navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address. Following continuous spam/hack attempts on the forum, "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 [10]
 91 
 on: September 24, 2020, 02:46:45 PM 
Started by Countrypaul - Last post by M
Just to rehash an idea I had (and posted) a few years ago - I'd up the VAT on leccy and gas to 20% and then ring fence the 15% extra for helping with fuel poverty, investment in low energy electrical devices, and home insulation, and for RE generation and storage.

There are also many side benefits, such as the reduction in consumption due to the higher unit price*, and the increased savings that are made from buying/installing low energy and efficiency measures, and also the economics of demand side generation such as PV.

*I'd also (if king for a day) remove daily charges for energy, and put the whole cost into the unit price (the petrol forecourt analogy), this again encourages energy saving and demand side generation by increasing the amount that can be saved (higher unit price). Theoretically, there is no change to the total revenue if the service charge is divided by the average consumption and then added to the unit price, but low users will pay less in total, high users will pay more, and the average consumer would see no difference.

 92 
 on: September 24, 2020, 02:45:53 PM 
Started by Countrypaul - Last post by smegal
Yes Mart, I have thought it through again, and at 7kW, I STILL think it is pretty pointless. The capital and infratruture cost of the charging points, the time factor, the maintenance, the very limited benefit.
Seems worse than marginal to me.
Its like having a petrol station where you can only put 2litres in. Why would anyone bother?
At 22kW, you are making sense.

If I could leave my car on the forecourt then do a shop without having to pay for the fuel, I probably would.

Electric cars need a different mindset to ICE. On ICE, we drive around until we want to fuel up. On EV, the aim is to keep them full as often as possible when the car is stationary anyway.

 93 
 on: September 24, 2020, 02:38:42 PM 
Started by Countrypaul - Last post by M
Yes Mart, I have thought it through again, and at 7kW, I STILL think it is pretty pointless. The capital and infratruture cost of the charging points, the time factor, the maintenance, the very limited benefit.
Seems worse than marginal to me.
Its like having a petrol station where you can only put 2litres in. Why would anyone bother?
At 22kW, you are making sense.

Are you really asking me why anyone would bother to plug their car in at the supermarket they are going to anyway, to add over a day's mileage for free whilst they shop?

 94 
 on: September 24, 2020, 02:10:03 PM 
Started by Countrypaul - Last post by Countrypaul
I can't see another simple solution either.

If the first say £1K of "heating gas/oil" was only 5% VAT and the rest standard rate all it would do is cause huge amount of admin. Pay an extra £50 per year to those on benefits for heating VAT, what about those just over benefits limits - or do they as you highlight means test?

What about electricity, VAT is 5% but I'm sure rich households use more than poor ones...

I agree not taxing something is not really the same as subsidising something in my mind, unless it is to give something an unfair advantage. Oil, gas and electric are all 5% aren't they?

 95 
 on: September 24, 2020, 02:02:19 PM 
Started by Countrypaul - Last post by dimengineer
Yes Mart, I have thought it through again, and at 7kW, I STILL think it is pretty pointless. The capital and infratruture cost of the charging points, the time factor, the maintenance, the very limited benefit.
Seems worse than marginal to me.
Its like having a petrol station where you can only put 2litres in. Why would anyone bother?
At 22kW, you are making sense.

 96 
 on: September 24, 2020, 01:58:48 PM 
Started by Countrypaul - Last post by dimengineer
Well, I suppose so. But on the other hand, can you imagine any other system?

VAT on heating? Toxic, to say the least!
Means testing for the VAT? A nightmare to say the least - where would you put the cut off? Tapering? - don't think so.

And TBH, I always get a bit antsy about the suggestion that "Not Taxing" something, is somehow a subsidy.

 97 
 on: September 24, 2020, 01:55:49 PM 
Started by Countrypaul - Last post by Countrypaul
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903

The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says.

 98 
 on: September 24, 2020, 01:54:08 PM 
Started by stannn - Last post by M
In all of the presentations/ reports, it's really, really starting to annoy me with all the hanging comparators - 15% increase in range/ X% increase in energy density/ Y% reduction in cost.  COMPARED TO WHAT?  Batteries made of bananas? 
ARGH!  banghead

I assumed they were comparing against their other batteries, but may be wrong.

The breakdown for the range increase of 54% was on the screen behind the presentation, with the heading "Stacking up the benefits of Tesla' vertical integration":

Range increase (54%)

cell design 16%
anode material 20%
cathode material 4%
cell vehicle integration 14%


$/kWh reduction (56%)

cell design 14%
cell factory 18%
anode material 5%
cathode material 12%
cell vehicle integration 7%


Investment per GWh reduction (69%)

cell design 7%
cell factory 34%
anode material 4%
cathode material 16%
cell vehicle integration 8%

 99 
 on: September 24, 2020, 01:17:11 PM 
Started by EcoStatic - Last post by kdmnx
I certainly can vouch for LiFePO4 efficiency which, if our monitoring equipment is anything to go by is close to 100% Been measuring this since 2014 (kWh out and kWh in) on a .6mWh bank and whilst capacity is certainly degrading efficiency seems pretty stable. Still think I'll stick with FLA for now but I've always fancied NiFe, just don't like change  Roll Eyes

Surely that is .6MWh not .6 mWh?

 100 
 on: September 24, 2020, 01:08:07 PM 
Started by EcoStatic - Last post by daveluck_uk
The "unsolved problem" with NiFe is round-trip efficiency. There are some astonishing figures quoted for Lithium (>95%) whereas a range of figures are quoted for NiFe but they're all <50%.

The downsides of Lithium are largely solved. Price used to be one but they're cheaper than they used to be (still expensive). However it was the short lifespan (a few hundred cycles) that made them cost prohibitive. But this is largely fixed with lifespans now measured in thousands of cycles. In addition to this, Lithium batteries don't lose efficiency as they age, they instead lose capacity.

Sorry KD I keep quoting you... I'm no intentionally singling you out - honest!

Things are only a problem if you don't expect them! If you know about them then they become foibles!

Can you share the links from where you got your data from please ( unless its an opinion / your own experience )

I cant get my head around the view on efficiency v's capacity.  Is it better to lose capacity rather than lose efficiency? Doesn't losing capacity mean the overall efficiency drops? Genuine questions I have no idea.

If I've read the blurb right, with NiFe just changing the solution gives you a like new battery. When I say "just changing the solution" i reckon I'm over simplyfing it by quite a bit!

I wonder if its noxious? ( the medium...not me )




Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 [10]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!