Another sad day

[Buckman]

Probably - there's a significant minority of drivers determined not to buy an EV by that date so there's likely to be a flood of IC purchases in 2029 and car makers are likely to start 2030 with minimal inventory of IC cars - and the demand for used IC cars will go up as the target EV % ramps up and car makers either restrict IC sales or increase prices of IC cars to cover the fines.

It's already clear that many buyers are holding on to their used IC car much longer than normal, presumably with the intention of buying one more IC car before the ban comes in.

In the mean time, China will continue flooding the UK and EU markets with cheap, subsidised EVs - which will undercut UK and EU manufacturers driving some of them out of business - then the price of Chinese EVs will shoot up!

Our Energy Secretary justifies the mad dogmatic dash to decarbonise our national electricity grid by claiming it will free us from dependence on the fossil fuels of foreign dictators. The only dictatorship from which we import a reasonable amount of gas is the Gulf state of Qatar, nominally a friend? We import a lot of gas from the US?

In fact, far from freeing us from the need to cosy up to nasty autocrats to keep our homes warm and our appliances running, the dash to decarbonise the grid by 2030 will put us in hock to the biggest dictatorship of all which is China.

Certainly is a very big worry.

 

[Buckman]

Reading an article already the cost of second hand cars is increasing. The cost of a second hand Renault Captur and the Prius + has risen by over 17% in the past year. Several other models have also seen prices rise by up to 14%. Data supplied by Cap HPI data.

 

[Dustydog]

Our Energy Secretary justifies the mad dogmatic dash to decarbonise our national electricity grid by claiming it will free us from dependence on the fossil fuels of foreign dictators. The only dictatorship from which we import a reasonable amount of gas is the Gulf state of Qatar, nominally a friend? We import a lot of gas from the US?

In fact, far from freeing us from the need to cosy up to nasty autocrats to keep our homes warm and our appliances running, the dash to decarbonise the grid by 2030 will put us in hock to the biggest dictatorship of all which is China.

Certainly is a very big worry.

Fully agree

And most bits for our green solar panels come from China who can still boast one new coal fired power station a week!

Shipping gas across the Atlantic ? What a joke 😡

We are doing so well keeping clean at the expense of others!

We really need to be doing things to be self supporting and. clean.

 

[otherclive]

Fully agree

And most bits for our green solar panels come from China who can still boast one new coal fired power station a week!

Shipping gas across the Atlantic ? What a joke 😡

We are doing so well keeping clean at the expense of others!

We really need to be doing things to be self supporting and. clean.

Agree as there are comments coming from the US that if more gas isn’t purchased tariffs may be imposed.

“We really need to be doing things to be self supporting and. clean.“

Isnt that what wind, solar, renewables and nuclear are aiming to achieve?

 

[Dustydog]

Isnt that what wind, solar, renewables and nuclear are aiming to achieve?

Absolutely . Just a shame a lot of it still adds to pollution elsewhere .

 

[otherclive]

Isnt that what wind, solar, renewables and nuclear are aiming to achieve?

Absolutely . Just a shame a lot of it still adds to pollution elsewhere .

I would say that it’s virtually impossible to develop major infrastructure programmes that are non polluting during construction. But with responsible management such pollution can be reduced and the lifetime benefits will accrue. I wonder how many give thought to the global pollution’s that their use of fossil fuels has created, notwithstanding carbon dioxide emissions.

 

[Buckman]

Agree as there are comments coming from the US that if more gas isn’t purchased tariffs may be imposed.

“We really need to be doing things to be self supporting and. clean.“

Isnt that what wind, solar, renewables and nuclear are aiming to achieve?

Sadly a couple of days like we saw recently with zero wind and sun probably meant no power into the network.

 

[otherclive]

Sadly a couple of days like we saw recently with zero wind and sun probably meant no power into the network.

But as more progress is made there will be, plus supplemented by nuclear and don’t forget the multi connectors from Europe and Ireland.

 

[Buckman]

But as more progress is made there will be, plus supplemented by nuclear and don’t forget the multi connectors from Europe and Ireland.

However we are still importing;

“We really need to be doing things to be self supporting and clean.“

 

[Dustydog]

I would say that it’s virtually impossible to develop major infrastructure programmes that are non polluting during construction. But with responsible management such pollution can be reduced and the lifetime benefits will accrue. I wonder how many give thought to the global pollution’s that their use of fossil fuels has created, notwithstanding carbon dioxide emissions.

I bet there’s plenty of rich Chinese coalmen 😉

 

[otherclive]

However we are still importing;

“We really need to be doing things to be self supporting and clean.“

At present of a demand of 31.6gw 70% is carbon neutral, 58% is renewables, only 12% is gas. So what percentage of that gas is UK produced, coming via interconnections or possibly LNG from Europe, Middle East or USA. I don’t know but historically we import 50% of our gas from supposedly friendly countries. There isn’t sufficient gas production in the UK economic area for us to produce the remaining 50% of our needs. To be more self reliant we could extend our pitifully small storage reserves to something like Germanys. But at the end of the day the call for greater self reliance is never answered by an answer that leads to self reliance and lower carbon dioxide emissions. Many make the call, but few offer alternative solutions.

 

[otherclive]

I bet there’s plenty of rich Chinese coalmen 😉

Or even Australian, Indonesian, Russian and Brazilian ones too. I posted this Wikipedia article a while back which describes Chinese coal usage compared to other energy sources. There is progress and they are on track for their declared target of CO2 emissions reductions. Very much a glass half full or half empty depending on a point of view. But like it, or not, they aren’t going to go away.

Coal in China - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[GUMPY]

Sadly a couple of days like we saw recently with zero wind and sun probably meant no power into the network.

I .managed to get through those high prices, £1kWh at peak times, by using my battery.
Tonight as it's windy the price doesn't go above zero for seven hours and they will pay me to use electricity.
Bring on more wind power and storage as far as I am concerned.

 

[Buckman]

I .managed to get through those high prices, £1kWh at peak times, by using my battery.
Tonight as it's windy the price doesn't go above zero for seven hours and they will pay me to use electricity.
Bring on more wind power and storage as far as I am concerned.

Don't those turbines shut down in strong winds?

 

[otherclive]

Don't those turbines shut down in strong winds?

You asked the same question in another thread “Is it too windy to tow”. Answer is still “yes” the turbines can turn into wind and blades can be feathered. Lots of info on the net on their design capability wrt weather. Clearly in Gumpys case it wasn’t too windy and he reaped the benefit.

 

[Buckman]

You asked the same question in another thread “Is it too windy to tow”. Answer is still “yes” the turbines can turn into wind and blades can be feathered. Lots of info on the net on their design capability wrt weather. Clearly in Gumpys case it wasn’t too windy and he reaped the benefit.

I can't even remember what I had for breakfast yesterday and you expect me to remember what question I asked a week or so ago? 🤣

 

[GUMPY]

Tonight will mark three nights on the trot of negative pricing. All with wind speeds of over 40mph, even in the last big storm with all the damage we saw negative pricing so I guess that the turbines don't shut down unless it's above 75mph otherwise why pay us to use electricity.
20 kWh used last night and they paid me the glorious sum of 18p.
The more usual reason for shutting down is that there is not enough capacity in the grid to transport the electricity to where it's needed.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Isnt that what wind, solar, renewables and nuclear are aiming to achieve?

Absolutely . Just a shame a lot of it still adds to pollution elsewhere .

Virtually every human activity produces some form of pollution, and it would be lovely to be able to prevent any emissions whilst maintaining the functionality of the activity. Essential, the best we can do is to reduce emissions or convert the activity to produce less of the most harmful emissions by improving efficiencies or eliminating low efficiency systems.

The UK and other countries have progressively been eliminating the most polluting sources and converting to less polluting methods.

EV's are a great example of this. Obviously zero tailpipe emissions at th e vehicle, but also the amount of energy consumed to move the vehicle over a given distance is significantly lower compared the energy value of the fossil fuels used in an ICE vehicle.

This also means that even where fossil fuel is used to generate electricity the amount of fuel burnt at th e generator will still be less than if the fossil fuel need by an ICE vehicle to do the same work.

By looking at, and improving efficiencies we can reduce the net emissions in tho the environment. But in the case of transport there are additional benefits. When fossil fuel is burnt in and ICE, the high pressure combustion process produces a range of more toxic emissions than the same quantity of fossil fuel burnt in a modern generating plant. Not only does running an EV reduce energy wastage, the flue gasses are less harmful than those produced in an ICE vehicles exhaust gasses.

The fact that we are shifting location of where the emissions are produced is still concerning, but even that is being addressed with the roll out of renewable sources such as wind, sun and hydro etc.

Complacency is the nemesis of improvement and innovation.

 

[Buckman]

Don't they use any fossil fuel to supply us with electric and in manufacturing of cars and transportation of those cars?

 

[Tobes]

Don't they use any fossil fuel to supply us with electric and in manufacturing of cars and transportation of those cars?

Yes and no.
Yes, the majority of mining takes place using fossil fuel, though that is starting to change, so gradually will become "no".
Yes, manufacturing plants run on a mixture of fossil and renewable energy, but that is also changing, and will become "no".

But this applies equally to both cars with combustion engines and electric drive trains. The overall difference is measured in the additional cost of the manufacture of the battery, and - in terms of carbon debt - that is repaid in the first few years of the life of the car by using fuel with a much lower carbon footprint in a far more efficient manner.

 

[Buckman]

Yes and no.
Yes, the majority of mining takes place using fossil fuel, though that is starting to change, so gradually will become "no".
Yes, manufacturing plants run on a mixture of fossil and renewable energy, but that is also changing, and will become "no".

But this applies equally to both cars with combustion engines and electric drive trains. The overall difference is measured in the additional cost of the manufacture of the battery, and - in terms of carbon debt - that is repaid in the first few years of the life of the car by using fuel with a much lower carbon footprint in a far more efficient manner.

EV cost a lot more to buy than the equivalent IVE vehicle and it can take between 3-5 years before the extra cost is recouped? As for mining and manufacturing plants maybe in the next century or two?

As for carbon debt in my opinion that is just another laughable scam when you take into account volcanoes etc that in just one day a volcano can put more carbon into the atmosphere than the whole of mankind in a year and it can take years or even a century for the atmosphere to clear because of the pollution from a single volcano.

However if people want to buy an EV that is their choice.

 

[Tobes]

EV cost a lot more to buy than the equivalent IVE vehicle

We have been here before. They don't. Of course it depend on what you are buying, but there are cars with equivalent spec available brand new in EV and ICE guise that cost the same. The "List price" is higher, yes, but the street prices are comparable.

For example - from auto trader. Peugeot 2008 brand new in GT spec.
1.2 Petrol Mild Hybrid 134bhp, 170 foot lb, £26,899
Electric 134bhp, 192 foot pound, £24,235

Yes - you read that right - electric is cheaper. And if bought before April, it has £0 tax for the 1st year too. From second year, tax is the same, but the owner would save on fuel and servicing.

and it can take between 3-5 years before the extra cost is recouped?

No - not really. When the prices are as close as they can be now, the extra cost can be recovered in months. The running cost difference (just fuel) absorbs an extra 1000 pounds spend every 7 to 10 thousand miles.

As for mining and manufacturing plants maybe in the next century or two?

But this is common for both ICE and EV.

As for carbon debt in my opinion that is just another laughable scam when you take into account volcanoes etc that in just one day a volcano can put more carbon into the atmosphere than the whole of mankind in a year and it can take years or even a century for the atmosphere to clear because of the pollution from a single volcano.

This is a widely repeated myth too. Human activity generates around 60 times the amount of emissions generated by volcanic activity each year. There is a very good article discussing this topic here

However if people want to buy an EV that is their choice.

Absolutely - and also their choice not to buy one. Personal circumstances and needs are top of the list. But it is important to be making the choice with the full set of facts.
I imagine if someone had the opportunity to be able to take advantage of an EV (their circumstances permitted it) but they chose not to because they made their choice with incorrect information, potentially costing them money, or making a choice they believed to be more environmentally friendly than it actually was, they might be upset...

 

[Buckman]

This is a widely repeated myth too. Human activity generates around 60 times the amount of emissions generated by volcanic activity each year. There is a very good article discussing this topic here

Your above post indicates that respected scientists don't have a clue? However if you choose to believe that is a myth that is your choice, however I wonder why aeroplanes needs to avoid areas around volcanoes if there is no pollution and that their engines will not be destroyed if the enter a cloud of volcanic ash?

 

[otherclive]

EV cost a lot more to buy than the equivalent IVE vehicle and it can take between 3-5 years before the extra cost is recouped? As for mining and manufacturing plants maybe in the next century or two?

As for carbon debt in my opinion that is just another laughable scam when you take into account volcanoes etc that in just one day a volcano can put more carbon into the atmosphere than the whole of mankind in a year and it can take years or even a century for the atmosphere to clear because of the pollution from a single volcano.

However if people want to buy an EV that is their choice.

You do go on about volcanoes despite references being posted into the threads that show your statement is not supported. It’s generally reported that mankind emits 60-100 times what is emitted by volcanoes. Do you actually have a reference to a reputable source to support your oft posted comment.

What do volcanoes have to do with climate change? - NASA Science

Volcanic eruptions are often discussed in the context of climate change because they release CO2 and other gases into our atmosphere. However, the impact of human activities on the carbon cycle far exceeds that of all the world’s volcanoes combined, by more than 100 times. To put it in...

science.nasa.gov

 

[otherclive]

Your above post indicates that respected scientists don't have a clue? However if you choose to believe that is a myth that is your choice, however I wonder why aeroplanes needs to avoid areas around volcanoes if there is no pollution and that their engines will not be destroyed if the enter a cloud of volcanic ash?

No one disputes that an aircraft should divert around areas affected by a volcanic eruption on safety grounds. But to think that in the global scale of things aircraft making diversions caused by volcanic eruptions is fatuous.