Electric, Hybrid and Alternative fuelled vehicles - News and Discussion

[APOLLO]

On 03/09/2024 at 11:19, Ron Ron Ron said:

Motorists will be "squeezed" either way.

There is an expectation that fuel duty will be increased in the October budget and again next year.

.

 

And don't forget to add Vat on the increased fuel duty - a double whammy !!

 

I'm glad my high mileage days are over, there is definitely a current WW3 against the cash cows motorists.

 

Brit15

[Vistisen]

1 hour ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Friends have just had an "ecofriendly" house built. Despite having a large garden area they were advised not to have ground source heat pump heating but to use air pumps instead.

 

Concerning roof mounted solar panels, there have been a lot of new houses built where I live. It is still ongoing, 3500 planned in total (about a third increase on the existing housing stock) and very few built so far have roof mounted solar panels. On the estate built by Persimmon, it is probably about 5% -10%.  This is in East Anglia where very large solar farms on agricultural land are planned or already have been built. 

 

So it seems that solar is a great commercial proposition but of little interest to the large housebuilders.

We have solar power as well. We got that back in 2022. The need for effective infrastructure to move power from where it is generated to where it is needed is vital for the future of 'Green' power.  This is one of the things that politicians do not really want to talk about, for two reasons, firstly beause no one wants to have pylons in the garden, (or massive trenches after burying cables). Secondly the whole question of 'last mile' infrastructure. If I generate my own power and use it without it going on  grid, then thay can not tax me. In 2023 I sold  6.7Mw  and bought 4.7 Mw , Unfortunatey my solar system does not accuratley measure its production ( somedays I selll more power than it says I have produced!) but I think I used about 9Mw in 2023 (we have two plugin hybrids). 

 

Back in 2022 where the elecricity prices shot up.  The solar power really paid well. One of the hybrids is a company car, where the company refunds the cost of the electricity I used to charge it, That meant that in 2022 I ended up with a net cost for the whole year of  minus £15 :-)  

Edited September 5 by Vistisen

[jjb1970]

A lot of taxi companies here use the MG5 estate. For the money it's a practical and comfortable car which won't break the bank, and they seem up to the rigours of taxi use.

[AndrueC]

51 minutes ago, Hroth said:

Just watched the C5 ICE vs EV programme.

 

All big cars, and the first "comparison" was ludicrous, who would go on a long trip in an EV without charging overnight. Starting at 20% charge? 🤣

Urban/City usage?  The example car was not what I'd call a city car.

The used car segment did mention smaller cars, but still edged towards bigger vehicles. 

 

Overall, there were a lot of big, heavy, expensive Mercedes examples too.

 

Not a helpful or impressive programme.

 

I stopped watching after the introduction. A drag race to compare performance. A woman missing her exit on the motorway. I decided it was unlikely to lead to an informative documentary.

[GrumpyPenguin]

To comment on a number of posts.

 

I'd be one of the first to say that some SPV installations look a bit of a mess on rooftops. We have a 4kw(theroritical) installation on my flat workshop roof - the panels are flat & can hardly be seen. We also have a first generation "Powervault" that has been installed for 8/9 years and the batteries are just coming to the end of their service life - we have a choice of replacing the batteries (AGM) for around £700 or a newer unit at around £3k for an equivelent with lithium ion batteries.

I'm sure I have seen a company that makes SPV roof tiles so complete roofs could be covered & look a lot better.

New Builders will only install SPV/Heat Pumps as standard when they are forced to do so.

 

As for Grid capacity - NG themselves say "no problem" - the engineers on (or sometimes in) the fround will tell you differently.

 

The Wiki graph tells half a story - the Scandinavian Country's have a fair amount of very clean (hydro) power. The graph needs to indicate relative electriciity prices which may throw a different light (?) on the whole subject.

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

2 hours ago, Vistisen said:

I have installed a geothermal heat pump. 600 metres of underground pipes in the garden, and an heat exchanger that includes 180 lt hot water tank.  Electricity in 2020 has had until today an average price og 22p per Kw.  My heatpump uses during the summer months 2 kw (44p) a day.  It was installed in January . In febuary the highest single day used 60 Kw  ( it was about -8 degrees) the average for 2024 is 12 Kw  (£2.64)  . Before the heatpump was installed I used a wood pellet burner which cost in 2023 £5.64 per day.  

 

Geothermal systems are more expensive to install, but don't make any noise ( unlike) air based heatpumps, and the ground has a more constant temperature, so the ammount of electricity used is more stable.

By the time you take in the installation costs of all this and the maintainence and the lifespan is i doubt great compared to when well made outweighed made to a lifespan,i would think the wood burner will win hands down,you have trees by the million i guess still.

[Chris M]

I live in a semi but the roofs are exactly wrong for solar panels as the end of the house points due north. I’ve got 60ft of fence it the back garden that faces due south. I’ve often wondered whether I could replace the fence with solar panels or maybe just install a line of panels in front or the fence.

[GrumpyPenguin]

17 minutes ago, Chris M said:

I live in a semi but the roofs are exactly wrong for solar panels as the end of the house points due north. I’ve got 60ft of fence it the back garden that faces due south. I’ve often wondered whether I could replace the fence with solar panels or maybe just install a line of panels in front or the fence.

Provided you had the room and they were not "shaded" by buildings &/or trees it would be viable - after all, that's basically how they install panels on farmland.

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, AndrueC said:

I stopped watching after the introduction. A drag race to compare performance. A woman missing her exit on the motorway. I decided it was unlikely to lead to an informative documentary.

 

I'd recorded it, and skipped the Mercedes segments when I realised from the start of the first that they were more TopGear Powerrrr!!! exercises.  I tried to watch the rest with an open mind, but my mind started clogging with the rubbish and my finger started straying to the FFWD button.  The carrying capacity segment? Utter waste of space (as it were...).  Wouldn't you just look at the boot cubic capacity of the vehicles you're interested in and select the best fit for your needs?

 

I'm glad I didn't watch it in realtime.

 

[Vistisen]

1 hour ago, ERIC ALLTORQUE said:

By the time you take in the installation costs of all this and the maintainence and the lifespan is i doubt great compared to when well made outweighed made to a lifespan,i would think the wood burner will win hands down,you have trees by the million i guess still.

The installation expenses are certainly going to take a while to be recovered. The total price was just under £20,000. There was a grant of £2,500. The wood pellet burner cost £5000 when new about 4 years ago. But we have had to replace the main circuit board twice (£500 each time) due to it being oversensitive for lightning strikes in the fields close by.

The main reason for changing was the fact that I do not have warm dry storage space for Wood pellets. This means I have to buy them two pallets at a time with about 860Kgs. In 2022 the prices rose drastically from about £175 per pallet to over £1000 for a pallet. (I considered myself lucky that I bought 4 pallets and a tarpaulin for ‘only’ £700 per pallet.  Even them some of them got wet due to the blasted cats using them to sharpen their claws.

The burner also required almost daily filling of three to four sacks of pellets in the winter. Luckily, we have made the decision to change, and the new heat pump was installed the very same day I had my pre-operation meeting before having a double bypass operation. I would not have been able to lift the 16Kg sacks for a month!

Geothermal heat pumps increase the value of the house by about the same amount as its cost, and they last typically about 20-25 years with normal service, compares to air heat pumps that last typically about 17-20 years ( according to google)

 

Edited September 5 by Vistisen

[black and decker boy]

1 hour ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

 

New Builders will only install SPV/Heat Pumps as standard when they are forced to do so.

 

 

That is what the new part L of Building Regs does and is what will impose solar, Heat pumps and additional insulation measures on new build (or all types).

[Nick C]

3 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Provided you had the room and they were not "shaded" by buildings &/or trees it would be viable - after all, that's basically how they install panels on farmland.

Which raises another grumble - why are we covering huge swathes of farmland (which should be used for growing food) with solar panels when there are vast quantities of concreted areas that could be used instead (tops of industrial building, warehouses, car parks etc)...

 

There was a local company a few years ago approached the district council wanting to put solar panels on warehouses, the owner reckoned that there would be more than enough capacity to power the whole town. Council couldn't be bothered.

[ELTEL]

2 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

I'd recorded it, and skipped the Mercedes segments when I realised from the start of the first that they were more TopGear Powerrrr!!! exercises.  I tried to watch the rest with an open mind, but my mind started clogging with the rubbish and my finger started straying to the FFWD button.  The carrying capacity segment? Utter waste of space (as it were...).  Wouldn't you just look at the boot cubic capacity of the vehicles you're interested in and select the best fit for your needs?

 

I'm glad I didn't watch it in realtime.

 

Totally agree with you, glad I also watched it on playback 

Terry 

[Hobby]

5 hours ago, Hroth said:

Just watched the C5 ICE vs EV programme.

 

All big cars, and the first "comparison" was ludicrous, who would go on a long trip in an EV without charging overnight. Starting at 20% charge? 🤣

Urban/City usage?  The example car was not what I'd call a city car.

The used car segment did mention smaller cars, but still edged towards bigger vehicles. 

 

Overall, there were a lot of big, heavy, expensive Mercedes examples too.

 

Not a helpful or impressive programme.

 

 

I don't think you do it justice.

 

In answer to your first points most EVs do seem to be big(!) and it's called a spur of the moment trip, plenty of us do it. So yes, it can happen and is a downside of an EV, the half hour extra delay isn't a deal breaker though and they didn't push the point whilst pointing out that even with motorway charging/fueling the EV was still cheaper. 

 

I seemed to me to be a fair review of the current situation, though somewhat dumbed down, and actually pointed out at the end that things will change with electric becoming more "accepted", cheaper and with better range. 

 

6/10 overall, could do better, but not as bad as you make out.

Edited September 5 by Hobby

[Phil Parker]

2 minutes ago, Nick C said:

Which raises another grumble - why are we covering huge swathes of farmland (which should be used for growing food) with solar panels when there are vast quantities of concreted areas that could be used instead (tops of industrial building, warehouses, car parks etc)...

 

Cost. To use fields, you just have to buy them. If you want to use the tops of buildings, the solar firm has to negotiate with each one, assess the structure for suitability for fitting the panels, and if anything goes wrong, argue in court about whose fault it is. Did the panels damage the building, or did the building damage the panels? Cables will have to be laid to the substation too, wherever that is.

 

The trouble with this argument* is that it assumes some sort of super-communist government that own all the buildings, or can just order panels to be fitted to any particular building. Now, you could mandate new buildings be fitted with solar panels, but I suspect the developers would soon start to lobby for this not to happen.

 

*It's the same argument often heard online that "the Council should just let people use empty shops for free", forgetting that those shops are owned by private companies.

[Hobby]

Still a waste of good farmland, though.

[idd15]

39 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Still a waste of good farmland, though.

Unlikely as most farmland is graded so it would be very unlikely a developer would get permission for top quality land. The Solar farm I have invested in via the Ripple cooperative is using grazing land that will still be used for sheep. So effectively it is a form of agrivoltaics. 
 

Apparently the land area required for UK solar is less than that used for golf courses… Can’t see that fact going down well at the 19th but hey ho.

 

Personally I think we should follow the French lead and mandate that car parks be covered with solar panels. Bentley motors is a good example with what they have done with their staff car park.

 

cheers

idd

[Reorte]

 

18 minutes ago, idd15 said:

Personally I think we should follow the French lead and mandate that car parks be covered with solar panels. Bentley motors is a good example with what they have done with their staff car park.

Where we should follow the French lead is in building a lot more nuclear power stations, rather than continuing to try to turn as much land as possible in to industrial estates (and housing developments, and distribution centres etc.) Where we currently are and where we're going is just plain depressing. Yeah, there's plenty that isn't but it's pretty hard to go anywhere without noticing it all, all of it destructive.

[AndrueC]

50 minutes ago, idd15 said:

Apparently the land area required for K solar is less than that used for golf courses… Can’t see that fact going down well at the 19th but hey ho.

The golf courses are already there and have been for many decades - quite a few of them for over a century. Very few new courses are being built these days and the total number is slowly declining. Golf courses are part of the existing landscape (and a large part of UK sporting culture). If something has changed that requires the UK to increase land use for farming then by all means we can start discussing the repurposing of golf courses.

 

But otherwise you're making what I consider (and yes I'm a golfer) a spurious argument.

 

The issue of the ecological impact of golf courses is a complex one for sure (and something the regional authorities like England Golf are trying to address). But that should be a separate discussion.

 

Edited September 5 by AndrueC

[Nick C]

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Cost. To use fields, you just have to buy them. If you want to use the tops of buildings, the solar firm has to negotiate with each one, assess the structure for suitability for fitting the panels, and if anything goes wrong, argue in court about whose fault it is. Did the panels damage the building, or did the building damage the panels? Cables will have to be laid to the substation too, wherever that is.

 

The trouble with this argument* is that it assumes some sort of super-communist government that own all the buildings, or can just order panels to be fitted to any particular building. Now, you could mandate new buildings be fitted with solar panels, but I suspect the developers would soon start to lobby for this not to happen.

 

*It's the same argument often heard online that "the Council should just let people use empty shops for free", forgetting that those shops are owned by private companies.

Cables to the substation is less of a problem with industrial units than with fields as the units are usually the primary consumers of the energy themselves. 

 

As to who owns the buildings, largely (at least round here), the whole industrial estate/business park is owned by a single management company that sublets each unit, so there's usually only one landlord to deal with. The same with the shops - most are owned either by the council or by the shopping centre management company. 

 

In actual fact, they have let a local community centre use an empty shop (not sure if it's free or very cheap) for a food bank/community cafe as their own building was closed due to RAAC. The shop in question is owned by the local housing association. 

[Neil]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

Still a waste of good farmland, though.

 

Depends; there's a solar farm here in Tywyn, grass grows under the panels and sheep graze the grass. I know this wouldn't work for arable farming but it does allow for dual use in the right situation.

[Hobby]

14 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

Depends; there's a solar farm here in Tywyn, grass grows under the panels and sheep graze the grass. I know this wouldn't work for arable farming but it does allow for dual use in the right situation.

 

That must be a first.  I've seen lots of them but never grazing animals using them.  I was told once that they couldn't do that but you've just proved that wrong!

 

Re golf courses they also tend to have lots if trees as well so greener than a solar farm.

[Vistisen]

3 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Cost. To use fields, you just have to buy them. If you want to use the tops of buildings, the solar firm has to negotiate with each one, assess the structure for suitability for fitting the panels, and if anything goes wrong, argue in court about whose fault it is. Did the panels damage the building, or did the building damage the panels? Cables will have to be laid to the substation too, wherever that is.

 

The trouble with this argument* is that it assumes some sort of super-communist government that own all the buildings, or can just order panels to be fitted to any particular building. Now, you could mandate new buildings be fitted with solar panels, but I suspect the developers would soon start to lobby for this not to happen.

 

*It's the same argument often heard online that "the Council should just let people use empty shops for free", forgetting that those shops are owned by private companies.

There are other problems with using solar panels on roofs. There can be problems with fires, not just the fact that you can not just start spraying water on things that are full of electricity. but also then may help to spread fires:  https://ing.dk/artikel/dangerous-combination-roofs-and-solar-panels-increase-risk-fire-spread

[idd15]

3 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

Where we should follow the French lead is in building a lot more nuclear power stations, rather than continuing to try to turn as much land as possible in to industrial estates (and housing developments, and distribution centres etc.) Where we currently are and where we're going is just plain depressing. Yeah, there's plenty that isn't but it's pretty hard to go anywhere without noticing it all, all of it destructive.

 Given that governments worldwide are obsessed with economic growth and enslaved to GDP targets I can’t see that happening somehow.

 

“We have a finite environment—the planet. Anyone who thinks that you can have infinite growth in a finite environment is either a madman or an economist.” - David Attenborough 

 

As for nuclear power station(s), well even the word “pylon” has people manning the barricades these days!

 

We live in interesting times, but we’ll muddle through.

 

Cheers 

idd

[idd15]

3 hours ago, AndrueC said:

The golf courses are already there and have been for many decades - quite a few of them for over a century. Very few new courses are being built these days and the total number is slowly declining. Golf courses are part of the existing landscape (and a large part of UK sporting culture). If something has changed that requires the UK to increase land use for farming then by all means we can start discussing the repurposing of golf courses.

 

But otherwise you're making what I consider (and yes I'm a golfer) a spurious argument.

 

The issue of the ecological impact of golf courses is a complex one for sure (and something the regional authorities like England Golf are trying to address). But that should be a separate discussion.

 

Nope not making any spurious arguments at all. It is a comparison used simply to show relative land use.
 

You can read all about it herein the solar associations fact sheet about solar farms and agricultural land use. Has some quite useful insights into current government policies and legislation around agricultural land and its use. As it stands I do not think you have anything to fear regarding the repurposing of golf courses for agricultural land.

 

HTH

idd