I'd like to see our energy mix on the coldest days last week, I'd be sure Moneypoint kept the lights on when the renewables took a few days off.
People need to rethink their close Moneypoint agenda. Given the situation with gas supplies this year are people really thinking this one through?
Moneypoint is our largest energy store, having 3 months, compared to just 5 days of gas reserves.
Regarding point 1 I'm not overly convinced, even the poster I replied to initially put forward evidence that amounted to maybe just 10% improvement, hardly going to dent those 8 billion tonnes of coal is it?
Regarding point 2, the problem is global warming, not Irish warming, just because we are using less coal here won't solve the global problem. ~80% of our energy comes from fossil fuels, so unless I'm missing something then ~80% of our global ev fleet is being powered by fossil fuels that might be just 10% better than if they were ICE instead.
This idea that ev's will help make the world carbon neutral is surely another big lie?
Irish electricity is generally shown (by Eirgrid) as having single digit percentages of coal generation. EVs are generally charged at home, either at night and/or by solar PV. Night electricity tends towards being the greenest (but not always). PV is of course green.
Now I have PV and we have had 6 EVs so far. I have been driving EVs since 2016, and couldnt give a crap about environmentalist nonsense. For me it's about cost - TCO cost - ,dependable uptime and low maintenance.
I don't think people are rattled, we're just irritated by the OPEC propaganda you seem to be sourcing your information from.
What about the other reasons why some drive EVs?
My main reason is the preference to how an EV actually drives, plus the joy of preheating on winter mornings. Could not care less about financial sensibilities or the impact on the wider environment.
No some people take issue with the view that all EV drivers buy the cars predominantly on environmental grounds. The corollary of this view is that 'climate change deniers' wouldn't buy them because obviously they have no concern for the environment. The strange thing is that all the EV drivers you know have bought them on environmental grounds whereas all the ones I know have bought predominantly on financial grounds. What gives....
Except that it was a financial advantage as explained previously.
Some people here seen shocked that some EV drivers might care about the environment
It's all a bit weird, PV payback can be short and pensioners can live for a lot of years.
Writing off all these pensioners like that, including his parents, is a bit sick tbh.
A lot of EV drivers seem rattled that there are also EV drivers out there who don't care that it might be a coal powered EV, as long as it's cheaper than an ICE.
Everyone you know who switched to an EV did so 3 years ago at a financial disadvantage to themselves purely so that they could contribute towards saving the environment. Fair play to them. That would make a good story for a climate change documentary.
Well they all switched 3 years ago so it appears not
I'd take issue with the use of 'lots' in this context. No doubt some would but the vast majority will install when do so is financially attractive.
So would they be prepared to continue to drive a dirty diesel until they could financially justify driving an EV?
were do you think pertrol comes from? how much energy is used to extract it? the electricity alone used on the oil extrators/ oil rigs and pumps alone would be better sent to an EV no?
It does. Lots of pensioners installing thwm who won’t be around by the time they pay for themselves
I know my folks are getting A system installed for environmental reasons.
I guess it demonstrates that you are not the authority you think you are , and really don’t have a clue.
All EV owners I know only looked at one due to environmental reasons. When the numbers also stacked up they purchased. I doubt many climate change deniers are driving EVs.
Striking difference in the Norwegian survey, 64% vs 25%. Not as big a difference in the UK
At least on PV discussion groups it's all about install costs, payback and what's a good investment or not.
Never seen anybody saying they are going ahead with a financially non viable system because it might still help the environment.
The reason PV installs are booming has nothing to do with the environment.
This discussion is going nowhere if people continue to hold extreme views that don't reflect reality. In most circumstances there is no doubt that buying a new EV is more environmentally friendly than buying a new ice. However, to claim that people buy EVs predominantly because of environmental concerns is less easy to justify. Most people I know bought EVs because the consider cars to be superior and cheaper to run. The opportunity to avail of a substantial €5k grant was also a strong incentive to the degree that they couldn't continue to look a gift horse in the mouth. Their major concern was to get their hands on their shiny new EV before the Gubberment pulled the grant. All of these people previously drove diesel, again because they were perceived as the superior option and cheaper to run. To be honest, the environment was the least of their concerns when buying diesel or EVs. Maybe these aren't typical EV owners
It's not about what's acceptable to me, I'm not too bothered.
I'm lucky enough to be on the electric journey with my PV and electric lawnmower etc, but I'm not going around pretending to be a better environmentalist than an ICE driver who lives in an apartment with no charging options, space for PV panels or the money to invest.
Regarding coal I am referring to our record global consumption of 8 billion tonnes of coal. It doesn't matter who is burning it or where, it's all feeding into the atmosphere.
And we are all using this coal, directly or indirectly. Patting ourselves on the back about how great we are about burning less coal while polluting the atmosphere with burning gas instead.
So just a little bit better is not good enough. What percentage over 10-32% less would be acceptable to you? Also, the electricity produced and consumed by the network have to be in balance every second of the day. Not sure what you mean about "wasted energy" or "excess" unless it's the coal plants regularly venting the steam into atmosphere or something? Any excess or deficiency in the generated power will immediately begin to affect the frequency of the network by speeding up or down any other spinning generators in the network. That would be Bad I believe. Usually the generation is reduced by automatically dropping out some generating capacity when there is no demand.
Also earlier on you brought up the 8 billion tons of coal you keep referring to? Which region in the world consumes that? Or is some calculated figure from all of different types of fossil fuels used in Ireland?
You seem to have a fair chip on your shoulder about EV v ICE owners.
It's absolute condescending to claim EV owners care more about the environment than people who would love to own an EV but can't. You have nothing at all to support your attitude on that one.
There's a boom in PV panels at the moment and if you read the forums it's all about saving money and payback, not the environment, and EV owners are no different I'm sure.
I'm all in on electric and PV myself, I'll even be replacing my ice lawnmower with an electric because it's smart investment, I'm not sugar coating it by pretending I care more about the environment than my less fortunate neighbour who mightn't be able to afford the switch.
But you said well proven. That article suggests it might be just 10% better.
That paper doesn't consider that to have "on demand" electricity for the coal EV the thermal plant needs to be producing an excess which won't always be utilized, so the 10% doesn't be long being eaten.
Now I get that in the real world EV's are great for soaking up excess electricity off peak but to say a coal EV is cleaner than an ICE is a bit dubious.
I'm sure a survey of EV owners would show that they care more about the environment on average than petrol or diesel drivers.
It seems if you're not a self sustaining hermit, wearing a grass skirt and eating veg you grow yourself you don't care about the environment according to some posters.
Something like this from Australia?
I see a few other studies have been linked but you believe you're own unresearched or backed up opinion to researched facts.
Haven't had to use the ignore function for a while before today.
"EV owners don't care about the environment" 😂😂😂
..
There are a few Tesla's at over a million kilometers and at least 1 at over a million miles.
To be faire the battery pack has been replaced twice and engine 8 times according to the article.
Still impressive but I'm sure he takes good care of his machine.
It's the lifetime of the car that's the question there. I don't believe we know enough about EV's to know how they will stack up when they hit say 250000 kilometers.
I do expect battery evolution will make the EV's stronger in another few years though.
Yes I understand our grid is cleaner and we are not talking about Ireland here.
I'm still not buying that a fully coal powered EV is better than an ICE though.
For starters the coal plant wouldn't be producing the exact amount of power to meet the EV demand. To guarantee supply it would be producing excess, wasted energy. This can of course be partially consumed elsewhere in systems but it needs to be considered.
Then I'm not sure about the battery longevity of an EV compared to an ICE. I don't believe they are around long enough or in sufficient quantities to really know how they will compare when they are say 15 years old. We need to consider the extra weight of an EV too, wear on the car, tyres etc., will they come unviable to maintain at a lower mileage than an ICE?
On the other hand I have no doubt EV batteries will get smaller, smarter and better with each passing year. Same as our mobile phones have evolved.
This journey is only beginning but I'm not a believer at that it will put a dent in that 8 billion tonnes of coal we consume each year.
I'm not the person who made the claim but here is one article which gives the break even point of a couple of cars depending on different scenarios.
Factbox: Lifetime carbon emissions of electric vehicles vs gasoline cars | Reuters I have read others with similar outcomes. This article dates from 2021 so is fairly recent.
If you don't feel like clicking on the link: with 100% coal powered electricity it would take about 140,000 km's for an EV to be "cleaner" according to this particular study. I believe the average life of a car is anywhere between 200,000 and 300,000 km's.
There you go, you've found the evidence to prove that EVs running on a coal grid are cleaner than an ICE equivalent. Fortunately that's not the Irish grid so the distance required here is much less.
So long as there is any parity within an expected operating mileage of a vehicle it is by definition cleaner. The particular grid mix of a given location affects that, but our grid which is primarily wind + gas is on the better end of the spectrum.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/de24be5a5d20cd5a9afa801bc3f979c4.svg)
