The Electric Car Thread

don’t buy anbrand new ICE

Someone has to buy them, no? VW don't produce used cars.

You need to work out cost of ownership/lease over the time you intend to own Fossy. The Zoé only gets close to a Clio when the Clio hits expensive services at five years.

But drive one and you might be prepared to pay for the exerience and a 1/3 of the lifetime CO2 in France, someone can perhaps give UK figure.

What does it cost you to do say 100 miles in electric. I think it’s 20p a KWh at the moment, do you apply for a cheaper charge rate at night ?

Anyone with a smart meter can get the Octopus Go tariff which is 5p/kWh between 0030 and 0430 each day. Given that we get over 5 miles/kWh commuting, that means we pay less than 1p a mile, provided we don't use more than about 60% or so in a day and we need it full the next day; given that a full recharge takes about 7h and there's only 4h available at that price. However even the daytime rate on Octopus Go is only 15p/kWh which is pretty good.

Anyone watch Guy Martin on Ch4 last night? Obviously light on detail, but some interesting bits like the battery flammability issue (and putting it out) and an e-trip to John O Groats and back (charger issues, time and cost).

Also interested to know typical charging point rates if you don't have access to a charger at home.

Assuming that you have to drive somewhere to charge up e.g. supermarket car park or charger at service station, how much does that cost in real money and per mile?

Charger cost markedly varied. Some 7kW chargers are free in supermarkets/shopping centres.

50/100kW charger prices vary. Instavolt seem to be 40p/kW but have convenience of just using contactless card.

Assuming that you have to drive somewhere to charge up e.g. supermarket car park or charger at service station, how much does that cost in real money and per mile?

Rapid chargers generally cost 40p per kWh. Gridserve Electric highway are a bit cheaper at 30p per kWh. Fast chargers like you find in Tescos can be free but you won't get much charge during an hours shopping (maybe 30 miles worth) you'll need to find one somewhere you can leave your car for several hours. Just like ICE, EV efficiency depends on the car and how you drive it so efficiency generally is anywhere between 2.5 and 5 miles per kWh.

What’s the alternative, how do we get them on the roads without short term carbon emissions? Are short term carbon emissions better than long term ones? If you say no, then we’d never be able to build any solar panels, heat pumps, wind farms, nuclear power stations, fusion reactors, or any of the useful stuff.

I thought the planet couldn't handle any more CO2, period. How bad will it get, once we start manufacturing lithium cells and solar panels in enormous quantities? Sounds like it's the driving around all the time that's the unsustainable part!

The manufacture of all of those things is incredibly problematic, if we insist they are necessary, and also that we need to cut our CO2 right now. As such, we should look very carefully at the energy required to do so (something I have said since my very first posts on this topic). Really, we should go as near to 100% nuclear as possible, if we want to keep anything like our current lifestyles, and then we wouldn't need to bother manufacturing all those square miles of solar panels. After all, what's the point in mandating that vacuum cleaners (which are used for minutes per day) have a maximum power cap to "save the planet", if we also need to manufacture many square miles (10,000sq mi, in fact, for the UK) of solar panels and wind turbines?

Do you agree that buying a new ICE is worse than buying a new EV now Twrch given that both cover the same distance over their lifetime?

Over the lifetime of the car, yes (and with the caveat that the long-term prospects of mass-produced EVs is yet TBD). Most calculations show they emit around 1/3rd the CO2 over their lifetimes, with the bulk of that upfront in manufacturing (hence my comments on our supposed need to reduce CO2 right now). However - as your EV has already emitted the huge marjority of its lifetime emissions when you buy it, there is a hard limit on just much you can personally cut your transport CO2 costs. If I just cut my car usage, my reduction in petrol use will immediately cut CO2 emissions. With an EV, you may as well drive. Seems to me that it's a way to justify the continued expansion of our (in my opinion) unsustainable and increasingly car-based lifestyle.

Thinking about it, from a CO2 emissions point of view, one of the worst things you could do is buy an EV for short journeys and keep an ICE for longer ones. You're burning loads of fuel for your long journeys, and barely driving the EV enough to justify its manufacture. Worst of all worlds! You need to drive the EV as much as possible, to justify its existance.

On the Guy Martin program last night he was moaning how much it cost - 70p a kWh on the Ionity charger that said it would take 18 minutes to charge but ended up being over an hour.

He also worked out that his diesel transit would have been much cheaper to do the trip & many hours faster - if you watched that & were considering an electric car then I think it would put people off.

Really, we should go as near to 100% nuclear as possible

How long do you think that would take? Nuclear power stations are extremely difficult and energy intensive to build.

Seems to me that it’s a way to justify the continued expansion of our (in my opinion) unsustainable and increasingly car-based lifestyle.

I think car use is decreasing somewhat, isn't it? The number of young people with licenses is falling.

In any case, we can't simply cut consumption, even if we have to, in a realistic democracy. We have painted ourselves into a corner with that, be ause people want vote for people who will do things they don't like, or tell them what they don't want to hear. Ironically the Chinese are just about the only ones who could pull it off.

Our two options are benign eco-dictatorship or huge investment in carbon-lowering tech, which will mean less CO2 reduction to begin with.

On the Guy Martin program last night he was moaning how much it cost – 70p a kWh on the Ionity charger that said it would take 18 minutes to charge but ended up being over an hour.

Ionity are an exception. They charge 70p per kWh becuase they want to discourage drivers without an Ionity subscription from using their chargers. Martin must have used exclusively Ionity chargers for his trip to cost that much. I think he was driving a Hyundai Ioniq 5 which comes with a one year Ionity subscription giving 25p per kWh charging so why didn't he use that? I think he has an agenda. Like I said in my post above rapid charging networks generally charge 40p per kWh which if you were using nothing but rapid charging would work out about half the cost per mile of petrol.

Thanks @jet26 and @uponthedowns

So if my car has a 60KW battery, then a full charge costs £18.00 (at Gridserve).

And that might yield somewhere between 150 and 300 miles of driving, so probably less than 10ppm. Unleaded costs about 15ppm if you're lucky.

Other question is how do supermarkets and other places stop people just using a charging spot as a car parking place for the day? Must be tempting for those that don't have at home chargers.

Really, we should go as near to 100% nuclear as possible

As you said yourself, the manufacture of such things is incredibly problematic.

@fossy

Still EV curious and have considered one previously.

What does it cost you to do say 100 miles in electric. I think it’s 20p a KWh at the moment, do you apply for a cheaper charge rate at night ? I say this as my current home leccy use is incredible (hot tub and two gaming PC’s in use). My petrol does about 30 to the gallon in town – so minimum cost is about £21 per 100 miles in fuel.

We've not gone down the special tariff route and currently pay £0.14p per KW hour on a green tariff. Our i3 is a 33kWh battery of which only 30kw is usable. To charge the thing from 3% (the lowest I've had it is about £4.20 and for that I get 140-150 miles in the summer at speeds upto around 65mph in mixed driving. it will go down to about 120 miles in the winter with wipers, heaters, blowers and lights on. But whichever way you slice it, it's less than £4.

I’ve come back from my holiday to find the 50Kw chargers have changed to pay to use. So, I’m now using my home charger overnight and will use them or the 350Kw if I need a quick top up. Never mind I have 9700 miles of motoring for £10 so can’t complain.

How long do you think that would take? Nuclear power stations are extremely difficult and energy intensive to build.

They are, but they generate astounding amounts of energy. That's why the EROI (energy returned for energy invested) for nuclear is so high, compared to anything else. 25x better than the worst, which is roof-mounted solar.

Apparently the 10 year CO2 paypack period for EVs is ok, so I think we have time to build nuclear. That's why it's so important we start right now! (etc etc etc)

I think car use is decreasing somewhat

Absolutely not. Until Covid put a spanner in the works, total car miles driven in the UK was continually increasing. Number of licence holders by age is not clear, but even if that's true, then transport CO2 emissions is driven by old codgers who insist on driving for everything 😉

https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/summary
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/nts02-driving-licence-holders

In any case, we can’t simply cut consumption

Then we are doomed. For that matter, unless you think it's ok for only certain places in the world to be developed, how is it all feasible to provide for the entire planet to consume at the rate we do, and with "sustainable" tech?

Guy Martin in petrol-head EV trashing. Now there's a surprise - not. He's Hammond with actual ability or Clarkson without the gut.

I'm happy to use my EV for long trips when the amount of kit to carry makes the train impractical. In France, Germany and Spain we use Mobive (EDF) and Mobility+. Rates are between the domestic rate in the respective countries. Lunchtime we often charge at Lidl and get about 20 kWh in the free hour German limit. Leclerc, Lidl and Intermarché are 22kWh free unlimitrd in France.

If you want electricity more expesive than the equivalent petrol use a French autoroute charger if you can find one that works - most don't.

Read through this thread from the start for the cheapest fastest chargers in UK regions.

As you said yourself, the manufacture of such things is incredibly problematic.

It is, which is why we need to look at the EROI (energy returned on energy invested). Nuclear is by far the best option, from that point of view.

Edukator agrees, after all, as he has glowing reports of France's sustainable electricity generation.

how is it all feasible to provide for the entire planet to consume at the rate we do, and with “sustainable” tech?

It's not.

But rather than simply not consuming, I think the only practical route (which isn't the best for the planet) is to consume with less impact.

For example, we are doing a good job of making UK holidays better lately, which should help people choose to holiday here rather than overseas.

The continued rise in total road milage predicted bu the government makes the transition to EVs even more important, Twrch.

And please don't put words into my mouth, Twrch, unless it's stupidly transparent trolling. I haven't promoted the use of nuclear power in either France or the UK but have expressed pleasure at the UK's increase in Wind generation.

I'm in favour of reducing overall energy demand and progressivly replace nuclear. I'm not in favour of dropping nuclear overnight as the Germans have done and replacing with brown coal. The effect was pervers, the closing of a relatively safe German station meant a dodgy French one which wad more of a thrrat to the German population syayed opn.

@twrch

Your figures are way off.

Going nuclear is a really stupid suggestion - most studies state that nuclear is only 2/3rds less than conventional FF powered fire stations once mining, enrichment, storage, disposal and transport are taken into account. This doesn't even include the MASSIVE Co2 costs to build the thing and even greater cost and waste associated with its use and decommissioning. It also requires us to take massive additional, long term risks with the environment. How is that a solution? That's the equivalent of everyone buying diesels to cut CO2 without actually considering other longer term effects.

Recent studies from the ICCT have shown that in the UK, an EV emits 50% less CO2 over its estimated 150k km life and that was in 2017 using 2015 data. In 2021 where the mix of green power is now regularly above 50% and battery production is increasingly efficient, that's now more like 35%. In France, that figure was already 30% and is now predicted to be 22-25%.

As our mix of renewable energy increases, that figure will again decrease. People buying EVs is the right course of action. As older cars phase out, they should be replaced by new, efficient EVs. Same with Aircraft or anything else.

Also using an EV for short journeys - again your figures are way off. Your CO2 estimates for conventional cars are based on average use, if those figures were based on Urban, short journeys, they would be MUCH MUCH Worse. My 3 series does about 12mpg when warming up in winter, once running it's around 35mpg. Also, an EV running short journeys will likely still last a LONG time. short journeys for ICE cars are generally bad for them.

Also - people need to stop worrying about aviation emissions, especially in the short term and especially for short haul (<1500km). Aviation is 2.5% of global emissions.

Short haul flights represent about 1/3 of that despite making up over 70% of the flights. Hell, even if you include flights up to 4000km, it's still less than 50%, so 1.25% of emissions.

The global Trainer (footwear) industry represents over 1.4% of emissions and upto 6% of landfill waste.

Yes, Aviation emissions doubled from 1990 to now but KPM quadroupled. so there are 4* as many people for 50% more emissions. Assuming there was no growth in aviation from 2019 onwards, teh replacement of obsolete aircraft with newer aircraft and the application of better ATC management and routing would reduce those emissions by almost 35% without anything else being done.

If SAF or Hydrogen (and for the latter assuming we could find a way to carry it in the aircraft) were made sustainably and used in blends upto 25%, that would again reduce emissions by 11-15% on 2019 levels. that's 50% without doing much.

Also, flights transport cargo and people, unless you plan to stop buying goods from overseas, you're just making flights less efficient.

Thanks @jet26 and @uponthedowns

So if my car has a 60KW battery, then a full charge costs £18.00 (at Gridserve).

And that might yield somewhere between 150 and 300 miles of driving, so probably less than 10ppm. Unleaded costs about 15ppm if you’re lucky.

Generally you would never charge to 100% at a rapid charger, usually to 80-90%. Charging from 80-100% will take longer than charging from 10-80% so on a long journey its faster to charge to 80% get on your way and stop for another recharge when you get to 10% or 20% than it is to sit on a rapid charger to 100%. Also if there is a queue for the charger you will get some dirty looks from other EV drivers if you are trickling in the last 10%

The continued rise in total road milage predicted bu the government makes the transition to EVs even more important, Twrch.

Sounds like it makes the transition to lower-mileage lifestyles more important.

Going nuclear is a really stupid suggestion

That's a bit rude. I took my EROI figures from wikipedia, in the absence of any kind of in-depth research (not that I have the resources or reserach materials needed to do so, but I trust that the generally environmentally-conscious wikipedia editors will if anything do their best to make wind/solar/etc look good, so I'm happy enough with those numbers for my purposes). EROI captures all energy usage, including the concrete, steel, etc etc, so yes, it does include all of the things you mentioned. As I said, from an energy efficiency point of view, it is by far the best, and rooftop solar is the very worst.

Tell me - what's your solution? The UK currently generates 11% of its electricity usage from wind, and 3% from solar. 8% is "bio-energy", which mostly consists of shipping timber from other countries (including across the Atlantic) and burning it, which I find abhorrent.

Some quick calculations tell us that we'd need 15,000 sq miles of solar panels, to cover the UK's total energy requirements (that is, assuming that absolutely everything is converted to electric, as electricity currently provides 15% of our total energy usage as a country). That would also only cover our existing energy usage, which continues to ignore the energy (and corresponding CO2) cost of all the stuff we import. That sounds really stupid to me.

Also using an EV for short journeys – again your figures are way off.

I used an average value for mpg, because I was calculating the total CO2 emissions for a petrol car - owning family. However, in the scenario where you own one of each, I suppose there is some gain in ICE efficiency due to usage solely on longer journeys. I'm not sure of the lower bound, but you'd probably have to use the EV for at least 50% of your total miles to have a net CO2 benefit though. The value would depend on your total miles per year, as well as taking the time-based ageing of the Li batteries into account (for example i if you drive 2,000 miles per year, and own an ICE to do 500 of those miles, at 1,500 EV miles per year it would take you 20 years to pay off the 30,000 mile CO2 "debt" of the EV, at which point you don't have much battery lifetime left to actually make any CO2 gains).

My point is - if drastic and immediate reductions in total CO2 are required, EVs don't achieve that. The only way they achieve something like "setting us on a path to sustianability" is by subtly re-educating people on just how difficult it should be to travel long distances, and how much energy they need to transport themselves at all.

Also – people need to stop worrying about aviation emissions

Yes. Modern passenger jets get a much better mpg per passenger seat than a single-occupancy ICE car. The main consideration is total miles flown, much like it should be for driving.

That’s a bit rude.

Just an observation but quite often your own replies come across as a bit abrasive.

Short term there's a carbon penalty but long-term with solar -> battery <--> grid then actual carbon emissions related to transport will fall.

New EV owner here (or will be from mid-September). Slightly weird to think that potentially I've actually filled up a car with diesel for the last time in my life.

(Also looked at a tiny electric car for local use and the train for work, but the costs are astronomical - more than 25,000/year for the train alone. I could employ a taxi-driver full time for that).

We’ve had our i3 for a few weeks now, love it! Petrol cars seem seem ridiculous now to me.

I was direct, but did not accuse anyone of having stupid ideas. Whatever. I'll leave you all to discuss electricity pricing and how it seems more expensive than it should be.

Going nuclear is a really stupid suggestion

No, it's not. It's a bad solution, but so are all the others.

@twrch

Don't go. This is a friendly natured debate and I'm sorry if I came across as insulting, It's just that I've heard "we should use nuclear" so many times and it's a terrible suggestion in both the short and long term.

Once again though, I must state that your figures are way off.

Renewables (excluding nuclear) Generated around 43% of our energy last year of which more than 25% was from wind (20% increase on 2019) and solar on its own was 13%. 38%! And how much polution was made keeping them operational, how much mining was done to keep them fed? Less than for the whole nuclear industry despite delivering almost 2.5* the power.

What's my suggestion? Increase what we're doing, invest in compressed air storage, re-invest in Tidal and Fusion.

Does every house have solar? Is there more potential for wind? Can we incentiveise the use of heat pumps? Can we retool the Honda plant in Swindon to make them?

These are thing we can do RIGHT NOW, not in 10 years time when a nuclear plant might come online. NOW. Reduce demand, increase supply, invest in skills to make renewable tech and (speaking personally from and RnT point of view) invest heavily in Fusion to plan for the future.

The problem for me with nuclear (I think EROI is a silly measure by any means and it's one that's always used by FF and nuclear, especially at times of slow inflation, but anyway) is threefold

1. TIME that it'll take 10 years to start, by which time we could've done tidal, wind, solar and had them operational for years.

2. Scalability and Tie-in HPC and Sizewell B will only produce around 13% of the UKs power requirements. We'd need another 8. They're also a massive sunk cost which we then MUST use regardless of whether it's safe, clean or something better comes along.

3. COST and Legacy - HPC is £90-110bn if you take everything into account including build, operation for 60 years, storage of spent fuel, security (forever) for that fuel transportation, etc. HPC and SwC together are estimated at £135-£150bn. Lets assume that we build the other 8 and that the cost decreased by 5% on each, you're still at a sunk cost approaching of over £500bn. We would also generate massive amounts of highly radioactive, refineable spent fuel which would have to either be guarded, sold to someone who can Mox it and use it or used in reactors which can burn it.

The only way I'd have supported nuclear is if we'd invested (like the French) in Breeder reactors which can burn the MOX and normal fuel to reduce the stockpile of material that we already have. thus contributing to sustainability. No mining, no transporting, little refining, less storage and required security once used.

No, it’s not. It’s a bad solution, but so are all the others.

They're really not. Even if it's a temporary solution (and I don't believe it s), wind and solar are doing great. Coupled with tidal (we have potentially massive resource here) and a form of storage (compressed air) we can do this and do it well and in relatively short order.

twrch says we need 15000sq miles of solar, but we don't, solar is only a part and not one you'd use in isolation. Question - what's the unused roof area of all applicable buildings in the UK? What if, instead of making traditional roof tiles, all we made were solar tiles for new houses? What's the offset for thin film photovoltaics in energy production? Every new build, every re-roof all mandated to have solar tiles, all paid for by the government and then paid back for by the occupiers in the form of a higher energy tariff for 5 years. After that, cheap energy.

Guy Martin in petrol-head EV trashing. Now there’s a surprise – not.

Anyway - back to cars. Does anyone else think the new BMW iX was designed in the dark? Why did they make it so obviously ugly?

It is, which is why we need to look at the EROI (energy returned on energy invested). Nuclear is by far the best option, from that point of view.

EROI is an important consideration but far from the only one, as others have outlined. I'm also far from convinced that it captures all of the energy investment. Does it, for example, fully account for the lifecycle impact of the HV powerlines currently laying waste to swathes of Somerset in order to accommodate Hinckley C? But the main and related problems are 1) time and 2) competition. Time, because you'd do well to bring new nuclear plant online within twenty years, and competition because it takes investment away from renewables which could've been generating
for most of that period. That's leaving aside the desirability of large, centralised, baseload plant in the emerging era of smart grids and flexibility.

(For the record, I work in the energy sector).

Hmm, 1/4 fuel cost. Car cost, well we will get something second hand probably in the next couple of years - no rush, maybe £15k, so it will e a runabout EV, or an older planet burning toy. EV's don't sound like 3.7 V6's though do they.

Does Renault do a sound upgrade from the humming, to a V6 or even a Tie Fighter ? 🙂

Are there plans to build 8 more nuclear plants?

I thought plans were about balancing and integrating some means of immediately available power? Something that none of solar, wind or tidal can always provide.

If everyone starts charging their cars (or trucks) on a windless night with a neap tide, current infrastructure won't support it, so there needs to be a plan B, which is where some nuclear comes in. At least I think that's right.

The cost of any immediately available power source and energy security / continuity is going to be significant.

PS what's the issue with getting tidal to work? They'd tried years ago in the Severn, and I saw (yet) another trial project in West Wales. Is it really that hard - considering they built the Thames barrage nearly 50 years ago?

If everyone starts charging their cars (or trucks) on a windless night with a neap tide, current infrastructure won’t support it, so there needs to be a plan B, which is where some nuclear comes in. At least I think that’s right.

They’d tried years ago in the Severn, and I saw (yet) another trial project in West Wales. Is it really that hard – considering they built the Thames barrage nearly 50 years ago?

In the case of the Bristol Channel, massively expensive in relation to how much energy it would produce, and would lay waste to an internationally important (and protected) habitat. I think the Swansea scheme was a better bet but don't know much about it.

As for intermittency, it's worth noting that naysayers have been making this point for as long as I can remember, yet the grid has been over 60% from wind at one time this year so clearly was able to cope. No-one reasonably expects the grid to be completely decarbonised by renewables in every circumstance so the question is do you build a load of new nuclear plant at exorbitant cost, or do you keep gas-powered spinning reserve for those still, cloudy days at times of high demand. Noting of course that there's vast potential for storage, for which a source will be end-of-life EVs.

I’m closing in on signing up for an ioniq 5. Really like the looks. Hate Tesla looks. It has the same high speed charging ability as the porsche for reasonably Common national travel. Other option is the polestar but I don’t think that has as much room in the backseat which I need and also doesn’t have the fast charging

Go on then, I'll stick around.

Renewables (excluding nuclear) Generated around 43% of our energy last year of which more than 25% was from wind (20% increase on 2019) and solar on its own was 13%. 38%!

25% of 43% is 11% overall for wind, 13% of 43% is 6% overall for solar. Pretty much what I said. If you're adding 25% and 13% to say that wind and solar make up 38% of our overall generation, then I'm sorry but you're making a very fundamental mistake in handling percentages.

The actual figures, to save us arguing over them, are here:

Solar+wind, and nuclear, are about 20% each.

And how much polution was made keeping them operational, how much mining was done to keep them fed? Less than for the whole nuclear industry despite delivering almost 2.5* the power.

If you're going to talk about mining, you have to include the up-front cost of manufacturing renewable power sources in the first place. My wife works in mining, "renewables" are making some good times for her industry.

COST and Legacy

I think this argument shows that people are not comfortable manipulating large numbers.

EROI is independent of money, which is why I like it as a measure. It just measures energy out for energy input. It's generally bourne out by real-world examples, too.

Some quick maths:

According to wikipedia, Hinkley C will cost £20billion, and is rated for 3400MW, for a lifetime of 60 years. Let's assume a 66% availability rate (which is a pessamistic value). 66% * 3.4GW * 365 (days in year) * 24 (hours in day, to get wh) * 60 (years, lifetime of plant) = 1200 TWh, over the life of the plant. That's £17000 per GWh. I'm not sure where you got £100billion from, but even if true, that's £83k per GWh

A recent solar installation in Bavaria has an expected lifetime output (over 20 years) of 200GWh, for a cost of £42million (I'm sure that number is subsidised, too). That's £210k per GWh, or nearly 3x the worst-case cost of nuclear. It also doesn't include disposal of the panels, which could easily double the final cost.

Legacy is a whole different problem, although (as you say) there are various solutions. Solar in particular also has the potential to generate a lot of non-recyclable waste.

Question – what’s the unused roof area of all applicable buildings in the UK? What if, instead of making traditional roof tiles, all we made were solar tiles for new houses?

Because they are horribly inefficient, compared to other forms of solar (and especially as houses point in all directions) and horribly expensive, over their lifetimes. You can't get away from EROI. The sun might shine for free, but it costs money to capture that energy. Especially as solar panels have a fairly short lifetime.

Rooftop solar is, in my opinion, the worst of the worst. Solar is already very expensive as a power source, and rooftop solar is an inefficient form of that.

When I was at Welsh Water I worked and published with one of the people who worked on the Severn tidal project. From an engineering point of view it was a goer, but even back then all the environmental issues it would create meant it had no hope at a time nuclear and coal were considered safe and good for 200 years by which time fussion xould be along. It was only the last two years I worked there 86, 87, that the greenhouse effect became a factor to consider.

My view on fussion hasn't changed since then - don't count on it. Hope for it but plan without it.

25% of 43% is 11% overall for wind, 13% of 43% is 6% overall for solar. Pretty much what I said. If you’re adding 25% and 13% to say that wind and solar make up 38% of our overall generation, then I’m sorry but you’re making a very fundamental mistake in handling percentages.

No what I said was 43% was the whole renewables sector which is made up of 25% for wind (14% offshore, 11% onshore) 13% solar (38% so far, you still with me?) and 5% other (which we can assume is biomass, etc) so the total 43%.

According to wikipedia, Hinkley C will cost £20billion

Oh God, please stop using Wikipedia. Hinkley point was was revised up by the government in 2016 to state £23bn, but it's only the headline construction figure. The governments own Major infrastructure Projects Report of 2016 estimated that the total cost for the Station would be nearer £37bn including operation to payback. Fuel use, storage, and site cleanup are not considered. The cost (to date) of the Sellafield decommissioning is £121bn.

I worked on Rolls Royce's Civil Nuclear Project back in 2007/2008 and know the costs involved in terms of operation, life and end of life. There's a reason RR shelved the idea. The modular reactors are a means to reduce infrastructure costs (essentially using a PWR2/3), increase speed of deployment, decrease fuel use and increase flexibility. even with this, I still think it's a bad idea, but does at least overcome some of the problems of time, size and scalability.

Your costs are for the plant, not the operation of it and not the full lifecycle and again, you're comparing to solar, not wind or tidal which're more efficient.

EROI has to consider the effect of inflation as the energy out and the energy in are relative to it. most comprehensive model of eEROI dinclude it but many simplistic ones don't
EROI

Because they are horribly inefficient, compared to other forms of solar

Independent estimates put Tesla's solar tiles at >19% which is within 15% of the very best, but more than makes up for it in that it covers more of the roof. It's also almost passive. Once installed it's free to operate and will do so with minimal fuss for several decades.

Modern thin film voltaics like those used in Tesla's tiles are said to have a 40-50 year lifespan with a projected drop in efficiency of less than 0.1% a year if kept clean and unmarred.

In summer they will essentially power everything. In winter, they may onlt provide enough to power the eletric requirement of heatpumps, but that on it's own would remove the need for Gas and electric heating.

It's a win win!

As for rooftop solar it's cheap when you consider the environmental cosys of fossil fuel alternatives. Check out insurance company estimates for the cost of climatic change, then the loss of life, habitat (even for humans) and it starts too look cheap.

Even in money terms it's cheap. In Germany solar rooftop is cheaper than grid power even with no subsidy. They'te legislaying to make it obligatory on every new building or renovation.

In winter, they may onlt provide enough to power the eletric requirement of heatpumps, but that on it’s own would remove the need for Gas and electric heating.

How many kw you fitting for that to happen in winter ?

@pedlad

I’m closing in on signing up for an ioniq 5. Really like the looks. Hate Tesla looks. It has the same high speed charging ability as the porsche for reasonably Common national travel. Other option is the polestar but I don’t think that has as much room in the backseat which I need and also doesn’t have the fast charging

The only thing that would stop me buying the Ioniq (aside from being poor) is that I think the Kia EV6 (which is essentially the same thing underneath) actually looks better and in the GT variant is faster.

Another thing that might stop me (at the moment) is that all of the pictures and things I've seen are from non-uk spec cars and carry the caveat that the UK spec may be different. Top gear also said that you might want to see it first as it's quite large, but doesn't look it in photos.

How many kw you fitting for that to happen in winter ?

@Trail_rat - That's a fair slap in the face. : - )

But if done properly with a decent ground source heat pump (GSHP) , the CoP should be 4-8, so you'd be looking at what 12000kWh of average annual heating, so 1500-3000kwh, assume it's all in the 6 months of autumn/winter so you'd need 8-16kWh per day, with a 4kW array at 25% efficiency, you might just make the lower end estimate in daylight hours...maybe : - ) but even if it doesn't it's still a fairly low cost at £2 a day even without solar.

I will also admit that a decent GSHP is really expensive and not suited to a lot of places, so an ASHP with a CoP of 3 is more likely.

In December my panels produce 1/4 of their June prodiction at 43N. Even in a full passivhaus with a ground sourced heat pump the comfort level would be marginal. As it is they just meet my domestic demand as the solar thermal isn't enough on its own in December. Without wood to burn I'd need 50 panels rather than 13 to go 100% solar in December.

On the other hand solar makes a lot of sense in areas sunny enough to need air con.

Oh God, please stop using Wikipedia.

Did you miss the bit where I multiplied that number by 5, to account for disposal costs, and found nuclear was still 3x cheaper than solar (and without considering the disposal costs of solar)?

recycling costs of solar, not disposal.

Sources for your nuclear and solar costs would be welcome. Buying a solar panel you pay the full cost of the power now, mine are over 10years old and the year before last was the highest production so far. 25 years is about the minimum production life to put in your calculations - hopefully more.

Drac
Full Member
I’ve come back from my holiday to find the 50Kw chargers have changed to pay to use. So, I’m now using my home charger overnight and will use them or the 350Kw if I need a quick top up. Never mind I have 9700 miles of motoring for £10 so can’t complain.

Same here, all the free to use West Yorkshire Engie rapid chargers ends in October, I'll have to start using the home charger. I got nearly 2 years and 24000 miles of free charging out of it.

twrch
Did you miss the bit where I multiplied that number by 5, to account for disposal costs, and found nuclear was still 3x cheaper than solar (and without considering the disposal costs of solar)?

I did, but it's still not enough.

Hornsea Offshore windfarm has a generating capacity of 1.2 GW, cost £4.2bn and has a load factor exceeding 38% and climbing. We could have almost 10 of these for the price of just HPC and would exceed its maximum generation capacity by 50% on the same load factor.

Re mining. Most of the components in wind turbines are cheap, readily accessible and are accessed as part of other mining activities. They're also (for the tower and structure) cheap to produce and easily recyclable. The blades may not be, but why would they need to be unless damaged. If they're CFRP, they're not going to fatigue.

You'll find pics on web pf old blades being buried in the US. They have a fatigue life. The answer is to make blades that can be recycled. The latest blades have a higher recyclable content. Properly recyclable blades are work in progress.

The blades may not be, but why would they need to be unless damaged. If they’re CFRP, they’re not going to fatigue.

They do accumulate damage over time, which reduces efficiency. They can be repaired though.

Bloomberg did an article last year on buried windturbines.

Also the BBC did an article last year as well.

Great use of old wind turbines.

Time, because you’d do well to bring new nuclear plant online within twenty years

Maybe if you're starting from scratch but in the last tranche three different designs received Generic Design Approval (Hitachi ABWR, Areva EPR and Westinghouse AP1000) and were ready to go right when Fukushima hit, Germany shat the bed, NPower pulled the plug on the Hitachi sites then Westinghouse went bankrupt. The ABWRs are actually incredibly quick to build and AP1000s were already working albeit in China. Since then the EPR has been proven to work (again, in China) and if we had any ambition we could have just bloody nationalised it (again).

Are there plans to build 8 more nuclear plants?

The latest gen was supposed to see new plants at Wylfa + Oldbury (Hitachi), Hinkley Point + Sizewell (Areva) and Moorside (Westinghouse) with 2 reactors at each side except Moorside with 3. Latterly Bradwell was named as a site for the Chinese HPR1000 which was submitted with support from EDF in return for investment in their sites.

As for decommissioning costs, Sellafield is not a comparison to any other site besides Dounreay. Both sites have major legacy issues from improper inventory management and material defects. As far as I've ever been aware no commercial generation site has any issues remotely like Dirty 30 or the shaft.

EPR isn't working in China, it's idle while the sort out fuel rod issues.

Final waste sites or lack of is still an issue to solve. France is stuck with other countries waste they won't take back. These issues are somewhat harder to solve than the balancing and storage issues associated with large scale renewable adoption.

As for cost, we'll be paying for all the nuclear energy that's been produced so far many generations to come. You can't bury and forget.

EPR isn’t working in China, it’s idle while the sort out fuel rod issues.

I see that, not been at work for several weeks so never knew. In any case it runs which was my overall point, unlike the reactors at Flamanville and Olkiluoto, so we know the design works now.

Agree storage is a major problem, hopefully breeders become commercially viable soon as they can chew through the low enrichment uranium and plutonium stockpiles and produce much less waste. Not a silver bullet but hopefully a leap forwards. Same with ITER in Cadarache.

Personally I don't see it as an either /or situation but there has to be honest debate from all corners about up front costs (financial and environmental) as well as long term implications regarding siting and end of life disposal. Your point about the Severn barrage being a good case of something looking easy on paper but not as great environmentally as it first appears.

I've been driving this Merc for a few weeks as you may have read, but yesterday I jumped back into the Ioniq EV for an errand. Obviously the cabin whilst decent is not like the Merc but I have to say that even with this basic EV the driving dynamics are just as entertaining if not more so. It's generally much more pleasant to just push the pedal and go, without having to consider what your engine and transmission are doing, but the EV turns in and corners beautifully because there's so little weight in the front. And of course it surges forward instantly under the pedal. It really was fun.

I can only imagine what a sporty or high end saloon EV would be like but there aren't many available yet. The Ioniq 6 looks pretty interesting on that front.

even with this basic EV the driving dynamics are just as entertaining

In this lies the rub. I'm into cars, have read Autocar since I was 14 and I'd never even look at a Hyundai before, let alone consider buying one. But quality of engine performance and noise is not an issue with EVs - electric motors give or take a few % or a synthesized noise are all the same. So that element of car choice is gone. A 4 hr trip from Leeds yesterday re-inforced that we're beholden to smart mway speeds and the chance for a country road blast is also increasingly rare.

So with the koreans upping their interior quality and infotainment and VW-Audi group seemingly struggling and BMW going town an odd styling cul de sac in my eyes, I find myself strangely attracted to this Ioniq. I know it is v big internally but that's a plus as I have >6ft teenagers to house! Or maybe I'm just getting old !!

ps any chance this thread can stay as cars and the arguments on e-generation get their own?

@pedlad - I do keep trying to bring it back, but I suppose the electricity generation aspect and the full carbon lifecycle are all a part of it, as is convincing those who don't believe that the math and methods are actually borne out in reality.

but I suppose the electricity generation aspect

Never been a petrol head so as long as it drives ok, is reliable, within budget and you can fit a bike in the back, couldn't give a shit what it is or what badge it has!

The South Wales barrage scheme never added up and the guy behind it was pretty dodgy iirc. Private eye got more than a few column inches out of that story.

That cupra someone linked looked great. About 30k, 0-60 in 6.6 for the fastest one, speedy charging, and rwd! 👍

it’s a total red-herring environmentally if you’re just charging your EV from fossil fuel based power!

You're not - the UK national grid has decarbonised by two thirds in the last few years and I think last year saw low and zero carbon sources overtake fossil fuel sources for the first time. Plus there's the air quality benefit.

You’re not – the UK national grid has decarbonised by two thirds in the last few years and I think last year saw low and zero carbon sources overtake fossil fuel sources for the first time. Plus there’s the air quality benefit.

I just googled and it looks like on average UK electricity is about max 40% renewable right now - which is brilliant actually, more than I'd have thought - but still means 60% of the time (more, overnight, when there's no solar I guess) you'll be charging from non-renewable.
https://www.power-technology.com/comment/uk-electricity-generation-greenest-year-2020/

The air-quality aspect is an important point, although more so I think if you're considering a diesel rather than petrol, vs EV.

@zilog6128

it’s the whole point for me tbh. I wouldn’t get one until I can generate my own cheap, clean leccy for it (don’t have panels yet!) as otherwise, with the greater capital cost, it doesn’t work out financially, and it’s a total red-herring environmentally if you’re just charging your EV from fossil fuel based power!

You' may struggle to charge a car on home solar charging alone. Remember, most of these new cars have a battery pack that's over 40kWh, even assuming peak generation from your legally limited 4kW solar array, you'd struggle to charge it in daylight hours for most of the year. Also, it's likely not to be at home when your power is being generated. Even a home battery such as a Tesla Power Wall won't help as it can only store about 6-12kWh and costs about €13k.

Thermal cycle in power stations is about 50% efficient, transmission loss is around 2%. Your FF car is about 30% efficient, so even an EV ran on fossil fuels can be more efficient. In reality UK electricity is already generated by around 40% renewables and you can pay a little more to make sure that's where most of your power comes from.

An EV can be surprisingly cost efficient even on smaller mileage and economical cars. We had a 2007 Fiat Panda 100hp that did about 45mpg costing about £90 in fuel a month to do around 9-10000 miles a year, coupled with road tax, the cost of it's servicing and maintenance was about £150/m.

We did PCH on an i3 for £247 and with free charging available at work, no road tax, no maintenance, it was only £90 a month more for a nearly new car. We've had it 4 years and it's cost me £290 in servicing, £40 in parts and less than £300 in power over 37000 miles. Sale of the Panda paid the deposit and left enough to get a home charger. I've also had to buy a single set of tyres at £400. The panda would have been £370 for tyres, but would've needed two sets by now.

We switched to a green tariff as soon as we bought it.

I mean that sounds great, but “decarbonised by two thirds” whilst obviously an improvement is meaningless without saying what it’s gone from and to

It's not entirely meaningless no. Clearly using only 33% of what you were using is a significant reduction in real terms as well as effort.

But quality of engine performance and noise is not an issue with EVs

Indeed - I think we focused a lot on managing weight distribution and on power delivery, and the engineers have spend however many millions of hours working on them, but they're suddenly not an issue with EVs. The only possible downer is for German petrol heads, since EV top end speeds aren't that high so it'd mean calming down a lot on the Autobahn. Which is no bad thing for everyone else.

it’s a total red-herring environmentally if you’re just charging your EV from fossil fuel based power!

You aren't though, in the UK. And even if you were the way power is used is more efficient in an EV.

I find myself strangely attracted to this Ioniq.

The 5 or the upcoming 6?

VW-Audi group seemingly struggling

I dunno, the iD3/4 seem well received and the 3 looks like it's flying off the shelves going by what I see on the roads.

Remember, most of these new cars have a battery pack that’s over 40kWh, even assuming peak generation from your legally limited 4kW solar array, you’d struggle to charge it in daylight hours for most of the year. Also, it’s likely not to be at home when your power is being generated. Even a home battery such as a Tesla Power Wall won’t help as it can only store about 6-12kWh and costs about €13k.

It’s not entirely meaningless no. Clearly using only 33% of what you were using is a significant reduction in real terms as well as effort.

Yes, our car takes 7 hours to charge, but given we actually only drive about 10 miles a day that usage only takes an hour or so (managed by the smart app, it could be quicker if needed) and costs 10p.

There's probably enough wind power for that. Although it's a good reason to roll out charging points at people's workplaces.

I just googled and it looks like on average UK electricity is about max 40% renewable right now – which is brilliant actually, more than I’d have thought – but still means 60% of the time (more, overnight, when there’s no solar I guess) you’ll be charging from non-renewable.

Sure, but you need to think about the counter-factual, which in most cases would be driving an ICE car instead. So you're going from 100% fossil fuel (ok, I know there's a small biofuel element) to say 60% fossil fuel. That's quite a drop.

UK government GHG conversion factors are currently 0.04826 kg CO2e/ km for a medium electric car, and 0.18785 kg CO2/e/ km for a medium petrol car. So an electric car today, using UK national grid as its charging source, has CO2 emissions of around 25% of an equivalent ICE car.

Obviously this argument doesn't apply if you drive an EV instead of cycling 😉

Obviously this argument doesn’t apply if you drive an EV instead of cycling 😉

it’s still not none, so you’re a net carbon generator, so it’s a red-herring in terms of being planet-saving

Er no, it's not a red herring at all. It's not perfect, but it's not useless. We'll never get down to zero carbon, that's not possible - we could get down to a sustainable level though which means balancing production and absorbtion.

If you are demanding zero carbon now, then that's nice and all but it's simply not possible given the world we now live in, unless you take over the world and become a global dictator.

So you’re going from 100% fossil fuel (ok, I know there’s a small biofuel element) to say 60% fossil fuel.

And you're using less of it as well.

If I've got this right a 50mpg car is using about 3MJ/mile, whereas a 5 miles/kWh car is using only 720kJ/mile. Someone check my maths as that seems nuts.

EDIT actually yes it's not bad if you take the usual figure of 25% efficiency of a petrol ICE.

we could get down to a sustainable level though which means balancing production and absorbtion.

even assuming peak generation from your legally limited 4kW solar array,

Legally limited is misleading. You can have any array you want(assuming the space)you just have to apply to the relevent agency which is why I asked how big an array you were planning to heat your house in winter.

But it's all immaterial unless you only drive at night and can charge all day.

What it does do is offset your other use at least assuming your home during the day to use it.

there is no “sustainable level”, which is not zero (or less)

There is, because the environment absorbs CO2 all the time and it will absorb more CO2 the higher the concentration is. We just need to not exceed the absorbtion capacity of the planet. Most is absorbed by the oceans.

Most is absorbed by the oceans.

I really hate it when people start with, “remember” or “think”, like you’re **** stupid, and couldn’t possible figure it out for yourself. So condescending

Well, maybe if most of your first post wasn't complete rubbish, we might have guessed that you had a clue? All I had to go on was what YOU wrote!

I wouldn’t get one until I can generate my own cheap, clean leccy for it (don’t have panels yet!)

So long as its generated from renewables, what does it matter if you or someone else generates it? the cost difference is negligible, so why should it stop you getting an EV? Having to buy your own panels and house battery would just increase your costs.

as otherwise, with the greater capital cost, it doesn’t work out financially,

As described above and further above in my first post - it does work.

it’s a total red-herring environmentally if you’re just charging your EV from fossil fuel based power!

Again, you assumed it was 20% renewables, when its actually 40+%, didn't know about thermal efficiency differences, etc.

I only replied based on what you wrote, so was I being condescending or replying based on the information provided? I certainly apologise, I didn't mean to offend your delicate sensibilities.

@trail_rat,

I thought 4kW was the limit for domestic, something to do with single phase power transmission? (I know you can actually go much higher on SP, but I thought this was a recommended limit.

@daffy

<4.14kw (3.6kw post inverter losses) you notify the dno

>4kw (3.6 post inverter losses) you ask their permission and it can be declined

Which is a pain if you've an East west split roof as your peak output is limited by your array split.

My folks run the ashp for the residents pool off a 4kw solar install in summer. So the heating thing can be done. How ever that summer in the middle of France. 25kwh/day generated not the UK winter