[noemon]

This is your assertion, it is not supported by your source.

You have had this explained to you by a dozen people and have been asked to provide a single source that agrees with you that 9 years is the use-phase. You cannot, because it's not true and that isn't what your source is saying.

I have explained this to you a dozen times and to 2 troll mates of yours, you have no argument other than, “I said so and the trolls that blocked you said so too”. Comical.

Once again you say nothing different and just spamming round and round in circles.

The average use-phase of British cars on the road is 9 years or 66k miles.

Get over it and move on. Fantasizing abstractions is a fool’s errand. Take solid measurable data and not fantastic ones.

In both instances well to wheel is used. This is the emission cost of the fuel used to run the vehicle. You are confusing this with manufacturing emmissions, which we have discussed. Fuel doesnt reach the forecourt emission free, it has transport emissions along the way to getting there.

Fuel does not reach the grid emissions free. And besides I have assumed it does anyway and still bevs are dirtier than ICE.

No one has been forced to throw away anything. There is no ban on continuing to use an existing ice car or boiler. Even the ULEZ had no impact on more than 90% of cars on the road.

There is a ban on boilers for landlords and ULEZ does matter. Denying reality is an exhausting exercise.

Your insurance went up due to rises in raw material and manufacturing costs driven by disruption to the global supply chains. As you previously highlighted, the number of EVs on the road is about 5% , that you are arguing that a doubling of insurance is caused by 5% of cars, the vast majority of which have required no repairs is a bit daft.

Its a fact, just google it, not crazy important but every little helps.

[BeesKnee5]

I have explained this to you adozen times and to 2 troll mates of yours, you have no argument other than, “I said so”.

The point remains that it is you using the argument 'because I say so'

The average use-phase of British cars on the road is 9 years or 66k miles.

Get over it and move on. Fantasizing abstractions is a fool’s errand.

You want to move on because this is an unsupported assertion. The statistic you quote is not Use-phase and you can find no source to support your claim that it is.

Fuel does not reach the grid emissions free.

And no one assumes it does.

And besides I have assumed it does anyway and still bevs are dirtier than ICE

More assertion that is unsupported by the evidence. You have misquoted average life of cars currently on the road as being Use-phase and ignored the evidence of your emissions source being incorrect for determining CO2 values

There is a ban on boilers for landlords and ULEZ does matter. Denying reality is an exhausting exercise.

There is no ban on existing boilers, a house with a boiler can continue to use that boiler, regardless of whether it is rented. Landlords do have to meet a fairly low bar with regards to insulation.

Your claim that people are being forced to replace their boiler before it reaches the end of life and therefore is pushing consumerism is wrong.

All today's cars pass ULEZ, all petrol cars in the last 15 years pass ULEZ, all diesel cars in the last 8 years pass ULEZ. Seeing as your argument has been that ICE cars are getting cleaner and are the solution, you should welcome encouraging people in cities to use cleaner ICE vehicles.

[noemon]

The point remains that it is you using the argument 'because I say so'

The British authorities have released these figures and not me. You are taking theoretical figures instead published by nobody but merely imagined. Yet you scream and shout for imagined numbers pulled out of somebody’s arse while posturing that real figures are fake and the imaginative ones, real!!!

There is no ban on existing boilers, a house with a boiler can continue to use that boiler, regardless of whether it is rented. Landlords do have to meet a fairly low bar with regards to insulation.

Your claim that people are being forced to replace their boiler before it reaches the end of life and therefore is pushing consumerism is wrong.

Reality:

https://www.landlordbuyers.com/blog/pos ... hould-know

From 2025 renting is banned unless energy efficiency band c. This is extremely onerous for all properties except newbuilds. Landlords have to replace their boilers to get the c band regardless if its end of life.

All today's cars pass ULEZ, all petrol cars in the last 15 years pass ULEZ, all diesel cars in the last 8 years pass ULEZ. Seeing as your argument has been that ICE cars are getting cleaner and are the solution, you should welcome encouraging people in cities to use cleaner ICE vehicles.

Thats is false again. ULEZ is based on tailpipe emissions and not age. Both of my 2018 cars, 1 petrol and 1 diesel pay ULEZ.

And lastly, banning boilers and ICE is a mega interference in the market for no recognisable emissions benefit.

[BeesKnee5]

The British authorities have released these figures and not me.

Yes they have, however unlike you they have not misrepresented them. Just one source that described these figures as use-phase, just one is all you need to make your point.

Reality:

https://www.landlordbuyers.com/blog/pos ... hould-know

From 2025 renting is banned unless energy efficiency band c. This is extremely onerous for all properties except newbuilds. Landlords have to replace their boilers to get the c band regardless if its end of life.
.

Band C doesn't require a replacement boiler and your link doesn't say it does.

Thats is false again. ULEZ is based on tailpipe emissions and not age. Both of my 2018 cars, 1 petrol and 1 diesel pay ULEZ.

Make and model please so we can test this. Ever considered that cars with such high emissions should not be in congested cities?

I'm starting to see a pattern, you are happy for the poorer in society to have drafty homes and old non condensing decades old boilers that double their bills. The argument of using fossil fuel more cleanly was just a charade.

[noemon]

Yes they have, however unlike you they have not misrepresented them.

How have I misinterpreted them?

I simply quoted them as they are.

Why should we ignore real figures and replace them with imaginary ones?

How are imaginary figures more reliable than real figures?

Band C doesn't require a replacement boiler and your link doesn't say it does.

It just goes to show how disingenuous you actually are. Boilers are a major item in efficiency certificates.

Your claim that products need to change only at the end of their life is false. Government is dictating the purchase of new products by force.

Make and model please so we can test this. Ever considered that cars with such high emissions should not be in congested cities?

I do not need to post my personal details that I never have to make the point that the gov is enforcing people to buy new cars. Even if I am lying about myself, which I am not, you have already admitted that cars below a certain age need to be replaced with new ones by force. The same applies to boilers pushing consumerism as a solution, when it is precisely the issue aggravating emissions and waste.

I'm starting to see a pattern, you are happy for the poorer in society to have drafty homes and old non condensing decades old boilers that double their bills. The argument of using fossil fuel more cleanly was just a charade.

Your pattern is obvious, you claim a lie, that according to you gov is not forcing any items to be replaced before the end of their life. You are proven wrong and then scream murder and attack me for the ad-hom.

It’s consistent and boring. Im fine with newbuilds having high insulation standards, but banning people from renting houses if they have a gas boiler and old insulation is a huge punch in the market. It will increase rents for poor people as landlords are forced to remove properties off the market until their properties are band c and above for several thousands of pounds, probably hundreds. 10-15k is just for the heat pump another 20-60k depending on size for insulating walls and another 15-30k for windows.

And from 2025, you either do this or you are forbidden from renting.

The gov is explicitly dictating that we either invest hundreds of thousands to replace our cars, boilers, windows & insulation or else.

Everybody spend your savings in the next 5 years, if no savings, get loans or you are banned from renting, charged for driving, and so on.

This is a consumerist fiesta by dictat.

And a total strip down, pants down. Walk as you were born type of theft.

[BeesKnee5]

How have I misinterpreted them?

I simply quoted them as they are.

So where in your link does it say Use-phase as you claim?

It just goes to show how disingenuous you actually are. Boilers are a major item in efficiency certificates.

Your claim that products need to change only at the end of their life is false. Government is dictating the purchase of new products by force..

banning people from renting houses if they have a gas boiler

And from 2025, you either do this or you are forbidden from renting

There is a ban on boilers for landlords

Which isn't what the legislation or your article says. It is saying you should have a condensing boiler.

Which has been the case since 2005.
https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2015/ ... ng-boilers

In other words, the only reason a landlord needs to upgrade is if the boiler is 20 years old. Which is beyond the time replacement is recommended.

Ban on using gas boilers does not exist anywhere, the ban on selling new ones is more than a decade away.


The make and model of a car you think fails ULEZ is not exactly personal details, but you do you.


"Also spamming an answered question 20 times already is spam"

As is reasserting a claim you cannot support. But it's ok, I won't ask again, we can just assume you cannot support it.

[noemon]

Spamming an answered question 20 times already is spam.

When you reply about why imaginative figures are better than real ones, I will repost my answer to you as to why Auke uses undefined abstract figures and terms instead of real ones.

[BeesKnee5]

, I will repost my answer to you as to why Auke uses undefined abstract figures and terms instead of real ones.

Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation.


The average Use-phase (life span) of a car in the EU is 17 years. The emissions well to wheel are as used in his paper and match the source I gave you.

So really there is no point you reposting your answer, as we have agreed that you cannot support it.


In the UK the numbers are lower at 14 years but still not the 9 years you have repeatedly got wrong.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... hicles.pdf

[noemon]

The average Use-phase (life span) of a car in the EU is 17 years. The emissions well to wheel are as used in his paper and match the source I gave you.

Where is the source? Your mates on twitter posted some sources that showed that the average use phase in the EU(all EU, including Bulgaria, Romania Germany, where old cars are kept) is 13.6 years(rounded to 14), not 17 as you claim and even your troll mates agreed that Auke took his fantasy way too far with 17 for the EU. For the average use-phase/lifecycle to be 17 years old that means that 25-30% of cars on the road are hovering around 34 years old . Which is pure fantasy and closer to countries like Nepal and Cuba. In the UK, only 27% of cars are 12 years old and older, everything else is younger. So the average UK use-phase/life-cycle cannot be 14 years, even if you screamed so much your lungs collapsed.

That is the max age around 1/3 of cars in the UK reach before being destroyed at scrappage at around 14 years, not the average life-cycle of cars on the road. Remember, cars as I told you go on SORN(off-road) to be scraped for parts, a long time before they eventually get destroyed at scrappage and then entirely removed from SORN and the DVLA.

I must have told you over 50 times, not to confuse the max with the average. You still insist on taking the max figure in the place of the average figure.

In the UK, the average use-phase/life-cycle is 9 years as sourced and evidenced. Auke's "lifetime" figures are totally imaginative & purely out of his own behind.

In the UK the numbers are lower at 14 years but still not the 9 years you have repeatedly got wrong.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... hicles.pdf

That is false. Your new paper was created for the EU and then adapted to the UK, though the adaptation was purely for the UK grid-mix and NOT for the UK's life-cycle or use-phase. The author retained the EU's one(14 years) and did not adapt that to the UK one, 9 years instead of 14 and 66k miles instead of 120k miles or 200k km.

when operating in real-world conditions over 14 years and 200,000 km lifetime. This is an even greater saving than previously found for a BEV operating in EU-average conditions / electricity mix in our analysis for DG CLIMA (Ricardo et al., 2020), mainly due to the significantly cleaner UK electricity generation mix, compared to the EU-average.

Notice also that "the real-world conditions of 14 years and 120k miles lifetime" is un-referenced.

[BeesKnee5]

For the average use-phase/lifecycle to be 17 years old that means that a 25-30% of cars on the road are 34 years old.

Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation

An average of 17 can be made with zero cars 34 years old.

You were even provided with an age distribution chart showing that 99% of cars reach 10 years old, 50% reach 20 years old and only 5-10% reach 25. Giving an average lifespan (Use-phase) of 17 years.

[BeesKnee5]

Btw cars off the road recorded as SORN is 0.5% of UK cars .

That you think such a low number affects the average life by 5 years takes a serious failure of maths.

[noemon]

An average of 17 can be made with zero cars 34 years old.

You were even provided with an age distribution chart showing that 99% of cars reach 10 years old, 50% reach 20 years old and only 5-10% reach 25.

I was provided with this barely intelligible chart and text that showed that the average age of cars on the EU roads is 14 years, not in the UK, that figure is 9 years in the UK for 2023 and it has been as low as 6 years mainly due to the UK's finance and leasing market.

Some of the cars in your chart are 25-30 years old.

In the UK, the horizontal axis of this chart does not exceed 15 years. In the EU it does because of Bulgaria, Romania, Germany, etcetera.

I provided you with the equivalent UK chart, which you have been screaming down your lungs that it is "fake news".

From the SMMT:

Btw cars off the road recorded as SORN is 0.5% of UK cars .

The SORN cars alone are 2% not 0.5% as you claim. This is out of all registered cars with V5's.

And it does not include classic cars(over 40 years old) either.

[BeesKnee5]

The SORN cars alone are 2% not 0.5% as you claim. This is out of all registered cars with V5's.

And it does not include classic cars(over 40 years old) either.

Readers of this can note that the link is for untaxed vehicles on the road and not SORN vehicles registered off the road.

Even using the 2% figure plus classic cars to make the claim would require the average age of SORN and classic cars to be 84 years old to push the average of all cars to 14 years.

It is therefore clear that the interpretation of average age of cars on the road being the average lifespan of cars on the road is incorrect and a misunderstanding by the person making the claim.

[noemon]

Electricity prices ‘must rise by 70pc to pay for more wind farms’

Warning from UK's biggest energy generator comes after latest bidding round received no offers to build new farms

By Jonathan Leake
25 October 2023 • 8:16pm

No new wind farms will be built off Britain’s shores unless the Government lets operators earn more money from the electricity they produce, the chief of the nation’s biggest generator has said.

Tom Glover, country chair of RWE’s UK arm, said the price offered by the Government to wind farm operators must rise by as much as 70pc to entice companies to build.

Developers must be offered between £65 and £75 per megawatt hour (MwH) for the power generated from wind farms, Mr Glover said.

That compares to the £44 offered in the most recent government-run auction.

His warning follows the disastrous result of the last offshore wind allocation round in September, which ended in a humiliation for ministers with not one company offering to build new offshore wind farms.

Mr Glover called the incident “clumsy” and said a failure to increase the price offered to developers risked a repeat.

Under the terms of the government auction, developers sign up to a “contracts for difference” programme that offers a minimum “strike price” for their output. If market prices fall below the strike price, the generators are paid the difference.

If market prices are above the strike price, the generators pay the excess.

His comments come as the Government prepares draft plans for its next allocation round, expected to be published in the next two to three weeks.

Increasing the strike price could mean higher consumer bills.

However, Mr Glover argued that the most likely alternatives, such as gas, would be even more expensive than wind.

Mr Glover said the UK risked missing its target of building 50 gigawatts (Gw) of offshore wind capacity by 2030 unless the next round was redesigned to attract investors.

The UK currently has just 14Gw of offshore wind capacity, so must install at least one new turbine a day from now to 2030 to meet its goal.


That will only happen if developers are paid the right money, Mr Glover said.

He said: “We need to see a materially higher price. Every project is different but £65 to £75 feels about the right range.

Ana Musat, policy director at RenewableUK, the wind industry’s trade body, said: “International competition to secure private investment in clean energy projects is intense as other countries are seeking to lure developers away from the UK to work elsewhere.

“We cannot afford a repeat of what happened in this year’s auction, so the success of the next one is vital if we’re to reassure investors and build up our offshore wind supply chain.”

Generators may never make a profit if the strike price is set too low, which is why the last round failed.

Many in the industry believe the failure of the last round was avoidable with Grant Shapps, then the energy secretary, given repeated warnings that the £44 strike price was too low.

Mr Glover said: “The industry warned the Government about this. We’d seen a global increase in costs of up to 40pc and demand was also booming because, post-Ukraine, everybody wants more energy independence.

“The industry warned the Government but it decided not to increase the prices.”

Inflation hitting the sector means some developers also pulled out of existing projects. In July, Vattenfall announced it was halting development of the Boreas offshore wind farm, which was slated to add 1.4Gw of generating capacity.

Mr Glover estimated the Government’s failure to respond to inflation in energy projects had delayed UK offshore wind development by up to two years.

RWE is a German firm but has operations across Europe, Asia-Pacific and North America, collectively employing 19,000 people.

In the UK, it supplies 15pc of the nation’s electricity – making it the biggest single power generator with an output sufficient for 14 million homes.

That power comes from a fleet of gas-fired power stations, hydroelectric plants and more than a dozen offshore wind farms in operation or under development.

A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesman said it was planning “appropriate adjustments” to the contracts for difference offered to offshore wind developers.

The spokesman said: “We have contracted 20GW of offshore wind since 2014 – cementing the UK as a world leader in the technology with the five largest operational wind farms in the world off our shores.

“The Government remains committed to its ambition for 50GW of offshore wind, including up to 5GW floating wind, by 2030.”

Wind is already the cheapest form of power and will save us a fortune in future. We know this because the green energy lobby keeps telling us so. But it is hard to square with the words of Tom Glover, chair of energy company RWE’s UK arm, last week.

No more offshore wind farms will be built, he said, unless the Government hikes the guaranteed long-term prices offered to their operators by as much as 70 per cent.

The energy “market” is not really much of a market at all, not when it comes to green energy. The Government underwrites wind and solar through “contracts for difference” – guaranteeing operators a minimum “strike price”, rising with inflation, for every megawatt-hour of electricity they generate over 15 years.

The trouble is that wind farm developers will no longer accept the strike prices offered. Last time the Government held an auction for the right to build offshore wind farms, in September, it received not a single bid.

The maximum strike price the Government offered was £44 per MWh. According to RWE it won’t receive any bids until this is raised to between £65 and £75.

How come, when the cost of wind energy is supposed to be falling year on year? True, the cost did fall sharply up until 2019. But this then went into reverse thanks to higher commodity prices and interest rates. With renewable energy, most of the costs come upfront – which makes it particularly reliant on cheap debt.

But this is only half the story. If we are going to have a grid based on intermittent renewables, it is no use looking just at the cost of generation. We have to add on the cost of energy storage, or some other kind of back-up – or else build so many wind and solar farms that we have just enough power at the worst of times, and a super-abundance of it at other times.

All are likely to be horrendously expensive. Storing energy in lithium batteries, for example, can cost around six times as much as generating it in the first place. Using gas as back-up – as we do now – means we have gas power stations sitting idle for some periods, pushing up the unit cost of generation when they are needed.

As for super-abundance, we would end up with masses of idle wind turbines and solar panels instead. They would only get built if their owners were bribed with huge compensation for being unable to supply all their power to the grid.

Wind farms already do receive such “constraint payments”, which inevitably end up on our bills. In 2022, energy consumers – unknowingly in most cases – had to pay £215 million to wind farm owners to turn off their turbines. This is a bill that is surely only going to rise as more and more wind farms – and far too few energy storage facilities – are connected to the grid.

Remember how, last summer, the renewables lobby was trying to tell us that wind energy was “nine times cheaper” than gas? It was a blatantly false comparison between long-term strike prices for wind and “day ahead” prices for gas – ie the inflated prices we have to pay the owners of gas power stations to turn them on for a few hours at short notice when wind and solar are in short supply. We are paying more than we need to for gas power because we are using it to balance renewables.

So, no, don’t be fooled by the PR. RWE has let the cat out of the bag. Renewables never were particularly cheap – and they are likely to get a lot more expensive.

It is therefore clear that the interpretation of average age of cars on the road being the average lifespan of cars on the road is incorrect and a misunderstanding by the person making the claim.

It is therefore clear that electric cars pollute with more C02 more than ICE cars over their use-phase in UK roads.

It is also clear that true believers like yourself have no care in the world for real-world data and are content dwelling in their own fantasy realm, you are also happy to export C02 emissions into China(as if that changes Climate Change) and happy to accept that lithium-ion batteries cannot be viably recycled and so their toxic and explosive contents will happily remain on our soil and seas forever. You are happy for the government to take all our money, penalise us for driving something else, increase our electric prices and happy to allow China to control the global economy for the next few centuries or so. At the end of it all, we end with more polluting cars, with a non-renewable metal-based economy controlled by the Chinese, we end up destroying our economies due to expensive energy costs(we are already there btw) and with cars we can not touch to repair ourselves that have a tiny operational range which noone can charge anywhere as the vast majority of the planet live in crowded apartment blocks with no parking(let alone charging facilities) and not in suburban townhouses.

[BeesKnee5]

"Developers must be offered between £65 and £75 per megawatt hour (MwH) for the power generated from wind farms,"

Average price of wholesale electricity over the last 6 months. £90MWh.

Price agreed for power from Hinckley C . £120MWh

[noemon]

"Developers must be offered between £65 and £75 per megawatt hour (MwH) for the power generated from wind farms,"

Average price of wholesale electricity over the last 6 months. £90MWh.

Price agreed for power from Hinckley C . £120MWh

Exactly, wholesale electricity is already 5 fold or 10 fold from 4 years ago and you want to make that 20 or 30 fold?

At which price range do you say enough?

BEV's now get charged 85p Kwh to charge in a supercharger outside their homes. That is about 30% more expensive than petrol to fill up your tank. BEV drivers that live in apartment blocks without charging access already pay more than ICE car drivers to drive on a per mile basis.

You and the battery lobby constantly claim that windpower only costs 2p per kwh to produce, so why do you want to get paid 7p and 12p per kwh? How much will you want next year? 20? Next year 50?

[BeesKnee5]

Average wholesale price for last quarter 2 years ago £126MWh.
Not 5-10 times more

[noemon]

Average wholesale price for last quarter 2 years ago £126MWh

Nitpicked again, as usual, the classic disingenuous tactic of not caring one iota about actual reality.

Reality: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-data-an ... indicators



10 year one Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/589 ... prices-uk/



May 2020 £24Mwh

If it costs £2 per mwh to produce why do wind producers want to get paid 6 times that to build wind farms? Why is more double not enough?

I thought wind is the cheapest energy that will totally shift the paradigm?

[BeesKnee5]

Readers of the thread will note that the chart provided ends 2 months ago and does not support a claim of 5-10 times more.

[BeesKnee5]

Why might someone use the middle of COVID lockdown as their measure of what a typical electricity price should be.


I can only guess that it's because they think the UK should be in a permanent lockdown so they can have cheaper electricity.