The EV problem.

[gangzoom]

1 hour ago, Ekona said:

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?

 

The world of energy generation is about as clear as a muddy pound. Governments around the world promise to pay private companies X amount for guaranteed amount of energy regardless of actual cost of generation. The fossil industry receives far more subsidies than anyone else, though 

Hinkley C makes everything else looks cheap. 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/fossil-fuel-firms-billion-pound-uk-state-subsidies-oil-gas-firms-leak-climate-change-environment-a7690966.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/uk-breaks-pledge-to-become-only-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies

 

https://www.ft.com/content/b8e24306-48e5-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab

[coldel]

Government regularly puts billions into wind turbines etc but doesn't make the politically motivated press. 

[gangzoom]

1 hour ago, coldel said:

Government regularly puts billions into wind turbines etc but doesn't make the politically motivated press. 

 

The point is the government puts money into almost everything, the fact is offshore wind is now a cheaper way to generate power than nuclear.

 

To be quite honest it seems like a few of you will never accept anything but the status quo regardless of a changing world.

 

I see this as all good banter, watching how the future unfolds is what am most interested in. A future where we as a species can generate electricity using wind/sun in my book is a good thing.

[Ekona]

For home & business use, sure. I don’t care where it comes from, as long as it’s cheap.

[gangzoom]

1 hour ago, Ekona said:

For home & business use, sure. I don’t care where it comes from, as long as it’s cheap.

 

Which is why Solar/Wind will take over from existing ways to generate electricity.

 

Nucelar/fossil powerstations require not only intial setup/maintenancecosts, but also constant fuel supply/storage of nuclear waste, all of which have huge associated HR costs.

 

Compared to a renewables which once setup have no on going fuel costs. For maintenance am no engineer but I suspect repairing a wind turbine is alot easier than working on a gas turbine generator.

 

Its simple mathemaics and common sense. It might no actually be good for the people employed to run powerstations but no ultimately itll happen, and is already.

 

I switched my electricity supplier to Bulb this year, no because they are 'green' but because they offer electricty 20% cheaper than the big 5. How much of that is down to Bulb using only renewables I have no idea, but why would you pay more for electricity if you can get it cheaper else where.

 

[coldel]

3 hours ago, gangzoom said:

 

The point is the government puts money into almost everything, the fact is offshore wind is now a cheaper way to generate power than nuclear.

 

To be quite honest it seems like a few of you will never accept anything but the status quo regardless of a changing world.

 

I see this as all good banter, watching how the future unfolds is what am most interested in. A future where we as a species can generate electricity using wind/sun in my book is a good thing.

Look if you want to read politically biased crap then fine. Look up real data like LCE and make note. I agree renewable are the way forwards but your blatant ignorance of anything that contradicts your links to crap articles media does nothing but make your argument stupid.

 

Ironically you won't see anything but batteries, which makes you more narrow minded than most people commenting on this thread. Any objective report into the cost of electricity shows wind farms are NOT the cheapest form of energy production, all these links to green happy energy sites are just pointless, but yes in the future renewable energy I think is the way forwards. And let us not forget earlier in this thread you stated that wind and solar is FREE which shows a lack of understanding in how energy is priced and sold.

[Ekona]

47 minutes ago, gangzoom said:

Its simple mathemaics

But complicated spelling?

 

Never heard of Bulb. Might well be easier to work on a wind turbine than a gas one, but how many wind ones do you need to generate the same as one gas one? That's where suddenly maintenance can leap up.

[gangzoom]

2 hours ago, Ekona said:

But complicated spelling?

 

Never heard of Bulb. Might well be easier to work on a wind turbine than a gas one, but how many wind ones do you need to generate the same as one gas one? That's where suddenly maintenance can leap up.

 

Look up prices for Bulb and compare it to your current supplier costs. I switched purely for cost reasons alone, roughly 20% cheaper E7 rates than Eon in our area (Leicester). You need to check your rates for your area to see if prices work out.

 

Ive switched 3 electricty suppliers in 12 months, so have no brand loyalty. Bulb so far is cheapest and remains so by a decent margin for us.

Edited November 11, 2017 by gangzoom

[gangzoom]

3 hours ago, coldel said:

 

Ironically you won't see anything but batteries, which makes you more narrow minded than most people commenting on this thread. 

 

The most fun I've had on this thread in the last few posts is seeing how hard some people find understanding graphs :).

Edited November 11, 2017 by gangzoom

[Ekona]

A graph should be a quick and simple way to view complex data. If people are unable to understand the graph en masse, then that’s the fault of the graph not the people. 

 

I too read it incorrectly, because it’s misleading. Not deliberately misleading a la fake news, but it’s the wrong type of graph for that purpose. 

[gangzoom]

9 minutes ago, Ekona said:

A graph should be a quick and simple way to view complex data. If people are unable to understand the graph en masse, then that’s the fault of the graph not the people. 

 

I too read it incorrectly, because it’s misleading. Not deliberately misleading a la fake news, but it’s the wrong type of graph for that purpose. 

 

You should tell Ofgem  I actually think its a very good graph as it show both relative and absolute data in one format, but looking at data is my half of my day job. 

[Ekona]

Is the other half deciphering it when they’ve used a crap graph?  

[coldel]

3 hours ago, gangzoom said:

 

You should tell Ofgem  I actually think its a very good graph as it show both relative and absolute data in one format, but looking at data is my half of my day job. 

 

Its a pretty poor chart - you do have charts which have data behind data where you layer each descending set of data on the one above (which is what I think Stu was referring to) but they are rare. I took it as a stacked chart but there is way too many legends which complicate the message - just group together all the areas that contribute under 5% and then you are left with fewer cuts and less distraction. A table of values and %s would have been a much better way of getting the detail over and a summary chart as described above would be better at giving a visual of the main message. 

 

I am not sure what qualifies OFGEM to be good at data visualisation anyway? 

[ilogikal1]

14 hours ago, gangzoom said:

 

Which is why Solar/Wind will take over from existing ways to generate electricity.

 

Nucelar/fossil powerstations require not only intial setup/maintenancecosts, but also constant fuel supply/storage of nuclear waste, all of which have huge associated HR costs.

 

Compared to a renewables which once setup have no on going fuel costs. For maintenance am no engineer but I suspect repairing a wind turbine is alot easier than working on a gas turbine generator.

 

Its simple mathemaics and common sense. It might no actually be good for the people employed to run powerstations but no ultimately itll happen, and is already.

 

I switched my electricity supplier to Bulb this year, no because they are 'green' but because they offer electricty 20% cheaper than the big 5. How much of that is down to Bulb using only renewables I have no idea, but why would you pay more for electricity if you can get it cheaper else where.

 

 

Your understanding of renewables is flawed. Wind turbines, for example, require a large amount of fuel to be "primed" each time and every time they're used. But in a similar way with you and charts, if you can't understand how the things you're advocating work, then there's little point in debating anything.

 

[coldel]

Repairing wind turbines offshore is incredibly dangerous, difficult and requiring a lot of manpower and equipment - there are deaths associated with their maintenance each year. 

[gangzoom]

1 hour ago, ilogikal1 said:

 

Your understanding of renewables is flawed. Wind turbines, for example, require a large amount of fuel to be "primed" each time and every time they're used. But in a similar way with you and charts, if you can't understand how the things you're advocating work, then there's little point in debating anything.

 

 

Once again it's not MY chart, its a chart produced by Ofgem. And am not the one who started making multiple posts based on not been able to understand the data showed .

 

But I do agree there is little point debating anything here, much better just to wait and see how things turn out over the next few years. 

Edited November 11, 2017 by gangzoom

[coldel]

Plenty of point debating. I am sorry most people do not agree with your dystopian view of the future of motoring but I would expect that on a forum where people love the sounds and smells of their cars and love to try their hand at tinkering with engines endlessly. I don't think for any second that the future of cars is not going to be anything other than ICE cars but it doesn't mean people have to throw away immediately what they love doing now for silent running dull looking electric boxes, but if you read through the thread its clear most people understand why you and other EV owners happen to have an opposing view. As for energy production sure it will change over time, the politically motivated articles you post along with pro-renewables websites you post though are so biased it probably works against your argument more than for it - I certainly take any rubbish like that printed in the Guardian or Express with a pinch of salt. Clearly this is all very important to you so keep an eye on the pricing measures I mentioned as these are the only accepted ways of measuring the cost of production of energy (which even then they are flawed but its the best estimate) and ignore crap like some of those links about subsides etc. 

[Ekona]

But then what would we do with the internet in the meantime if we don’t debate? Only so many cat videos and porn one can watch.

 

They’re not the same video, btw.

[gangzoom]

^ There was so social research I read a while ago that showed the social media groups tended to attract people with similar view points and drove development/deeping of similar view points rather than encourage debate. 

 

Certainly this forum is a good example of this, likewise the EV forums have very different discussions - as am sure you can imagine.

 

But life is boring when everyone agrees - even when its about how great EVs are. Having some banter is like having a good old argument with the otherhalf, keeps things fisty :).

Edited November 11, 2017 by gangzoom

[coldel]

I don't think you need any research to know that a 350z forum is likely to have members on it that are into large engined two seat GT cars...!

 

Its useful info that you bring to the forum GZ but its not going to convince people in great numbers that they should be buying EVs any time soon I am afraid  no matter how many 0-60 numbers that get thrown about.

[Jetpilot]

1 hour ago, gangzoom said:

 

 

But I do agree there is little point debating anything here, much better just to wait and see how things turn out over the next few years. 

 

1 hour ago, gangzoom said:

^ There was so social research I read a while ago that showed the social media groups tended to attract people with similar view points and drove development/deeping of similar view points rather than encourage debate. 

 

Certainly this forum is a good example of this, likewise the EV forums have very different discussions - as am sure you can imagine.

 

But life is boring when everyone agrees - even when its about how great EVs are. Having some banter is like having a good old argument with the otherhalf, keeps things fisty :).

 

You are surprised people on a 350Z & 370Z OWNERS CLUB have similar view points, hardly groundbreaking or rocket science working that out, however we do debate,  10 pages on this thread, in fact some offerings are very valid, you just refuse to acknowledge any of them, so as you say above, little point debating and if you're sole purpose on this forum is to stave the boredom from the ev forums (and yes i can imagine they are as dull as f*ck) and youre only contribution is ev and renewable energy related (which it is) and to have a bit of banter, as i have said before, imho, you need to get out more and leave us good old dinosaurs to it, pop back in a few years as you say to tell us you told us so 

[ilogikal1]

2 hours ago, gangzoom said:

 

Once again it's not MY chart, its a chart produced by Ofgem. And am not the one who started making multiple posts based on not been able to understand the data showed .

 

But I do agree there is little point debating anything here, much better just to wait and see how things turn out over the next few years. 

 

It's almost impressive how you can so regularly and consistently utterly miss the point. Almost.

 

[Ekona]

It’s our fault, really. Feeding the troll and all that. We should stop.

[gangzoom]

1 hour ago, Ekona said:

It’s our fault, really. Feeding the troll and all that. We should stop.

Please do

[Wasso]

I swear to god, do you guys have nothing better to do in your lives than talk about ****ing electricity!

 

I could have sworn this was a 350+370 forum. All I see at the top is EV this, save the world that. This really doesn't have a home here.

 

#Dull