The EV problem.

[Stutopia]

2 hours ago, gangzoom said:

 

All I can present is factual information as produced by the national grid. How you want to read the data is upto you. But here is the text from Ofgem explaining the trends.

"Electricity generation mix: At-a-glance summary

The GB electricity system is undergoing a period of significant change as we transition from a large-scale conventional fossil fuel dominated generation mix to intermittent renewable generation. Over the past few years we have seen a marked increase in output from wind and solar farms. Over 2015 and 2016, the share of electricity generated from gas increased, while the share generated from coal decreased. This was partly due to improved economics for gas-fired generators."

 

I can't tell if you're serious or not. You think the mix % is more important than the absolute values?

 

The graph contains values in TWh for energy production via Coal, Oil & Gas - not percentages. If you take the total fossil values from 11 years ago and then compare them to now, we're using more energy from fossil fuels than before - assuming your numbers are accurate.

 

Whether this represents 50% or 20% of the energy "mix" of production does not change the fact that more energy is being made from fossil fuels than before.

 

If you're going to put up stats to prove your point, you should really understand them first.

[davey_83]

#micdrop

Edited November 9, 2017 by davey_83

[Jetpilot]

I definitely think wind and solar has its place, however, i only ever see it being a boost, we are still going to need to burn fossil fuels (not supporting this by the way) until a proper viable alternative comes along and whilst battery storage maybe a good means of streamlining, if you are still raping the planet for their production, i dont see its any more green or sustainable than fossil fuels.

 

if the below is how you want the planet to look, i would be staggered and make note of the ice vehicles in shot used to create it, sorry but if you cant see the bigger picture i am afraid you just dont want to!!!

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by Jetpilot

[Ekona]

Until we come up with a new way of storing power other than using lithium, we're just smashing the planet a different way. Whatever we choose as our means of transport, aside from pedal or Shank's Pony, we're not really helping matters.

 

As an aside, I also do not give a toss about this in the slightest. It's the most selfish view anyone can have on the environment, but I really don't care about saving the planet at all. I genuinely believe that it's not until it's proper borked and about to kill us all that we'll actually make a revolution that will save things, and if we don't then we don't deserve to survive as a species anyway. It'll all be well after I'm gone regardless, so I'll enjoy my time here as much as I can.

 

#heartlessbastard

[gangzoom]

6 hours ago, SuperStu said:

 

I can't tell if you're serious or not. You think the mix % is more important than the absolute values?

 

The graph contains values in TWh for energy production via Coal, Oil & Gas - not percentages. If you take the total fossil values from 11 years ago and then compare them to now, we're using more energy from fossil fuels than before - assuming your numbers are accurate.

 

Whether this represents 50% or 20% of the energy "mix" of production does not change the fact that more energy is being made from fossil fuels than before.

 

If you're going to put up stats to prove your point, you should really understand them first.

 

Your interpretation of the Ofgem chart is coal is still the biggest source of electricty generation? Maybe everyone else is wrong and your right on the about the role coal

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/08/25/uk-coal-power-peters-lowest-135-years/

 

Am not here to tell people how to read histograms. If you cannot understand what the Ofgem produced graph shows there is little point in debating anything.

 

 

[Stutopia]

2 hours ago, gangzoom said:

 

Your interpretation of the Ofgem chart is coal is still the biggest source of electricty generation? Maybe everyone else is wrong and your right on the about the role coal

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/08/25/uk-coal-power-peters-lowest-135-years/

 

Am not here to tell people how to read histograms. If you cannot understand what the Ofgem produced graph shows there is little point in debating anything.

 

 

You are right about one thing, there is little point in debating anything with you. I'm pro EV, but have the ability to consider both sides of the argument. You're so blinded by EV devotion, that you can't even concede when you're own numbers don't stack up.

 

If I've read it so wrong, why don't you tell me the TWh values for Oil, Coal and Gas for 2006 and 2017? 

[Ekona]

Using complete years only, as 2017 isn't done yet.

 

Coal

2006 - 141.49

2016 - 28.98

 

Oil

2006 - 4.42

2016 - 1.75

 

Gas

2006 - 137.76

2016 - 140.84

 

Totals

2006 - 283.67

2016 - 171.57

 

And just for giggles:

Nuclear

2006 - 69.23

2016 - 62.69

 

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb

 

That link has a proper data table to call the numbers out on. That graph with pretty colours on is f*cking useless.

[gangzoom]

10 hours ago, Ekona said:

 

That link has a proper data table to call the numbers out on. That graph with pretty colours on is f*cking useless.

 

It still shows the same thing, fossile fuels role in UK electricty generation is falling, both in terms of absolute and relative amounts, which you can tell from the graph in about 5 seconds...which is the point of graphs presenting lots of number in a easy to understand form, though for some it seems graphs are quite hard to understand;).

Edited November 10, 2017 by gangzoom

[gangzoom]

11 hours ago, SuperStu said:

You're so blinded by EV devotion, that you can't even concede when you're own numbers don't stack up.

 

Not sure what else there is to say, hitting head against brick wall comes to mind.

[Keyser]

I have been following this thread out of curiosity, I'm a little lost or confused, it appears the discussion on fossil fuel usage is for the production of electricity, much as I am aware that we are running out of fossil fuel and the rape of the planet needs some urgent attention and is a worthy point for discussion the use of EV's  and it's affect on fossil fuel usage is infinitesimally small on that figure at the moment - or I'm misinformed (a distinct possibility given the control of the media)

 

As I see it you can't use fossil fuel as a "complete"  justification for driving an EV (but every little helps) by the same token if you are trying to "save the planet" you can't drive any new car as the amount of pollution produced to build any new car even if recyclable materials were used in its production  when added to the pollution the vehicle produces are far greater in the short term than carrying on driving some old  gas guzzler you currently have!

 

I am fully aware my point if used as an argument have huge holes in it the main one being "short term" however there is no simple answer hitting short term pollution targets is not the solution and we actually need a complete change to the system or the invention of a star trek style transporter system - assuming this does not have an environmentally harmful side affect -  Basically the discussion is frustrating by virtue of the fact that actually we don't have a good answer to it.

 

Or did I miss the whole point???

 

 

Flame proof suit on standby

 

[davey_83]

Cleanest fuel source on earth is hydrogen

[Ekona]

It’s no great surprise that alternative fuel usage has gone up whilst fossil fuel usage has dropped: The political usage of taxes and wider agreements (Kyoto etc) meant that this would always be the case. More so when you add in the fact that improving technology means it’s easier and cheaper to obtain AFs, where it’s getting harder to source FFs. 

 

Ultimately we’ll hit a point in the future where we are using no FFs at all, simply because there isn’t any left. But so what? I’m not fussed about where my power comes from, I just care that my hobby still exists and that won’t change in my lifetime. 

[coldel]

1 hour ago, Keyser said:

I have been following this thread out of curiosity, I'm a little lost or confused, it appears the discussion on fossil fuel usage is for the production of electricity, much as I am aware that we are running out of fossil fuel and the rape of the planet needs some urgent attention and is a worthy point for discussion the use of EV's  and it's affect on fossil fuel usage is infinitesimally small on that figure at the moment - or I'm misinformed (a distinct possibility given the control of the media)

 

As I see it you can't use fossil fuel as a "complete"  justification for driving an EV (but every little helps) by the same token if you are trying to "save the planet" you can't drive any new car as the amount of pollution produced to build any new car even if recyclable materials were used in its production  when added to the pollution the vehicle produces are far greater in the short term than carrying on driving some old  gas guzzler you currently have!

 

I am fully aware my point if used as an argument have huge holes in it the main one being "short term" however there is no simple answer hitting short term pollution targets is not the solution and we actually need a complete change to the system or the invention of a star trek style transporter system - assuming this does not have an environmentally harmful side affect -  Basically the discussion is frustrating by virtue of the fact that actually we don't have a good answer to it.

 

Or did I miss the whole point???

 

 

Flame proof suit on standby

 

 

Nail on head. 

 

As I mentioned further up, EV's are not 'clean' cars, they over the course of their lifetime should be 'cleaner' than the ICE but no you are not being good to the environment by owning one. You are marginally better than your ICE car owner, but you are no eco-activist. Do you own anything in your house made of plastic? Have you ever bought a packet of crisps and thrown the empty packet in a bin on the high street? There is a focus on CO2 as there should be, but we pollute in so many other ways I still believe that we will end up in some sort of Wall-E style future of a planet full of rubbish and lazy humans relying on technology and unable to function 

[Toon Chris]

Short term reduction in pollution from car fumes means less people dying now.

Medium term reduction in pollution from power generation means less people dying in the future.

 

It's all controlled by politics which is hideously short-term in its mentality, and politics - even non-democratic politics - is driven hard by what the people want.  

So in essence, humans are short-term thinkers and politics is even shorter-term in nature. As others have said, nothing that significantly affects medium to long term environmental issues will happen until it is too late.

 

EVs are the future, stop bitchin', enjoy your petrol while you can and go EV when it gets cheap/efficient enough.

[Stutopia]

There’s no room for shades of grey @Keyser, its either the panacea or you hate the planet.

 

When you think about, it makes no odds what you drive anyway, once someone has kids nothing will come close to the carbon footprint of one of those

 

[Toon Chris]

1 minute ago, SuperStu said:

 

When you think about, it makes no odds what you drive anyway, once someone has kids nothing will come close to the carbon footprint of one of those

 

I don't have kids.

I wonder if all the tissues I've used in my life add up to a tree.

 

[Keyser]

6 minutes ago, Toon Chris said:

Short term reduction in pollution from car fumes means less people dying now.

Medium term reduction in pollution from power generation means less people dying in the future.

 

It's all controlled by politics which is hideously short-term in its mentality, and politics - even non-democratic politics - is driven hard by what the people want.  

So in essence, humans are short-term thinkers and politics is even shorter-term in nature. As others have said, nothing that significantly affects medium to long term environmental issues will happen until it is too late.

 

EVs are the future, stop bitchin', enjoy your petrol while you can and go EV when it gets cheap/efficient enough.

 

 

Short term reduction in pollution from car fumes means less people dying now. - Big short term problem

Medium term reduction in pollution from power generation means less people dying in the future. Huge long term problem due to exponential growth!

 

As @SuperStu so eloquently points out Kids have a huge carbon footprint as do all humans, it could be argued that we  actually have a bigger problem with the population than we do with how we get our power. The solution is obviously mass genocide - this won't worry @Ekona as long as he can carry on driving his chosen car and isn't on the list.

 

However I may have the answer if we go with the Gaia principle then it follows that -

 

Humans uses fossil fuel - Fossil Fuel kills a large percentage of humans (pollution)

 

Less humans require less power - AF's supply a large percentage of this lower demand

 

Existing fossil fuel last long enough for us to all drive cars until A. The human race dies out B. a suitable sustainable alternative is found.

 

In the interim we should have nothing to worry about and can all carry on as is without a care in the world - Even global warming will be under control.

 

Some may say I'm being naive though?

 

 

 

 

[gangzoom]

41 minutes ago, SuperStu said:

There’s no room for shades of grey @Keyser, its either the panacea or you hate the planet

 

Ofcourse there is, hence the graph I posted showing how much progress is been made generating power without using fossle fules. There is a long way to go but without even trying and just giving up it seems a bit defeatist.

 

I can see wind/solar contributing at least 50% of UK electic grid supply by the end of next decade. Which surely is better than relying on coal.

[Jetpilot]

1 hour ago, gangzoom said:

 

 

I can see wind/solar contributing at least 50% of UK electic grid supply by the end of next decade. Which surely is better than relying on coal.

So where are all these wind and solar farms going to go, which is a genuine question by the way and for reference just two miles down the road from me:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/11/tories-reject-navitus-bay-offshore-windfarm

 

and before you blame the government, check out the objections at planning application.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Jetpilot

[gangzoom]

^ I've just driven up from Leicester to Edinburgh via Liverpool for the first time in 18 months, I was amazed by the number of wind farm, this one was just north of the lake district. 

 

 

Ofcourse people object to anything new, just look at crossrail, but ultimately it's cost that will drive things through. It now cheaper to build wind farms to generate electricity than use nuclear, infact half the cost. 

 

The UK is actually perfectly positioned to become world leaders in off shore wind, a lot of the experience in the North sea oil rigs can easily be transferred to off shore wind, and anyone who's been to Scotland will now how much wind resource there is. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41220948

 

http://www.renewableuk.com/news/348633/New-report-highlights-UKs-massive-offshore-wind-energy-potential-.htm

Edited November 10, 2017 by gangzoom

[Ekona]

Lot of hot air on here too.

 

 

Is that last link not a bit, erm, biased? Given their aims.

 

Also, I don't fully understand what's meant by energy subsidies. Is that the companies saying that they promise to only charge X amount per unit, but they want it guaranteed before they build?

[coldel]

Cost of fuel production is hugely variable month to month, it is not possible to simply state 'it is now cheaper' as next month it might not. The Levelised Cost of Energy (LCE) is the best attempt at measuring it, problem is that depending on each commissioning units political leaning (i.e. renewables commissioning the work will have a bias in what they report or how they compute the number) you will never get a truly objective view. You have to look at the cost of building, supplying maintaining and disposing of the equipment over the lifespan of its existence. Wind farms off shore have always been hideously expensive to set up for example but cheap to supply energy for. The problem lies in that prices vary hugely, especially when looking at anything gas, oil, coal driven as prices fluctuate massively over a course of the existence of the energy supplier. You cannot categorically state right now that this is better than that as you have to make all sorts of assumptions. Most objective reports show Nuclear is still cheapest (sorry but reports on renewable sites are not going to say that and will be selective in what they reference). 

[coldel]

Just now, Ekona said:

Lot of hot air on here too.

 

 

Is that last link not a bit, erm, biased? Given their aims.

 

Also, I don't fully understand what's meant by energy subsidies. Is that the companies saying that they promise to only charge X amount per unit, but they want it guaranteed before they build?

Taxpayers fund a lot of the builds of things like windfarms, if for instance a £3bn build is initiated usually the government will fund at least a third of it, the rest is profits from energy companies going back into the development of the tech. Its amazing but a single blade on a turbine can be six figures and upwards!

[Ekona]

Sorry, I should've actually related my question to what I was looking at

 

The BBC link GZ posted says:

Two firms said they were willing to build offshore wind farms for a guaranteed price of £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022-23. This compares with the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant securing subsidies of £92.50 per megawatt hour.

The figures for offshore wind, from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, were revealed as the result of an auction for subsidies, in which the lowest bidder wins.

In the auction in 2015, offshore wind farm projects won subsidies between £114 and £120 per megawatt hour.

 

I mean, I get what a subsidy is in terms of the government paying part of a project, but how does that directly relate here? Kinda makes sense, but I want to make sure I'm properly understanding it.

[davey_83]

What's the point of more and more wind farms, if we can't efficiently store the power generated?