Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Hexane
    • By Hexane 4th Nov 19, 11:54 PM
    • 174Posts
    • 202Thanks
    Hexane
    Maybe UK govt are not crazy
    • #1
    • 4th Nov 19, 11:54 PM
    Maybe UK govt are not crazy 4th Nov 19 at 11:54 PM
    So, picking up on a couple of things that joefizz has mentioned in discussions. Big problems! First, that a very high proportion of plug-in electric hybrids subsidised by the government (by a variety of means) have in fact never been plugged in, and therefore are worse for the environment than if the subsidy had never been given. Second, that in some Nordic countries the tax-subsidised car has simply become a second car in households that previously would have had only one car, and therefore the electric car replaces more efficient journeys that would otherwise have been made by cycle, foot, or public transport.

    These are both very good points, and either by chance or by design (depending on how stupid you think UK policy-makers are), the upcoming 0% BIK rate deals with both. Assisted by other tax policies.

    First, subsidies will no longer be for plug-in hybrids. This applies both to the up-front subsidy on the cost (no more cash subsidy for hybrids), and also to the company car tax BIK (the BIK 0% rate is only for BEVs, not any sort of hybrids).

    Second, the nature of the tax benefit - company vehicles - ensures that this is a vehicle that will be used. It is not a househould's second car, instead it is the replacement for what the breadwiner would previously have driven, for example a BMW or an Audi or Mercedes dirty diesel.

    Both problems solved, I think.
    7.25 kWp PV system (4.1kW WSW & 3.15kW ENE), Solis inverter, myenergi eddi & harvi for energy diversion to immersion heater. myenergi hub for Virtual Power Plant demand-side response trial.
Page 1
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 5th Nov 19, 1:18 AM
    • 4,133 Posts
    • 3,026 Thanks
    GreatApe
    • #2
    • 5th Nov 19, 1:18 AM
    • #2
    • 5th Nov 19, 1:18 AM
    Silly subsidy hidden in lower income tax receipts

    Rich folk don't need 10,000-40,000 Government tax breaks to buy BEVs while kids are denied cancer drugs because it's too expensive
    • prowla
    • By prowla 5th Nov 19, 7:31 AM
    • 10,724 Posts
    • 9,736 Thanks
    prowla
    • #3
    • 5th Nov 19, 7:31 AM
    • #3
    • 5th Nov 19, 7:31 AM
    If it encourages the shift to electric, then it's good.
    I don't know whether the 2nd car has encouraged people not to walk, though.
    So far I've not seen anything to make me go electric.
    • joefizz
    • By joefizz 6th Nov 19, 10:47 AM
    • 457 Posts
    • 398 Thanks
    joefizz
    • #4
    • 6th Nov 19, 10:47 AM
    • #4
    • 6th Nov 19, 10:47 AM

    Both problems solved, I think.
    Originally posted by Hexane

    I'll disagree with you. ;-)
    We are the problem, not the policies. People will work anything to their own personal advantage regardless of whether its in the spirit of the policy or not.
    • Hexane
    • By Hexane 6th Nov 19, 2:42 PM
    • 174 Posts
    • 202 Thanks
    Hexane
    • #5
    • 6th Nov 19, 2:42 PM
    • #5
    • 6th Nov 19, 2:42 PM
    We are the problem, not the policies. People will work anything to their own personal advantage regardless of whether its in the spirit of the policy or not.
    Originally posted by joefizz
    Any incentive has to provide an advantage, that's the nature of incentives. If it achieves the original aim - unlike, apparently, the previous incentive schemes - then it's worked. There aren't many loopholes in subsidising BEVs, unless people start buying BEVs for the tax saving and then only charging them with the output of a coal-fired private generator.
    7.25 kWp PV system (4.1kW WSW & 3.15kW ENE), Solis inverter, myenergi eddi & harvi for energy diversion to immersion heater. myenergi hub for Virtual Power Plant demand-side response trial.
    • joefizz
    • By joefizz 6th Nov 19, 3:51 PM
    • 457 Posts
    • 398 Thanks
    joefizz
    • #6
    • 6th Nov 19, 3:51 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Nov 19, 3:51 PM
    There aren't many loopholes in subsidising BEVs, unless people start buying BEVs for the tax saving and then only charging them with the output of a coal-fired private generator.
    Originally posted by Hexane

    Or we need to run up those emergency diesel stor facilities to power them.... ...or build/reopen a coal fired power station.


    Plug in hybrids would have worked if people were taxed heavily (slightly more than a straight petrol/diesel) for running the FF bit. For a lot of people it would be necessary but you could offset that by running it on EV as much as you can and so charge would have been spread about a bit more (lower ranges).


    I guess we'll find out what loopholes there are in about a year or mores time ;-)
    • leviathan
    • By leviathan 6th Nov 19, 4:15 PM
    • 252 Posts
    • 149 Thanks
    leviathan
    • #7
    • 6th Nov 19, 4:15 PM
    • #7
    • 6th Nov 19, 4:15 PM
    At the moment electric cars are just toys for those better off.
    The lifespan of an electric car is not as long as an ICE vehicle.

    Take the Leaf for example. They are being bought up early life and parted out for the batteries can be used in power banks and what not.
    A leaf after 8 years might only have 80% range left in it, so thats 70miles or less in winter. But so few are getting that far.

    Are you ever going to see an electric car for sub 1000 that still has 5yrs or more life in it like an ICE does? Not a chance if range is required. Battery replacement is far too expensive, and other exotic components are going to fail (see early life Tesla failures due to computer memory issues).

    And lets not even get into the requirement to build 30 more nuclear power stations to power all swapping from ICE to electric.
    And that doesn't include trucks or trains.

    Electric is a stop gap until we figure something else out. It just wont scale fast enough without infrastructure investment which isn't happening at all.
    More likely you will be taxed off the road.
    • Ectophile
    • By Ectophile 6th Nov 19, 8:14 PM
    • 3,920 Posts
    • 2,579 Thanks
    Ectophile
    • #8
    • 6th Nov 19, 8:14 PM
    • #8
    • 6th Nov 19, 8:14 PM
    At the moment electric cars are just toys for those better off.
    The lifespan of an electric car is not as long as an ICE vehicle.

    Take the Leaf for example. They are being bought up early life and parted out for the batteries can be used in power banks and what not.
    A leaf after 8 years might only have 80% range left in it, so thats 70miles or less in winter. But so few are getting that far.

    Are you ever going to see an electric car for sub 1000 that still has 5yrs or more life in it like an ICE does? Not a chance if range is required. Battery replacement is far too expensive, and other exotic components are going to fail (see early life Tesla failures due to computer memory issues).

    And lets not even get into the requirement to build 30 more nuclear power stations to power all swapping from ICE to electric.
    And that doesn't include trucks or trains.

    Electric is a stop gap until we figure something else out. It just wont scale fast enough without infrastructure investment which isn't happening at all.
    More likely you will be taxed off the road.
    Originally posted by leviathan

    You seem to be finding all the problems with EVs and ignoring their advantages.


    They are easier on brakes, because of regenerative braking. They have fixed ratio gears, so no gearbox to go wrong. No clutch or flywheel. Replacing a dual-mass flywheel on an old diesel can cost over 1000. Servicing is cheaper in general as there are fewer fluids to replace.


    The reason you won't find a sub-1000 EV is that they are in such demand. Some people are even finding that their vehicles are going up in value.


    At the moment, the only rival to EVs is hydrogen, and that has completely failed to take the market. The infrastructure to support hydrogen vehicles would cost too much.
    If it sticks, force it.
    If it breaks, well it wasn't working right anyway.
    • ABrass
    • By ABrass 6th Nov 19, 9:04 PM
    • 241 Posts
    • 334 Thanks
    ABrass
    • #9
    • 6th Nov 19, 9:04 PM
    • #9
    • 6th Nov 19, 9:04 PM
    Theres no need for 30 more nuclear plants, smarter grids and more wind will sort that out easily.

    I try not to infer malice from things that could easily be ascribed to bad luck. It seems only right to avoid seeing the results of the equivalent of a million monkeys writing legislation as a sign of a master plan or even joined up thinking.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 7th Nov 19, 7:21 AM
    • 9,807 Posts
    • 14,755 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    At the moment electric cars are just toys for those better off.
    The lifespan of an electric car is not as long as an ICE vehicle.

    Take the Leaf for example. They are being bought up early life and parted out for the batteries can be used in power banks and what not.
    A leaf after 8 years might only have 80% range left in it, so thats 70miles or less in winter. But so few are getting that far.

    Are you ever going to see an electric car for sub 1000 that still has 5yrs or more life in it like an ICE does? Not a chance if range is required. Battery replacement is far too expensive, and other exotic components are going to fail (see early life Tesla failures due to computer memory issues).

    And lets not even get into the requirement to build 30 more nuclear power stations to power all swapping from ICE to electric.
    And that doesn't include trucks or trains.

    Electric is a stop gap until we figure something else out. It just wont scale fast enough without infrastructure investment which isn't happening at all.
    More likely you will be taxed off the road.
    Originally posted by leviathan
    I'm not sure anything you've said is true, but for fun I'll take a look at your 30 nuclear powerstations claim for cars alone. You seem to be making quite a specific statement, so I would of course be interested in seeing your calculations, but here are mine.

    So assuming there is no reduction in car numbers, or car use, we can use today's figures of approx 30m cars and an average annual mileage of 7,900m pa.

    That gives us 237,000,000,000 miles, which at 4m/kWh equals 59,250,000,000kWh, or 59.25TWh. [The UK currently consumes roughly 350TWh pa.]

    If we divide that energy figure by days and hours, we get 6.76GW power. [The UK currently averages ~38GW.]

    So that's roughly twice the power of Hinkley Point C (3.2GW). So 2 v's your 30 figure.

    If you meant reactors, then that's 4 v's your 30 figure.

    But, we aren't there yet. That 6.76GW is a gross figure, not net, we also have to consider the energy savings, and since refining a gallon of petrol/diesel consumes around 6kWh, then the gross figure (~+18% of current UK leccy demand) falls to approx +10%, or roughly 4GW, which is roughly one HPC v's your 30 figure, or two reactors v's your 30 figure.

    Obviously a far better solution to the additional energy demand would be RE. It's also important at that point to compare the gross energy being replaced, since cars are only about 10-25% efficient, so the gross energy consumed, the energy in the petrol/diesel is vastly greater than the net energy received, so RE leccy energy production at the RE powerstation is a tiny amount compared to the oil energy production at the well.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • 1961Nick
    • By 1961Nick 7th Nov 19, 12:26 PM
    • 1,184 Posts
    • 3,841 Thanks
    1961Nick
    I'm not sure anything you've said is true, but for fun I'll take a look at your 30 nuclear powerstations claim for cars alone. You seem to be making quite a specific statement, so I would of course be interested in seeing your calculations, but here are mine.

    So assuming there is no reduction in car numbers, or car use, we can use today's figures of approx 30m cars and an average annual mileage of 7,900m pa.

    That gives us 237,000,000,000 miles, which at 4m/kWh equals 59,250,000,000kWh, or 59.25TWh. [The UK currently consumes roughly 350TWh pa.]

    If we divide that energy figure by days and hours, we get 6.76GW power. [The UK currently averages ~38GW.]

    So that's roughly twice the power of Hinkley Point C (3.2GW). So 2 v's your 30 figure.

    If you meant reactors, then that's 4 v's your 30 figure.

    But, we aren't there yet. That 6.76GW is a gross figure, not net, we also have to consider the energy savings, and since refining a gallon of petrol/diesel consumes around 6kWh, then the gross figure (~+18% of current UK leccy demand) falls to approx +10%, or roughly 4GW, which is roughly one HPC v's your 30 figure, or two reactors v's your 30 figure.

    Obviously a far better solution to the additional energy demand would be RE. It's also important at that point to compare the gross energy being replaced, since cars are only about 10-25% efficient, so the gross energy consumed, the energy in the petrol/diesel is vastly greater than the net energy received, so RE leccy energy production at the RE powerstation is a tiny amount compared to the oil energy production at the well.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    The likelihood is that EVs will be driven during the day & charged overnight taking advantage of off peak tariffs. Between midnight & 6.00am there's already enough spare capacity to take care of our medium & possible long term EV leccy demand. Smart charging could actually assist balancing the grid & absorb the surplus energy generated by the roll out of more wind capacity. All we'll need are a few more gas turbines & inter-connectors for when the wind doesn't blow.
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141) - 30 pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400

    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus Batteries - 12kWh
    • joefizz
    • By joefizz 7th Nov 19, 12:46 PM
    • 457 Posts
    • 398 Thanks
    joefizz
    All we'll need are a few more gas turbines & inter-connectors for when the wind doesn't blow.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick

    Crossed the irish sea yesterday (and sunday) and none of the offshore turbines were turning (as far as I could see).
    This winter will be interesting because it will give the first really good data set on ev usage and the grid due to the takeup of purely ev vehicles. The previous data sets were based on percentage of plug in hybrids charging from the grid and were wildly overestimated using historical data rather than assuming usage.
    Solar will be pretty much negligible for the next couple of months so we'll get a good idea going forward when the data is published march/april time.



    Depends on how cold/warm the winter is though as an overly cold winter might have ramifications for continuation of the EV/heatpump subsidy/rollout (although more from a political view, depending on who gets in).
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 7th Nov 19, 12:57 PM
    • 4,133 Posts
    • 3,026 Thanks
    GreatApe
    You seem to be finding all the problems with EVs and ignoring their advantages.


    They are easier on brakes, because of regenerative braking. They have fixed ratio gears, so no gearbox to go wrong. No clutch or flywheel. Replacing a dual-mass flywheel on an old diesel can cost over 1000. Servicing is cheaper in general as there are fewer fluids to replace.


    The reason you won't find a sub-1000 EV is that they are in such demand. Some people are even finding that their vehicles are going up in value.


    At the moment, the only rival to EVs is hydrogen, and that has completely failed to take the market. The infrastructure to support hydrogen vehicles would cost too much.
    Originally posted by Ectophile

    Hydrogen isn't a rival to BEVs
    It's petrol and diesel and in some places in the world ethanol or methane

    For now BEVs are not competitive or even close to mass market sales. They are okay in the premium end but not the middle or low end. Toyota average price $24,000 and they make a profit. Tesla average price closer to $55,000 and they will very likely make another loss this year this is despite very generous direct and indirect subsidies for BEVs and very heavy taxation of ICEs
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 7th Nov 19, 1:10 PM
    • 4,133 Posts
    • 3,026 Thanks
    GreatApe
    I'm not sure anything you've said is true, but for fun I'll take a look at your 30 nuclear powerstations claim for cars alone. You seem to be making quite a specific statement, so I would of course be interested in seeing your calculations, but here are mine.

    So assuming there is no reduction in car numbers, or car use, we can use today's figures of approx 30m cars and an average annual mileage of 7,900m pa.

    That gives us 237,000,000,000 miles, which at 4m/kWh equals 59,250,000,000kWh, or 59.25TWh. [The UK currently consumes roughly 350TWh pa.]

    If we divide that energy figure by days and hours, we get 6.76GW power. [The UK currently averages ~38GW.]

    So that's roughly twice the power of Hinkley Point C (3.2GW). So 2 v's your 30 figure.

    If you meant reactors, then that's 4 v's your 30 figure.

    But, we aren't there yet. That 6.76GW is a gross figure, not net, we also have to consider the energy savings, and since refining a gallon of petrol/diesel consumes around 6kWh, then the gross figure (~+18% of current UK leccy demand) falls to approx +10%, or roughly 4GW, which is roughly one HPC v's your 30 figure, or two reactors v's your 30 figure.

    Obviously a far better solution to the additional energy demand would be RE. It's also important at that point to compare the gross energy being replaced, since cars are only about 10-25% efficient, so the gross energy consumed, the energy in the petrol/diesel is vastly greater than the net energy received, so RE leccy energy production at the RE powerstation is a tiny amount compared to the oil energy production at the well.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981

    6KWh per gallon sounds like made up fake news

    UK refined the equivalent of 43 million gallons of oil per day last year

    Using your figure it means refineries used 260GWh per day of electricity.
    Since they are 24/7 operations they are using 10.8 GW of electricity all the time

    This is clearly nonsense because it means half of night time electricity consumption would be from this

    So your 6KWh per gallon of refined oil is nonsense

    Just like the 10 calories of oil to produce 1 calorie of food is a nonsense internet fact
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 7th Nov 19, 1:22 PM
    • 4,133 Posts
    • 3,026 Thanks
    GreatApe
    https://www.cfr.org/blog/do-gasoline-based-cars-really-use-more-electricity-electric-vehicles-do

    This seems much more reasonable which says

    The Department of Energy estimates that refiners used 47 TWh of electricity in 2001 to produce refined products from 5.3 billion barrels of oil. Assuming that you get 42 gallons of refined products from each barrel of oil, this works out to about 0.2 kilowatt hours of electricity used for each gallon of gasoline produced.

    Probably even less electricity used per gallon of refined oil because like all manufacturing the remaining process has certainly gotten more efficient since 2001!

    So stop propagation this nonsense Marty boy you've done it multiple times it's nowhere near 6KWh electricity per gallon of oil it's closer to 0.2KWh of electricity for a gallon of refined oil

    Using the same department of energy statistics and scaling for UK oil refining it brings total UK refinery electricity useage at 4TWh a year which seen reasonable unlikely your propaganda which works out as refineries using half of all electricity at some points which is clearly nonsense. Things are more efficient today so it's probably below 4TWh/Yr and that's for all oil refined from jet fuel to tarmac to petrols & diesel used in everything not just cars
    Last edited by GreatApe; 07-11-2019 at 1:28 PM.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 7th Nov 19, 1:36 PM
    • 4,133 Posts
    • 3,026 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Having said this charging cars isn't a problem for the UK grid which will need repalcemen and new CCGTs as the nukes and coal plants are closed but CCGTs are affordable to build and cheap to fuel thanks to the yanks shale gas output

    The only problem with BEVs is that they are too expensive for acceptable range version
    Toyota average ICE $24,000 sold at a profit
    Tesla average BEV more than $50,000 company still making a loss

    If a model 3 was $24,000 rather than $40,000 it would be a true full solution
    But costing $16,000 more and more to insure and having to accept a lower 240 mile range (less in winter less over the years as the battery degrades less if you do the more normal motorway speeds of 80-90mph rather than stick to the granny speed of 65mph Vs a 500+ mile ICE car which can be refueled to full in five minutes

    So BEVs are acceptable they work well they just need to be cheaper
    The world's best selling car ever is the Toyota Corolla sold more than 50 million copies over the decades and you can get that for $20,000 it's about the same size as a model 3
    • almillar
    • By almillar 7th Nov 19, 3:37 PM
    • 8,208 Posts
    • 3,409 Thanks
    almillar
    The world's best selling car ever is the Toyota Corolla sold more than 50 million copies over the decades and you can get that for $20,000 it's about the same size as a model 3
    It's smaller than a Model 3, and it starts at 24,140 according to Toyota, you might need to click on 'new cars'.


    https://www.toyota.co.uk/#
    • leviathan
    • By leviathan 7th Nov 19, 4:53 PM
    • 252 Posts
    • 149 Thanks
    leviathan
    You seem to be finding all the problems with EVs and ignoring their advantages.
    Originally posted by Ectophile
    I'm beaing realistic on the issues they present. Dont thnk I'm anti EV, I will have one as soon as it makes financial sense for me but it's simply not happening yet verses driving an ICE.


    The reason you won't find a sub-1000 EV is that they are in such demand. Some people are even finding that their vehicles are going up in value.
    You do find sub 1000 examples but they are often early gen using nimh packs. The current gen battery packs are stil worth significant amounts even when the rest of the vehicle is where you'd expect an ICE car value to be at. I agree that since they are fashionable it's also keeping the price high. But people are parting them early life again for hobbists it's a fashionable "hot rodding" thinkg to be doing EV builds and also for battery backups.


    At the moment, the only rival to EVs is hydrogen, and that has completely failed to take the market. The infrastructure to support hydrogen vehicles would cost too much.
    Overhead cables on motorways like the old trolley buses to give range, batteries for around town and country.
    • joefizz
    • By joefizz 7th Nov 19, 5:02 PM
    • 457 Posts
    • 398 Thanks
    joefizz
    Overhead cables on motorways like the old trolley buses to give range, batteries for around town and country.
    Originally posted by leviathan

    Coincidently (or maybe not ;-)) a research request for exactly this arrived in my inbox this week. Mostly around trucks/public transport but at least some people are seriously looking at it...
    • leviathan
    • By leviathan 7th Nov 19, 5:09 PM
    • 252 Posts
    • 149 Thanks
    leviathan
    I'm not sure anything you've said is true, but for fun I'll take a look at your 30 nuclear powerstations claim for cars alone. You seem to be making quite a specific statement, so I would of course be interested in seeing your calculations, but here are mine.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    No problem.

    leaf battery - 40-62 kWh --> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=leaf+battery+pack

    Lets say 40kWh is required nightly. As a UK average. I think I'm being generous to the EV cause as not everyone driving an ICE has a small car.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-licensing-statistics-2018
    At the end of 2018, there were:
    38.2 million licensed vehicles in Great Britain.
    Dig into the report and it's 33million ICE cars.

    Let's say only 1 million of them need a charge every night.
    Again being somewhat generous I fear.
    40kw * 1,000,000 = 40GW


    You said::
    [The UK currently averages ~38GW.]
    Hinkley Point C (3.2GW)

    40 / 3.2Gw = 12.5 Hinkley points, not 30.
    Yeah. I think you got me, it's a trival problem...


    PS: your calculations and mine dont include losses in the grid for distribution and power conversion. Add another 10-15% overhead.


    PPS: the cost of building nuclear power stations and the subsidies for the price per MW also dont factor. If we are serious we need to stop all that crap and nationalise power production and charge at cost. Nuclear should not be run for profit, no energy should. Dont even start on RE which is a transfer of wealth exercise and has nothing greeen about it other than virtue signalling. Same as FiT's and solar PV.
    Last edited by leviathan; 07-11-2019 at 5:14 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

169Posts Today

1,976Users online

Martin's Twitter