Electric Vehicle Tariffs

[Triassic]

I’ve just read that some energy companies are introducing Electric Vehicle tariffs, you get 60 to 70% cheaper electricity during the night. Apparently some Sunamp users have switch to the tariff to save money.

 

I think @AndyT might have more details

 

[jamiehamy]

My friend who works for Scottish Power told me the same. He's going to find out more for me. 

[Jeremy Harris]

These have been around for a while, but you need to look closely at the tariff to see whether or not it works for you.  Often the tariff is in conjunction with one of the public charge point operators, for example the Ecotricity offering, which is OK as long as you happen to use routes where those charge points are available (I don't, so the Ecotricity tariif doesn't make sense for me).

 

Other companies are using what look to be "loss leader" tariffs to attract people to fit smart meters.  These can look quite attractive if you can use enough energy during the very cheap off-peak rate.  For example, Octopus Energy have their Go tariff, which offers electricity at just 5p/kWh for four hours in the middle of the night.  If you can switch most of your consumption into that off-peak slot, and are happy to have a smart meter that enables this tariff to function, then you may well save money.  For us Octopus Go doesn't work, and E7 is slightly cheaper, but it does depend very much on how much you can re-schedule your peak use.

 

I'm also more than a little concerned that once you've had a smart meter installed, because of attractive offers like Octopus Go, then you'll find that tariffs become gradually far more complex, with variable rate charging that becomes very challenging to see if it is actually offering good value.

[dnb]

On 16/02/2019 at 17:27, JSHarris said:

then you'll find that tariffs become gradually far more complex, with variable rate charging

 

And this is the whole point of smart meters. It's certainly not for our benefit!

[SteamyTea]

On 16/02/2019 at 17:08, Triassic said:

you get 60 to 70% cheaper electricity during the night

Called Economy 7 isn't it.

Used to be a third of the price, now it is under half the price of the E7 Day rate.

Not surprising as the idea was to mop up excess nuclear during the quiet times.  Not much nuclear online these days.

[Vijay]

Can't help wondering what electricity suppliers are gonna do with their prices once electric cars are even more the norm. They must be sitting back rubbing their hands right now

[Jeremy Harris]

56 minutes ago, Vijay said:

Can't help wondering what electricity suppliers are gonna do with their prices once electric cars are even more the norm. They must be sitting back rubbing their hands right now

 

 

Depends very much on what happens to the generation market.  Right now, renewable generation is significantly cheaper to install than either fossil fuel or nuclear generation, so we're seeing a bit of a boom, even though most of the subsidies have now been removed.  Wind generation, in particular, seems to be attracting a fair bit of investment.

 

The reason for that investment is because the return on it is pretty good, and that return comes from the price suppliers are prepared to pay in the wholesale buy-ahead daily auction.  Suppliers compete with each other to retail electricity, so there is an inherent commercial pressure to keep the retail price down.  What I suspect may happen is that we see a greater range of half hourly and seasonal wholesale prices, as the grid gains a greater percentage of variable renewable generation.  The chances are that this will result in significant wholesale price increases during periods at night with little wind, followed by more periods of negative pricing during daytime periods and strong winds.

 

This volatility is likely to then drive a market for energy storage, and as that comes on line we're likely to see the variability even out, with a consequent reduction in the variation of wholesale energy pricing.  As that variability reduces, the need for "smart" metering diminishes, too, as "smart" metering is intended to be a way to modify demand, or charge short period variable rate tariffs (which is really the same thing), in order to smooth the peak to trough ratio on the demand side.

 

If I had to predict what we'd see next, then I'd suggest that we'll see a continued growth in renewable generation, combined with a significant growth in energy storage, be that batteries or pumped storage.

[Ed Davies]

31 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

This volatility is likely to then drive a market for energy storage, and as that comes on line we're likely to see the variability even out, with a consequent reduction in the variation of wholesale energy pricing.  As that variability reduces, the need for "smart" metering diminishes, too, as "smart" metering is intended to be a way to modify demand, or charge short period variable rate tariffs (which is really the same thing), in order to smooth the peak to trough ratio on the demand side.

 

But there isn't a clear distinction between generation/storage on one side and demand on the other. Slabs, thermal stores and car batteries would be a significant part of the total storage in the system so there would still be a need to send a price signal to influence when they're charged. Smart metering would still make sense, just with less wild swings than are sometimes seen in current wholesale markets (negative prices, etc).

[SteamyTea]

I can't, in the medium term, see much difference coming for domestic users.

People struggle with dual pricing already. If that was changed to even triple pricing, say day, evening and night, the general population would just not get it.

One only has to listen to You and Yours to realise how people fail to understand even basic price switching, let alone variable rates.

[epsilonGreedy]

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

Wind generation, in particular, seems to be attracting a fair bit of investment.

 

 

Right now there is a 37 mile long scar across the Lincolnshire countryside that looks like the construction of a Roman road, it has been dug to deliver the 860 MW output from the Triton Knoll offshore wind farm into the national grid. The necessity for this 2-year onshore construction project illustrates the cost of getting renewables from source to point of consumption.

 

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

If I had to predict what we'd see next, then I'd suggest that we'll see a continued growth in renewable generation, combined with a significant growth in energy storage, be that batteries or pumped storage.

 

 

This fascinating TedX presentation illustrates with unemotional science and maths how overstated projections are for the role of renewables particularly in the UK.

 

The graphs presented at 4 minutes 10 secs show how UK citizens drew the short straw in the quest for renewables.

 

A reality check on renewables

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o

 

[Jeremy Harris]

14 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

Right now there is a 37 mile long scar across the Lincolnshire countryside that looks like the construction of a Roman road, it has been dug to deliver the 860 MW output from the Triton Knoll offshore wind farm into the national grid. The necessity for this 2-year onshore construction project illustrates the cost of getting renewables from source to point of consumption.

 

 

 

 

Much the same would be needed for any form of generation, be it gas, oil nuclear or whatever, or any of the interconnect projects.  They all need connection infrastructure, so any new generation solution is going to create similar scars on the landscape.

[joe90]

28 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

A reality check on renewables

 

Great presentation, puts things in more perspective, shame he did not mention passive housing.

[ProDave]

4 minutes ago, joe90 said:

 

Great presentation, puts things in more perspective, shame he did not mention passive housing.

He did mention "crappy housing" (his words) and showed his 1930's semi as an example, and how little could really be done to improve it significantly.

 

We live close to the old "Dounereay" overhead line that was built to take power from Dounereay down south.  It was redundant for years, but recently has been upgraded with new larger conductors to take some of the wind power generation up here down to the south.

 

Had things unfolded differently in the 1990's Dounereay would be one of our home grown nuclear power stations still operating.  The decisions made then are coming home to roost?

[Jeremy Harris]

IIRC, some of us here had a lengthy discussion about David MacKay over on the other place several years ago, probably around the time of that video.  It was great fun, as one of the combatants in the debate was convinced that the UK could just grow enough miscanthus to provide all the energy we need.  At the time I spent a few hours calculating just how much arable land area the UK would need to grow enough sustainable biomass to provide our power needs.  Unsurprisingly the result was more land than the UK has. 

 

Mind you, the same biomass fanatic refused to accept that you can't get more than about 8% efficiency from biomass (and frankly that's pushing it in the UK).  One or two of us were making the point that PV panels are a great deal more efficient at turning sunlight into energy than plants are.  The biomass plonker was having none of it, and insisted that growing plants in vertical racks would improve the conversion efficiency. 

 

His arguments reminded me of a former colleague, who started an argument one morning, accusing me of speeding on the way to work.  He'd been following me, and, according to his logic, because he was driving at the speed limit I must have been speeding, as I was in front of him.  Mind you, he was Cornish.

[joe90]

29 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Mind you, he was Cornish.

 

Steady on, you will upset ST (tho, he does not originate from down here.?

[joe90]

31 minutes ago, ProDave said:

He did mention "crappy housing" (his words) and showed his 1930's semi as an example, and how little could really be done to improve it significantly.

 

I did notice the snow was still on his roof, some people think that means it’s a cold house but means the opposite, the roof insulation is better. (Or he is too tight to spend money on heating ?). Perhaps that was when he was reading his meter!.

[ProDave]

2 minutes ago, joe90 said:

 

I did notice the snow was still on his roof, some people think that means it’s a cold house but means the opposite, the roof insulation is better. (Or he is too tight to spend money on heating ?). Perhaps that was when he was reading his meter!.

I have mentioned several time the new house built in our road in about 2007, marketed initially as an "eco house" but actually got an EPC of D and the last 2 owners have complained how high the heating bill is.  It is always the first house in the street for the snow to melt off the roof, barely staying for a day sometimes.

[epsilonGreedy]

52 minutes ago, joe90 said:

Great presentation, puts things in more perspective, shame he did not mention passive housing.

 

 

The TedX talks are one of the few highpoints of YouTube intellectual discourse, 663k views for the David MacKay talk or about 1/1000th the interest in an Adele pop video. Can the planet be saved?

[epsilonGreedy]

5 hours ago, JSHarris said:

Much the same would be needed for any form of generation, be it gas, oil nuclear or whatever, or any of the interconnect projects.  They all need connection infrastructure, so any new generation solution is going to create similar scars on the landscape.

 

 

Yes fair point though it would be interesting to compare Kw miles traveled for Nuclear, Coal, Wind and PV. I suspect that at its height nuclear did not have the north/south imbalance of wind today though 3 Mile Island illustrates why placing nuclear plants next to population centers is to be avoided.

 

Anyhow 0.86 of a gigawatt is not be be sniffed at, that one wind farm could halve our draw from France on a windy day.

Edited June 22, 2019 by epsilonGreedy

[scottishjohn]

all these ways of making us renewable  in the talk does not address the cost issue ,which as we all know is what will drive every decision

the fact that hydro and tidal barrages were very obvious by their omission shows both these require long term planning + build costs 

not many places on the planet with better tidal resources  and that is dependable  --not like wind 

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

Mind you, the same biomass fanatic refused to accept that you can't get more than about 8% efficiency from biomass (and frankly that's pushing it in the UK)

More like 0.8%.  I work on 0.25% conversion and that is before combustion losses.

Plants are just terrible at converting sunlight.

If plants were good, we would not be using solar panels, or burning fossil fuels for that matter.

I calculated that if we burnt all biomass on the planet, and that includes the sea, we would have enough energy to last 400 days.

I am in good company there as Prof Brian Cox came to a similar conclusion.

Edited June 22, 2019 by SteamyTea

[ProDave]

Burning wood at DRAX has to be the most stupid "green" decision ever made?

[Jeremy Harris]

24 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

Yes fair point though it would be interesting to compare Kw miles traveled for Nuclear, Coal, Wind and PV. I suspect that it its height nuclear did not have the north/south imbalance of wind today though 3 Mile Island illustrates why placing nuclear plants next to population centers is to be avoided.

 

Anyhow 0.86 of a gigawatt is not be be sniffed at, that one wind farm could halve our draw from France on a windy day.

This map shows all the UK nuclear power stations, and most have long runs to population centres, much like those from offshore wind farms:

 

[Ed Davies]

That David MacKay video starts with a major blunder which he alludes to but doesn't fully admit further on in the talk. He says UK energy consumption is 125 kWh/person/day (~ 5.2 kW/person). This must by the primary energy consumption as final energy consumption is a lot lower, I make it an average of about 2.8 kW/person for the EU28 (https://edavies.me.uk/2018/01/primary-final/).

 

Primary energy is the energy contained in all of the fuel burned.

Final energy is the energy people get to use. Actually, it tends to be the energy delivered to the end user. E.g., for petrol used in cars it's, I believe, the energy contained in the fuel as it's delivered at the filling station so includes the waste heat that goes out of the car's radiator and exhaust pipe. For gas for domestic heating it's the energy in the gas as it goes through the meter so includes the waste heat that goes out the flue. So actual energy use per capita is even lower.

 

Wind turbines and solar panels don't have to generate the power which goes up power station cooling towers or out of car exhaust pipes.

[SteamyTea]

I think MacKay addressed the 125 kWh/day figure in the book.  It is a long time since I read it though.  Seem to remember that it also includes "stuff".

I think Primary energy is really the better figure when talking at a national scale.  Harder to know what it is at a local scale though as we do not know all the efficiencies off the top of out heads.

The difference between Primary and Delivered makes it hard to compare some things, vehicles for one.

Edited June 22, 2019 by SteamyTea