No you cannot. EVs still have a CO2 cost in building and disposing of them and all electricity has a CO2 cost in generating it – again the building and disposing of the generators – mainly in the concrete used in construiction and the fuel burnt in building the generators
Not denying any of that, however I was stating that the use of the EV (by the time it exists the co2 from making it is a sunk cost) is co2 free, which I think it is
The gas pie had to be made bigger by the exact amount that Moly needed to charge his/her EV.
Why is it my EV and not your dishwasher?
If you actually want to produce less CO2 rather than greenwash, an EV is a good start (as it produces less CO2, even when powered by fossil fuels, than an ICE car), but it’d make more difference to spend £10k less on a fuel efficient car and £10k on solar panels (no battery, that’s just gaming the system) than it would to spend £10k more on an EV,
It certainly would. And some of that solar energy might go to power someone's EV... or not, depending on how you want to paint it. However, I didn't spend anywhere near £10k extra on an EV, nor do most people. Thanks to zero BIK, the government is actually funding the extra in what I guess is the majority of cases.
Can we agree that while the charging of all the EVs currently in existence today might be partly powered by renewables, each new EV added to the cohort will be powered by gas?
No
Or, equivalently, owing to the addition of this new EV, the proportion of EV charging done by using renewables will decrease?
Yes, because those things are only equivalent until you start pointing fingers at EVs being 100% fossil powered. The extra fossil fuel generation goes against EVERONE's electricity usage, not just EVs. Because why would it? Are you suggesting road transport is discretionary? Well, so are lots of things.
each new EV added to the cohort will be powered by gas?
But you need to remember that at the same time as EV ownership is going up, renewable generation is also going up AND overall consumption is going down.
Why is it my EV and not your dishwasher?
It's both. Go through the example above and demonstrate how the car doesn't add 20kg co2 to the atmosphere if you think we are wrong
however I was stating that the use of the EV (by the time it exists the co2 from making it is a sunk cost) is co2 free, which I think it is
No its not. Even renewable energy has a CO2 cost. Small perhaps but its still there.
It’s both.
Is it? Why JUST the EV and the dishwasher using 100% fossil fuels? Where do you draw the line? How do you decide which things are powered by renewable and which by gas?
The grid can’t turn up the renewable production of electricity as its always maxxed out
No, but my car can wait to charge until the most renewable power is available. It doesn't start charging as soon as I plug it in. You know this, right?
Why is it my EV and not your dishwasher?
Every time I turn on my dishwasher, the additional power required, compared to a parallel universe where I had not turned it on, is generated 100% by gas.
only equivalent until you start pointing fingers at EVs being 100% fossil powered.
I'm not pointing fingers at EVs. As repeatedly said, it applies to (almost) all electricity consumption.
No, but my car can wait to charge until the most renewable power is available. It doesn’t start charging as soon as I plug it in. You know this, right?
It makes no difference whether the overall grid is 20% or 60% renewable, if it is having to be topped up by gas, then any additional marginal generation will be 100% gas.
I’m not pointing fingers at EVs.
It looked like it - but if that's not the case I've no idea what you are arguing for. We know that some energy is renewable and some isn't. I guess if you thought we didn't know that, it might explain why you keep explaining it.
I thought that the original allegation was that EVs are 100% fossil fuel powered - but this is clearly not the case. At the moment, ANY increased electricity consupmtion drives up fossil fuel consumption - EV or not - so it is not very useful to single out EVs being bad, especially as there is currently a campaign to discredit them.
However let's just highlight that smart EV charging can reduce fossil fuel consumption compared to the same static load.
Every time I turn on my dishwasher, the additional power required, compared to a parallel universe where I had not turned it on, is generated 100% by gas.
Hang on... if this applies to everything we all turn on, whatever the time, whatever the energy mix... who's using all the renewable energy? What's the point in increasing renewable energy production if we're all using gas only generated energy every time we turn anything on? You're still making no sense to me, sorry.
I'm talking about marginal demand and generation. The additional difference resulting from turning something on compared to a parallel universe where it was not turned on. The additional power having to be generated almost always comes 100% from an increase in gas power production.
You are talking about overall demand and overall generation. That's all of the energy generated across the entire grid, and everything consuming it. That might be 50% renewable and 50% gas, or more, or less, depending on the weather and time of day.
I'm sorry I can't think of any better way to explain.
Everything can be turned off/on.
It's like saying that my energy consumption is made up of a mix of generation sources, but the energy required by a new born baby is all sourced from gas.
If you really want to treat new items different to old items... then cars are arguably a special case... because they store energy... so can be used to spread load away from peak times... unlike ovens etc.. and even, in the near future, supply energy back to the grid at peak times... reducing the need to use gas.
“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.
It's actually both. In the UK we still have base load plants fuelled by gas which churn away constantly producing electricity relatively cheaply, never turned off except for maintenance perhaps. We also have "peaker plants" fuelled by gas which spin up very quickly at peak times (ie 4pm-7pm) and can be shut off very quickly when peak demand reduces, this is expensive to do and hence the high prices (for the likes of Agile Octopus) at times like 4pm-7pm.
The additional difference resulting from turning something on compared to a parallel universe where it was not turned on. The additional power having to be generated almost always comes 100% from an increase in gas power production.
Yes we know. I however was talking about EVs
I’m sorry I can’t think of any better way to explain.
You don't have to. We understand this very well, we did from the beginning. What we are objecting to is using this to claim that EVs are 100% fossil fuel powered. It makes no sense to suggest this in practical terms, it's false accounting.
1) EVs require an increase in electricity generation over not having an EV
2) most of the time this increase can only be met by burning fossil fuels
EVs produce less CO2 than an ICE but the number is not zero. You can argue its the average generation mix that should be counted or the increased fossil fuel that should be counted.
I am comparing EV with no car - hence I believe it should be the extra fossil fuel that is counted.
This is why EVs are greenwash - they allow folk to pretend they can continue with driving in the same way and save the planet and thus distract from the fact the only thing that will actually work is major lifestyle change and in the case of personal transport this means an end to moving people around in 2 tonne metal boxes
What we are objecting to is using this to claim that EVs are 100% fossil fuel powered.
Any time the grid is needing to be topped up by gas, the marginal power use of each EV charge, just like the marginal power use of any electrical device being turned on, is 100% fossil fuel.
So just like turning on any electrical device, each time I plug in an EV to charge, the additional power required to charge it, compared to a parallel universe where is not plugged in to charge, will need to be generated 100% by burning more gas.
That remains true whether the grid is powered by 20% renewable or 80% renewable. Because renewables cannot be turned up to meet additional demand. It only stops being true when we have excess renewables.
What we are objecting to is using this to claim that EVs are 100% fossil fuel powered. It makes no sense to suggest this in practical terms, it’s false accounting.
Mainly fossil fuel - as has been explained to you but you do not want to see this. Its extra electricity consumption which is mainly produced by fossil fuel burning.
Its false accounting to claim anything different.
However, I didn’t spend anywhere near £10k extra on an EV, nor do most people. Thanks to zero BIK, the government is actually funding the extra in what I guess is the majority of cases.
Which is where I have an issue. Instead of funding the purchase of an EV that money should be used for further decarbonising the grid.
Both needs to happen. New cars, for fleets and domestic use, need to be EV... and the grid needs decarbonising (that means both more renewable energy generation, and upgrading distribution and storage). Whatever the nit picking over fueling EVs, using them is better than putting any more ICE vehicles on the roads. Even with the existing energy mix. And that mix needs changing fast... as well.. to further reduce the emissions for new EVs over their life of use. There's no conflict... it all goes together... more of one means we benefit more from more of the other.
Mainly fossil fuel – as has been explained to you but you do not want to see this.
You patronising arse.
Instead of funding the purchase of an EV that money should be used for further decarbonising the grid.
Again I think we need both. And both are happening, to be fair, quite quickly. We need to decarbonise transport as well as electricity generation.
Mainly fossil fuel – as has been explained to you but you do not want to see this. Its extra electricity consumption which is mainly produced by fossil fuel burning.
An EV may or may not run on electricity generated by fossil fuels. It may run on renewables. It may run on nuclear.
An ICE vehicle will always run on fossil fuels.
Any EV running on anything means one less ICE vehicle running on fossil fuels. And if it is running on electricity generated from fossil fuels, it’s more efficient use of them than burning directly in an ICE.
The position is not perfect but it is better.
The grid is decarbonising and will continue to do so, there are different pathways, with different mixtures of solar, wind, biomass and other sources, but it is getting cleaner year on year. That means that EVs will continue to get cleaner year on year.
In the nuclear thread, someone mentioned the book 'sustainable energy without the hot air' by David McKay. It really is a great source of information about this stuff, slightly dated, but still relevant. Carbon brief is also excellent in this area.
I know you're a self appointed expert on anything you read on bit of information about TJ but you're coming across incredibly poorly here. We're all on the same side remember; we all want a better and more equitable future, that doesn't harm the environment. EV's aren't without their problems, but they are a step in the right direction.
tjagain
Mainly fossil fuel – as has been explained to you but you do not want to see this. Its extra electricity consumption which is mainly produced by fossil fuel burning.
Its false accounting to claim anything different.
Meh, I'm with Molgrips on this. The only way of looking at it that makes sense to me is looking at the overall average percentage of renewables across the entire grid.
Looking at it in terms of marginal load throws up some obvious garbage results.
For example, let's say it's 30th December 2022 and the grid is 100% renewable with 1KW to spare. My neighbour switches on his dishwasher and uses that last 1KW. The grid is now 100% renewable, 0% gas. I switch mine on 2 minutes later, therefore the gas turbines get spun up to meet the demand.
Using my preferred methodology, the grid and therefore both dishwashers are now 99.999999% renewable, 0.000001% gas.
Yet according to your methodology, my neighbour's dishwasher is 100% renewable and mine is running on 100% fossil fuels.
An ICE vehicle will always run on fossil fuels.
Unless it's running on renewables 🙂
For example, let’s say it’s 30th December 2022 and the grid is 100% renewable with 1KW to spare. My neighbour switches on his dishwasher and uses that last 1KW. The grid is now 100% renewable, 0% gas. I switch mine on 2 minutes later, therefore the gas turbines get spun up to meet the demand.
Using my preferred methodology, the grid and therefore both dishwashers are now 99.999999% renewable, 0.000001% gas.
But that's an edge case which only occurs for a very rare instant. In that situiation I would agree that smudging together you and your neighbours usage to consider collectively would be sensible. 99.9% of the time, the marginal generation is very clear-cut, either by gas or renewables.
An enormous game changer of EVs is that they are very flexible about when they consume power, so they can wait for times when the marginal power is renewable, and gobble up all the excess. In 2024 this is still extremely rare, but it will become much more common in the future, especially on windy nights.
There is probably a really interesting stat available somewhere. How often is it the case that, if it weren't for EVs being charged, there would be excess renewables. During those periods, I would absolutely agree that the marginal power demand of charging EVs, taken collectively, is partly renewable electricity.
How often is it the case that, if it weren’t for EVs being charged, there would be excess renewables.
It's an incredibly pointless stat though because you could produce the same stat for anything - what if no-one was watching TV at any given time?
Also, by driving this home you undermining the idea of EVs (even if you don't mean to) whilst acknowledging they are a better technology than ICEs.
EVs are increasing electricity demand.
This increase in demand is mainly met by fossil fuel burning. Thats the difference between this new consumption and existing consumption.
the answer is not EVs - that answer is to stop moving people around individually in two tonne boxes. yes that means lifestyle changes. EVs allow people to pretend those lifestyle changes are not needed
EVs are not a significant part of the solution because they do not address this fundamental issue. Instead they allow folk to pretend they are doing something. Ie greenwash
1.5 degrees global warming has already happened. 2 degrees is inevitable. 3 degrees is more than likely. fiddling around the edges will not do. We need a fundamental shift in how we live or else we are going to see billions die in your or your childrens lifetimes
Correct - but what we need is giant strides. The time for baby steps was decades ago. Baby steps will never get us up the mountain we face
Yeah we all already know this and you've said it a thousand times. However, what we need is social revolution, and that's not easy. I don't know how to do it.
You start within yourself and work outwards from there
Heat Pumps are also going to produce massive electricity demand....the answer however isn't to sit in cold houses. Agreed lifestyles need to change. Social change takes decades though.....outrage and optimism talked about this a few weeks back.
the answer however isn’t to sit in cold houses
Actually a part of it is - and massive drive on insulation. We simply need to use a lot less energy
Social change takes decades though
We do not have decades.
You start within yourself and work outwards from there
Is that not what those who have purchased new EVs are doing? They have made a choice not to buy a new fossil fuelled vehicle, but to buy one that is measurably cleaner. Clean[b]er[/b], not clean.
They in turn will pass those vehicles into the secondhand market, thereby working outwards.
It’s nigh on impossible to persuade people instead of buying a new vehicle, to buy [i]no[/i] vehicle. So, the next best thing is to buy a cleaner one and incentivise that.
IMO - and this becomes a philosophical point we need to accept that there are no technological fixes. the only solution is less people using less energy each worldwide
Once the problem is properly defined and that definition accepted then we can seek solutions. Until we have an accepted realistic definition of the problems then no solutions can be found
Again IMO the technological "fixes" like EVs actually end up delaying the radical action needed as it allows people to believe they have "done their bit"
But I am very pessimistic. Attitudes like these shown on here tell me that folk will not accept the changes needed and thus billions of deaths are inevitable. I'll be dead in 25 years and have no kids. In the meantime I will live my low impact for a westerner lifestyle. I've given up caring what happens after I am dead
We do not have decades.
But we dont need decades anyway.
Everyone knows we do everything important in the last five minutes 😉
You start within yourself and work outwards from there
No, I disagree. If I go as green as is possible to be and slash my carbon footprint, very few people will take a blind bit of notice.
Attitudes like these shown on here tell me that folk will not accept the changes needed
You are confused. When we say change is difficult, we don't mean that we don't want to make changes. We mean that persuading the whole world to make changes is really hard. You seem to think that strongly worded forum posts are enough, but they clearly aren't.
I agree with you 100% that we need to make huge changes. I am simply pointing out how enormously difficult that will be to achieve, on a practical level. You can't just stop people using cars. The global economy would be ruined in days, and we'd be starving in weeks. Any government that tries to ban things that people need will not be voted back in. We need a plan that will move us to a better world without ruining it, and that requires a strong competent and committed government. You coming on here and bellyaching doesn't achieve anything, as I'm sure you know.
I'm not pointing these things out because I don't want major change - I do. I am trying to tell you where the problems lie because you don't seem to realise.
Oh I do realise the problems. Individuals and governments worldwide are burying their heads in the sand. And yes - these threads do show that folk will not make the changes needed. Thus we are fubar as a race.
IMO – and this becomes a philosophical point we need to accept that there are no technological fixes.
In a world of sweeping statements that is fairly bold even for you!! 🤣
Agreed we need to use less energy, resource....I'm an anti capitalist and subscribe to a post growth economic standpoint. Less people.....not even going there. You're a dark green yeah? I find the depopulation arguements just about the most problematic part of green politics. I'm far from being alone on that either.
Yup I'm a dark green - tho an imperfect one 🙂 I have always lived within muscle power of work, I have no kids and no pets and no car, I very rarely buy new stuff and have been roundly mocked on here for adhering to that lifestyle - and still my lifestyle is unsustainable
Apart from the time when you commuted by motorbike to Tranent and then bought a Scooter to do the commute.
and have been roundly mocked on here for adhering to that lifestyle
That's not why we mock you!
these threads do show that folk will not make the changes needed
The issue is that people get trapped. We try to point this out, but you mistake it for refusal. Life is a lot more complex than you understand.
Anyway. How much ved will I be paying on my ev in the future?
