Submitted by nastratin t3_10y455b in Futurology
Comments
Solo-dreamer t1_j7vxoic wrote
I'd be veery skeptical of any info from UK sources right now, our government are very regressive torys and are being supported by equaly backward news outlets, this very well could be true but I'd check and double check any UK sources, it was only a year ago they were trying to bring back coal power and fracking.
REPOST_STRANGLER_V2 t1_j7zikju wrote
How many people have off road parking? Even less have it at their house.
Surur t1_j7zj5jb wrote
Actually around 60% of people have off-road parking.
1/3 don't, so conversely 2/3 do.
So there is room to rise from about 1% of cars being EVs to 60%, which would take a decade, before this becomes a roadblock. Enough time to install chargers in every lamp post.
asyrin25 t1_j80t6pb wrote
So I'm curious, let's see.
My car averages about 30mpg times 7.64 pence is 2.29 GBP per gallon which is $2.77 in freedom money.
So $2.77 per gallon. My local corner store is $3.03 right now.
So more or less functionally the same as we pay here in car fuel.
socialphobic1 t1_j83upye wrote
What if you live in an apartment?
Surur t1_j83wj2y wrote
Them maybe wait 10 years till the charging network catches up? Most people live in single family homes suitable for chargers.
socialphobic1 t1_j85m8rv wrote
10 years is a long time.
T_H_W t1_j7vyhpk wrote
For now. People are buying the cars, the next step is to improve the grid, focusing on renewables.
Surur t1_j7vz4yn wrote
And install solar, since electricity prices are so high, payback is very quick.
KOSHAOLIN t1_j8063gl wrote
Just keep in mind solar is only good for a couple of hours, so if charging at night you still use natural gas, coal, etc. The problem with renewables are that they only last 20 years and I am not sure if anyone is looking at life cycle analysis and co2
T_H_W t1_j80bgwx wrote
> The problem with renewables are that they only last 20 years
I'm sorry, what? Do you think replacing solar panels / wind turbines is worse that mining / fracking / drilling? Ignoring the CO2 going into moving massive amounts of earth / setting up offshore oil rigs for a second, a solar farm has never leaked and poisoned the gulf of mexico. An unpainted wind turbine might kill some birds, but it's never leaked into multiple township's drinking water. Your assertion that if we look the true life cycle of renewables it might have more greenhouse gas emissions than mining and burning greenhouse gasses is confusing at best.
​
>Just keep in mind solar is only good for a couple of hours
Even if solar was the only thing being used you're still drastically reducing the on-demand need for fossil fuels. Also changing the grid's infra to support more energy storage is already happening. That being said there is also wind, tidal, and geothermal sources to aid the grid.
Side note, a couple is 2, sometimes a bit more. Where I live there are 9ish hours during the winter and 14 hours a day during the summer. Places like Arizona get sun well over 50% of the time.
To say "I'm not sure anyone is looking" means you didn't take 30 seconds to google. Climate science isn't new, the solutions are tested, we know what we need to do. Oil companies pump millions into lobbying groups to reduce environmental regulations and steer public funding away from renewable sources. We don't need people second guessing renewables because "the sun goes down" and "well maybe setting all this stuff up might be a lot of work." That line of thinking was old in the 2000s and renewable tech has improved 20 years since then.
KOSHAOLIN t1_j80pxhu wrote
Wind turbines are still kind of new to us, and we just started to bury them in the ground. I doubt anyone is using any kind of pe sheeting to ensure the turbines will not disintegrate and poison ground waters. We can dream about the future but we live in the present, so let's stick to it. You have mentioned lobbyist for oil industry, but the real money is in renewables these days and their lobby seems to have bigger reach with the decision makers in western countries. Western is going electric, but china is building mainly coal plants. I will ask again did anyone performed LCA on solar, wind turbine vs natural gas, coal, nuclear? How much concrete and steel do we use per turbine, can the foundation be reused? What about the treat byproducts that are used to limit co2 with cement production? Fly ash is very beneficial to concrete durability. There are many angles to this topic, and we don't even see a glimpse of facts.
T_H_W t1_j80u5fq wrote
>I will ask again did anyone performed LCA on solar, wind turbine vs natural gas, coal, nuclear?
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56487.pdf
I will state again, you didn't take 30 seconds to google.
This is just solar, but I'm sure you can type LCA wind, tidal, geothermal, nuclear, ect.
Quick note, the summation of the report (which is itself a summation of HUNDREDS of LCAs) is that coal produces 25 times the CO2 emissions per kWh.
Quick maths for ya, if a solar plant ends up producing 100g of CO2, coal will produce 2500g of CO2 to produce the same amount of energy.
Welcome to the present, we've been facing this problem for decades and have spend billions of dollars on R&D. The questions involved in LCA are essential and we've been attempting to address them at every turn.
I'm confused why you decided to posit the same question again of "did they look at LCA," when I already answered in the affirmative, especially considering verification of my affirmation would take you less time then you spend writing a response.
Stop asking "if people are asking the hard questions" and start trying to see if people have found the answers yet. If during your research you find an unasked question of merit, that is a fantastic time to bring it to others attention. We live in the information age and there are 7 billion of us, if you're asking questions but haven't checked to see if there are answers you either don't want to know the answers, want someone else to hit the search bar, or just want to disagree without actually taking a stand
FormerHoagie t1_j7w9oar wrote
Your introductory offer has expired. Charging prices were bound to increase with more demand.
momolamomo t1_j7y5uzh wrote
And it’s not the cost of electricity, but the cost of -providing- that electricity to you
FuturologyBot t1_j7vzqdk wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/nastratin:
According to a report, the cost of charging EVs has soared in recent months, mainly driven by rising energy prices.
This has resulted in fast-charging EVs possibly becoming more expensive than filling petrol. As per a new analysis by AA, rapid charging points used by motorists on long drives are now nearly £10 more expensive than filling up petrol.
The research showed that even slow charging an EV at a public charging station at peak times could be more expensive than refuelling a similar petrol car.
AA's head Jack Cousens stated that while pump prices are falling, the cost of electricity is on the rise. Although, he is hopeful that these rising prices could tail off sometime later this year.
Analysts compared the running cost of a 1.2-litre petrol Vauxhall Corsa with its electric-powered alternate, the e-Corsa. The e-Corsa was topped up using an 80-pence slow charger during peak times, resulting in a 16.18 pc cost per mile.
The running cost of its 1.2-litre petrol counterpart came up to 14.45 pence per mile, meaning the traditional ICE model is cheaper to run per mile than the new EV version.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10y455b/uk_fast_charging_evs_more_expensive_than_filling/j7vxqr6/
[deleted] t1_j7w9bgc wrote
[removed]
Electrical_Age_7483 t1_j7wn04v wrote
Fuel price is going to soar as demand goes down and refinery close
SomeRandomEntity44 t1_j7woggk wrote
That's going to be so far down the road we'll never see it.
Electrical_Age_7483 t1_j7wprty wrote
Depends how old you are.
SomeRandomEntity44 t1_j7wqvgs wrote
You might be right, so I'll clarify: nobody old enough to be on reddit. Unless we achieve escape velocity on aging.
Electrical_Age_7483 t1_j7wryjw wrote
Fuel use is already trending down
SomeRandomEntity44 t1_j7wvqcq wrote
Nowhere near the production. Then eventually usage will drive production down, but there are still reserves. It's going to take a long time. Sensational article headlines may say different, but that's just not the case. Gas powered things will not cease to be a thing in the next 50 or 60 years. Fuel will still be needed and produced for mass consumption.
Electrical_Age_7483 t1_j7ww66n wrote
Reserves aren't going to cause price increase lack of refinery is.
Especially petrol rather than diesel
SomeRandomEntity44 t1_j7wwmo2 wrote
You've missed the point. What do you think happens to the reserves? Refineries shut down and reserves around the world just sit forever?
Electrical_Age_7483 t1_j7wxiid wrote
Some of the refineries become unviable going out of business decreasing competition and increasing prices of remaining refinery
What normally happens when competition decreases?
Reserves are irrelevant. When technology surpassed it then they don't get consumed. Also it may be used for diesel or avgas. That doesn't mean you can fill your petrol car
SomeRandomEntity44 t1_j7x19bo wrote
Not in our lifetime. Simple as that. Get back to me in 59 years and we'll touch base on where we are with this.
[deleted] t1_j7z35fi wrote
There is no scenario where all gas/diesel drops off at once, lots of smaller volume of use markets will need gas and diesel much longer than cars and trucks, so there's not really going to be any problem because for billionaires construction project to happen they will still need gas and diesel well after the point that most transit stops using it.
So the niche markets will keep having access to fuel oil, gas and diesel for a long time or your global economies will crash because while EVs are cool, we are a solid 20 years from having like electric bulldozers or batteries for remote mining sites vs generators.
[deleted] t1_j7z2tv3 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j7z2pjr wrote
I dunno, there are a lot of countries that have no way to replace fossil fuel income so they will probably be forced to sell cheap because they spent no time preparing for the future. There will be all this extra refinery capacity too, so I'm not sure prices would ever really spike all that much to matter. The average lifecycle of a combustion vehicle is pretty short so the bulk of gas usage will do down fairly quickly as EVs get perfected and their costs drop well below any combustion option.
You will save money on the purchase, fuel use AND maintenance, so they will get adopted fairly quickly as battery costs decline and first generation bugs get worked out.
dfgdfgadf4444 t1_j805i7b wrote
Doesn't that go against the basic Supply vs. Demand equation?
Electrical_Age_7483 t1_j81v3t2 wrote
No. Less supply of refineries will cause closures. Causing monopolies and lack of competition in refining costs. Prices soar
RexManning1 t1_j7zdjww wrote
That’s a UK problem, not a technology problem or infrastructure problem. It may be a government problem. Here in TH, the DC charging is the same cost per kWh as home charging. And, the cost of electricity is much less than petrol or diesel.
I’m an EV owner.
[deleted] t1_j8j390j wrote
[removed]
nastratin OP t1_j7vxqr6 wrote
According to a report, the cost of charging EVs has soared in recent months, mainly driven by rising energy prices.
This has resulted in fast-charging EVs possibly becoming more expensive than filling petrol. As per a new analysis by AA, rapid charging points used by motorists on long drives are now nearly £10 more expensive than filling up petrol.
The research showed that even slow charging an EV at a public charging station at peak times could be more expensive than refuelling a similar petrol car.
AA's head Jack Cousens stated that while pump prices are falling, the cost of electricity is on the rise. Although, he is hopeful that these rising prices could tail off sometime later this year.
Analysts compared the running cost of a 1.2-litre petrol Vauxhall Corsa with its electric-powered alternate, the e-Corsa. The e-Corsa was topped up using an 80-pence slow charger during peak times, resulting in a 16.18 pc cost per mile.
The running cost of its 1.2-litre petrol counterpart came up to 14.45 pence per mile, meaning the traditional ICE model is cheaper to run per mile than the new EV version.
strvgglecity t1_j7w6glp wrote
For a single month, because of jacked up electricity costs, under a right wing government. Shocked!
blackthornjohn t1_j7w9c6r wrote
And using public charging points, in other words comparing the most expensive way of getting electricity to the cheapest way of getting petrol (the cheapest of the ice fuels).
Froot_of_the_loom t1_j7wgggc wrote
If fuel is still cheaper despite being massively more taxed than electricity EVs will have a hard time selling.
blackthornjohn t1_j7wh11k wrote
This is true and current ice fuel is coming down in price.
Froot_of_the_loom t1_j7wkysa wrote
Hopefully. Just to make it clear: I'm not against EVs, but the often cited "it's so cheap to charge" as a major selling point doesn't really apply in countries where electricity has become the cash cow for the state.
blackthornjohn t1_j7wpu9d wrote
I'm totally with you, I'd have one if I was buying new because most of our journeys are less than 20 miles a day and it could charge at home on the cheap tariff 90% of the time, we'd probably keep the dino juce car for long journeys and towing, butvto be blunt, solar pv panels are definitely going to be way before seriously looking to buy an electric car.
[deleted] t1_j7z735o wrote
I think you save more money with an EV charging from home than you can with solar panels. Solar panels still take like 16-22 years to payback the investment.
>How Much do Motorists Really Spend on Fuel? Motorists spend an average of £1,288 a year to fuel a petrol and £1,795 for a diesel, for cars with average fuel economy
An EV charged from home will payback in more like 7-8 years, plus you get a new ride out of the deal vs just roof panels. The real downside is just the higher purchase price and the fact its very new tech that's going to have some bugs.
The easy way to manage money is to think about everything in terms of how long to get a payback from this investment. The investments that pay back the fastest are pretty much always the best.
[deleted] t1_j7z5yxo wrote
I don't think there is any country where it's more expensive to charge because of the cost of electric. It's just the charging stations like the title says....
But.. by far.. more people charge from home and with gas you don't usually get the benefit of filling from home so of course there is no cost savings, but there is the extra hassle. Most people will not need to charge their car out and about, their daily commute it well below a single charge from home...especially in Europe where everything in more crammed together and people drive shorter distances.
Froot_of_the_loom t1_j7z721b wrote
I don't need the long distance. The matter is the price. And some folks pay 50 cents at home even.
[deleted] t1_j7z5aqa wrote
Not really, the average person only drives like 20-40 miles per day depending on the country and we can see EVs sales are climbing fairly fast. Maintenance costs will generally be significantly less and eventually purchase price will also be less since it's really a much simpler vehicle with less to go wrong.
The few times you need to charge away from home really aren't going to add up to much for most people. For people who don't fit the average use patterns, like people who commute long distances daily, they may want to wait for better/cheaper batteries.
You have to get through you head that EVs are different than gas that can only be filled at a gas station and that it's ultimately far more convenient to have something that charges at home and covers like 90% of your driving without needing to stop for fuel, which is both convenient and time saving for most of your car use even if it's not the other 10% or so of the time you go for a long trip.
Long term electric will wind up being dirt cheap as energy storage eventually hits commercially viable numbers, which will probably be by the end of this decade. Solar and wind are much cheaper than other options.. when they are working, for now we have to pay a lot of added costs to run fossil fuel even though it's way more expensive because we can't store the cheap wind and solar.
Soo the transition periods are never ideal, but the benefits in lowering costs is so significant you can't ignore it. The fact that generation 1 EVs are already cheaper to operate vs DECADES of internal combustion research and improvement means EVs will almost certainly also improve substantially from this point.
The fact they aren't cheaper in every situation right out the gate really doesn't matter. The fact they can compete at all is instead a very strong sign for their future, as are their rapid increase in sales even if most of that is still plug-in. That doesn't represent a lack of consumer demand, just a lack of ideal batteries.
Countries can handle the charging station issues different, but at the end of the day most people don't be using charging stations that much and battery capacity will only increase so I don't see any real problem there. The bigger problem is just all the grid upgrades, but that has more benefits than just EVs and it's probably just smart to modernize our grids and make them more resilient anyway.
Froot_of_the_loom t1_j7z6pdh wrote
The majority here has no opportunity to charge at home. And having to carry a dozen cards around because of different operators and then pay 50, 70, 80 cents per kWh AND claim how "cheap" it is, doesn't work that way.
Surur t1_j7vv4gc wrote
> AA's analysis also mentioned that the cheapest way to recharge an electric car is to plug it in at home, which because of the government's energy price cap, could bring down the cost per mile to as low as 7.64 pence.
Good thing most charging is done at home then, right?