Electric Cars - Saviours of our environment or just another fad?

winkyincanada posted:

Why couldn't she take a share-vehicle into the countryside?

Dirty boots.  Dirty dogs.  Having to plan.  Cost of “per hour” rental for car clubs.  Everyone wants the vehicle at the same time (assuming talking about weekend trips to countryside).

None of these problems are insurmountable, but as I think was said earlier you can’t just provide one solution to problem, it’s a combination of solutions that will provide answers.

There is also the fact that you don’t just have to provide solutions for people who are willing to compromise, but you also need to force solutions (combination of carrot and stick) to those who have no real desire to help solve environmental issues.

Resurrection posted:

What can I say? Am a complete evangelist for solar panels, but not necessarily vehicles. My evangelism is of course of the mercenary variety. I receive without any merit for it at all about £2,000 a year from the British government for my solar panels. I have to thank idiots like Cameron and Davey for this little tax free bonus to my pensions. I pay my taxes and if some clown wants to give me the opportunity to claw back some of my usurious payments then I will jump at it. As for electric cars etc, then the second it benefits me and it actually works then I'll have some of that. 

Small-scale domestic solar is still arguably an emotional rather than a rational short-term choice at a societal level. The most efficient way to increase uptake of renewables (and it is happening at an accelerating rate in many parts of the world) is to pool the investments for commercial-scale facilities. A recent power feed auction in Mexico broke the world record for the lowest bid for price per kwh from any source. The actual source? Renewables. The winning bid was 1.8c per kwh (wind-power) and a solar-power sub-block was priced at 2.2c per kwh. This represents a reduction of 50% from prices bid in the US two years ago for supply from the big and efficient California renewables industry.

We're too selfish as a species to adequately, and en-mass, accept (and pay for) the long-term environmental impact of our choices. Perhaps too late, the invisible hand of the market will bring about the change to renewable energy that is necessary.

winkyincanada posted:

Small-scale domestic solar is still arguably an emotional rather than a rational short-term choice at a societal level. 

I’ve no figures so this may be wishful thinking on my part, but I’ve wondered if every new build which got planning permission was required to include solar power across at least (say) 1/3 of its roof surface, if that would make a difference.

I’ve always thought that the answers are more political than anything... the problems being that things which make a real difference are (a) not short term projects and (b) would be on paper unpopular and therefore not gain voter support.  For example (to my mind) to tackle the problems of inner city pollution may take the banning of all non-electric vehicles from city centres - that would be an unpopular move if promised in a manifesto; but these days no (serious) London Mayoral would stand on the promise of reversing the congestion charge however unpopular it was when first suggested.

Eloise posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Small-scale domestic solar is still arguably an emotional rather than a rational short-term choice at a societal level. 

I’ve no figures so this may be wishful thinking on my part, but I’ve wondered if every new build which got planning permission was required to include solar power across at least (say) 1/3 of its roof surface, if that would make a difference.

I’ve always thought that the answers are more political than anything... the problems being that things which make a real difference are (a) not short term projects and (b) would be on paper unpopular and therefore not gain voter support.  For example (to my mind) to tackle the problems of inner city pollution may take the banning of all non-electric vehicles from city centres - that would be an unpopular move if promised in a manifesto; but these days no (serious) London Mayoral would stand on the promise of reversing the congestion charge however unpopular it was when first suggested.

Imagine me agreeing with Eloise! To be honest it is my wife who expounds the view that no new house should be built without solar panels and, as it happens, I 100% agree.

So, even a house in a dark valley in Northumbria would, by law, have solar panels fitted? Or a house built in the shadow of office blocks? Or built on the wrong side of a hill? Or... or... or.....

Tony Lockhart posted:

So, even a house in a dark valley in Northumbria would, by law, have solar panels fitted? Or a house built in the shadow of office blocks? Or built on the wrong side of a hill? Or... or... or.....

An efficient solution may be that an owner could elect, in lieu of actually installing solar cells, to invest in a renewable energy fund to provide capital for renewables development elsewhere. The requirement could be that the investment had to remain for, say, 10 years, or until retirement age, whichever came first.

I doubt very much whether that'll make it through a local MP, let alone parliament.

There have been a couple of posts about mandating solar cell installation on all new houses. Whilst I don't believe this is a bad idea (where it is practical which is not in every case) it will really only become useful if decent (10KWH+) battery storage is also included. I believe that renewable (and other) electricity generation should be done on a local basis as well as on a national basis with house and community wind farms and solar arrays. The use of battery storage means that energy can be captured at peak sunlight/wind times and used at peak demand times which can't happen now (in fact wind turbines are often turned off when it is very windy as they would put too much electricity into the grid). This is going to mean a complete rethink in electricity distribution as well as requiring a change in battery economics (which might be driven by demand like data storage technology improvements).

We did look at the Tesla PowerWall but decided against it because it cannot provide a back up when there is a power outage (due to current regulatory reasons) and cannot support drawing power from the grid only at off peak times.

Tony Lockhart posted:

I doubt very much whether that'll make it through a local MP, let alone parliament.

You're right. See my previous post about us all being too selfish. We want more stuff (hifi, cars, fashion, cameras, TVs, overseas trips, bigger houses etc) now! The cost to future generations hardly features in our choices.

In answer to Don's point about the issues faced by those, like his daughter, who cannot charge electric cars at home (due to having to park in the street or in communal parking for flats etc); this is a very real problem and there is not yet the public charging infrastructure to support this real need.

There are some Tesla owners who have courageously  bought whilst having nowhere to charge at home. However, I would not yet advise anybody to buy an electric car unless it can be charged at home as this is where most EV charging happens.

winkyincanada posted:

Tony Lockhart posted:

I doubt very much whether that'll make it through a local MP, let alone parliament.

You're right. See my previous post about us all being too selfish. We want more stuff (hifi, cars, fashion, cameras, TVs, overseas trips, bigger houses etc) now! The cost to future generations hardly features in our choices.

It's the cost to us now not just future generations. We could all save money with renewable energy production. The problems are that our politicians and civil servants do not have sufficient understanding of scientific/engineering matters and the former only have a thought horizon of the next election. Also, there are too many vested interests lobbying for the status quo. Finally (rant nearly over), the 'green energy' industry/lobby has been hijacked by those who are motivated by making more money from government grants rather than actually doing good.

PeterJ posted:

There have been a couple of posts about mandating solar cell installation on all new houses. Whilst I don't believe this is a bad idea (where it is practical which is not in every case) it will really only become useful if decent (10KWH+) battery storage is also included. I believe that renewable (and other) electricity generation should be done on a local basis as well as on a national basis with house and community wind farms and solar arrays. The use of battery storage means that energy can be captured at peak sunlight/wind times and used at peak demand times which can't happen now (in fact wind turbines are often turned off when it is very windy as they would put too much electricity into the grid). This is going to mean a complete rethink in electricity distribution as well as requiring a change in battery economics (which might be driven by demand like data storage technology improvements).

We did look at the Tesla PowerWall but decided against it because it cannot provide a back up when there is a power outage (due to current regulatory reasons) and cannot support drawing power from the grid only at off peak times.

You're right, PeterJ.

The management of the grid is becoming problematic in places with significant renewable supply. The inability of solar to turn-off, and the inability of fossil fuel stations to ramp up/down fast enough mean that renewables can be financially inefficient, often having to actually pay others to take the power at times of surplus supply. This is financially, but not practically inefficient (transmission losses notwithstanding if the power is ultimately consumed very far away).

Turning off wind farms is of course both financially inefficient and practically inefficient (wasting free fuel).

One of the features of the grid market is that there is a price for voltage and frequency control. Suppliers that help stabilise the grid by fast response to surplus and shortage are rewarded handsomely. This incentivises things like battery storage (expensive, but super-fast response) and relatively flexible fossil fuel plants (gas turbines are quicker than coal plants). Hydro is pretty fast too.

Technical control of the grid is improving, but the complex financial contracts need to keep pace for the most efficient overall outcome for consumers.

The connection of electric cars to the grid has the potential to be a smoothing factor, with cars "choosing" to charge during periods of surplus and limiting consumption during periods of otherwise high demand. The cars effectively form a large, dynamic distributed storage system. If cars that are charged, but not immediately needed, can actually feed back into the grid, then benefits are even greater. Imagine arriving home in the evening, plugging in your car that's still 75% charged and using it to power your home during the evening (down to, say, 40% in case you need to run our for beer). Your car then charges from midnight on using off-peak power. In a world with much more solar, lowest prices will perhaps often happen during the day when the sun is shining. You use that cheap power to charge your car when at work (or wherever). The point is that with many electric cars, the consumption of electricity can be spread more evenly if we're smart enough. The batteries in most electric vehicles are far larger than the ones in Tesla's Powerwall 2 (which is just 13.5kwh)

Another aspect of solar is that in hotter parts of the world (think Arizona) the demand and supply are well-matched. The load of a million of AC systems is at a peak during peak sunshine hours.

https://electrek.co/2018/01/05...a-model-3-road-trip/

We're living in the future already. SpaceX launch (not my photo, unfortunately)

winkyincanada posted:

We're living in the future already. SpaceX launch (not my photo, unfortunately)

Pretty impressive to be able to do that from a small yacht. A James Bond villain perhaps?...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...ser-charging/9235564

One for you, Don.

winkyincanada posted:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...ser-charging/9235564

One for you, Don.

Nice one winky ! (generally, a useful article)

Looks like i've been a bit ahead of the game.................

.........good to see that others are starting the conversation about revenue streams from motorists.

Sooner or later, they might extend it to all travel-related activity ! eg taxi, bus, train, plane and even cycl............. (i'll leave it at that for the moment )

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...ser-charging/9235564

One for you, Don.

Nice one winky ! (generally, a useful article)

Looks like i've been a bit ahead of the game.................

.........good to see that others are starting the conversation about revenue streams from motorists.

Sooner or later, they might extend it to all travel-related activity ! eg taxi, bus, train, plane and even cycl............. (i'll leave it at that for the moment )

The problem with a combination of incentives and taxes to get people to do the 'right thing' is what happens if/when it works? So loads of people driving electric cars reduce fuel duty revenue and congestion tax as well as costing in benefits such as reduced local authority parking charges (Westminster for example).

The fair and proper way to deal with this is to charge for usage. Perhaps the usage charge would vary by time, vehicle size and vehicle pollution.

The interesting thing will happen when self driving cars become a reality and people move from an ownership model to a rent on demand model for cars.

PeterJ posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...ser-charging/9235564

One for you, Don.

Nice one winky ! (generally, a useful article)

Looks like i've been a bit ahead of the game.................

.........good to see that others are starting the conversation about revenue streams from motorists.

Sooner or later, they might extend it to all travel-related activity ! eg taxi, bus, train, plane and even cycl............. (i'll leave it at that for the moment )

The problem with a combination of incentives and taxes to get people to do the 'right thing' is what happens if/when it works? So loads of people driving electric cars reduce fuel duty revenue and congestion tax as well as costing in benefits such as reduced local authority parking charges (Westminster for example).

The fair and proper way to deal with this is to charge for usage. Perhaps the usage charge would vary by time, vehicle size and vehicle pollution.

The interesting thing will happen when self driving cars become a reality and people move from an ownership model to a rent on demand model for cars.

In another thread (which I started) I have suggested (on a few occasions) that the fair and proper way is to charge for "occupation". Not too dissimilar to your "usage" basis.

However, taxation is a wide subject and is driven by a number of factors including politics, incentivisation to do the "right thing" (as you say), so-called "sin-tax" (eg cigarettes, alchohol, VED (based on emmissions), ease of collection (fuel duty, income tax, VAT) etc

Non-the-less, a young friend of mine has a "box" installed in his car which tracks his journey routes and time of day or night,, speeds, accelerations and decelerations, and allocates "permitted usage" (ie distance per month). It's all to do with reducing his insurance costs. Quite easy IMHO to extend this to all vehicles and cycles with the money for usage being automatically deducted from the associated bank account direct to Inland Revenue !!

God points as always Don but please note that'Nonetheless' is all one word s no need to hypphernate.

thebigfredc posted:

God points as always Don but please note that'Nonetheless' is all one word s no need to hypphernate.

Thanks fred ........

.........it's always great to see "deliberate" errors in the English Teacher's text ......

Cheers

Don

Fair enough ????

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.a12241027c23

More on vehicle tracking.

http://vancouversun.com/news/l...dability-plan-horgan

Vancouver considering some sort of tax/fee to assist in dealing with vehicle congestion. Although there are (understandably) different viewpoints, and most people argue from a position of self-interest, none of them have lost their minds, and therefore no-one is considering including a charge for cyclists.

The linked report indicates it's early days. And suggests to me that the dick-heads in the discussions are playing at politics rather than congestion management. Whilst I wouldn't go so far as to suggest they HAVE lost their minds, it certainly doesn't look as if they have carefully considered cycling and subsequently dismissed it as a potential revenue stream. More like it hasn't crossed their tiny minds, which are more focused on the politics.

Sooner or later they MIGHT get around to considering cycling and if so, it will be interesting to see whether they would like to encourage it and make infrastructure provision to make it viable and safe. Also how it would be funded ? eg from the mobility tax levied on motorists ?