for 'far off future', I see the UK meeting that 10yr additional BEV demand (~3.3%) in approx 1yr. But (and again apologies for repeating myself) I'm more than happy to chat and review your calculations on which your comments are based - the additional info you've now provided relate to 3 large non energy related schemes (all are transport related) - and I'm also happy to provide more details on the facts and figures I've posted, which are admittedly off the top of my head, but relate to facts and articles I've posted on the relevant news threads on the Green & Ethical board over the years.

I'd also question your whole premise since we know -

that BEV's, even charged on a grid that is mostly coal based (ours has almost no coal, even PV matched coal generation in 2019 Q1 (UK PV in the winter!)) are lower CO2 than ICE (current ticked),

the grid's carbon intensity is dropping every year (future ticked).

So adding a future carbon tax to BEV's that will be lower carbon than today's BEV's and getting lower every year for new AND existing BEV's ........ hmmm .......... did you really think that one through, or was it just an opportunity to present/suggest some renewables misinformation?

So, quick recap, you said slow, expensive and far off future, and the reality is fast and cheap and next year. I hope you find that information heartening.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

<looks out window at trees wiffling around>
Yep, breezy.

That's the spirit Ade, don't let the facts (actual UK generation as confirmed by your link and mine) get in the way of your claims.

Deny till you die - you know it makes sense! :think:

Martyn1981

buglawton wrote: »

On top of all that it'll the voters having to pay for this new renewables infrastructure.

Sorry for so many replies, but it dawned on me that asking you to simply accept my figures is a bit unfair, so here's a recent(ish) article I posted on the Green Energy News thread a month back. Lots of info, and the crucial 'cost' comparison. [Note - there have been a number of similar studies over the last few years, all coming to pretty much the same conclusions over RE costs and global breakdowns.]

Want To Limit Global Warming? Electrify Everything, Finds Study

100% renewables are more cost-effective: The energy costs for a fully sustainable energy system will decrease from € 54/MWh in 2015 to € 53/MWh in 2050.

buglawton

I'm sure the 'truth' has been overproven here already. However I'm a pragmatic thinker.

The old saying was (in the days of massive British state sponsorship of defense aicraft design):

"All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics".

When it comes to 100% electrification, maybe the dimensions are going to be "cost benefit and politics".

silverwhistle

The problem is that politics and our government at the moment does not have any constructive policies, and what has been achieved is in spite of our government not because of it.



So we have policy changes that kill off the domestic PV market, policies that prevent land based wind, unsuccessful attempts at building nuclear plants, changes in policy on tidal barrages, relaxation of building regulations, inadequate regulation and standardisation of EV vehicle charging, failure to make a decision on how pumped storage will be paid for hence making finance expensive and difficult to arrange



Some of the above don't require massive amounts of money or draconian regulation, just a bit of political will and foresight.

Martyn1981

buglawton wrote: »

I'm sure the 'truth' has been overproven here already. However I'm a pragmatic thinker.

The old saying was (in the days of massive British state sponsorship of defense aicraft design):

"All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics".

When it comes to 100% electrification, maybe the dimensions are going to be "cost benefit and politics".

I'm confused? Looking up pragmatic I get:

pragmatic
/praɡˈmatɪk/
adjective
dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

But all of your recent claims have been based on your personal theories and assumptions, and have all been completely wrong when compared to reality. You've raised costs, when they are getting very close to zero, and suggested RE deployment will be at a slower rate than the BEV impact on grid carbon intensity, when it couldn't be farther from the truth.

So again, more than happy to discuss your numbers and the reality of RE deployment (costs and rate) but as I've given the real figures, and they appear to be the opposite of your claims, and you've declined to support your claims, nor find fault with mine, I'm really not sure where we go from here.

No offence meant, I'm simply being pragmatic.

PS - Perhaps the trick here isn't to base your conclusions on past defence aircraft design, but on actual current RE deployment and costs? Just an idea.

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

The problem is that politics and our government at the moment does not have any constructive policies, and what has been achieved is in spite of our government not because of it.



So we have policy changes that kill off the domestic PV market, policies that prevent land based wind, unsuccessful attempts at building nuclear plants, changes in policy on tidal barrages, relaxation of building regulations, inadequate regulation and standardisation of EV vehicle charging, failure to make a decision on how pumped storage will be paid for hence making finance expensive and difficult to arrange



Some of the above don't require massive amounts of money or draconian regulation, just a bit of political will and foresight.

Couldn't agree more, and I used to be very disheartened by our government's policies, but having seen the '800lb economics gorilla' swap sides (around mid decade), it's clear that even this government is starting to give in. With the economic advice from the National Infrastructure Commission (est by George Osborne in 2015) recently concluding that RE is the cheaper option v's nuclear, and advising the government to massively reduce their nuclear plans (which had actually collapsed anyway) there is nothing left now standing in the way of RE ....... except this government.

I honestly believe that there is simply too much pressure on them not to accelerate RE deployment, and certainly switch support from nuclear to RE. If the next off-shore wind CfD brings in capacity, or possibly even generation akin to HPC for ~£60m in subsidies (v's £45bn), then it'll be hard not to shift policies faster.

DoaM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I honestly believe that there is simply too much pressure on them not to accelerate RE deployment, and certainly switch support from nuclear to RE.

The problem for this government (and perhaps also the UK Labour party) is that promoting RE is high on the Scottish government's (aka SNP) agenda ... and the main UK parties don't want to be seen as aligning with the SNP.

PS - I'm not an SNP supporter. I voted No / Remain in the respective referendums.