TJ is talking bollocks again. He's read something once that he liked the sound of then is repeating it constantly.
Yeah, that grid claim sounds like bollocks to me
The National Grid have an article on EV myths. The grid capacity - the actual wires - can handle it, as they are still there from our peak. The generating capacity is the subject of ongoing management, so if anyone has actual information on that then post it now.
People are unlikely to all buy EVs suddenly but they are buying them gradually, so I'm guessing someone's thought of that already. What would be more interesting is a huge peak on say, summer weekends or Christmas Eve as people travel and recharge their cars.
While tj is indeed talking bollocks.
Your quote from the national grid is equally as bollocks.
@Stcolin. I have a PHEV and a EV motorbike (so small battery) . I decided the ~10% extra against std variable rate (svr) you pay for peak on an EV tariff wasn't worth it. I'm on a daily tracker tariff which historically is 30% less than svr and it's working well.
My view on the OPs dilemma is going full EV if he can find one big enough to satisfy his need. I think PHEV now isn't as attractive with so many full EV options available but of course if it's only a financial decision the extra cost of buying an EV can see payback being a considerable amount of time if you're not doing many miles
Your quote from the national grid is equally as bollocks.
Go on?
In what way is what Iam saying bollocks? Which bit? That EVs are greenwash? That Hinckly is 11 years late?
Your literally quoting the people who's job it is to tell you it'll be all ok.
Next you'll be quoting Boris Johnson.
In what way is what Iam saying bollocks? Which bit?
This bit. It's straight off the daily mail/daily express winter fearmongering bingo sheet. Every year. ....
MY understanding is the national grid is close to capacity and brownouts are a real possibility this winter
Yes it's possible but it's always been possible.
Your literally quoting the people who’s job it is to tell you it’ll be all ok.
Ok, they might be lying. Got anything to suggest they are, other than general cynicism?
Its generating capacity we are short of. Barely enough to meet need hence the diesel generators on standby. Brownouts as a possibility is discussed in reputable sources as well. We are maxing out our generating capacity when the wind does not blow
the national grid gave a warning of brownouts last year and recommissioned 5 coal power stations!
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/news/eso-takes-cautious-action-ahead-winter-ensure-security-electricity-supply
"MY understanding is the national grid is close to capacity and brownouts are a real possibility this winter"
There is a risk but apparently lower than last winter. The UK strategy of relying on imports of electricity seems unwise to me as other European grids also move to a gigher percentage of wind generation. There is regular low wind weather over much of Europe at the same time.
https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/16/early-winter-outlook-confirms-reliance-on-interconnectors/
http://euanmearns.com/the-wind-in-spain-blows/
Ta IRC
Ok, they might be lying. Got anything to suggest they are, other than general cynicism?
Ironically the very posts that defend them undermine your stance.
My stance is that it's very much in the middle heading towards tj side and only going to head more towards tj stance if the protestors get their way
Surely if they are able to start up coal power stations then they aren't nearly at capacity are they? It just means they've shut down what they weren't using...
Are you suggesting that coal should form part of sustainable energy for your car ?
Ironically the very posts that defend them undermine your stance.
I don't really have a stance, I don't work for them I've got nothing other than what I've read. So if you've got more information I'm all ears.
Are you suggesting that coal should form part of sustainable energy for your car ?
No...? Wtf? I'm simply saying that the existence of spare capacity means the grid isn't at capacity as has been alleged.
its very close to capacity - uncomfortably so and every bit of electricity needed in your EV increases the amount of fossil fuel burned to produce that electricity
read the two bits provided about capacity.
So what should they use the coal power to supply if we count it as capacity.
It's not schrodingers capacity
every bit of electricity needed in your EV increases the amount of fossil fuel burned to produce that electricity
this is an oft-overlooked part of the puzzle - people quote the CO2 output of an electric car based on the general mix of electricity, but it should really be based on the worst-polluting-source of electricity during the hours they're charged. Most are charged off-peak, but our coal generation is still putting out power even then, so the numbers we use for leccy cars should be based on coal gen (imo)
of course it should be. this is why EVs are a greenwash.
Barely enough to meet need hence the diesel generators on standby.
Good grief. Until there is MASSIVE battery capacity or PERFECT network uptime (which in the UK is practically perfect), then there will always be a need for diesel-powered backup generators.
This is like suggesting planes can't fly properly because they carry life jackets.
this is an oft-overlooked part of the puzzle – people quote the CO2 output of an electric car based on the general mix of electricity, but it should really be based on the worst-polluting-source of electricity during the hours they’re charged.
It's not overlooked at all. In fact, EV owners are heavily incentivised to charge when there is a surplus of energy due to the prevailing weather. This is the whole basis of intelligent tariffs that most of us subscribe to. If there's wind forecast for a few hours overnight, that's when the charging rate goes up.
our coal generation is still putting out power even then, so the numbers we use for leccy cars should be based on coal gen
No they should be based on the average as you have no idea wether or not coal is being used. Most of the summer we didn't burn any coal at all. As of right now we're still only on 3% coal.
uncomfortably so and every bit of electricity needed in your EV increases the amount of fossil fuel burned to produce that electricity
That's a great bit of man maths that is. Why don't we put the factories operating overnight in the 'coal' column instead?
Something I’d be very interested in is a kit that an Australian student has developed and won the James Dyson engineering award for. It uses a pair of axial flow electric motors, a technology developed in the U.K., and which Mercedes has bought, but have left the original designer/developer free to allow others to use it. Basically the two motors look like weights for weight training that bolt onto the hub, and are connected to a battery pack that drops down into the spare tyre space, which gives about 100 miles range on electric, with the ICE able to charge the battery pack on longer journeys. <br />Cost is roughly £3500. There’s a small EV built by a bunch of students which uses these same axial flow motors, and they’re very powerful.
Having an ICE cheaply converted to a PHEV would seem to be the ideal solution for a great many people - I’d be all over it if it became available here, being able to use my own car, with the petrol engine for extended trips, but being able to switch it to electric to access city centres or just for local use is absolutely ideal.
Having an ICE cheaply converted to a PHEV would seem to be the ideal solution for a great many people
I'm initially sceptical; there's a shit-ton of electronics that would complain loudly about that. Now, if I were in charge, manufacturers would be forced to make all their software open-source so that could all be dealt with.
On paper it would be fairly easy to convert my Merc to full electric. Stripping out the motor and gearbox would save enough weight to add quite a lot of battery. But building battery packs isn't easy, and you'd have to do a fair bit of work to get the car to actually work like that. There's a reason EV conversion kits are aimed at classics.
Had a Golf GTE for a couple of years on lease and it was good as our only car - works well as a short-range EV for local running about, preheats in the winter, never got less than 42mpg on petrol (long motorway run, not charged). VW group put that powertrain in lots of things now, a Passat or Octavia or Superb or Leon estate with it would do nicely.
The combo of a Leaf e+ (for most journeys) and an old petrol JDM Honda Stepwgn (for camping holidays, bikes, tip runs) does us nicely at the moment but if we were back to just one car again it'd probably be one of the above.
Currently anything post 2006 and petrol is considered fine for the ULEZ and CAZ cities so even if you didn't go for a hybrid then a petrol that's a couple of years old should easily last you for 10 years even with tightening restrictions.
Its not "man maths" whatever that is. Its the reality. EVs are greenwash and this is why. As we are still a mix of generating any increase in electricity consumption means more fossil fuels burnt.
I've come across a couple of people who were judgmental to people (to their face) who bought new or nearly new ICE cars. Bit nasty.
It might be something we have to take into consideration in the future if your colleagues and customers etc. have visibility of what you drive.
Surely if they are able to start up coal power stations then they aren’t nearly at capacity are they?
That's a big if. What coal stations are on standby?
I'll give you a clue, the total is not divisible by itself.
https://www.powerstations.uk/coal-countdown/
As for @tjagain that time line is a load of crap, are you really counting day zero as "Tony Blair said..."? EDF didn't even have an operating licence until 2009 and the EPR didn't get a Generic Design Assessment approved by the ONR until 2012. Then it needed to get a safety case, planning approval and final consent. Oddly enough nuclear reactors aren't just thrown up on a whim, there's a lot of regulatory processes to go through (some of which required major redesigns of high functioning systems), procurement and personnel issues that need dealt with.
There are often 10k people on site in a single day.
It has its own concrete factory as it's easier than trying to ship it in.
It has it's own bus station and bus company.
It's got it's own accommodation scattered around the area.
In other words it's a logistical monster.
And that's before you even get into the engineering.
Like I said, 3 years over, considering covid and the associated issues up the supply chain is still impressive considering the scale of it
"As we are still a mix of generating any increase in electricity consumption means more fossil fuels burnt."
Not convinced this is true TJ, otherwise how would the overnight tariffs be economically viable? The fact they exist would suggest that there is an excess of power available at off peak times.
Also not fully convinced that the insurance thing is related to electric specifically. Categorically not true for my Polestar, which is cheaper than almost all of the equivalent petrol vehicles I looked at in an attempt to get data. Only one cheaper was an alfa but that was a much lower list price. Seems more likely to me that expensive, high powered vehicles get binned quite a bit.
IMolgrips - its indisputable that increased energy consumption means more fossil fuels being burnt. EVs increase electricity consumption. Look at the data linked below. Stop believing in the greenwash
yes there is an excess of power at times in the night when windy - but that is an excess of production over consumption. some of the fossil fuel will be turned off but not all. Its 1.15 in the morning. currently 4.1% coal and 11% gas 8% biomass which is not carbon neutral as well as 5% imported. Every extra bit of electricity going into your EV means a corresponding increase in fossil fuel generation
Electricity producers want to smooth demand hence the night tariffs
So yes - it is a fact that your EVs mean an increase in fossil fuel electricity generation
Now please explain how your EV only knows its getting electrons from wind and not nuclear or fossil fuels?
Why don't you go and read up on the UKs generation mix? Lots of good data being produced. Scotland does run without any fossil fuel at times I believe but England and Wales do not.
https://grid.iamkate.com/
https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live
Squirrelking EDF said it would be generating before the end of 2020 and of course all the rest of the stuff you want to discard is a part of the delays. the reality is if it makes the 2028 timeline and I will bet it will not thats 19 years since the project started
What you seem to have ignored is the reduction in fossil fuel consumption caused by me not putting diesel in.
If I weren't charging my car, we would still need base generating capacity because lots of things need constant power. An EV does not need constant power. It can start and stop charging whenever the supplier wants. This is why EVs are seen as a key part of renewable strategy - because they represent storage technology.
If I weren't charging my EV the coal power stations would still be on because my EV isn't consu.ing base load it is consuming surplus. In fact if I were on Agile Octopus I could actually be paid for charging it at times. The more renewable energy we install the more weather related variability we will have and the more battery storage we will need including EVs.
Probably off topic now, but is a used Suzuki Swift a decent option for a frugal run-about car in a mostly rural roads use setting?
IMolgrips – its indisputable that increased energy consumption means more fossil fuels being burnt.
Is it, though?
Molgrips - its not baseload to charge EVs. Look at the data supplied. Any increase in electricity consumption is provided by burning gas - they are the rapid spinup
so EVs are now used as energy storage onthe grid - thats new. thought that was another benefit that may appear some time in the future
Well no politice camera action - obviously molgrips is disputing it but the facts are clear and the vast majority of electricity for EVs is produced by fossil fuel burning
Molgrips – its not baseload to charge EVs. Look at the data supplied. Any increase in electricity consumption is provided by burning gas – they are the rapid spinup
You do realise that most EVs are not charging as soon as they are plugged in, right? They charge when the provider schedules it.
The gas and coal is there to provide base load - the EVs are (generally) the things taking the surplus, because they are battery powered.
so EVs are now used as energy storage onthe grid
Some cars have the abillty to resupply it back to the grid, but generally they store it by taking when there's a surplus, and using it when you want to drive which could be days later.
And the other thing you also forget is that cars would otherwise be burning diesel or petrol, and doing it much less efficiently. And spewing the combustion products into city streets where people live. So even if you do choose to account for the coal as being due to EVs, it's still more efficient.
The gas and coal is there to provide base load – the EVs are (generally) the things taking the surplus, because they are battery powered.
have you any evidence of that? Coal and gas are the easiest power sources to turn up-and-down, and as such is most used when there is more demand than supply. Nuclear takes an age, and renewables generally can't be controlled. At night (when most EVs are charging) theres no solar, it might be blowy, so there might be a lot of wind-sourced power, but I can't find any data to suggest we're running 100% renewable/nuclear for any significant proportions of time.
Attempting to drag this back in track…
Putting aside the moral position. What’s the hive mind on economics of a ICE car purchase Vs hybrid/battery. 1/2 yr old. 5-10 yrs ownership. Large estate/MPV/small van/SUV
We’ve bought 2 ICE cars in the last year (one small car, 1 mid size estate), but suspect they’ll be our last. For us, whilst the cost to fuel them would likely be marginally lower with electric, the hassle and lack of infrastructure outweighs the cost saving. We tend to keep cars for 6 or 7 years so hope by that time the decision will be easy to make to go electric.
Molgrips will disagree with our decision, TJ may not…
IMolgrips – its indisputable that increased energy consumption means more fossil fuels being burnt. EVs increase electricity consumption. Look at the data linked below. Stop believing in the greenwash
Whilst I'm firmly of the belief that all car use is bad and fundamentally should be unnecessary. I still disagree with this. Yes we fire up the GTG's at peak times, or at times when the wind doesn't blow/sun doesn't shine. But your statement assumes that EV charging takes place at those times, which it likely wont. The majority are likely to be charged at home, on the cheapest offest-of-off-peak tariffs. Bearing in mind most peoples mileage will mean they only actually have to charge it 2-3 times a month, they'll just wait for a windy day/night to do it.
Mineral mining, the amount of public space and finance expended on car infrastructure, the death toll, etc. All good reasons to hate the whole concept of car driving. But EV's are undeniably going to be incrementally "better" in some ways.
have you any evidence of that?
That's how intelligent charging tariffs work, the ones that most people are on. They ask you to leave the car plugged in all the time when it's home. When you plug in it gives you a graph of when it's going to charge and how much. And when it's windy you do get charge at random times outside the off peak window. This is how it works and why the rate is so cheap - you are committing to use a significant amount of power when there's generally a surplus. It's not available to people without EVs.
Molgrips will disagree with our decision, TJ may not…
Not exactly. If you can't do the above mentioned super cheap tariff because you don't have off street parking then it's a completely different situation. And that is something that we need to fix.
Bearing in mind most peoples mileage will mean they only actually have to charge it 2-3 times a month
That's not what they want you to do. They want you to plug in all the time so they can do something with the surplus. Most people plug in when they get home.
A key issue is that these tariffs can be adjusted and the process changed if necessary. If everyone has an EV then the government can decarbonise it centrally by installing more renewable capacity or grid storage, and no consumer has to do anything. If we are all using fossil fuel then nothing can ever be done (besides banning cars outright of course bla bla bla).
But your statement assumes that EV charging takes place at those times, which it likely wont. The majority are likely to be charged at home, on the cheapest offest-of-off-peak tariffs.
They will be charged at home on the cheapest tariffs available that night, I agree, but most nights the marginal load is still met with fossil fuels, and so that is what is powering the cars. If you look at last night, a fairly typically blowy autumn night, there was still 3.5Gw of gas/coal generation going all night long. The same was true the night before. I don't have stats for every single night, and for sure there are likely to be some occasional nights where no gas or coal is burned, but that's not true the majority of the time.
That’s how intelligent charging tariffs work, the ones that most people are on. They ask you to leave the car plugged in all the time when it’s home. When you plug in it gives you a graph of when it’s going to charge and how much. And when it’s windy you do get charge at random times outside the off peak window. This is how it works and why the rate is so cheap – you are committing to use a significant amount of power when there’s generally a surplus. It’s not available to people without EVs.
it is surplus, but what do you think would happen to that surplus if your car wasn't plugged in? the same energy has to go somewhere. In the UK, it will either go into pumping (which will offset fossil fuel use later that day), or the coal/gas fired power stations will be turned down a touch. Either way, using that electricity for charging your car is causing more fossil fuels to be burned.
If you look at last night, a fairly typically blowy autumn night, there was still 3.5Gw of gas/coal generation going all night long.
Right, but if it weren't for EVs would they have turned that off and relied on renewables? I don't think that's necessarily the case. If the wind drops, they won't shut factories and hospitals down for a few hours, but they will pause EV charging.
But the point is that right now they may be using coal, but as more renewable capacity comes online that will drop further. And the EV driver (or electric van/truck operator or train operator) won't have to do anything at all to reduce their carbon emissions.
In the UK, it will either go into pumping (which will offset fossil fuel use later that day)
Me charging my car at surplus times will offset fuel usage later in the day because I will not be filling it with diesel...
Either way, using that electricity for charging your car is causing more fossil fuels to be burned.
More than if I didn't charge my car at all, but LESS fossil fuel than if I were filling it with diesel.
tjagain
Full Memberof course it should be. this is why EVs are a greenwash.
Not sure I agree with your logic on that, but I was curious how the numbers would stack up anyway.
I found this article about a charity that had run the numbers in Malaysia.
https://www.eco-business.com/news/stop-ev-greenwashing-malaysian-watchdog-tells-advertisers/
Summary: The Malaysia peninsular uses 60% coal/35% gas for their grid.
Even with that CO2-heavy mix of sources, an EV (even a large one like an EQS) produces 10-20% less CO2 per mile than a Perodua Myvi, which is a Malaysian subcompact (smaller than a Fiesta) ICE car. Obviously a regular sized ICE car would produce far more CO2, let alone a petrol or diesel car the size of an EQS.
To get a closer comparison to the performance and size of an EQS you'd actually need to look at something like a 550i which will chuck out 243g/km. Far far more polluting than the electric EQS @ 0.086kg.
Then there are the not inconsiderable local air benefits from EVs. As an asthma sufferer, my condition is noticeably worse after riding to work on a cyclepath alongside a major industrial road with a lot of diesel traffic. I cannot wait to get diesels off the road for that reason alone.
We need to account for lifetime pollution really but that's far more complicated. How can you account for all the illegal methane leaking from oil wells for example, how can you account for the damage from oil spills, or compare that to the damage done by a lithium or coal mine?
