Backwards step?

Talk Electrician Forum

Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:

NozSpark

Seaman stains™
Supporting Member
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
12,256
Reaction score
93
Location
North Wales Riviera
I'm just waiting for the multi EV pile up on a motorway as it is bound to happen at some point, and when the motorway is subsequently closed for a week the realisation will dawn that an EV fire can't be easily put out with a few brigades I have spoken to having a policy of wait, watch and contain the fire until it burns out in a few days or so

It’ll probably get to a point where that use RORO containers without doors, fill them with water and put the car in them until the battery has cooled down
 

Mike.J

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2022
Messages
170
Reaction score
50
If indeed the EV owner is running on renewable energy, either solar or wind generated, then the definition is correct as the generation source is renewable. Of course the particular "batch" for want of a better word of energy used at any given time has gone.
No the definition is not correct, the renewable energy is at the source, immediately it enters or drives something it is no longer 100% renewable energy.
 

PaulieN

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
60
Reaction score
23
Location
North Lincs.
No the definition is not correct, the renewable energy is at the source, immediately it enters or drives something it is no longer 100% renewable energy.
Interesting interpretation, so if I'm understanding your take correctly, your point is that due to losses, the actual usable energy is somewhat less than 100% of that generated ?

So in your opinion, how do you think electricity generation from renewable sources should be described?
 

Mike.J

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2022
Messages
170
Reaction score
50
Battery powered from electricity produced from wind/wave or sun, and then give a description of the losses between source and battery, it's misleading to say 100% renewable about anything, to most consumers it sounds like an efficiency statement, the product used to produce the electricity has losses too and an environmental impact on land, sea and natural resources.
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2014
Messages
6,898
Reaction score
609
Location
Woking
What I find very odd in this transition to save the planet is that we still use our cars because public transport is nearly always more expensive for 1 ticket, let alone 2, 3 or 4

And then there are the hopelessly complicated ticket pricing for trains

And then there is the fact that flying from Scotland to London is nearly always cheaper than the train, tax needs to be levied on aviation fuel AROUND THE WORLD
 

binky

eco warrior......™
Supporting Member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
11,991
Reaction score
627
Location
Sunny Plymouth
What I find very odd in this transition to save the planet is that we still use our cars because public transport is nearly always more expensive for 1 ticket, let alone 2, 3 or 4

And then there are the hopelessly complicated ticket pricing for trains

And then there is the fact that flying from Scotland to London is nearly always cheaper than the train, tax needs to be levied on aviation fuel AROUND THE WORLD
Aviation gets away with fuel duty, I forget how. Which is ridiculous, albeit we all love cheap flights.
 

King Arthur

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
91
Reaction score
25
I really don't understand the love for railways. With the exception of mass transit systems like the London underground etc railways are inherently expensive and always need subsidy to be able to compete with air and road transport.

Even with massive subsidy for railways and huge taxes on road vehicles it's quite clear that people prefer cars. Instead of 'punishing' road transport with taxes, why not just let each transport system have a level playing field and not interfere by imposing all the 'stealth' taxes.

I'm not against taxation, many public services have to be paid for, but I don't like social engineering. We're supposed to be a free society after all.
 

binky

eco warrior......™
Supporting Member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
11,991
Reaction score
627
Location
Sunny Plymouth
I really don't understand the love for railways. With the exception of mass transit systems like the London underground etc railways are inherently expensive and always need subsidy to be able to compete with air and road transport.

Even with massive subsidy for railways and huge taxes on road vehicles it's quite clear that people prefer cars. Instead of 'punishing' road transport with taxes, why not just let each transport system have a level playing field and not interfere by imposing all the 'stealth' taxes.

I'm not against taxation, many public services have to be paid for, but I don't like social engineering. We're supposed to be a free society after all.
the real benefit of railways is keeping more people of the roads. Given the amount of profits they make for share holders, you have to question why they are subsidised


 

King Arthur

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
91
Reaction score
25
Subsidies are for the railway infrastructure, which is hugely expensive. Sure, railways keep some people off the roads but only for some journeys when A-to-B happens to be convenient, which is fairly rare and why even rail users also own cars.

But I wouldn't campaign against railways as such, I'm just arguing for a level playing field. If cars are heavily taxed why not also tax railway users?
 
Top