No, it isn't. Electricity doesn't “come from” the national grid. It comes from generators. The national grid transmits it to consumers.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Government publishes world’s first ‘greenprint’ to decarbonise all modes of domestic transport by 2050
- Thread starter Nicholas Lewis
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
so your 'green' electric comes down separate wires to my 'dirty' electric. And where does your 'green' electric come from on a cold dark windless day in an anticyclone in Feb? I think of it like putting 4 pints of different beer in a bucket and then trying to separate it out when you get to your table.
France or Norway.
Define 'horrendous' - I've been getting insurance quotes and for me (in my 40s) and wife on car, living in "middle England" with a decent No Claims bonus and I'm looking at £ 350 ish for a Mondeo / Insignia / Mazda 6 and about £ 500 for a Jaguar XF / Mercedes E class.
No - but when I pay £100 for green energy - £100’s worth of green energy is produced. If I pay £100 for conventional energy , then £100 worth of “ dirty” energy is produced. As the clean and dirty refers to the method of generation, not the power itself, which is identical ( neither furs up the pipes more!), it doesn’t actually matter who gets what. More like “ has the egg in this cake come from a battery hen or from an organic free range one” doesn’t make much difference to the cake - but a heck of a lot to the hen
Grumpy Git
On Moderation
Using the term "green" for nuclear generated power is stretching it a bit too when you consider all the necessary steps in re-processing and ultimately storing the fuel.
Nearly £2K (with business use) for a new RR Evoque PHEV and my Transporter van. I'm almost 60, SWMBO is mid 50's. Both have a clean licence, full no claims. We moved one postcode 15 years ago and all our insurance premiums doubled.
Unless we live in the same house, yes. Which we don't.
Your beer analogy is broken: you are talking about four different kinds of beer (the product) when in this context we're talking about the same product (electrical power) produced in different ways.
reddragon
Established Member
Most of the top illness specific conditions listed are as a result of air pollution or made far worse by air pollution and that is not specifically recorded by NHS figures.
The EU and economists do not agree with you. Who do you think pays to clear up the mess, damage & waste products from oil, gas and nuclear? The US taxpayer is having to pay for thousands of polluting abandoned wells to be sealed off, not the oil industry! The oil industry has a huge lobby group & funded 'scientists' paid to promote their agenda & hide facts from us.
UK has biggest fossil fuel subsidies in the EU, finds commission
Subsidies for coal, oil and gas are not falling despite EU pledges to tackle climate change
www.theguardian.com
The EV subsidy is essential to drive the transition so that the UK motor industry keeps up with the rest of the world in manufacturing, without it all of our cars will be from China. Once the transition is unstoppable, taxes will adjust. You could also note that 99% of us pay taxes, yet the 1% who own 95% of everything do not pay taxes. Taxation is much bigger than the car industry. Why do you think the EU is going after taxes from Google, Amazon etc and the offshoring franchises like Starbucks?
If you don't want to get a car subsidised with a 99% tax free allowance and prefer to pay the much higher costs of running an ICE car that's up to you. EVs are cheaper to own in every category now even without the 40% discounts from bik schemes. Having driven only EVs for 5 years now and saved a heap of ££££, with the difference being between a Nokia brick ICE car or a smart phone EV being too big to go backwards into legacy technology and having a car that doesn't devalue like the proverbial brick like diesels do, I'm happy.
When you buy electric, your supplier must declare where they buy their electric from. Some just say they buy from renewable credits, other from dedicated supply sources which are better.
In reality, what you get down the cable just represents what the grid mix supplied to you. If you charge in the peak winters evening you get dirty power and on a sunny windy day, or during the night you get clean power, and the clean content grows every month as the transition happens.
NR buy from 100% dedicated clean sources and their grid connections support that but naturally at times much of their power in an area could be very dirty energy. The fact is they directly support the production of 100% clean energy.
Last edited:
Stretching or not, nuclear is classed as zero carbon. As is Hydro, Solar and Wind, which France produces a lot of too (17MW right now). Norway is almost entirely hydro.
suspect the UK is a bit short of hydro just now. our (Ribble) river has had no water in it for weeks.
We don’t have much hydro at all. Norway however has loads. Which is why we have just commissioned an HVDC link to them at 1.4 GW.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
France is 17GW 17MW wouldn't power more than a handful of Azumas!
As an aside Solar, Hydro and Wind need vast amounts energy input to manufacture solar cells, concrete to build dams and even the best wind turbines need several hundred tonnes of steel for the towers alone. As for EV's battery manufacturing requires a vast energy input to refine the various exotic metals in them let alone the grade of most copper ore being well below 1% so 99% of what is dug out of the ground is of no use but you have to process 100% of it to get to the 1%.
We need to be careful in our pursuit of self righteousness over the green agenda that we aren't just outsourcing our emissions elsewhere. Drax's wood pellets being a perfect example.
There are no easy answers here other than forced behavioural change if we believe tackling climate impact of mankind is necessary.
Which wasn't what you claimed. Equally though, I'm still not sure that's right as there are often other factors for some of the conditions you'll claim - e.g. Asthma / COPD are often driven by either smoking or allergies (to natural substances)
The same EU figures which are claiming the exact point I made, which is that they think a lower VAT rate is a subsidy. Not sure I trust them too much. And last time I checked Nuclear was both zero carbon and not a fossil fuel.
Utter nonsense - if the product is a good one, people will buy it without the need for a 'bribe'.
The 1% do pay taxes - maybe not as much as you would like - but that's not the issue.
The EU is going after Google / Amazon et al, because the EU is basically running an analogue tax system in a digital age. That's the fault of the legislators and politicians, not of the companies. And the EU is basically a protectionist racket - demanding higher and higher taxes - not really the 'free trade' body the remainers kept claiming it is.
I've done the maths - and I think I'll be better off running a 3-5 year old car. Somebody else will have taken the depreciation hit. I won't have to faff around looking to plug the damn thing in, none of that. Diesels are only depreciating because everyone is now realising what a mistake it was to go out and buy diesels 15 or so years ago. The reality was for some types of car, diesel is absolutely ideal - larger engines where the average mileage was higher. It was absurd people buying Ford Fiesta or VW Polo diesels and pootling around town, all because they *thought* they'd get 70mpg out of the damn thing, whereas a 1.2 petrol, which would have been an infinitely better choice, would *only* do 50mpg.
And battery cars *may* be cheaper on *some* running costs - but when those batteries fail, you'll be in for a replacement cost which is on par with if not more than a replacement engine. To use a practical example the battery pack for a Prius is *over* £ 1000 to buy, that's before fitting. And those batteries fail somewhere between 100-150k miles. Interestingly I looked up a couple of my old cars to see whether they were still going - the 2001 Mondeo diesel had its last MOT in 2014 with almost 175k miles on, the 2005 Saab 9-3 last MOT'd in 2017 with 165k miles on. An EV would have needed new batteries by then.
I have no problem with new technology - and if hydrogen cars came to market along with the infrastructure to refuel them, I'd go for one of those like a shot. But battery powered cars are crap technology - they make the cars unnecessarily heavy (which is the opposite of what any engineer will tell you is the best thing), the batteries have a finite life (probably less than that of a well made, well maintained ICE), the batteries need lots of minerals, usually extracted from Africa by Chinese companies. Given the choice between funding the Arabs by continuing to use petrol or diesel or funding the Chinese by buying EVs where they've extracted the minerals from Africa, I'd side with the Arabs every time.
Last edited:
Grumpy Git
On Moderation
Almost like choice of which strain of VD you'd prefer.
Perhaps - but when oil prices collapse (as they inevitably will) there is a bit of a risk we'll end up with a war in the Middle East. But there are some countries in the Arab world it is possible to deal with practically and pragmatically.
The Chinese on the other hand cannot be trusted - Coronavirus is just one of many, many examples. So whilst I take your point, I view the Arabs as the lesser of two evils by quite a margin.
squizzler
Established Member
I think you missed what @Grumpy Git was implying, which is that ideally you’d do neither. An effective combination of public transport, car sharing and bicycling will reduce our reliance on products of unsavoury regimes. Decarbonisation by such measures (additional to electric motoring) is mainstream policy now, which is why the tories are introducing all these measures. Those I call the “carmunists” - those ultra-dogmatic members of the motoring community who rant at cycle lanes - are increasingly only accommodated by fringe political parties like UKIP (or whatever its called now), and do not warrant being taken seriously. That is why Boris Johnson made his disappointment plain in relation to the small number, albeit high profile, of cases where local authorities bottled out of introducing their traffic calming measures.
In addition to mobility strategy, the government is also looking at measures to decarbonise food supply and home heating. When we are ordered not to eat as much meat and dairy, and the gas boiler gets condemned, I think road user charging will be quite far down the list of things to get antsy about.
I would suggest it is more like the smoking ban on wheels. An unthinkable assault on personal freedom until it happens, after which we will probably look at the former "free for all" situation with disbelief.
In addition to mobility strategy, the government is also looking at measures to decarbonise food supply and home heating. When we are ordered not to eat as much meat and dairy, and the gas boiler gets condemned, I think road user charging will be quite far down the list of things to get antsy about.
I am pleased to be considered "anti car" although the truth is that I am probably more of a motoring sceptic, unable to determine if the car I own really confers any real advantages. I only got the thing to take a kayak to local beaches but it turns out even this use case might now be undermined by the increased availability of powerful ebikes and trailers. This would make me zombie motorist - going through the motions of owning one and using it for some trips, largely because that is the wider orthodoxy and social expectation, but with it not necessarily the only - or even the best option for me - and whose experience with motoring lacks any real passion.
Make-do-and-mend is an excellent motoring strategy, as the embodied ecological cost of a new car is amortised over several years more use (there is a thread elsewhere on this subject). Of course if anyone did it it the motor trade would be knackered, as the market required to justify those major electrification plans would disappear.
Railwaysceptic
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 1,566
It is a common delusion of those who have a psychosis about motor cars that motorists do not know, recognise and understand how much it costs to own and run a vehicle. To be politically acceptable, road pricing will be a replacement for the current taxes motorists have to pay. For many motorists, this may reduce their costs.
Nail, hit, head.
And it's why 'subsidising' EVs is entirely the wrong thing to do - because if they are worthwhile people will make the shift themselves without financial inducement. The fact there's financial inducement tells you that the product isn't good enough or is too expensive. And whilst the government may be subsidising these at present - when it results in a loss of revenue (and back to my earlier point that motoring taxes far outweigh the amount spent on the road network) - the government will need to either cut public spending or increase taxes to bridge the gap.
This on the other hand doesn't just miss the nail, it misses the piece of wood the nail's meant to be going into and even the workbench.
You cannot compare smoking - which is a habit usually done for personal pleasure - with the ability to transport yourself a long distance at relatively high speed unrestricted by timetables, bolshie unions and having to share said space with other travellers.
squizzler
Established Member
I am probably not alone in failing to understand what you mean by a “psychosis about motor vehicles”.
Trying to portray opposition of your viewpoint as a mental illness is not a great look.
It is actually well known that motorists are bad at comparing the real running costs of their cars vis-a-vis the other options. The lift share operator Uber knows this well, which is why their operation was able to substantially undercut established taxi operators at their host drivers expense.
Last edited:
That helpfully provides details of THE top one, the post (not mine) said ONE of the top ones.
However cars off the hook, as whilst the split between type 1 and 2 isn't given, one of the causes of type 2 is a bad diet combined with a lack of exercise (not always, but a factor).
What's the cost of fuel going to do over the next twelve months?
How much will your car sell for?
Will you get caught speeding/parking illegally and be issued with a fine?
Will your car breakdown?
There's many questions which car owners can't answer (although some may be answerable with a lease car) which are linked to how much their costs will be, even if you record everything that you spend (which most people don't).
reddragon
Established Member
EVs are quite young technology as are many new products I use in my industry, so life spans & reliabilities are not as well known as old tech.
It was a theory that batteries 'might' need replacing before the car and hence Nissan & Renault offered battery leasing as an option to cover this until about 2016. The reality has been that the batteries not only outlast the cars but go onto second lives as grid / home storage. Current batteries are expected to last 15 years / 250k miles in a car and another 10-15 as storage on average
There are plenty of examples of early Nissan Leaf cars passing 250k miles with 15-20% loss of capacity and early Tesla's passing 1 million kms with 10-15% loss, but negligible cases of old batteries in need of replacement. Indeed many 24kW Nissan Leaf owners have replaced their battery pack with a 40kw version just to increase range and have sold on their old batteries at very competitive rates. What is a knackered old ICE engine worth? Scrap value!!
New LPF batteries from CATL as fitted in buses, HGVs and some cars come with a 1 million mile guarantee. Why would a manufacturer offer that if it wasn't a low risk to them?
Hydrogen? And you complain about the weight of an EV!!!! The calorific value of Hydrogen is very poor next to oil and needs substantial high pressure tanks that weigh a lot. OK they are looking at honeycomb storage and a chemical reaction to store & release hydrogen to stop these cars blowing up but they still need sizable battery packs. Hydrogen cars are a total dead end and even Toyota has thrown in the towel on this one. It might work o trains and ships but that's it. Battery energy density is doubling every 18 months. You cannot increase the energy density of Hydrogen and nobody is backing that dead horse for cars anymore bar a few desperate oil companies.
BIB - no they haven't. They launched the new Mirai, including in the UK, at the end of last year.
And as this article puts it
Toyota Mirai 2021 review: the hydrogen car comes of age
The new Toyota Mirai is the UK’s only hydrogen fuel-cell car. Is it a dead-end street, asks Tim Pitt, or a glimpse of the future?
www.cityam.com
"Toyota Mirai 2021 review: the hydrogen car comes of age"
lord rathmore
Member
Utter bull****. Fairy-dust politics. Let's put all our eggs in a "technogy not invented yet" basket and wait for the magic fairy.
reddragon
Established Member
The Betamax momentBIB - no they haven't. They launched the new Mirai, including in the UK, at the end of last year.
And as this article puts it
Toyota Mirai 2021 review: the hydrogen car comes of age
The new Toyota Mirai is the UK’s only hydrogen fuel-cell car. Is it a dead-end street, asks Tim Pitt, or a glimpse of the future?
"Toyota Mirai 2021 review: the hydrogen car comes of age"
Even the article admits its probably a dead end street.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
aka Bionic Duckweed
The Betamax moment
Even the article admits its probably a dead end street.
And as it also says "As soon as I posted pictures of it on social media, an army of EV evangelists – many of whom apparently drive Teslas – swung into action, rubbishing the whole concept of hydrogen cars."
Think the author has successfully described you in that.
reddragon
Established Member
I'm not the one who is proud to boast turning down an EV with a 1% tax rate and 1p/mile that makes it cheaper to lease than a comparable fossil fuel car and would rather pay 15p/mile in fuel and have maintenance / tax costs to own a Nokia brick, then to boast that is buying a high pollution car whilst London is devastated by an unprecedented flood (damaging several lines) and in Europe 100's are dead and 1000's missing due to a climate change driven flood.
You appear to be a climate troll.
1% which increases by 100% next year and probably yearly after that.
It's also that low because the value of the car is far higher - example
Hyundai Ioniq - hybrid £ 24k, PHEV £30k, EV £31k. And that's a 'like for like' car - need a large family car? How much is a Tesla? North of £40k. That's out the reach of most people unless they go down the PCP rip off path.
And for all your sneering about a Nokia brick, I seem to recall they were very good phones with a charge which would last a week - most iphones struggle to do a day.
As I said, I'll move for the right technology and EVs aren't the right technology.
There are issues with any type of power for cars.
Hydrocarbons create a lot of pollution.
EV's require batteries which aren't created in an all that environmentally friendly way, but are probably the least worse.
Hydrogen is rarely green hydrogen, so creates lots of pollution (just not in urban areas, so a marginal improvement over Hydrocarbons), even if it were green hydrogen it's more efficient to use it to create electricity to run EV's than use it in Hydrogen cars.
Also hydrogen, to get our existing hydrogen production to be all green, would require renewable energy totalling the same as the whole of the current EU generation. As such increasing our hydrogen production isn't all that ideal.
WFH will help, as more will be able to travel less, maybe even allowing some to ditch their car altogether (as the cost difference of driving 4,000 miles a year or 8,000 miles in an ICE is circa £500 compared to the average car ownership cost of over £3,000). Especially if there's a car club car or it results in a reduction in cars in the household.
The best way to travel, in terms of cost is walking, although that limits the distance you can go. However one of issues with EV's is that fuel costs are so low that cost isn't such a deterrent for those short trips which are suited for walking.
Cycling is the next best in terms of cost, but had some additional benefits over walking (speed, ability to carry more, etc.). However still suffers from a limit on range (something this can be assisted by using e-bikes).
Although few would consider anything other than a car (not public transport which suits between walking/cycling and driving) and so it's likely that we'll find a lot more EV's being used as time goes on.
- Status