The Historically Accurate EV discussion

[Peter Mallett]

Only ofgem provides the official UK figures. I looked it up after getting fed up with the backslapping promotions on linkedin. When I mentioned the confirmed figures it all went strangely silent. Coal has decreased and as you can see it has been replaced by Gas. We also have to acknowledge reduced requirements due to the pandemic so the overall requirement is substantially down this year. All of which increases the wind percentage. In a normal year I'd expect gas to be higher and wind to be lower if coal isn't used.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I know they publish this stuff, but 8 thought it was by quarter. Can you link to your source for days last week?

I’ve been interested in this and remain quite impressed how coal has decreased.

https://gridwatch.co.uk/Wind
Possibly 16th 17th last week .
I just remember it was hot weather with no wind so I looked at this a couple of times & was a bit surprised to see it so low .
Although there have been times in the past when it has been very low for several days .

[Adam43]

When I read about this a couple of weeks ago, I think on the beeb, the emphasis was on the reduction of coal. It made the point that the lockdown was to the advantage of renewables as overall useage is down. Sounds like renewables are used as much as possible and the others, like gas, which have more flexibility can be ramped up or down as needed.

But that was the UK, which seems in this context, to be in a better position than most.

Interested to read your views Peter as I know you have a lot of knowledge in energy production.

Still interested to see where we can find out about daily consumption. I love a good chart.

[Adam43]

Ooo, a chart. Thanks Tel911S. Certainly does seem like that those low periods you cite were cherry picked.

As expected it is variable. Currently at 40%. One for crmalcolm to cherry pick there.

Back to gas being perfect to ramp up or down to compensate.

I’m all for a mix in this situation. Good isn’t it.

And, to attempt to bring it more back to topic, one good things about EV is that the generation is away from useage. Although with something like hydrogen cell that ain’t an issue really as exhaust is just water.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Ooo, a chart. Thanks Tel911S. Certainly does seem like that those low periods you cite were cherry picked.

As expected it is variable. Currently at 40%. One for crmalcolm to cherry pick there.

Back to gas being perfect to ramp up or down to compensate.

I’m all for a mix in this situation. Good isn’t it.

And, to attempt to bring it more back to topic, one good things about EV is that the generation is away from useage. Although with something like hydrogen cell that ain’t an issue really as exhaust is just water.

Here is another chart for you .
https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
It shows the mix of all generation types .
Wind & solar get precedence on the grid . But there is a big problem with them that , being nonsynchronous , there is a limit to the amount of them that can be used before it destabilises the frequency . That is where the gas comes in as it can be ramped up quickly to keep the grid going .
There have been times this year when the demand has been low & wind/solar have had to be shut down to stop the RoCoF controls automatically causing a blackout , [ Ref Aug 9th last year ]. The problem then is the wind generators still have to be paid , [ constraint payments ] which are usually more than they get for actually producing energy .

[Peter Mallett]

Adam, what's your perspective on alternative energy and in particular wind power? What do you as a scientist see as the advantages and pitfalls? This is not really off topic since it is directly linked to the perception that EVs are clean.

Working in Oil and Gas I see what is happening in the marketplace possibly more closely than many and I can tell you the wind generation companies are riding on a crest of subsidies that are frankly eye watering. I'm not against profit but when I'm told that wind has provided umpteen megawatts of power I have to ask when, where and how? The how is mostly by direct generation to the grid since there is no credible storage and distribution system. The where is of course from the wind farms not a storage system and local to those farms. When, is during low demand periods (in terms of months not hours). Given the world will return to "normality" I'd expect these companies to be concentrating on the storage and distribution elements in order to make the process reliable, but of course there is no money in that. And that for me is the most disingenuous part of the entire ponzi scheme. Accepting there may be a case for protecting the environment, wind farms won't do it in their current form since we will be burning wood, coal etc. just to keep warm in winter.

So, as long as Ford don't gouge me on the price, I'll look forward to receiving the Mach E that I've ordered but don't expect me or any sensible person to embrace alternative energy until the companies step up to the plate and actually make something reliably useful.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Adam, what's your perspective on alternative energy and in particular wind power? What do you as a scientist see as the advantages and pitfalls? This is not really off topic since it is directly linked to the perception that EVs are clean.

Working in Oil and Gas I see what is happening in the marketplace possibly more closely than many and I can tell you the wind generation companies are riding on a crest of subsidies that are frankly eye watering. I'm not against profit but when I'm told that wind has provided umpteen megawatts of power I have to ask when, where and how? The how is mostly by direct generation to the grid since there is no credible storage and distribution system. The where is of course from the wind farms not a storage system and local to those farms. When, is during low demand periods (in terms of months not hours). Given the world will return to "normality" I'd expect these companies to be concentrating on the storage and distribution elements in order to make the process reliable, but of course there is no money in that. And that for me is the most disingenuous part of the entire ponzi scheme. Accepting there may be a case for protecting the environment, wind farms won't do it in their current form since we will be burning wood, coal etc. just to keep warm in winter.

So, as long as Ford don't gouge me on the price, I'll look forward to receiving the Mach E that I've ordered but don't expect me or any sensible person to embrace alternative energy until the companies step up to the plate and actually make something reliably useful.

Further to what peter is saying about wind energy .The cost to the country is enormous . Hornsea 1 , [ biggest wind farm in the world ,] is getting £162.47 per MWh . The current wholesale price is about £30 per MWh , & has been down into the £20 s recently . Gas generation usually costs about £20 to £30 per MWh to produce .
These costs will have to be passed on to the consumers , which will mean that the price of charging up an EV will keep going up .

[Adam43]

I agree it isn’t off topic really.

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Adam, what's your perspective on alternative energy and in particular wind power? What do you as a scientist see as the advantages and pitfalls? This is not really off topic since it is directly linked to the perception that EVs are clean.

Working in Oil and Gas I see what is happening in the marketplace possibly more closely than many and I can tell you the wind generation companies are riding on a crest of subsidies that are frankly eye watering. I'm not against profit but when I'm told that wind has provided umpteen megawatts of power I have to ask when, where and how? The how is mostly by direct generation to the grid since there is no credible storage and distribution system. The where is of course from the wind farms not a storage system and local to those farms. When, is during low demand periods (in terms of months not hours). Given the world will return to "normality" I'd expect these companies to be concentrating on the storage and distribution elements in order to make the process reliable, but of course there is no money in that. And that for me is the most disingenuous part of the entire ponzi scheme. Accepting there may be a case for protecting the environment, wind farms won't do it in their current form since we will be burning wood, coal etc. just to keep warm in winter.

I too see the renewable industry in its infancy and being encouraged by subsides. Although that doesn’t bother me too much. I think some of this needs encouraging. I would like to think that this financial encouragement was done in the best way, but it probably isn’t. But hey that’s like any infrastructure investment by governments!

Energy is likely to get more expensive, at least for a bit, as this comes on. It is likely too anyway, albeit at different rates.

Oil and gas prices can be volatile too. A reason to not be wedded to one or the other.

I do also agree that storage is an issue with renewables. That is the next step. A difficult one. Not one that defies the laws of physics though. Engineering is the hard bit here.

And of course we should always look to improve efficiency in generation and useage.

As the above shows I think that we should mix and match. No country should be primarily dependent on one single source, in my opinion. Which means I rarely engage in the type of superficial discussion you often see (Hence my light hearted hints above!). It’s not one or the other.

Many years ago I nearly ended up working for British Nuclear Fuels. But government policy changed and it wasn’t the future any more. I do think that nuclear has a place too. It is very green in one respect, but has downsides in other.

But we often see government policy ape an internet discussion and just be single minded. An example are pump prices and company car taxation bandings.

So to summarise. Especially in the medium term I would like to see our generation of energy provided by a portfolio of sources. All with advantages and disadvantages. I don’t favour one other the other, with the possible exception of the removal of coal (Generally has has the same advantages, but is cleaner).
By all, I mean wind, solar, gas, nuclear, hydro, etc...

But the balance needs to change depending on country and technology. Part of that consideration could well be cost. I don’t see a problem with some increase in cost in the developed world.

That is a difficult thing to get across, as people simplistically want to say one is better than the other.

In a similar way I would like to see a mix in car fuel types.

We can often go down a rabbit hole on climate change, especially when you have people like Tel911S who think it’s all made up. But it isn’t just about producing less CO2 globally - which, for the avoidance of doubt, I think is a good thing. It is also about reducing local emissions. Which in built up areas is clearly aided by EV (or hydrogen cell). But if you’re doing long motorway miles then diesel is still the best compromise. Throw in different family sizes and uses of vehicles and again it’s a difficult picture.

Again difficult to get across as people simplistically want to say one is better than the other.

So to summarise. In energy generation and car type a mix is best. We should always have a variety and alternatives, for daily weather and demand reasons, for geopolitical reasons and to keep developing all avenues.

So, as long as Ford don't gouge me on the price, I'll look forward to receiving the Mach E that I've ordered but don't expect me or any sensible person to embrace alternative energy until the companies step up to the plate and actually make something reliably useful.

I think you’ll like it. They are a hoot to drive in a daily type way (not driven an Mach E obviously, but many other EV) They can raise a smile, but are a pleasure to drive and a very easy experience, as I’m sure you know.

Although remember to be outraged about the name

[crmalcolm]

So, history has shown that petrol and diesel prices rise over time.
Electricity to the home - likewise.

Accepting that, the energy source is going to become more expensive either way.

I would never work in an enclosed space with a petrol or diesel car engine running.
In towns and cities, I can see, smell and taste the pollution from ICE cars.
That surely demonstrates that ICE cars pollute.

Given those two things I know from experience, if both EV and ICE cars are going to be more expensive to run, I'd take the EV over ICE in an urban setting.

Even if global warming and emission level increases are yet to be proved, is cleaner air a bad thing?

[grantp]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

So, history has shown that petrol and diesel prices rise over time.
Electricity to the home - likewise.

Accepting that, the energy source is going to become more expensive either way.

I would never work in an enclosed space with a petrol or diesel car engine running.
In towns and cities, I can see, smell and taste the pollution from ICE cars.
That surely demonstrates that ICE cars pollute.

Given those two things I know from experience, if both EV and ICE cars are going to be more expensive to run, I'd take the EV over ICE in an urban setting.

Even if global warming and emission level increases are yet to be proved, is cleaner air a bad thing?

Broadly, oil based fuel prices rise or fall according to demand but the low levels might be tested by the costs of extraction and production. However a more volatile part of the pricing structure, outside the USA and maybe the middle east, is taxation.

Inflation adjusted prices for oil have been quite low for some time. Barely enough to justify production costs and certainly a good reason to forego exploration. Yet still demand is depressed. Coal has already disappeared based on cost of production (locally to point of use in the case of the UK) and legalised euthanasia at the behest of some NGOs and the EU. Plus some political battles.

The "wonders" of "renewables" generation triumphing over coal is a somewhat lame claim to a victory on the basis.

If, as Gummer's vested interest committee in the UK (CCC) has just proposed, all direct gas use as energy for heating homes, offices and, presumably, factories is outlawed by the mid 2030's with, one assumes, electricity generation constraint to follow soon after (otherwise a pointless exercise in subsidy creation and farming) the "renewables" industry is going to have to find a way to store large amounts of its output to cope with intermittency.

I seriously doubt that post pandemic economics are likely to support such a rapid movement in changing the energy generation model but I doubt that consideration matters to those who would support it.

Such a move also assumes that the population of large areas of China are quite willing to have their lives blighted by the production of rare earth metals required by the renewables industry for decades to come.

They may object to that. The materials might become very expensive. Perhaps unaffordable for the sick economies.

Meanwhile I could also foresee UK farmers abandoning barely break even crop farming and those breeding animals for meat and dairy ending up abandoning their work as well in the face of anti-meat activism via back door regulations and, perhaps, incentives to cover their fields with solar panels and battery installations. Or maybe pointless but well subsidised trees.

My eldest grandchild is about to start school in September. Maybe.

By the time he exits the school system (assuming it continues to exist in something like its current format) he will likely find himself deep in an expensive morass of debt and compromised yet expensive energy supply.

It's possible he will not be living in a so-called "First World Country".

City pollution levels in the UK today compared to when I was his age are far lower. The easy and cheap gains have been made without sacrificing the energy availability benefits that came with them. The next few percent of gain is likely to be a lot more expensive and complex to achieve. There may not be a really good ROI of any sort.

[Lancsbreaker]

Originally Posted by Adam43

It’s not one or the other.

So to summarise. In energy generation and car type a mix is best. We should always have a variety and alternatives, for daily weather and demand reasons, for geopolitical reasons and to keep developing all avenues.

The problem being that in the real world, excluding those of us who can afford to play at motor racing, the general population can't actualy afford "a car for all seasons". I've got a few cars, but for me the cost-effective solution is 2 diesels and one petrol....plus the race car, and the collector cars , obvs

[Adam43]

Yes, you are right. I’m not saying everyone you need to buy several cars. However you can consider what you need. If you do 20,000 miles a year on the motorway get a diesel. If you just have a run about get an EV. In between? Perhaps petrol or hybrid?

Perhaps various car share, subscriptions, rental, etc... solutions should be developed and utilised more for those rarer journeys.

I get what you are saying and you remind me of the joke. Did you know there is a formula to let you know how many cars you need. It is n+1 where n is the number you already have.

[midgetman]

It's a simple adaptation of the Hierarchy of Needs.

Recently I bought a car I thought did everything. But it didn't do some things quite as well as I thought so now I've got two vehicles to cover those bases, but one of those isn't perfect so I need a third to cover another situation. I still haven't sold the original car, but I will. Look, I *need* them all right? As soon as my needs change I can easily sell them. I can sell them whenever I want. Yes sir, whenever I want.

"My name is Max and I'm a car-oholic."

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Paul D]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Did you know there is a formula to let you know how many cars you need. It is n+1 where n is the number you already have.

That can't be right, surely? That must be a typo - it's gotta be n+10, right!

I realise that n+1 will work, but I'm worried that it suggests the limitation of adding only one at a time to the stable, which I'm a bit uneasy about. After all, as Max has stated, you can always sell one if you find yourself with too many - although I can't really see how that's possible personally.

Why, just last year I sold one, so no one can accuse me of having too many...

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I do also agree that storage is an issue with renewables. That is the next step. A difficult one. Not one that defies the laws of physics though. Engineering is the hard bit here.

I agree - the engineering is not easy to achieve the required infrastructure developments. And it will also probably be expensive.
That's not to say we shouldn't try though?

There is also the possibility that the 'solution' comes from many different developments and changes, that are only in their infancy of development yet - or possibility haven't even left the design board.

One such example, which has been discussed in this thread before, is the potential for EVs to supply the grid in a balancing manner.

Early trials are under way, so the results are still unknown. It is definitely in an experimental phase at the moment, but there are many who are hopeful it can contribute to future energy distribution models.

Under the skin: EVs are already helping to charge our grid

'In early June, Western Power Distribution (the folks who brought you the Electric Nation smart-charging trial in 2018) kicked off phase two of Electric Nation – a V2G trial in the midlands, south-west and South Wales. WPD is partnering with CrowdCharge to supply specially developed £5500 V2G domestic chargers free to 100 users of Nissan Leafs across the three regions. In the 24 hours after users were invited to take part, exactly 100 Nissan drivers snapped up the opportunity.'

[crmalcolm]

An article published a few days ago makes claims that 'Norway May Achieve Emissions Reduction Goals This Year' and attributes this to a combination of EV and public transport use.

There is a clear rhetoric in the article, as demonstrated in the first paragraph.
'It’s a hard fact to accept, but vehicles powered by gasoline and diesel engines are slowly strangling us and the planet we live on by spewing billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the air. If we are to have any hope of survival, we must explode the myth that we should all be free to drive anywhere we want, whenever we want, and as often as we want in privately owned vehicles that burn fossil fuels.'

So obviously, this is from the other end of the extreme that climate change is a myth. Putting aside any perceived agenda though, what truth is there behind the claims?

'8 years ago, the Norwegian government established carbon reduction goals, but Norway has never achieved any of the annual targets — until now. Preliminary data suggests this year the country may indeed meet its goal of limiting carbon dioxide emissions from all sources to 48.6 billion tons — precisely the target established in 2012.'
If this is accurate, then should we not celebrate a government setting a goal and then implementing the necessary actions to achieve that? Even if you disagree with the goal, can it be recognised as a success to get there?

[grantp]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

An article published a few days ago makes claims that 'Norway May Achieve Emissions Reduction Goals This Year' and attributes this to a combination of EV and public transport use.

There is a clear rhetoric in the article, as demonstrated in the first paragraph.
'It’s a hard fact to accept, but vehicles powered by gasoline and diesel engines are slowly strangling us and the planet we live on by spewing billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the air. If we are to have any hope of survival, we must explode the myth that we should all be free to drive anywhere we want, whenever we want, and as often as we want in privately owned vehicles that burn fossil fuels.'

So obviously, this is from the other end of the extreme that climate change is a myth. Putting aside any perceived agenda though, what truth is there behind the claims?

'8 years ago, the Norwegian government established carbon reduction goals, but Norway has never achieved any of the annual targets — until now. Preliminary data suggests this year the country may indeed meet its goal of limiting carbon dioxide emissions from all sources to 48.6 billion tons — precisely the target established in 2012.'
If this is accurate, then should we not celebrate a government setting a goal and then implementing the necessary actions to achieve that? Even if you disagree with the goal, can it be recognised as a success to get there?

Remind me what the Norwegians do with the oil and gas from the North Sea, how relatively wealthy they are despite the long term high costs of the country and a broadly socialist political outlook and how come, given their excellent options for Hydro electricity generation, they are not yet entirely carbon free?

Maybe the answer is in part that they have already minimised hydrocarbon usage a a point that makes it difficult to go any lower at this time without severely compromising their lifestyle expectations in such a high cost economy.

One problem, presumably, is that whilst they appear to have excellent potential for generation power they cannot do so nor successfully utilise whatever output they can generate, without materials not available locally.

If they shut down Oil and Gas they would pretty much have to rely on Fishing and wind farms plus, perhaps, a little tourism if the ROW could afford to visit and I suspect that might not be enough to keep them in the style to which they are accustom.

To locally eliminate "carbon" emissions and yet keep selling the product to others and re-import the results of the associated energy use might appear to many Norwegians and certainly much of the wider world, a very morally questionable approach.

Maybe when the Oil and Gas runs out they will start to mine for Thorium and go all out for thorium based reactors. They will need to do something significant to keep the lifestyle to which they are accustomed at the costs it incurs.

[crmalcolm]

Obviously Norway's energy and associated carbon situation is under close scrutiny.

I'm not suggesting it is perfect, and there is still a long way to go.

However, I'm not convinced it is as questionable as some put it.

In a country where the consumption of electricity per person is nearly 4 times the EU average, and over 95% of that comes from hydropower, the final 5% is always going to be difficult.
The exported oil and gas accounts for 17% of GDP, so if this was to stop then there would clearly be an impact, but would it be an extreme impact?

What Norway seems to have achieved so far is an effective exploitation of their situation. Their situation is a model that can be observed, but the emphasis should be on what can be learnt before consideration of what can be adopted is made by other countries.

[Mike Harte]

Grant, as CRM says, 95% of Norway's electricity is provided by hydropower, with the balance coming from thermal sources and also wind power.

And most of their oil and gas production is exported.

[Tel 911S]

Norway is unique in that its landscape can produce more Hydro generation than anywhere in Europe , & most of the rest of the world .
Hydro is the only "Renewable " generation that a countries grid can work on .
Solar or Wind will destabilise the frequency & cause blackouts if the amount of them is over about 45% , [ give or take a bit depending on everything else ].

So Norway , which has a total population less than London , has one of the lowest CO2 outputs in the World .
The UKs total CO2 output is only about 1% of all human emissions , compared to 27% from China .
So if Norway & the UK stopped all CO2 emissions , [ impossible ] , the total human emissions in the whole world would be no different, in fact would still rise as China is actually building hundreds more coal fired power stations .

And the huge decrease of human produced CO2 during lockdown had no effect on world total , [ which actually continued to rise ] , because human produced CO2 is only a tiny percentage of the worlds naturally produced total .

And then there is the fact that there is not 1 single piece of scientific evidence that CO2 has any measurable effect on climate .

So all of the renewable energy , low emissions , EVs saving the world , propaganda is just a con to get more money , [ lots of it ] from the Western world .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdoRvly02Bo

IPCC official admits Global Warming is a fraud to redistribute wealth .

[midgetman]

I think this thread has run its course. We're going round in circles and will never convince each other of the validity of our own standpoints.

[Peter Mallett]

I don't believe you.

[Tel 911S]

The UN is now admitting that the mining of the rare minerals necessary for EV production will have a devastating environmental effect on the planet .
https://www.breitbart.com/environmen...ic-car-boom-2/

[Adam43]

I’ve cherry picked this article from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I’ve cherry picked this article from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News

Breitbart is reporting a statement by the UN . The fact that most of the mainstream media will not report it does not show that the statement is wrong ,
but that most of the media will not tell all of the truth .
And as for Wiki , if you believe anything from them about climate or global warming , then you are just fooling yourself .

So try this one .
A prominent Environmental activist has finally got around to admitting that the climate scare has been all lies for 30 years .
Perhaps he can see the end of the scam coming and is trying make the last bit of money out of it by writing a book .
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...I#4175a2c1fa84