Quotation

[Smolley]

Electric vehicle owners should ONLY be allowed to charge their cars using wind & solar power otherwise it's just pretending.

[Jim Stewart ...]

totly

[JNugent]

Agreed, with the proviso that the wind and solar sources are located near to the home of the vehicle's owner. No proximity to the source : no EV.

All that the virtue-signalling London mafia are doing is shifting generation emissions away from London and nearer to the homes of people who live outside London.

Ideally, London should be disconnected from the National Grid and no waste of any sort should be allowed to move from London to anywhere else.

London should generate all of its own power and dispose all of its own waste, inside its own boundaries.

[charles]

It used to have a number of power stations; Battersea and Bankside , to name a couple of them. TFL had Lotts Road & Grenwich, too.

[JNugent]

..."used to"...

[Paul]

The plan is working.

Whatever you're doing, keep doing it.

The plan was never about offering you a choice of a BEV or an ICE. The plan was, for you to have no car at all, and to be riding a bus :-)

Enjoy your last car ride. Wheee!

"But I..." Yes. Yes. Your special circumstances. Gotcha.

Yeah, I know, "buses are for peasants". True. But, that is our future. "The plan" is purposefully impractical. It's a plan for a car-less future.

The less car you drive, the more heat-pump we got. The more heat-pump we got, the less natural gas we need.

But it's a secret plan. So don't tell anybody.

Paul

[Max Demian]

No they should only use wind power. With land yachts.

[Brian Gaff]

Bie hard when you see its all going down the same wires, don't you think? Brian

[Vir Campestris]

On a windless night the electricity for the heat pumps is generated from natural gas.

You can't get to net zero with wind and solar.

Andy

[Chris Hogg]

Of course you can. You just cheat with the numbers such as carbon credits, planting trees etc, and claim you've achieved net zero using some dubious, fallacious, complicated and wholly unverifiable calculation, and bingo! net zero achieved.

Cynical? Moi?

[Bob Henson]

Moi aussi. (I'm not really an Australian) The whole thing is one giant con.

[Paul]

There are several levels of batteries.

1) Enough batteries to stop "arbitrage gouging". That's where you go to the spot market, to buy some power on short notice, and they charge you 100x what it is worth.

2) The second level of battery, is "convert non-dispatchable sources into dispatchable ones". In this case, the battery carries enough power for one day. Dispatching (deciding what nuke to use) is done a day at a time. If your windy-mill charges up a battery, and you can tell the man "I have a gigawatt-hour to sell, how much am I offered", then that gigawatt-hour is dispatch-able. the wind may not be reliable, but the gigawatt-in-a-can is.

3) The third level of battery, is the ten day one. That's where you pretend a power source is both dispatch-able and <cough> "reliable".

As far as I know, (1) is relatively easy to achieve. Australia got that, with its dabbling in battery banks.

(2) and (3) ? The price per kwh goes up, for the power you get (that's the real price of a renewable). And that is to cover the capital cost and finite life of some battery.

The Chinese are working on a moderate sized battery (presumably as an experiment), which mixes two battery types. It has vanadium flow batteries for stationary power storage. It has Lithium batteries for some other (short-term?) purpose. I haven't seen an article proposing what they're going to do with that (operating modes).

You have one already.

Paul