Electric Vehicle Charging Costs.

Add more solar? That simply doesn't help does it B, what happens on wet, dull, winter, or other useless days, is charging then not allowed? This whole scam is crazy, yet few see it for reasons which are completely beyond understanding. Electricity has to be dispatchable, there is no alternative. I know Boris and co cannot understand this, but Engineers?

Right Dave.

I still not got mee heed round hybrids of the type that are electric yet solely powered from the fossil fuel in yer fuel tank. Can`t be green energy at all can it?

The way I see it anyway.

1/ If you drive your fossil fuel car up a hill purely to charge your batteries on the downhill journey = poor use.

2/ If you are going to drive up that hill irrespective and on the downhill journey you may as well charge your battery up anyway, well I suppose a little greener than option 1/.

3/ If you charge your batteries from the grid and/or renewables (hoping the grid is more efficient that your fossil fuel car engine plus some grid power might derived from renewables) then I can see a bit of sense in that.

4/ If you are using Electric as primary and a fossil fuel tank ONLY as a mostly do not use reserve , well yes OK I suppose

Do the Swiss still have those buses with a giant concrete flywheel inbuilt that they spun back up on downhill journeys?

The flywheel sounds like a heavy load to carry around at all times.

Z.

And, the wonderful thing about liquid fuels such as petrol or diesel in a vehicle, is that the further you drive the lighter the vehicle gets.

Flywheel Energy Storage - TheGreenAge

In June 2011, the Beacon Power Corporation completed the company’s first flywheel energy storage plant in Stephentown, New York at a cost of $60m. The plant utilises 200 flywheels spinning at a maximum speed of 16000 rpm to store excess energy and help regulate the supply to the local grid.

Z.

yeah I think about 70s to 90s Swiss had these flywheel buses, used spin to go flat/uphill and recharged the spin on downhills, lasted half day to one day on one spin charge so they reckoned at the time. Musta been a big heavy load of concrete in that flywheel

ebee said:

I still not got mee heed round hybrids of the type that are electric yet solely powered from the fossil fuel in yer fuel tank. Can`t be green energy at all can it?

How about a new M-B? https://www.mercedes-benz.co.uk/passengercars/mercedes-benz-cars/models/amg-gt/4-door-coupe-x290-fl/e-performance/footnote.module.html

600-odd bhp from the ICE plus a couple of hundred from the battery, except that it only goes 8 miles on 'lectric only.

I am sure that the extra grunt is thrilling, but having cut 1.5 sec off the petrol version's 0-60 time, that thrill is so much briefer.

Naturally, 'cos it is hybrid, it squeezes into a lower tax bracket.

Adding more solar would help considerably in bright weather, and help a little in dull weather. In winter there should hopefully be more wind power available.

Neither wind nor solar is the complete answer but both should be used to the maximum extent permitted by weather conditions. To burn hugely expensive gas in bright weather, or in windy conditions is in my view simply silly.

In the absence of any new developments, we will need natural gas for many years yet, but should be reducing use, not expanding it.

The burning of natural gas and other fossil fuels is generally accepted to be accelerating climate change. I fully appreciate that some disagree with this view, but those who do not agree WRT climate change should support increased renewables simply due to the great cost of gas at present.

And if anyone believes that natural gas is OK as regards climate change, AND IS ALSO affordable, or going to become affordable, should consider the implications of being reliant on foreign powers for supplies of gas.

Hands up those who believe that

Firstly that gas is harmless to the climate.

AND secondly who believe that it will remain cheap

AND finally who believe that Russia, and the middle east are lovely places really and that being reliant on them for fuel is fine.

Adding more solar would help considerably in bright weather, and help a little in dull weather. In winter there should hopefully be more wind power available.

Neither wind nor solar is the complete answer but both should be used to the maximum extent permitted by weather conditions. To burn hugely expensive gas in bright weather, or in windy conditions is in my view simply silly.

In the absence of any new developments, we will need natural gas for many years yet, but should be reducing use, not expanding it.

The burning of natural gas and other fossil fuels is generally accepted to be accelerating climate change. I fully appreciate that some disagree with this view, but those who do not agree WRT climate change should support increased renewables simply due to the great cost of gas at present.

And if anyone believes that natural gas is OK as regards climate change, AND IS ALSO affordable, or going to become affordable, should consider the implications of being reliant on foreign powers for supplies of gas.

Hands up those who believe that

Firstly that gas is harmless to the climate.

AND secondly who believe that it will remain cheap

AND finally who believe that Russia, and the middle east are lovely places really and that being reliant on them for fuel is fine.

broadgage said:

those who do not agree WRT climate change should support increased renewables simply due to the great cost of gas at present.

At some stage, gas will run out, but as that stage is reached, it may get very very expensive. The same goes for oil, which will be restricted to areas which really need it like aviation.

It is human nature to want to buy things at the lowest price. So if the price of gas does not fall, renewables may well become the cheaper option sooner than expected.