Winter high pressure event. Minimal wind generation for days or even weeks
Wish it was, seemed to be blowing a gale all through the last 6 months 🙂
"A dirty diesel spewing pollution ends up less than an EV producing nothing."
And THAT is the biggest falecy of the lot. Clean at the tailpipe, yes. Clean overall ? Hardly. With (as of today) 46% of generation being from burning gas, + some from overseas connections (with undetermined mixes or power source), and the losses from turning gas to electricity then transmitting it then charging the car, the C02 emitted overall is not that much different. Just emitted out of you immediate sight.
Then they are typically heavier = more tyre wear (=pollution) and road wear (= pollution), and the process of getting the materials for the batteries themselves is immensely dirty.
robertajob - Actually the emissions will be lower overall. by 50% ish I believe.
You did forget the reduced marginal cost per mile tho with EVs that actually leads to them being used more for short journeys according to one bit of research
The suggestion that EV power is 100% fossil fuel is a fallacy. The grid mix is say 50% renewable. If you allocate the fossil fuel part to the EV, then that surely means that the other things are now being powered renewably? I don't think you can separate the two like this.
You are suggesting that if a car were not charged then a gas power station would be turned down - but I don't think this is the case, because things running overnight - factories, hospitals etc - need constant power and therefore cannot rely solely on renewables; but EV charging does not need constant power.
I did some very rough maths on the last page which I am happy to have holes picked in.
- You forgot to convert the manufacturer's g/km figures in to g/mile.
- Most people don't achieve those manufacturer's figures - anywhere near - in their ICE but 4 miles/kWh is entirely reasonable for an EV (I am averaging 4.8 in total and our daily commute sees over 5).
- You ignored the energy required to extract the oil, ship it to a refinery and turn it into petrol and diesel.
People are also over looking the opportunity to generate at home, when we buy our next car I'm hoping it will be EV and I will seriously considering solar and batteries for the house. We need to think about more distributed generation as the grid is seriously lacking in capacity for the future. Generating some of the power EVs need at home helps reduce this and we have ridiculous amounts of roof space that could be used for solar generation.
You are suggesting that if a car were not charged then a gas power station would be turned down – but I don’t think this is the case, because things running overnight – factories, hospitals etc – need constant power and therefore cannot rely solely on renewables; but EV charging does not need constant power.
Like I said it is incredibly rare that renewables generate all the electricity we need, they are pretty much always topped up by gas.
Suppose I had used a bit less power last night (or didn't need to charge my hypothetical EV). Would the UK have generated any less wind energy? No. Any less solar? No. It would have burned less gas. Even if I had been selective in when I used (or didnt use) electricity.
You forgot to convert the manufacturer’s g/km figures in to g/mile.
Ahh yeah fair point I'll take that back.
You ignored the energy required to extract the oil, ship it to a refinery and turn it into petrol and diesel.
I acknowledged that, I also ignored the energy in extracting and transporting gas, losses during trasmitting across the grid and battery charging. And probably a load of other stuff too.
The nice people at CarbonBrief have done some fact checking aon all the 'EVs are just as polluting as ICE claims (among others).
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-21-misleading-myths-about-electric-vehicles/
They've got actual sources and real calculations and not just 'sometimes it's not very windy' and I urge everyone to actually read some of their very clear reporting.
Suppose I had used a bit less power last night (or didn’t need to charge my hypothetical EV). Would the UK have generated any less wind energy? No. Any less solar? No. It would have burned less gas
I'm not sure it's that simple. But even if it were, it's a pointless argument. In April there was an hour where we generated 97.5% of our electricity without fossil fuels. That kind of event is going to become much more frequent. We have loads of wind and solar generation going in all the time. This time next year, my car (or its counterpart in some other application, if you want) will emit less CO2, and the following year less still. And to gain these benefits I won't have to change my car or do anything to it. We can't have a transport sector using renewable energy without EVs. And if people like me don't buy EVs, manufacturers will not make them.
Of course, we know that the true answer is not to have cars, but until that time comes, EVs are significantly better than ICEs and will become more so.
Like I said it is incredibly rare that renewables generate all the electricity we need, they are pretty much always topped up by gas.
For now. But that time is coming. As for storage - there is about 150GWh in various stages of planning. And of course, EVs are also mobile energy storage.
Suppose I had used a bit less power last night (or didn’t need to charge my hypothetical EV). Would the UK have generated any less wind energy? No. Any less solar? No. It would have burned less gas. Even if I had been selective in when I used (or didnt use) electricity.
But can't you apply that argument to any user? I decided not to cook my dinner last night - so the gas power station wasn't turned on. So cooking can't be said to benefit from renewable energy. The local factory cancelled a shift. Ditto. Etc etc etc. So who does benefit?
Isn't it more the case that the power company buys in energy from a mix of sources according to what they predict the load to be, whether it's cars or meat pies cooking, or tin can manufacture? And then if there are fluctuations away from what was predicted then gas is the marginal source as you say. I'm not an electricity company, so I don't know exactly how they do stuff - but that's my guess.
And of course, EVs are also mobile energy storage.
A guy was round looking at our solar panels the other week and trying to interest me in buying a battery. £5K for 3kWh. Considering I have a 64kWh battery sitting on my driveway, that made no sense whatsover!!
Considering I have a 64kWh battery sitting on my driveway, that made no sense whatsover!!
The French scheme with the Renault Five is interesting… not just using the car battery to shift energy demand in the home, but across the local grid as a whole. Those cars on that scheme will help doubly when it comes to shifting energy use to renewables… they’ll end up meaning that less fossil fuels as a whole will be burnt than if they didn’t exist… they won’t just mean less compared to using an ICE car… but less than if no car was at those households. That’s mind boggling and totally unintuitive.
[ simple version … V2G (vehicle to grid) uses all those car batteries as a distributed storage system for the grid, not just for each home, allowing peak to off peak demand shifting both for the grid and for energy generation ]
I'm not trying to imply that EVs will never be beneficial. They obviously will be an incredible asset in the future to providing low carbon travel, and smooth grid demand so that we can get the most out of renewables and reduce the requirement for fossil fuels. In the meantime, while the marginal method of power generation in the UK is almost always gas, the case is less strong. Perhaps still very convincing if you need to do a lot of miles.
I bought solar panels rather than an EV. I also dont drive that much so the EV would have been a waste of money anway.
£5K for 3kWh
You can get about 20kWh of old Nissan Leaf for that and now you can use it to power your home too. And you can still drive it.
In the meantime, while the marginal method of power generation in the UK is almost always gas, the case is less strong.
But if we don't buy them now no-one will be able to buy them in the future.
Perhaps still very convincing if you need to do a lot of miles.
You don't need to do that many. It's still much much cheaper (if you can charge at home) to drive an EV. It costs us about a tenth the cost of a diesel per mile for my wife to drive to work. And probably an extra couple of k on the purchase price.
And let's not forget the benefits for local air quality.
Oh and they are much better to drive.
I’m not sure it’s that simple.
It is that simple molgrips - when renewables are maxed out then any increase in consumption comes from gas - thats how the grid works. Renewables are maxed out most of the time. gsasd is used top cover shortfalls in generation
What other source do you think the electricity comes from? Nuclear is less responsive and usually also maxed out. Pump storage can do some of it. Otherwise its gas coal or diesel . that increased demand has to be filled from somewhere
But can’t you apply that argument to any user? I decided not to cook my dinner last night – so the gas power station wasn’t turned on. So cooking can’t be said to benefit from renewable energy. The local factory cancelled a shift. Ditto. Etc etc etc. So who does benefit?
Yes, you can apply it to any user. Most of the time, every kwh that you dont use is one kwh less gas generation. This will continue to be the case until we generate enough renewable power such that we dont need to top up with gas.
I wish this was appreciated more widely!
YOu get all of those benefits and more from reducing car useage
Pump storage can do some of it.
Car batteries can also do some of it.
Yes, you can apply it to any user. Most of the time, every kwh that you dont use is one kwh less gas generation. This will continue to be the case until we generate enough renewable power such that we dont need to top up with gas.
My point was actually something different. If you are saying that every user should be counted as contributing 100% to has burning, then my question is who is using all that green energy? Not EV owners (in your argument). Not cooks. Not factories. So who? You end up with a contradiction.
It is that simple molgrips – when renewables are maxed out then any increase in consumption comes from gas – thats how the grid works. Renewables are maxed out most of the time. gsasd is used top cover shortfalls in generation
its not that simple because the guy at the power station doesn’t light up another burner when moly charges his car. He’s already contracted a load of energy from a variety of sources to account for moly and thousands of others charging their cars, cooking their dinners and washing their socks.
This time next year, my car (or its counterpart in some other application, if you want) will emit less CO2, and the following year less still. And to gain these benefits I won’t have to change my car or do anything to it
I'm not sure that's true either. Whilst the marginal input to the grid is still fossil fueled, the impact of you charging your car on a given night is still the same. The overall mix changes, sure, but until that mix is extreme enough that no fossil is being burned on a regular basis (unlikely in the next 5 years), the source for your car is still gas. Even when there is excess renewable capacity, if that capacity can offset fossil fuel at a later date (ie through pumping), your use is still effectively mostly co2 generating (it's complicated due to losses in pumping).
The mix is getting greener. The marginal use is not.
Any tax on vehicles (I think) should be based on mileage and use regardless of what you drive, can’t be that difficult to work out considering most of us have to have an MOT every year that records mileage. If you use it a lot you pay more, simple. Rich Santa Cruz owners in their 3 ton EV monster trucks breaking up the roads doing 30k miles a year should pay more than the old lady in her old Nissan Micra at £250 a year in a village in Kent going to Tescos once a week.
Oh we've had a "mileage based tax" on the books for ages, its called fuel duty except successive governments stalled it for fear of permanently angry pricks in Hi-Viz vests "protesting" by blocking forecourts and main roads. These days they attack ULEZ cameras so we should probably pop a couple of percent on while they're distracted...
In all honesty I can't see the controversy over EV owners paying a bit more VED now, would it actually stop people buying the things? Will people be chopping their Teslas back in for ICE Audis again?
My point was actually something different. If you are saying that every user should be counted as contributing 100% to has burning, then my question is who is using all that green energy? Not EV owners (in your argument). Not cooks. Not factories. So who? You end up with a contradiction.
I am not saying anything at all about how we should count individuals contributions. A bunch of green eneregy gets generated, which is usually less than the total amount people want. So we burn gas to make up the shortfall. If anyone used less electricity, it doesnt matter who, we would burn less gas.
Everyone's marginal generation comes from gas. There is no contradiction.
Its like tax. Say I have a personal allowance, then pay 20% over and above that. My overall average tax rate is 10%, but my marginal rate is 20%. I could arbitrarily assign which hours of which days I assigned to which tax rate, but it wouldnt matter, cutting out any given hour would always mean a 20% marginal tax rate. This will continue to be true until I fall back below the personal allowance threshold. There is no contradiction.
At any given moment, our renewable and nuclear genaration is the grid's personal allowance, and if we are to generate more than that, it has to come from gas. There is no point allocating which person is using which unit of electricity.
Everyone’s marginal generation comes from gas.
What's marginal generation?
There is no point allocating which person is using which unit of electricity.
But that is what you are doing when you propose that it's EVs that are using the non-renewable part. Why is it my EV and not someone's E bike or hair straighteners etc?
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/electricity-market
The marginal producer of electricity in the UK is most often gas because it is one of the most expensive sources, so is chosen last in the ‘merit order’ on the spot market. But it serves a vital role because gas-fired power stations can be easily switched on and off at short notice to make sure that supply balances to meet demand. Renewable energy sources, on the other hand, are unpredictable due to changes in weather, while nuclear energy provides a fairly constant source of power that is difficult to turn on and off.
Any additional unit demanded, (or unit not used) is allocated to gas because that is the marginal generation. It doesnt matter whether it is an EV being charged or someones hair straighteners.
Just like how if I had not worked on any given day last year, I would have avoided paying 20% tax on that day, even though my average tax rate was 10%.
What’s marginal generation?But that is what you are doing when you propose that it’s EVs that are using the non-renewable part. Why is it my EV and not someone’s E bike or hair straighteners etc?
Assuming that for the whole time any of those devices were in use there was gas being burned, 100% of the demand they were requiring was met by gas. So all your examples were marginal use. In the extreme scenario where everyone turned off their electrical devices (so no gas is being burned) and you were charging, the additional (marginal) load is being met with renewables.
It's a bit like voting. Voting makes a difference, and if everyone votes one way a change happens. But your individual vote in a single direction makes no difference at all
Assuming that for the whole time any of those devices were in use there was gas being burned, 100% of the demand they were requiring was met by gas. So all your examples were marginal use
No. Gas is marginal generation, but it's not allocated to any particular use, so no-ones usage is marginal. You cannot say that everyone's usage is responsible for marginal generation being used because it's not. Only 43% is. So you can't say my car is charging with 100% gas and my dishwasher isn't. And you can't say everyone's energy usage is 100% gas because it's not.
You can't single out my car for the fossil fuel half of the output and your PC or whatever as the renewable half.
Molgrips. I don't pay 20% tax overall on average, I pay 10%. But on every single day of last year, if I had not worked that day, I would not have paid 20% tax on that day. Every single day has a marginal tax rate of 20%, until I cut out so many days that I fall below the personal allowance.
Say we generate 500kwh of electricity via renewables. That is fixed because that's how sunny and windy it is today. Gas is used to make up the shortfall, say that happens to be 100kwh. If we had required 1kwh less, we would have chosen to only generate 99 kWh from gas. It wouldn't matter which of the 600kwh of electricity we had not needed, and so the marginal generation for all of those 600kwh was gas, unless we cut out 100kwh or more, in which case the marginal power is from renewables.
Seems fair that VED and the luxury car tax is coming in. Obviously these are used to incentivise behaviour and totally agree that a decently scaled VED of size, weight and emissions would help.
EV motoring has been pretty cheap for the last few years - was certainly a factor when I got mine. Current car is definitely too big for my needs and I'll be back in smaller vehicle at the end of the lease. Taxes to push more people into this approach will help.
To put it another way, suppose that tomorrow we all used 1% less electricity. Do you think our solar and wind generation would fall by 1%?
Worth remembering that charging a car isn't 'additional demand'. It's displacing energy demand from one source (petrol, diesel) to another (electricity). While of course reducing that demand is important, it's also worth displacing the demand that remains from higher carbon to lower carbon generation. In the case of vehicles moving from an at most 30% efficient ICE to an at least 70% electric motor is already such a huge win that burning gas to power an EV still represents less CO2 per mile than an ICE.
The French scheme with the Renault Five is interesting… not just using the car battery to shift energy demand in the home, but across the local grid as a whole. Those cars on that scheme will help doubly when it comes to shifting energy use to renewables… they’ll end up meaning that less fossil fuels as a whole will be burnt than if they didn’t exist… they won’t just mean less compared to using an ICE car… but less than if no car was at those households. That’s mind boggling and totally unintuitive.
[ simple version … V2G (vehicle to grid) uses all those car batteries as a distributed storage system for the grid, not just for each home, allowing peak to off peak demand shifting both for the grid and for energy generation ]
This is the awesome bit about EVs, and I dont understand why is it not widespread already. A fully charged EV could power a household for a few days. Or many households for a few hours. Pimping out your EV's battery to the national grid will be a vital way to redistribute energy between periods of high and low renewable generation. As others have pointed out, EV batteries are enormous compared to powerwalls and other household batteries.
It needs a lot of very different organisations to work together… in France that can be pushed forward faster by the government because of its stakes in multiple key industries. Let me find a short English version of how it will all hang together…
That suggests it working in some form in the UK very soon as well. Not aware of how/who/when.
Octopus already on it, albeit with a very limited number of cars:
https://octopus.energy/power-pack/
has to be the way forward though!
I thought one of the issues with gas fired power stations is you can't turn them off and on quickly so they usually form the base load and it's often wind that gets turned off when demand drops as you can feather the blades pretty easily. Pretty sure renewable suppliers can get paid not produce, another plus with renewables over traditional generation. We still have loads of oppprtunity for more renewables, its grid connection and nimbism thats holding things up, not the technology or lack of suitable locations.
Seems fair that VED and the luxury car tax is coming in. Obviously these are used to incentivise behaviour and totally agree that a decently scaled VED of size, weight and emissions would help
This - it's absolutely never about money needed for the (because tax doesn't pay for anything) exchequer. It's about taxation for incentivising (or de-) behaviour. And as usually things are the wrong way around - because it should be incentivised currently.
The writing was on the wall when grants started to disappear. I remember the 5K manufacturing grant and grant for the charge points of 250.
When interest rates come down (not looking good currently as May was considered the first real possibility back in January) then lease cars may become favourable again. You pay no VED there.
Without huge State push EVs are looking a bit of a mess (and I say that as a leaser of 2 vehicles.)
Handing this over to the private sector is and was a massive mistake, and has totally ruined any sort of joined up thinking. The maintenance of charge points alone is enough to boil your blood.
I'm lucky and I always can charge at home but the whole thing is begging for state capital.
Over to Labour for this one probably. (Don't hold your breath.)
"I thought one of the issues with gas fired power stations is you can’t turn them off and on quickly so they usually form the base load"
No, this is completely wrong, gas turbines are very fast to switch on and off.
Coal was base load but it's been completely phased out decades ahead of expectations. Nuclear is the only really steady power source now, and that's basically because the infrastructure is so expensive that they have to run full speed to be anywhere close to affordable. We could easily shut them down but they'd still cost billions and they'd look even more stupid than they already do.
I've just watched a Top Gear report of an electric G-Wagen.
GBP180k, weighs over 3 tonnes, range of 280 miles from a 116kwH battery. It can't tow anything as apparently its too heavy already. Depreciation probably horrendous over 3 yrs.
Perfect for in town and the skool runs.
VW E-Up. 36kwh, range 180miles, weighs 1.3 tonnes.
Perfect for in town and the skool runs.
Yer pays yer money etc etc but it's nuts if they are on teh same vehicle tax band.
it’s nuts if they are on teh same vehicle tax band.
I think this is it.
There needs to be a progressive approach to vehicle taxation, 'rewarding' efficiency and 'essentia' and progressing towards costing a lot to be 'inefficient' and 'excessive'.
VW E-Up. 36kwh, range 180miles, weighs 1.3 tonnes.
Even this weight is nuts! Something that small should be much lighter.
As an EV owner I'm fine with moving onto the standard VED rate, I do think they need to adjust the Expensive Car Supplement though - not so much to incentivise people to switch to EVs but to not penalise them for doing so. An EV will generally be around £10-15k more for an equivalent spec. to an ICE due to the battery cost so it either needs to be raised to £50k before it triggers for EVs or if that's too much hassle to admin raise it to £50-55k for all cars and introduce another band at say £80k that's a higher charge again to make up for the lost revenue.
