Electric cars will cost more to run than petrol from October

[Confusion of VIs]

8 hours ago, Glenn said:

Everyone keeps saying Biomass is a con. Why is it a con?

Because it has turned from a way of making use of waste material into a subsidy driven business of growing wood just to be burnt. if you are growing forests just to be burnt from a carbon production viewpoint you are would probably be better off just burning coal.

Biofuel is another subsidy driven con.  

[Confusion of VIs]

On 23/09/2022 at 17:47, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

The absolute state of this queue:

 

In the 3+ years I have owned my Tesla I have queued once for 15 mins. During that time, we have had several petrol shortages resulting in mile long queues at petrol stations. 

 

[Confusion of VIs]

5 hours ago, PrincessNutNut said:

Just as not much  @Confusion of VIs is stating has anything to do with reality - because we keep discussing outcomes with tunnel vision.

From my perspective you have trouble understanding my points because you have so little knowledge.

5 hours ago, PrincessNutNut said:

This is a rubbish paper - all it seems to do is forecast adoption trends, based on levelised cost of electricity, which is a ignorant measure which ignores a couple of fundamentals: 

1. The world currently uses electricity for less than 20% of its power needs

This is a misleading figure that ignores the huge amount of energy being wasted and that for most purposes electricity is a much more efficient form of energy than thermal. 

E.g the oft quoted figure that 80% of energy use in the average house is gas used for heating, ignores:

• The heating requirement of the average British house (EPC D/E) could be reduced by 70% if brought up to the EPC B standard.
• Once you have properly insulated your house you can then heat it via a heat pump further reducing the demand by a further 60%     

Taking this into account the true figure is that the proportion of energy required to heat a house could realistically be reduced to 30% (it could be near zero if we adopted the standards required for new builds in Germany)

E.g. Looking at transport EVs are around three times as efficient as ICEs so again the amount of energy required is greatly reduced from the headline figure based on the energy consumed today. 

Globally it is thought that we would need to around double the amount of electricity to decarbonise industry/transport

 

5 hours ago, PrincessNutNut said:

2. All those costs and adaptation data points are from a past which relied on fossil fuel, they can't serve to forecast a future where they aren't used.

Exactly 

5 hours ago, PrincessNutNut said:

Based on that their logical fallacy is to assume that "savings per energy unit" would compound the more you adopt renewable energy. Which is demonstrably untrue - if it were, the economy wouldn't need regulating into using them.
Something that's cheaper and better is naturally adopted.

That's going to happen, but currently is being slowed down by the fossil fuel industry for whom ever year longer it takes represents hundreds of billions of extra profits. 

Australia is a good example of this until recently the government was owned by the fossil fuel industry and doing everything they could to prevent greening of their economy but eventually the economic case became too strong to resist and it began rapidly moving forward. 

5 hours ago, PrincessNutNut said:

Tip for anyone: If what you're looking at includes LCOE or an ROEI where renewables seems to outperform fossil fuels significantly, it's based on electricity generation alone. Which is fine when discussing electricity, except we need the other 80% of our energy as well. For example to grow food to eat and heat our homes - as trivial as that may seem.

 

Tip for you: educate yourself so you can break free from parroting the misinformation produced by the fossil fuel lobbyists. 

 

[kzb]

9 hours ago, 14stFlyer said:

The fact that startup recycling schemes/companies have failed owing to lack of demand does not show that recycling is an issue.  Far from it. 

On the other hand the EV business has been encouraged to vastly expand with scant regard towards recycling the batteries.  I thought we were supposed to be better these days.  The batteries should've been designed with recycling in mind.

Also, there is always all this technical innovation but the reality of actually accomplishing anything in this country can be very different.  Aren't Li-Ion batteries classed as hazardous goods for transport purposes?  Have you come up against arranging transport for dangerous goods ?  I have and believe me it is not something to do lightly.

[Confusion of VIs]

19 minutes ago, kzb said:

On the other hand the EV business has been encouraged to vastly expand with scant regard towards recycling the batteries.  I thought we were supposed to be better these days.  The batteries should've been designed with recycling in mind.

They are. Cunningly they are made of all the stuff you need to make new batteries. 

19 minutes ago, kzb said:

Also, there is always all this technical innovation but the reality of actually accomplishing anything in this country can be very different.  Aren't Li-Ion batteries classed as hazardous goods for transport purposes?  Have you come up against arranging transport for dangerous goods ?  I have and believe me it is not something to do lightly.

 Amazon must be shipping a million of these dangerous items a week. 

There is no recycling problem. Maybe you are just upset because yet another of your straw man issues has turned to dust.

[kzb]

3 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Tesla already can and does recycle 100% of battery materials. The main problem for recycling plants is that batteries are lasting so long that there is very little to recycle and even if a car is scrapped following an accident the battery modules are in high demand for use in home storage systems.  Sustainability | Tesla

In short, another big problem you foresaw doesn't exist.    

Let's take a look at what your link actually says:

Extending the life of a battery pack is a superior option to recycling for both environmental and business reasons. For those reasons, before decommissioning a consumer battery pack and sending it for recycling, Tesla does everything it can to extend the useful life of each battery pack. Any battery that is no longer meeting a customer’s needs can be serviced by Tesla at one of our service centers around the world. None of our scrapped lithium-ion batteries go to landfilling, and 100% are recycled.

It's a bit short on details as to what they actually do isn't it? 

In fact I would say this is deliberately ambiguous; if 100% are recycled that does not mean that 100% of the materials are recovered.  They might just pick out the copper and put the rest in a river.   It also tells us nothing about the cost.

[PrincessNutNut]

19 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

From my perspective you have trouble understanding my points because you have so little knowledge.

That's not surprising - Dunning-Kruger is hilariously observable in life.

19 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

This is a misleading figure that ignores the huge amount of energy being wasted and that for most purposes electricity is a much more efficient form of energy than thermal. 

E.g the oft quoted figure that 80% of energy use in the average house is gas used for heating, ignores:

• The heating requirement of the average British house (EPC D/E) could be reduced by 70% if brought up to the EPC B standard.
• Once you have properly insulated your house you can then heat it via a heat pump further reducing the demand by a further 60%     

Taking this into account the true figure is that the proportion of energy required to heat a house could realistically be reduced to 30% (it could be near zero if we adopted the standards required for new builds in Germany)

E.g. Looking at transport EVs are around three times as efficient as ICEs so again the amount of energy required is greatly reduced from the headline figure based on the energy consumed today. 

Globally it is thought that we would need to around double the amount of electricity to decarbonise industry/transport

All of this is false.

 

19 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Exactly  

I'm not sure you understood the point - the paper is doing exactly that.

 

19 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

That's going to happen, but currently is being slowed down by the fossil fuel industry for whom ever year longer it takes represents hundreds of billions of extra profits. 

Australia is a good example of this until recently the government was owned by the fossil fuel industry and doing everything they could to prevent greening of their economy but eventually the economic case became too strong to resist and it began rapidly moving forward.

And the proof of this is where?

19 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Tip for you: educate yourself so you can break free from parroting the misinformation produced by the fossil fuel lobbyists. 

Thank you. I'll repeat it back at you. 

Read this and the data backing it up. Particularly the bits that explain how an electricity grid works.

On 9/9/2022 at 1:37 PM, PrincessNutNut said:

Recommended reading for those who wish to understand the European energy situation.
It's long, but bear with it if you can, as it explains the problems in context and provides facts to support each point made.

Might save a few hours of discussion.

 

[Confusion of VIs]

On 28/09/2022 at 11:42, PrincessNutNut said:

That's not surprising - Dunning-Kruger is hilariously observable in life.

All of this is false.

No once again you fail to understand. 

On 28/09/2022 at 11:42, PrincessNutNut said:

 

I'm not sure you understood the point - the paper is doing exactly that.

It makes a simple allowance for the power required to convert the fossil fuel to electricity.  Doesn't address the points I made.

On 28/09/2022 at 11:42, PrincessNutNut said:

And the proof of this is where?

Try a bit of Googling, lots available for anyone who cares to look.

On 28/09/2022 at 11:42, PrincessNutNut said:

Thank you. I'll repeat it back at you. 

Read this and the data backing it up. Particularly the bits that explain how an electricity grid works.

An outdated view, the sort of things they were saying in Australia a few years ago. Today despite government foot dragging it's a different story, have a look. 

[PrincessNutNut]

12 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

No once again you fail to understand. 

Try a bit of Googling, lots available for anyone who cares to look.

An outdated view, the sort of things they were saying in Australia a few years ago. Today despite government foot dragging it's a different story, have a look. 

I've provided you with facts and data.

You are reiterating opinions.

 

13 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It makes a simple allowance for the power required to convert the fossil fuel to electricity. 

While not taking into account the fossil fuels consumed in the life cycle of renewable generators.