Smart meters (again?)

[Mick F]

Do you mean the taxation needed to run the state?

It's going to be very hard to increase most of the major sources and this is yet another pressure. Many of us are in favour of a wealth tax of some sort.

Run the state?
Not sure if that's required via road vehicle use and roads, but it helps no doubt.

The roads need to be paid for.
The more they are used, the more they are worn away and the more they need maintenance.
Someone ......... the state(?) .......... has to pay for it.
Normal(?) rules dictate that whoever uses stuff, pays for it.

There's taxation plus VAT on vehicle fuel. Most vehicles pay VED annually as well.
Use an EV and there's no "vehicle fuel" used, and no VED paid.

[Jdsk]

Run the state?
Not sure if that's required via road vehicle use and roads, but it helps no doubt.

Publicly funded roads are part of the state.

Normal(?) rules dictate that whoever uses stuff, pays for it.

We have areas of massive public expenditure where that isn't the case: health, education, armed forces...

There's taxation plus VAT on vehicle fuel. Most vehicles pay VED annually as well.
Use an EV and there's no "vehicle fuel" used, and no VED paid.

That's where the IFS report is so valuable.

Jonathan

[[XAP]Bob]

Nice video

PS: the attached (from a 2019 paper by one of the leading global I/C engine design consulting companies) might be relevant - and do read the small print

Thanks

Haven't read the paper, but did read the small print and it rather omits a couple of factors:
- It doesn't break down production emissions at all - if much of that is from electricity used in production (not an unreasonable assumption) then you actually need to think about who is doing what. Tesla, for example, are heading towards all their production being solar powered, so their embedded emissions will be rather smaller than that.

- The location of tailpipe emissions, and their non carbon content, is actually a bigger problem in many ways. Carbon emissions are only one part of the damage that ICE emissions do. This is particularly relevant for biomass fuels, which they appear to consider basically carbon neutral, but that carbon is taken from a low concentration area (a wood farm), and concentrated into cities and towns along with added NOx and other byproducts of combustion - not as neutral as it looks.

- The "electricity" emissions are assumed to be 200g/kWh which it claims is the "best case for 2025". The grid is already under that, currently running at 153.

- I don't know how much the disposal cost has been adjusted to reflect the recycling and reuse of batteries, which will of course also affect the embedded cost.

[[XAP]Bob]

Normal(?) rules dictate that whoever uses stuff, pays for it.

That's why breweries get all the alcohol taxation revenue, and tobacco importers the tax on cigarettes.

Taxation is there to pay for what "society" wants to see (or should be anyway), which includes welfare, state defence, education, healthcare (hopefully we can keep this), second houses for MPs, waste disposal, national infrastructure (well, until Thatcher at any rate).

[PDQ Mobile]

Not at all, but you simply aren't getting it.

Firstly you already get it cheaper - you're often subsided during the day by profit made during the night.
(It's not like no energy companies go out of business is it? Because it's not as easy to make a profit as us consumers think)

But we've already established you're not interested in getting it cheaper so exactly what is your gripe?

The second point is we *need* EV's and other high power users to use power at night in order to balance the grid - how does your scheme make that happen?
Answer is that it doesn't.

So you advocate a scheme that you're already using, don't actually care about and doesn't provide the required consumer behaviour.
In what world does that work?

The reality is you want me to pay 8 or 9 times what the cost of the electricity is to subsidise you when you're not even that bothered about cheap power anyway.
This is *exactly* the mentality of the "you don't pay road tax" anti cycling brigade.

I see that (gridwatch) at this moment, in spite of wind making 22% of the total, gas turbines are making 33% and "home grown" nuclear nearly17%.
Demand is only moderate.
Add in French (pretty fair proportion nuclear) and other imported sources and the sustainable clean EV fantasy looks just a little tarnished.
No reason some of those sources can't be reduced as demand falls.

I think I would like us all to pay just what it costs to generate and supply leccy with a reasonable profit margin- for rainy days.
In reckon my "middle way" tariff is about fair. It's recently gone up to 18.272 p kw(h!) plus 5% VAT.

I don't want to see subsidy to the high user at the expense of the thrifty. That much is true.
Mostly because of a "small is beautiful" philosophy.

I want to see understandable and simple pricing structures.
So sure I feel penalized for trying to be thrifty. Trying to make things last.

I am just the same with other machines and bikes- maintained to high standard and last practically a lifetime!

Don't accept the "no road tax your a cyclist" accusation.

[Mick F]

Run the state?
Not sure if that's required via road vehicle use and roads, but it helps no doubt.

Publicly funded roads are part of the state.

Of course they are!

At this present moment, the State gets input from VED and fuel tax.
If those go completely, as they will, the monies need to come from somewhere to compensate.

[Jdsk]

Run the state?
Not sure if that's required via road vehicle use and roads, but it helps no doubt.

Publicly funded roads are part of the state.

Of course they are!

At this present moment, the State gets input from VED and fuel tax.
If those go completely, as they will, the monies need to come from somewhere to compensate.

If only there were an authoritative report from a well-respected institution considering the options and showing their working... anyone?

Jonathan

[kwackers]

I see that (gridwatch) at this moment, in spite of wind making 22% of the total, gas turbines are making 33% and "home grown" nuclear nearly17%.
Demand is only moderate.
Add in French (pretty fair proportion nuclear) and other imported sources and the sustainable clean EV fantasy looks just a little tarnished.
No reason some of those sources can't be reduced as demand falls.

I assume you're now just trolling.

Obviously it's "daytime", the point is to charge EV's at night when grid demand is low.
To encourage that tariffs are lower at night.

I've been over the numbers several times.
20 million EV's require 15Gw overnight, the amount that the grid typically dips by.
Loads of power, we just need to use it at the right time.

But you seem to think you're subsidising folk - how can you be subsiding me when I'm guaranteeing to pay more than the wholesale price?
It's an impossibility.

You on the other hand don't guarantee to pay more than the wholesale price, in fact only days ago the wholesale price exceeded your tariff - who was subsiding whom?

[Mick F]

Publicly funded roads are part of the state.

Of course they are!
At this present moment, the State gets input from VED and fuel tax.
If those go completely, as they will, the monies need to come from somewhere to compensate.

If only there were an authoritative report from a well-respected institution considering the options and showing their working... anyone?

Jonathan

Yes Jonathan
Plus One from me on that.

[Oldjohnw]

Do EVs have tyres on their wheels?

If so, they pollute.

[fausto copy]

I was beginniing to feel sorry I started this thread.

However, slightly back on track, I had a letter from SSE today saying they'd not heard from me in a while.
Well, they wouldn't have because I told them a couple of years ago not to bother me with communication about Smart meters.
Despite that they've recently been sending me weekly invitations to make an appointment.
Today my invitation had the tantalising offer with it of a £20 Amazon gift voucher (while stocks last).
They're obviously getting more desperate with the threats of fines becoming more imminent.
If I wait long enough maybe they'll give me free leccy instead.

[squeaker]

Nice video

PS: the attached (from a 2019 paper by one of the leading global I/C engine design consulting companies) might be relevant - and do read the small print

Thanks

Haven't read the paper, but did read the small print and it rather omits a couple of factors:
- It doesn't break down production emissions at all - if much of that is from electricity used in production (not an unreasonable assumption) then you actually need to think about who is doing what. Tesla, for example, are heading towards all their production being solar powered, so their embedded emissions will be rather smaller than that.

- The location of tailpipe emissions, and their non carbon content, is actually a bigger problem in many ways. Carbon emissions are only one part of the damage that ICE emissions do. This is particularly relevant for biomass fuels, which they appear to consider basically carbon neutral, but that carbon is taken from a low concentration area (a wood farm), and concentrated into cities and towns along with added NOx and other byproducts of combustion - not as neutral as it looks.

- The "electricity" emissions are assumed to be 200g/kWh which it claims is the "best case for 2025". The grid is already under that, currently running at 153.

- I don't know how much the disposal cost has been adjusted to reflect the recycling and reuse of batteries, which will of course also affect the embedded cost.

Fair points: lifetime footprints must be a nightmare to estimate well. (Note that the slide would have been prepared for a global market, so I suspect that 200g/kWh was a global estimate - not too many EV battery pack made in the UK - in fact not too much of anything, now I come to think of it )

[kwackers]

Do EVs have tyres on their wheels?

If so, they pollute.

As do bicycles.
Not sure the two things are connected.

We could easily say; do you breathe? If so you pollute.
I mean, technically everything pollutes...

[[XAP]Bob]

Not at all, but you simply aren't getting it.

Firstly you already get it cheaper - you're often subsided during the day by profit made during the night.
(It's not like no energy companies go out of business is it? Because it's not as easy to make a profit as us consumers think)

But we've already established you're not interested in getting it cheaper so exactly what is your gripe?

The second point is we *need* EV's and other high power users to use power at night in order to balance the grid - how does your scheme make that happen?
Answer is that it doesn't.

So you advocate a scheme that you're already using, don't actually care about and doesn't provide the required consumer behaviour.
In what world does that work?

The reality is you want me to pay 8 or 9 times what the cost of the electricity is to subsidise you when you're not even that bothered about cheap power anyway.
This is *exactly* the mentality of the "you don't pay road tax" anti cycling brigade.

I see that (gridwatch) at this moment, in spite of wind making 22% of the total, gas turbines are making 33% and "home grown" nuclear nearly17%.
Demand is only moderate.
Add in French (pretty fair proportion nuclear) and other imported sources and the sustainable clean EV fantasy looks just a little tarnished.
No reason some of those sources can't be reduced as demand falls.

I think I would like us all to pay just what it costs to generate and supply leccy with a reasonable profit margin- for rainy days.
In reckon my "middle way" tariff is about fair. It's recently gone up to 18.272 p kw(h!) plus 5% VAT.

I don't want to see subsidy to the high user at the expense of the thrifty. That much is true.
Mostly because of a "small is beautiful" philosophy.

I want to see understandable and simple pricing structures.
So sure I feel penalized for trying to be thrifty. Trying to make things last.

I am just the same with other machines and bikes- maintained to high standard and last practically a lifetime!

Don't accept the "no road tax your a cyclist" accusation.

So you never avail yourself of buy one get one free offers? or larger packets of rice/pasta/why?

Because that's the rich (those that can afford the space to store additional product) being subsidised by the poor (who can't take advantage of such offers)

The pricing structure of the Agile tariff really couldn't be simpler - it's the same level of complexity as a tracker mortgage.

A tracker follows the wholesale interest rate (the BoE one usually), whilst the Agile tariff follows the wholesale energy price. Neither is complex, although the energy market is faster moving than the BoE interest rates.

You are looking at 33% combined cycle gas turbine usage... Maybe you don't like them because combined cycle is too complicated? they are amongst the most efficient engines available - the second cycle improves efficiency massively, leading to efficiency on the order of 65%, or about 85% of the theoretical Carnot cycle efficiency. A single stage gas plant will be about 35% efficient.

But the bigger point is that we have about 10% power by transfer, about 1% from coal, 35% from CCGT and the rest is clean.
Whereas *all* of your energy, which you use much less efficiently, is about as dirty as it comes... I suppose you could run a coal fired steam engine driven car.

[[XAP]Bob]

Do EVs have tyres on their wheels?

If so, they pollute.

As do bicycles.
Not sure the two things are connected.

We could easily say; do you breathe? If so you pollute.
I mean, technically everything pollutes...

I'd suggest that driving without tyres would be worse.

Your point that the world contains multiple problems is a real slam-dunk argument against fixing any of them: