Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner
1 - 20 of 486 Posts

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
30,390 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am just reading through

and it seems to me that anyone confronted with today's reality of 17p/kWh and considering an EV is going to have their work cut out to make the man-maths work.

They need to be good a preparing a really creative spreadsheet.

Whilst one can rely on dirt cheap over night rates (as many of us have enjoyed over the last couple of years) then the EV price-per-mile argument is a slam dunk.

I don't think my electricity cost me much more than 5p/kWh across several providers since my first EV, 2013.

Not until the prices on the Agile started ramping up did I even for a moment questions this.

So, what's the cause of the rise? Well, lots of negative pricing was great for us on Agile, it was a right laugh wasn't it!! Ah! If it's too good to be true it either isn't, or at best it won't last.

What am I proposing here?

Well, one reason the prices have skyrocketed is that the offset base load from nuclear was pushing prices negative, but now many are shut down or shutting down (for 'maintenance' or other) and the facts of life for the costs of renewables is shining through.

This is a dilemma; if what we are seeing now is the true price of renewables, then are BEVs really a likely future option? It becomes questionable. 18p/kWh is not far off the cost of 70mpg (at least, so close you're not going to remotely spot the p/mile difference when nursing the financial injury from a £3k/year depreciation profile).

At 4p/kWh, which is whereabouts my EV charging has averaged for the last 100k miles, one finds the pull of BEVs irresistible. At 18p/kWh, diesels are looking interesting once again. W

My thesis here is that we therefore need the nuclear base load to press down the cost of electricity to that sort of order, ~4p/kWh. The 'BEV sell' can only be made on dogmatic ideology at 18p/kWh, I see no financial arguments as there once were.

BEVs running off wind and solar alone remains, at the moment, looking like a far-off green-dream that one has to buy into, not yet one which can be seen [at the moment/any more] as a financial advantage.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
30,390 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
... and before you say 'what can do 70mpg', well, self charging hybrids, actually. Go rolls your eyes!!!

I'm also pretty sure if I scour HJ's real mpg website I'd find better still.

145264
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,325 Posts
Mostly, agreed. We should be building a nuclear fleet for the next generation 30-40 years. This allows us to immediately have reliable low-carbon electricity.

The issue is that with one hand we are heavily penalising/disadvantaging traditional thermal energy generation (with only gas and diesel remaining on the grid), whilst also being entirely dependent on it to fill the gap in renewable energy generation. It's a lose-lose for the consumer and the environment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
371 Posts
we need to move to zero emission vehicles for the environment and our health in city centres, not because they’re cheaper to run. They happen to be cheaper to run at the moment and that may or may not be the case as we go forwards
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,865 Posts
new solar and wind is cheaper than new nuclear, new gas, new coal. what’s the advantage in increasing prices with nuclear? nuclear entails the unavoidable release of radioactive tritium effluents which leaves a radioactive legacy for both current & future generations, and the future costs of keeping the spent fuel away from future generations isn’t factored into the current cost. if you’re worried about the cost of electricity in retirement and suffer poor balance, then a 3 wheel EAPC (which goes 18x further than your electric car per kWh) is your new friend, not a new nuclear plant. it isn’t the most moral decision to kick the nuclear waste storage costs and environmental issues on down to future generations. solar and wind and reducing consumption is the path forward. talk of building new nuclear plants is sheer madness, not to mention no one wants one in their back yard, look at fukushima and chernobyl. california (wisely) shuttered its only remaining nuclear power plant. that is to say except for the ones at lawrence livermore labs which they use for designing and testing nuclear weapons.

see page 7 in this report—
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
30,390 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
we need to move to zero emission vehicles for the environment and our health in city centres
Euro 6 is basically clean air. A Euro 6 car will tend to filter out particulates from a city centre, not add to them.

BEVs add to urban particulates. An air breathing engine 'could' actually filter them out of the air (not saying they do so, net, but I expect they would if following an ancient diesel van).

Euro 7 is extreme. I think it is becoming Emperor's new clothes, one can say one has made a Euro 7 engine but no-one can actually measure it.

If I stick my head out of my urban house, I smell cooking, distant burning, vegetation, farm activity from 10 miles away. Not a sniff of traffic fumes (any more). Just isn't happening.

Ban pre Euro 6, that is what ULEZ zones are doing.

It's dogmatic to say that we 'must' get rid of ICE for BEVs. BEVs emit pretty much the same level of particulates as Euro 6 diesels.
 

·
Registered
Renault Zoe 50
Joined
·
21,635 Posts
My home solar and battery system will in all likelihood produce damn near 98% of my electricity needs, and around 85% of my DHW needs.

I didn’t spend that much on it and the battery system is good to cover around 2 days with cloud cover or constant rain.

So I think we’ll be surprised once renewables truly take off how little energy we really need from the grid.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
30,390 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
And yet the tyres and brakes in my BEV last twice as long as an equivalent diesel.
Certainly not the case for Zoes and Leafs if anecdotal indications are to go by.

Tyre particulates come down to mass of the car. The tyre doesn't know its driver feels the mass it is pushing around is 'special'. So why would tyre particulates be less for a heavier car?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,325 Posts
My home solar and battery system will in all likelihood produce damn near 98% of my electricity needs, and around 85% of my DHW needs.

I didn’t spend that much on it and the battery system is good to cover around 2 days with cloud cover or constant rain.

So I think we’ll be surprised once renewables truly take off how little energy we really need from the grid.
Remind me again where you live?

It's just not the case in the majority of global locations that solar and storage is viable throughout the year. Nor is it viable in high density housing (terraces and flats) or where the existing housing stock is not optimised for rooftop solar installations.
 

·
Registered
Renault Zoe 50
Joined
·
21,635 Posts
Certainly not the case for Zoes and Leafs if anecdotal indications are to go by.
I’ve owned three Zoes (as you know) and never needed to change the tyres.

Brakes on the current Zoe are like new. No discernible wear at 10k miles.

Went to see a 30,000 mile Zoe for sale. Still had the original tyres, which I’d estimate were good for 45,000 miles.

So no, not anecdotal.

Brake discs and pads seem to get changed because they are a ‘bit corroded’, so not really particulate pollution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
I am just reading through

and it seems to me that anyone confronted with today's reality of 17p/kWh and considering an EV is going to have their work cut out to make the man-maths work.

They need to be good a preparing a really creative spreadsheet.
I think you might be forgetting a lot of people buy the cars because they like them rather than the fact they will be cheaper than XYZ to run, the cost of running....in fact every car we have owned never came into the equation.
 

·
Registered
Corsa-e 2020
Joined
·
790 Posts
This discussion brings back a thought I often had whilst flying from London to the US West Coast, a flight of around 10+ hours. For around 7 of those hours, we are flying over frozen, uninhabited wilderness. Nearly 3 hours of that are just over Canada. I would look down at the Greenland Icecap or the frozen wilds of northern Canada and wonder why we are spending billions to find some form of habitable planet with all the associated problems of generating enough air and water, never mind food and an energy supply when we have vast areas of our own planet that already have air and water in quantities that are there for the taking, never mind the potential energy.

Buying an EV, for some, may be an exercise in conscience salving. For others, it may be an exercise in a reduction of running costs. For others, it may be the thrill, torque and efficiency of an electric motor powered car. There is no one standard that can be applied with a broad brush and then spout facts and figures to try and prove a point of view.

Nuclear power has both advantages and disadvantages, as do all the other options. It is finding a balance between all the options that will be the most efficient. Factor in the costs, both financially and environmentally, and you may begin to get an idea of what is best. I seriously doubt that there is a single answer... maybe cold fusion but we're a bit of a way from that for the moment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
Euro 6 is basically clean air. A Euro 6 car will tend to filter out particulates from a city centre, not add to them.

BEVs add to urban particulates. An air breathing engine 'could' actually filter them out of the air (not saying they do so, net, but I expect they would if following an ancient diesel van).

Euro 7 is extreme. I think it is becoming Emperor's new clothes, one can say one has made a Euro 7 engine but no-one can actually measure it.

If I stick my head out of my urban house, I smell cooking, distant burning, vegetation, farm activity from 10 miles away. Not a sniff of traffic fumes (any more). Just isn't happening.

Ban pre Euro 6, that is what ULEZ zones are doing.

It's dogmatic to say that we 'must' get rid of ICE for BEVs. BEVs emit pretty much the same level of particulates as Euro 6 diesels.
Euro x is not related to CO2. It covers CO NOx SO2 and particulates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,325 Posts
And you've fallen for the usual mistake of not comparing like with like.

To even begin to compare wind/solar with thermal/nuclear you have to ask, what's the end goal? A kWh of electricity is too simple a metric.

We want power 24 hours, 365 days a year. Wind/solar does not provide that for a price cheaper than thermal and nuclear. And it never will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,865 Posts
We want power 24 hours, 365 days a year. Wind/solar does not provide that for a price cheaper than thermal and nuclear. And it never will.
Lithium battery storage easily solves this. It’s already been determined in another discussion that at least one user here could pay their mortgage by having 3 tesla batteries in their garage and cycling them once per day, charging when the price is low and selling back to the grid when the price is high… no solar involved.
 
1 - 20 of 486 Posts
Top