The Day of the Electric car is nigh

[[XAP]Bob]

We had them fitted back in Feb 2012. £9,300 for 4kw worth. It's not the saving in electricity that persuaded us to install it but the subsidy. It's almost 51 pence per kwh - this is paid for 25 years and is index linked as well as being tax free.The cheques we've received since installation have more than covered the cost so the next 20 years worth is all profit. We also receive about 5p per kwh for electricity "exported" to the grid. It's assumed half is.

Pete nails it. It's the subsidy from other consumers through their bills that make solar panels worthwhile.

It was back then anyway.

Nowadays the private economics are different, but they should still be virtually mandated on new builds.

Because the national energy story is still compelling - and yes we'd need some more nuclear power stations around as well, and a few gas stations (which would be mostly idle, but can spin up/down faster than a nuclear plant)
If you start adding batteries to the grid (either on wheels or 'previously on wheels' then the gas station requirement reduces significantly.

[reohn2]

It seems we're wandering into power supply,which is reasonable as electricity demand will increase with electric cars.
So where does the power come from ?
Doe we build a few more power stations either nuclear or gas powered,or look at more benign and varied green(local and or private) sources of producing enough energy,or a mixture of all sources with a focus on reducing consumption?
Many people use cars,whatever the power source,for very short journeys and single occupant motoring especially commuting is also energy wastage.
There are a few ways to solve these problems but mainly they involve cutting car use and increasing local public transport and cycling infrastructure,which would be used more with the advent of the pedelec/e-bike,and restriction of cars use particularly diesels in large towns and cities where pollution is highest and most concentrated.
Just some thoughts to perhaps discuss.

[Mick F]

I recently bought a fold-up solar panel and a large capacity power bank.
I know it's not much, but since buying it, both our mobile phones have been supplied by it. I charge both my Garmins on it sometimes too. The panel is only about A4 in size, and it will charge even when the sun isn't shining.

A mobile phone charged daily uses about £0.28p of electricity per year. It may take a while to recoup the cost of the solar panel and power bank.

It's not the saving of money, more the enjoyment of getting a charge "off grid". You never know, I could go off and away on my bike, and always have my phone and Garmin charged.

You can buy them to trickle charge your car battery. This is a good way of saving fuel as the alternator doesn't need to do so much work if your battery is always fully charged.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/AA-Solar-Power ... 4GKZKF08J2

I don't know why car designers don't specify a solar panel system on the car roof. Electric cars as well as petrol/diesel.

[reohn2]

I don't know why car designers don't specify a solar panel system on the car roof. Electric cars as well as petrol/diesel.

If the charge isnt worth it,its a false econmy and the cost of the outlay isn't worth the return,which is what IRC claims about so all solar,water and wind power if I understand his argument correctly.

In places where there's no power supply your solar charger would be a boon but in the UK you're never very far from a mains power source to keep your phone,tablet or laptop topped up,but when touring a hub dynamo would offer a better and more reliable charging solution I would think,as well as providing lighting.

[kwackers]

We had them fitted back in Feb 2012. £9,300 for 4kw worth. It's not the saving in electricity that persuaded us to install it but the subsidy. It's almost 51 pence per kwh - this is paid for 25 years and is index linked as well as being tax free.The cheques we've received since installation have more than covered the cost so the next 20 years worth is all profit. We also receive about 5p per kwh for electricity "exported" to the grid. It's assumed half is.

Pete nails it. It's the subsidy from other consumers through their bills that make solar panels worthwhile.

All energy is subsidised one way or another.
Hinkley Point has massive subsidies, some are obvious - i.e. the cost. Some in the future - i.e the guaranteed cost per MWH. Some far in the future - i.e the cost of decommissioning and storage of its waste for the next several thousand years...

In contrast solar is a bargain.

[Boyd]

It's sad that this is only headline reaction politics. Only 30% of the smog is caused by vehicles, no mention of those awful inefficient woodburners, industrial emissions etc? Typical politicians!

Al

supposedly the carbon produced is equal to the carbon removed by trees....supposedly. IE woodburners are carbon neutral.
I suspect in London and other big cities the majority of smog is caused by cars.

[Bonefishblues]

We had them fitted back in Feb 2012. £9,300 for 4kw worth. It's not the saving in electricity that persuaded us to install it but the subsidy. It's almost 51 pence per kwh - this is paid for 25 years and is index linked as well as being tax free.The cheques we've received since installation have more than covered the cost so the next 20 years worth is all profit. We also receive about 5p per kwh for electricity "exported" to the grid. It's assumed half is.

Pete nails it. It's the subsidy from other consumers through their bills that make solar panels worthwhile.

All energy is subsidised one way or another.
Hinkley Point has massive subsidies, some are obvious - i.e. the cost. Some in the future - i.e the guaranteed cost per MWH. Some far in the future - i.e the cost of decommissioning and storage of its waste for the next several thousand years...

In contrast solar is a bargain.

It's like the guaranteed feed-in tariffs, only a huge quantum bigger.

[Boyd]

Too little, too late and too large. They should be offering more incentives and infrastructure for electric bikes and velomobiles: subsidising purchase and battery replacement (which would cost far less than for electric cars), providing charging points and most importantly, smoothing cycling infrastructure so e-bikes don't have to waste energy braking and accelerating so much (which would have an obvious benefit to non-e-bikes too).

As the electric comes from grid I can't see how how carbon Immersions are reduced.
The replacement battery are staggeringly expensive and therefore an unconsidered cost or for the supporter of electric cars an ignored cost. The same applys to there environmental damage.
The subsidy is "The grant will pay for 35% of the purchase price for these vehicles, up to a maximum of £4,500." PLUS electricity has only 5% vat, another subsidy.
All in all I dont consider them environmentally friendly. BUT incentives may make them so eventually.
The battery problem is solvable as battery already exists that last indefinitely? Accordingly to a geek battery site I was reading years ago. The latter with decent storage could, if I ever intending on driving again, convince me to buy one.

[Boyd]

All energy is subsidised one way or another.
Hinkley Point has massive subsidies, some are obvious - i.e. the cost. Some in the future - i.e the guaranteed cost per MWH. Some far in the future - i.e the cost of decommissioning and storage of its waste for the next several thousand years...

In contrast solar is a bargain.

It is not bargain and it is ludicrous to say it is....at 51 pence a kW. Present prices for new installations look like better value for those who don't subsidize them. Those who can't afford them that is....poor people. You are also ignoring that it isn't sunny all day...honest. Other power stations have to be run inefficiently so they can kick in to cover the spikes in electricity produced by solar. Note Germany now discourages south facing solar panels due to these extreme spikes in electric.
Are you suggesting Hinckley point c is going to be subsidized?

[Boyd]

I had quotes from 3 solar installers about 9 months ago. All were quoting for exactly the same panels.
1st You will get 20% return every year.
2nd You will get a 11% return every year
3rd You will get a 4.3% return every year.
All quotes are based on inflation (RPI) increasing at ?% and electrify prices rising at ?%
Needless to say number 3 was most likely to be telling the truth. He recently emailed me with new quote of 7% return. Panel prices fallen??

[PDQ Mobile]

We've been here before!

Out if interest, is Pete75's cost return inclusive of his electric bill or just the cost of the installation?
That is, has he just covered the cost of installation within 5 years?
His annual consumption is another factor in the sum.
I am not trying to get at Pete here, but to subsidize individuals in this way seems counterproductive to achieving an (sustainable) electric supply at reasonable cost to everybody.

A 51p per kWh seems very generous given the cost from the grid of (personally) 16.68 pence.
Personally I have a total yearly electric bill of a bit under £260, although it's about to rise as the kwh price is rising. (The house is set up to be quite low electric consumption obviously).
So a £6k solar installation would cover roughly 20 years of electric use and service charge.


The biggest drawback IMV is when I need least electric, i.e. warm sunny summer days I would get the most. And vice versa.

As it is my nearest power station is a small hydro (32 mw), which does produce most power at times of most requirement (assuming it's rained of course!).

I really am a huge fan of renewable electric energy but IMV the subsidy on solar is too high. It costs the consumer without solar too much.

In a wet and windy island IMV we don't make enough of the reliable hydro and tidal energy resource on our doorstep.
The hydro generation figures are always astonishingly low.
At this very moment straight Hydro is only producing 0.87% (0.31GW) of UK demand, against 9.87% (3.4GW) for wind.
Given the relatively wet July this seems shamefully low.

[kwackers]

A 51p per kWh seems very generous given the cost from the grid of (personally) 16.68 pence.

*Was* very generous.

The idea was to get people fitting solar panels. Now they're fitting them and costs have dropped so has the FIT. It's low enough now that I don't bother factoring it in to my costs.

FWIW the 20 years it would take you to get your money back would be a lot less if you take the subsidy, plus if your energy usage is that low then simply fit 1 or 2KW of panels for a fraction of the price.

[thirdcrank]

... The biggest drawback IMV is when I need least electric, i.e. warm sunny summer days I would get the most. And vice versa ...

This is why the "free panels for free electricity" offers are such a poor deal for the person who owns the roof. The owner of the panels keeps all the lucrative subsidy. I've heard suggestions that the electric car technology may be suitable for the storage of domestic electricity. Because of the problems of battery deterioration, at least one manufacturer supplies them on a rental basis, so the private customer isn't stuck with all the problems of disposal etc. At the simplest level, when the car is on the drive you connect it to your system and benefit from free charging. Taking it a bit further, a similar battery could be in the house. Obviously, there are questions about cost-effectiveness. The amounts of electricity generated on a house roof in the UK don't merit a lot of equipment to make use of it. The 50% "export tariff" has been mentioned ie what they pay you for the electricity you feed back into the grid. You can have either be paid for 50% on the rough calculation that you use half yourself, or you can fit an export meter that measures your output to the grid and you are paid for that number of units. The price of having an export meter fitted isn't worthwhile because they don't pay much for exported electricity. The real money is in the generous rate paid for generating it, no matter who uses it. And as I began, this is why the free panels offers are such a poor deal for the roof owner.

[PDQ Mobile]

A 51p per kWh seems very generous given the cost from the grid of (personally) 16.68 pence.

*Was* very generous.

The idea was to get people fitting solar panels. Now they're fitting them and costs have dropped so has the FIT. It's low enough now that I don't bother factoring it in to my costs.

FWIW the 20 years it would take you to get your money back would be a lot less if you take the subsidy, plus if your energy usage is that low then simply fit 1 or 2KW of panels for a fraction of the price.

Not that I want a wrangle over it but it is still being paid, so the non-solar user is still bearing the (considerable) cost. (British Gas price hike only yest)


While a 2kwh system would theoretically just about cover total consumption here the point is that it is a grid and sometimes I use machines with a consumption of 3 or 4 kw.
And I can buy, today, power at 17p per kwh to run them. Day or night rain or shine.

[kwackers]

Not that I want a wrangle over it but it is still being paid, so the non-solar user is still bearing the (considerable) cost. (British Gas price hike only yest)

What's still being paid? The initial promise? Of course. It was a promise to encourage folk to spend sometimes upwards of £20k as early adopters. Government can't back down on promises because it would get sued and still have to pay out.

Or perhaps you mean new installs - in which case I think you'll find 51p is long gone. These days solar needs to stand on it's own.

Using machines with a 3 or 4kw consumption means nothing. My missus runs a 15Kw kiln from my garage, but that doesn't mean a 4Kw array isn't any use - even a 1Kw array would still save money.
That's sort of the point of the FIT. You get paid for generating electric, if her kiln doesn't use it all then I get some money back for the energy I generate (at less than the market rate so you'd actually benefit).

You'd still have to try hard to beat the cost of Hinkley Point. Fixed high cost of generation?
Fitting solar and storage is looking pretty attractive even without FIT. I pity those who can't.

And what about coal and gas power stations? How much are they subsidised by?
You subsidise them with your health for a start and that's before you even start to think about the cost of global warming. What did acid rain cost? What does it still cost? A lot of subsidies are hidden because we simply choose to ignore them.