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.

if you watched the programme, he didn’t trash EVs at all – he was actually really impressed with the tech (and the speed! That old Beetle was, in a word, mega 😃) He expressed a preference for petrol engines (that’s not surprising!) and suggested the infrastructure wasn’t quite there yet for everyone to go electric (which is a reasonable point) but that it probably would be in a few years time.

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.

this is where household solar (with a battery) comes in, simple & cheap to charge up a vehicle overnight – with the ability to export any surplus power back to the grid for people without solar to use.

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:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904503/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2020.pdf

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.