No more Zero vehicle band tax on electric cars

and regen while good does not reclaim that much if the input energy.

Regen is (currently) able to reclaim >60% of the brake energy in normal driving and stick it back in the battery.

The limitation is usually overheating the battery and safety/stability limitations.

Some investigation into use of alternative battery design is underway that will allow more energy from regen to go back into storage.

You agree that a percentage of electricity is produced from renewables, right? So who is using that “green” electricity?

We all are. We have used the whole lot of it, and we cant squeeze out any more. Trying to allocate who used which unit of electricity is arbitrary and pointless.

each new EV added to the cohort will be powered by gas? Or, equivalently, owing to the addition of this new EV, the proportion of EV charging done by using renewables will decrease?

No, because renewable production in future will increase as future cars are bought.

You’re cherry picking again. We can look at increases in EV ownership in the future, but not while discounting how our energy production will also be changing in future.

Trying to allocate who used which unit of electricity is arbitrary and pointless.

But you keep doing that.

As we move to more renewables, energy consumption that can be shifted away from peak times will be absolutely key. EV cars fit into that well. We need smart white goods that do it more as well. I’m currently just setting mine off with a timed delay to operate at usually low demand times… but we should crack on with all new white goods being smart enough to run themselves when demand is low and renewable generation high.

Trying to allocate who used which unit of electricity is arbitrary and pointless.

Bingo !!!

I have been talking about the marginal generation of additional power, not allocating our existing production or consumption.

I completely agree that we will produce more renewable power in the future, and if we produce enough to not need to top it up with gas, then this problem will go away.

I fully understand your point. I just don’t think you can use that reasoning to make the claim that EVs are 100% fossil fuelled; because by allocating fossil generation to EVs you are at the same time allocating renewable generation to other things that could just as easily not be plugged in.

ok, lets work an example – numbers themselves are a bit made up to be round numbers, to simplify things, but are approximately right

lets say you have a 100kwh car that charges using a 10kw charger at home, overnight, from empty to full (ignoring charging losses etc).

That night, there is 1 GW of demand on the grid. That is being made up of 80% renewables, and 20% gas. The gas costs 200g co2 per 1kwh produced. The entire output of the grid (1000mw) is covered by using 200mw from gas, producing 40000000g of Co2 per hour (40 tonnes) – of the course of the 10 hour night this is 400 tonnes of co2.

using the “average mix” maths, the overall mix of the grid is 80% renewable, and so for every 10kwh of electricity produced the grid is producing 400g co2 – so charging your car from empty to full emits 4kg co2 by those maths

however, what actually happens when you plug your car in is instead of there being 1gw of demand on the grid, there’s now 1.00001 GW of demand – 10kw more than there was before. The grid can’t turn up the renewable production of electricity as its always maxxed out, all the time, so instead it has to meet 100% of that extra 10kw by turning gas up a little bit. Instead of the grid producing 800mw from renewables and 200mw from gas, its producing 800mw from renewables and 200.01mw from gas. This is a small amount, but it means the total co2 output of the grid is now 40,002,000g (40.002 tonnes) of Co2 per hour, and 400.02 tonnes of CO2 over the course of the night. You plugging your car in has been met 100% through fossil fuels, at a cost of 20kg of co2 being produced that would not have been produced otherwise.

This is the same cost as me turning my computer on, and would be the same saving if someone didn’t have their emersion heater on. All of the marginal load is met through gas

There are very rare occasions (once or twice per year) where this isn’t the case and all of our load is met by renewables and things have to just be “turned down” to avoid over-producing, in those instances, yes, your load is met by renewables but otherwise its 100% fossil fuel.

As more renewables are added to the grid – the mix will change (from say 80% renewable to 90% in the course of a night) – and the number of incidences where everything is met by renewables will rise, a tiny bit, but its still negligable. What charging an ev overnight will do is increase the night time grid base load and make it more attractive to install more wind farms, but that’s likekly to happen anyway

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, or better still change your lifestyle to consume less

Have a higher premium on larger engines and luxury cars seems fair. Wirh the exception of vans and commercial vehicles, no one really needs a massive engine now days.

Regen is (currently) able to reclaim >60% of the brake energy in normal driving and stick it back in the battery.

Key bit being ‘of the brake energy’ which is very different to the energy required to get the vehicle to speed and then maintain it at that speed? That figure will not then include the losses converting that stored energy back to motion. It also assumes the driver can drive in such a way that regen is doing the breaking rather than the friction brakes.

Trying to allocate who used which unit of electricity is arbitrary and pointless.

Yes some energy companies try to do this by selling you a product that says all your energy comes from renewables. It doesn’t, they might buy sufficient renewable energy to cover your usage over time but at any given moment in time you’ll be using a mix.

ok, lets work an example – numbers themselves are a bit made up to be round numbers, to simplify things, but are approximately right

That was a lot of words to restate Fueled’s case. Now tell us why the same argument doesn’t apply to every single electrical appliance in the country.

Now tell us why the same argument doesn’t apply to every single electrical appliance in the country.

It does apply to every electrical appliance! Every unit of electricity we don’t use is a unit less than has to be generated by gas. Until we stop having to use gas. Gas is the difference between renewable supply and overall demand (a bit simplistic but basically true).

That was a lot of words to restate Fueled’s case. Now tell us why the same argument doesn’t apply to every single electrical appliance in the country.

yep, it does apply to them all. Turning off your immersion heater saves gas being burned, turning on your tv causes gas to be burned, which is why its the marginal load. If you got everybody to turn off their tv, to the point that the load was being 100% met through renewables, adding an extra ev would be 100% met through renewables, otherwise its 100% met through fossil.

It does!

So every electrical appliance is 100% fueled by gas?

Every unit of electricity we don’t use is a unit less than has to be generated by gas. Until we stop having to use gas. Gas is the difference between renewable supply and overall demand

Self evidently. In a static world. But that doesn’t mean that moly’s EV is 100% powered by gas. When he plugs in his car he doesn’t get 100% gas-sourced electricity. He says “shove up, I’m ‘avin’ a piece o’ that renewable pie, you lot budge over” (TBF I have never heard molgrips speak, and I doubt he talks like that, but you get the idea.) So him plugging in is the same as you not turning off your immersion, or tj insisting on eating hot food.

And when Moly gets a piece of the renewable pie, everyone else has less renewable pie, and so has to have a little bit more gas pie. And so the gas pie has to be made a little bit bigger, because the renewable pie is a fixed size, until we build more renewables.

The gas pie had to be made bigger by the exact amount that Moly needed to charge his/her EV.

When he plugs in his car he doesn’t get 100% gas-sourced electricity

go through the example I produced and show where it doesn’t involve 20kg of Co2 being produced. The mix comes from a variety of sources, granted, but the impact is 100% gas. Trying to claim that the co2 impact of plugging in is 4kg is nonsense.

So every electrical appliance is 100% fueled by gas?

No, the power required to fuel marginal use is 100% by gas.

Do you understand the difference between a marginal tax rate and an average tax rate?

Again… even if it was true… switching from burning petrol or diesel in your car…. to using electricity instead… even if that is 100% gas generated electricity (which we don’t have)… STILL reduces emissions significantly. So, if you’re buying a new car… buy a lower emissions one.

Kelvin – I don’t think anyone is disputing that.

Emissions (local) were the reason we bought one. A cleaner city will be a more pleasant place to live (though the dirty ships in the port are the big contributor here).

Do you understand the difference between a marginal tax rate and an average tax rate?

No, I was hoping for a big strong man to explain it to me. Using simple words, of course.

switching from burning petrol or diesel in your car…. to using electricity instead… even if that is 100% gas generated electricity (which we don’t have)… STILL reduces emissions significantly. So, if you’re buying a new car… buy a lower emissions one.

This is true but its a small effect compared to what is needed.  So use a car less.  Build your life around not having one.  Use a bike, an ebike or a small scooter.  all options with far less CO2 production.

I live in Scotland, we produce per capita more renewable electricity than elsewhere in the UK, so based on how generators are charged more to add electricity onto the grid the further they are away from London, surely MORE of the electricity I use is from non-fossil fuel generators than you folk in the South?

Key bit being ‘of the brake energy’ which is very different to the energy required to get the vehicle to speed and then maintain it at that speed? That figure will not then include the losses converting that stored energy back to motion. It also assumes the driver can drive in such a way that regen is doing the breaking rather than the friction brakes.

Yes, all cars require energy to overcome drag and to accelerate, it’s the same amount of wheel torque irrelevant of how it’s generated. Benefit with EV is the efficiency from battery to wheel. It’s massively higher than fuel tank to wheel. (Roughly 35% Vs 90% from what i can remember). Downside with EV is the weight increase. But that’s been a thing in automotive for a couple of decades, at least.

Most cars have brake blending, so it doesn’t matter how you slow down, using the brake pedal still activates the motor braking before the friction brakes come in to play. If you’re regularly overcoming the amount of braking that the motors can provide, you should probably get some driving lessons.

The marginal use argument is an interesting one and I can see the argument. If I currently consume  x kw of power in a day then some percentage of that comes from renewables and some from fossil fuels, but the amount from renewables can’t be increased. So, if I now add y kw of demand for my new EV that extra bit comes from fossil fuels. Makes sense, but there are at least a couple of issues with that argument.

One, it assumes that the EV was the optional bit. Want if I buy an EV but also reduce my demand elsewhere?

Two, it assumes that there are no periods during the day where renewables can supply 100% of the demand on the grid. If there are (or will be in future) then charging EVs is probably a good way to use that extra capacity.

It’s an interesting discussion and useful to remind people that just switching to an EV may not be doing as much good as they think. But it doesn’t change the fundamentals. It’s a good idea to switch from ICE cars to EVs for personal transportation. It’s a good idea to increase the amount of energy generated by renewables and it’s a good idea to reduce your overall demand for energy. The latter is probably the most important but all three are part of the solution.

Two, it assumes that there are no periods during the day where renewables can supply 100% of the demand on the grid. If there are (or will be in future) then charging EVs is probably a good way to use that extra capacity.

it is a decent use, but the total impact is still not co2-free. This “spare” electricity is today stored by pumping water uphill, then released by letting the water flow back downhill, in massive resovoirs. This isn’t 100% efficient (approx 90%) – but it means that the 100kwh that are “spare” at midnight could either go into your car, or could offset 90kwh of gas-produced electricity later in the day, when demand is higher. It would only be if we had such long periods of renewable-only production that the resovoirs were completely full that we can really claim the ev use is truely co2-free

It would only be if we had such long periods of renewable-only production that the resovoirs were completely full that we can really claim the ev use is truely co2-free

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

You can only ever state lower or low CO2.

Don’t be fooled by the greenwash

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.