17 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

OK, I have been looking into the whole smart meter thingy and the tariffs that can be had, I'm with OVO and for a while today I was unable to get any details on their tariffs, but that has been rectified now, albeit I'm not convinced that its correct as I have downloaded now 17 A4 pages full of tariffs for electricity, most of which seem to be identical🙄, no details as the times that night rates etc are available. But I did find is a so green tariff, heavily lacking in any detail, zero indication of how the standing charges or the kWh costs or if there are off-peak prices etc, zero. They explain that I would get 100% renewable energy. 

I just wonder how the hell they can do that when, I'm still connected to the national grid which carries a mix of renewables and fossil fuelled energy. If there is X amount of renewable energy generated, when that is all gone, they have to use top up fossil derived energy. In England, renewable is either solar or wind and there is not enough of that to go round and indeed there are days when there is next to nothing wind or sunshine.

So is this just a load of marketing hype or what, oh, and for the benefit of feeling smug in the belief that I'm using green energy, it will cost me £10 a month membership fee, for what?  Answers on a postcode please 

 

 

Why would anyone choose OVO over Octopus I am wondering ??

 

Only reason I can see is Octopus are major supporters of Arsenal FC so could not see a Spurs fan going with Octopus and maybe even a Hammer.

It is very much b0llocks as will be revealed in the future.

Carbon Trading, Carbon Offset, Trading in renewables which is double book keeping or Pyramid selling and really the same kind of fraud that would get others in business jailed.

 

Green certificated energy, electricity and gas.  From sustainable sources.

30 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

They explain that I would get 100% renewable energy. 

 

I just wonder how the hell they can do that when, I'm still connected to the national grid which carries a mix of renewables and fossil fuelled energy. If there is X amount of renewable energy generated, when that is all gone, they have to use top up fossil derived energy. In England, renewable is either solar or wind and there is not enough of that to go round and indeed there are days when there is next to nothing wind or sunshine.

The screenshot explains it. You use 1 kWh, they pay 1 kWh traceable renewable generation.

It's like a bucket, you take a cup of water out, they replenish that amount of water with renewable type.

The actual electricity you use at certain time (typically peak period) may not be renewably generated, but the fossil fuel company doesn't get your money, so effectively you are voting with your wallet.

 

England have quite a lot of solar farms:

https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/map

There is extensive interconnect network to deliver renewable electricity to where needed.

https://www.nationalgrideso.com/future-energy/pathway-2030-holistic-network-design/holistic-network-design-offshore-wind/our-interactive-map

Edited 2 October, 20232 yr by wyx087

England has rather a lot of people and that includes London and area.   There alone is about 1 and 1/2 times the population of Scotland.

London's contribution of renewables to the National Grid is not much is it, or the Nuclear generation? 

http://gridwatch.co.uk

 

29 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

Why would anyone choose OVO over Octopus I am wondering ??

 

Only reason I can see is Octopus are major supporters of Arsenal FC so could not see a Spurs fan going with Octopus and maybe even a Hammer.

If only things were that simple. I started out with Eastern Electricity and switched to Southern Electricity who offered far better terms and then they were taken over by OVO and the transition has just been completed, so that is how I came to be with OVO.   

40 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

The screenshot explains it. You use 1 kWh, they pay 1 kWh traceable renewable generation.

It's like a bucket, you take a cup of water out, they replenish that amount of water with renewable type.

The actual electricity you use at certain time (typically peak period) may not be renewably generated, but the fossil fuel company doesn't get your money, so effectively you are voting with your wallet.

 

England have quite a lot of solar farms:

https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/map

There is extensive interconnect network to deliver renewable electricity to where needed.

https://www.nationalgrideso.com/future-energy/pathway-2030-holistic-network-design/holistic-network-design-offshore-wind/our-interactive-map

My point is if you have 100MW amount of green energy available, and you have sold on these schemes, say 300MW of energy then the supplier has a 200MW deficit of energy that they have to top up their supplies with non-green energy. Therefore, they are not actually supplying me with 100% renewable energy, and the real kicker is that if I elected to take that option, it will cost me an extra £120 a year?

 

They say it is traceable, but just how can it be?  If you cannot be 100% certain that the electricity that your EV is being charged with is 100% renewable and didn't come from a fossil fuelled generator, thus while you are feeling proud of your self for not having a tailpipe emission, when in reality you may actually be part of the pollution problem but remotely. How can anyone be that sure.

Edited 2 October, 20232 yr by Graham Butcher

Can anyone tell me if this claim is true or is it pure BS?

 

John Lewis stops insuring electric cars over repair cost fears (telegraph.co.uk)

•  

The story is there, the Auction / Scrap / Parts people are there saying what they say, the Experts and those in the business talk of additional repair costs.

 

So based on fact and as such true.   They are looking into it as a business.    Mean while others seem to know the risk or additional risk and are still insuring EV,s.

 

They must be operating with the knowledge that the Insurers that have the John Lewis connection have. 

 

'Telegraph / John Lewis'  Goes together like Peaches & Cream or Strawberries an Cream.   Would the Telegraph running a story about Home Bargains insurance stopping insuring EV,s be so good?

5 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

My point is if you have 100MW amount of green energy available, and you have sold on these schemes, say 300MW of energy then the supplier has a 200MW deficit of energy that they have to top up their supplies with non-green energy. Therefore, they are not actually supplying me with 100% renewable energy, and the real kicker is that if I elected to take that option, it will cost me an extra £120 a year?

 

They say it is traceable, but just how can it be?  If you cannot be 100% certain that the electricity that your EV is being charged with is 100% renewable and didn't come from a fossil fuelled generator, thus while you are feeling proud of your self for not having a tailpipe emission, when in reality you may actually be part of the pollution problem but remotely. How can anyone be that sure.

If they sell 300 MWh of electricity and end up only able to procure 100 MWh, then they've broken their promise/contract. Now I don't think any of those renewable electricity promises the electricity has to be produced at time of use does it? So you may use 10 kWh one cloudy day but the payment to solar farm is made in 3 days time when it is really sunny.

 

Traceable in the sense their supplier is certified renewable supplier and their supplier are actual renewable generators. So the energy they buy can be traced back to the renewable source.

 

It's the bucket analogy. The bit of water you are using may not be generated by renewable, but you are only paying renewable supplier to replenish it. It's the best we can do in current grid system and I think it's working, seeing so many solar farms and renewable projects.

 

4 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Can anyone tell me if this claim is true or is it pure BS?

 

John Lewis stops insuring electric cars over repair cost fears (telegraph.co.uk)

•  

Which generates more clicks?

"John Lewis' underwriter has temporarily paused offering policies on fully electric vehicles while they analyse the risks and costs entailed.”

or the title that was used?

 

The truth is the title I wrote, buried about 2/3 way in the article.

 

My renewal price increase last month has increased just over 30%, for 2 EV's, which is in line with industry-wide premium increases.

5 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

If they sell 300 MWh of electricity and end up only able to procure 100 MWh, then they've broken their promise/contract. Now I don't think any of those renewable electricity promises the electricity has to be produced at time of use does it? So you may use 10 kWh one cloudy day but the payment to solar farm is made in 3 days time when it is really sunny.

 

Traceable in the sense their supplier is certified renewable supplier and their supplier are actual renewable generators. So the energy they buy can be traced back to the renewable source.

 

It's the bucket analogy. The bit of water you are using may not be generated by renewable, but you are only paying renewable supplier to replenish it. It's the best we can do in current grid system and I think it's working, seeing so many solar farms and renewable projects.

Well that is not being honest and neither is the person who is paying extra for the privilege of pretending that they are only ever using green renewable energy. They are not using 100% green energy and if that is happening like your explanation then that itself is dishonest. It again just screams of a cash grab.

 

Look at this way, if I was advertising that I can supply you with 100% organically grown fruit and vegetables, which always cost more, but I was only able to supply 30% of your order as organic but I made up the balance with produce I purchased from Aldi and didn't tell you or arrange a credit, and you later discovered what I had done, how would you react, even I could prove to you that I did later buy the 70% but gave it to someone else? Are you seeing my point now?

41 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Which generates more clicks?

"John Lewis' underwriter has temporarily paused offering policies on fully electric vehicles while they analyse the risks and costs entailed.”

or the title that was used?

 

The truth is the title I wrote, buried about 2/3 way in the article.

 

My renewal price increase last month has increased just over 30%, for 2 EV's, which is in line with industry-wide premium increases.

Well, if that statement was correct, then the title is also correct, as they did/have stopped offering policies on fully electric cars. You stated that your policy had increased by 30% last month, but was that with John Lewis and if so was that before the 30th September when the article was written?

 

Like all things, there is a start date from which point forwards they would not be insuring new EV's. The only real way to find out if the article is genuine is for someone to try and take out a new policy for a fully electric car with John Lewis.

 

I get all kinds of criticism if I post anything without dotting the i's and crossing the t's and yet you make a statement without any form of verification and then rely on something that a spokesperson allegedly said. Now if the title had said that John Lewis is withdrawing from the EV insurance market then you would have a point. If you are in a race then you can stop at any time and then resume but you cannot withdraw from a race and then resume, its all about wording.

Edited 2 October, 20232 yr by Graham Butcher

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/sep/30/the-quotes-were-5000-or-more-electric-vehicle-owners-face-soaring-insurance-costs

2 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Well, if that statement was correct, then the title is also correct, as they did/have stopped offering policies on fully electric cars. You stated that your policy had increased by 30% last month, but was that with John Lewis and if so was that before the 30th September when the article was written?

 

Like all things, there is a start date from which point forwards they would not be insuring new EV's. The only real way to find out if the article is genuine is for someone to try and take out a new policy for a fully electric car with John Lewis.

 

I get all kinds of criticism if I post anything without dotting the i's and crossing the t's and yet you make a statement without any form of verification and then rely on something that a spokesperson allegedly said. Now if the title had said that John Lewis is withdrawing from the EV insurance market then you would have a point. If you are in a race then you can stop at any time and then resume but you cannot withdraw from a race and then resume, its all about wording.

 

John Lewis is not an insurance company.

 

They are a name which is a front for one or more actual insurance companies.

 

Lloyds bank did this to my son when he moved from an ICE car to a much more powerful hybrid.

 

Ditch going through these paper fronted companies, get on compare the Meerkat and don't deal with such muppets again. 

 

11 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/sep/30/the-quotes-were-5000-or-more-electric-vehicle-owners-face-soaring-insurance-costs

 

Is going to be a problem.

 

Was talking to my neighbour who has a competition packed M4 and he was saying it is a worrying scenario when you could be at the lights with an MG4 Extreme which is nearly a second quicker to 60 mph.

 

TESLA are doing an software update which is giving a 100 extra horsepower to existing model Y owners so not surprised insurance company are nervous about EVs that accelerate faster than most people can think.

 

Answer will be to have, like we have had with motorbikes which do 60 in less than 4 seconds, or less than 3 seconds or 2.5 seconds or so and then there were many schemes where horsepower could be limited like we have for bikes ie to 12hp for learners or 45 hp for A2 Licences or 100 hp as a voluntary manufacturer's scheme.

 

Lots of chances to insurance based on a horse power and maybe torque limitation.

 

Issue is EVs are just so much quicker accelerating than ICE cars and what insurance company wants to insure a car with drag strip impressive acceleration ?

One of the Ozzy states will not let learners under a certain age have L plates on many EVs and particularly Performance and Dual Motor TESLAs as just too quick.

 

Edited 2 October, 20232 yr by lol-lol

@lol-lol Once again, you are sidestepping the points I raised and also not answering a direct question. I am not dealing with muppets like you seem to think, yes I am fully aware that John Lewis is not an actual insurance company, neither is Tesco, Asda, Coop etc but they all offer insurance and can be very competitive against the main stream insurance companies, with whom they deal with.

18 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

Is going to be a problem.

 

Was talking to my neighbour who has a competition packed M4 and he was saying it is a worrying scenario when you could be at the lights with an MG4 Extreme which is nearly a second quicker to 60 mph.

 

TESLA are doing an software update which is giving a 100 extra horsepower to existing model Y owners so not surprised insurance company are nervous about EVs that accelerate faster than most people can think.

 

Answer will be to have, like we have had with motorbikes which do 60 in less than 4 seconds, or less than 3 seconds or 2.5 seconds or so and then there were many schemes where horsepower could be limited like we have for bikes ie to 12hp for learners or 45 hp for A2 Licences or 100 hp as a voluntary manufacturer's scheme.

 

Lots of chances to insurance based on a horse power and maybe torque limitation.

 

Issue is EVs are just so much quicker accelerating than ICE cars and what insurance company wants to insure a car with drag strip impressive acceleration ?

One of the Ozzy states will not let learners under a certain age have L plates on many EVs and particularly Performance and Dual Motor TESLAs as just too quick.

 

You really must do better 😉 did you read the link that @Stonekeeper posted, it mentioned John Lewis, so it would seem that it is highly likely there is some truth in the link I posted and asked about, and also Alex Gerlis was given no explanation as to why his Smart EQ Forfour no longer qualified for a John Lewis policy, now this car only has a 80BHP motor and a small battery pack, costs just over £22,000, it is not one of the mega performance cars that your talking about.

Major rises in insurance combined with major rises in standing charges for off peak electric contracts combined with a major reduction in the offpeak hours (now 4 hours down from 😎 plus the price being jacked up on the 20 hours of peak consumption collectively make EV's a much less attractive proposition especially as they will all continue to go up in the same manner.

 

Aside from the insurance I have been saying for a long time that is what will happen with electricity prices for off peak tariffs as I have seen it happen over the last 2 decades in France from EDF, way before any electric cars appeared, the same EDF that seems to own most of the electricity generating plants in the UK, they know exactly what they are doing and once someone changes to EV they are a voluntary captive audience to being overcharged.

9 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

You really must do better 😉 did you read the link that @Stonekeeper posted, it mentioned John Lewis, so it would seem that it is highly likely there is some truth in the link I posted and asked about, and also Alex Gerlis was given no explanation as to why his Smart EQ Forfour no longer qualified for a John Lewis policy, now this car only has a 80BHP motor and a small battery pack, costs just over £22,000, it is not one of the mega performance cars that your talking about.

 

I read the first bit earlier but then it came up with a paywall, or what I thought was a paywall but was in fact just a subscription request.

 

Too little information provided and not enough good journalist questions asked or reported.  Is he in an expensive car insurance area, is a performance/dual motor car getting the massive insurance hike, has he picked up a speeding ticket which has failed to mention. Could not see that in the article when scanning it.

 

We will see if such scare stories such as fires and high insurance quotes scare the TESLA buying market but I doubt it and the TESLA sales figures are going from strength to strength despite retooling for the new Model 3 and other new models.  If it becomes a problem I would expect TESLA to come up with their own insurance policy just like the effectively solved the charging issue by coming up with their own charging network.  The move to EVs is unstoppable.  It could be slowed a bit by EU/UK Anti dumping measure and internal duty recovery schemes but the technological pace and the rapidly falling price of the technology has EVs on course to be the obvious vehicle of choice for most within the next 6 the years and most ICE cars relegated to historic rallies.    

 

 

10 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Well that is not being honest and neither is the person who is paying extra for the privilege of pretending that they are only ever using green renewable energy. They are not using 100% green energy and if that is happening like your explanation then that itself is dishonest. It again just screams of a cash grab.

 

Look at this way, if I was advertising that I can supply you with 100% organically grown fruit and vegetables, which always cost more, but I was only able to supply 30% of your order as organic but I made up the balance with produce I purchased from Aldi and didn't tell you or arrange a credit, and you later discovered what I had done, how would you react, even I could prove to you that I did later buy the 70% but gave it to someone else? Are you seeing my point now?

Your fruit analogy is not correct.

The supplier would pre-purchase 100% of your organic fruit needs from certified organic suppliers. If they end up with a deficit, they will borrow from Aldi and pay organic suppliers to put back what they've borrowed.

There is no pretending. Your money only goes to renewable suppliers.

 

10 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

Well, if that statement was correct, then the title is also correct, as they did/have stopped offering policies on fully electric cars. You stated that your policy had increased by 30% last month, but was that with John Lewis and if so was that before the 30th September when the article was written?

 

Like all things, there is a start date from which point forwards they would not be insuring new EV's. The only real way to find out if the article is genuine is for someone to try and take out a new policy for a fully electric car with John Lewis.

 

I get all kinds of criticism if I post anything without dotting the i's and crossing the t's and yet you make a statement without any form of verification and then rely on something that a spokesperson allegedly said. Now if the title had said that John Lewis is withdrawing from the EV insurance market then you would have a point. If you are in a race then you can stop at any time and then resume but you cannot withdraw from a race and then resume, its all about wording.

JL stops offering EV insurance.

JL temporary pause offering EV insurance.

Which statement sounds more like JL (their underwriters) does not plan to resume? Yes, it's all about wording and what has actually been said.

 

The whole article is based on statement from JL with other bits giving context. I don't see any problem directly use wording that was officially stated by spokesperson.

 

My insurance isn't with JL. I was giving context.

 

8 hours ago, J.R. said:

Major rises in insurance combined with major rises in standing charges for off peak electric contracts combined with a major reduction in the offpeak hours (now 4 hours down from 😎 plus the price being jacked up on the 20 hours of peak consumption collectively make EV's a much less attractive proposition especially as they will all continue to go up in the same manner.

Is that in France? France are known to have stable nuclear generation than other nations. UK electricity spot prices seems to be tied to renewable generation, as more wind is generated, price goes down.

 

In UK, Octopus Go and Intelligent hours have never been reduced. The off-peak pricing has seen a decrease in-line with reduction in price cap. The price in other times used to be 1p more than price cap before 1 Oct, now around 10% more (28p to 31p for my location). 

8 hours ago, J.R. said:

Major rises in insurance combined with major rises in standing charges for off peak electric contracts combined with a major reduction in the offpeak hours (now 4 hours down from 😎 plus the price being jacked up on the 20 hours of peak consumption collectively make EV's a much less attractive proposition especially as they will all continue to go up in the same manner.

 

Aside from the insurance I have been saying for a long time that is what will happen with electricity prices for off peak tariffs as I have seen it happen over the last 2 decades in France from EDF, way before any electric cars appeared, the same EDF that seems to own most of the electricity generating plants in the UK, they know exactly what they are doing and once someone changes to EV they are a voluntary captive audience to being overcharged.

 

From my personal stand point the overnight rate is still fantastically low at 9p per kwH and the Day rate is now so cheap (less than 30p per kWh) that it is not even so bad for a quick pre-condition.  Add that to the ability to sign in to the Electoverse discounted public charging which has monthly billing rolled in to ones house electricity and gas, which one is likely to be in credit with all the rate cuts on that supply and whether it is home supply or using the Octopus discounts on many thousands of public chargers in the UK, Octopus just added another supplier to their network, happy days.  

 

Octopus France rate do not look as good as UK's rates for night time but better than the UK rates for Day time.  It is because France has a the nuclear sites and much less wind I suppose so a flatter cost model by day and night.  French nuclear workers get their pay rise and I presume the rivers are full again so those riverside nuclear plant can now work at full bore.  Perhaps need some heat pump set ups like we are seeing in Germany, Sweden etc to get some almost free power to add to the French grid.

 

https://www.octopusenergy.fr/offre-electricite-tarifs

 

Time will tell just how good COVEA are.  Someone will be providing the insurance for EV,s and it will not be governments.

Re EDF. 

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/closure-of-power-stations-by-2028-will-significantly-reduce-energy-generation

 

The only Nuclear Power station in Scotland which is owned by EDF will be getting decommissioned any year now and that will be the end of Nuclear generated electricity in Scotland for a decade or 3 or maybe longer.

Other than the Nuclear Submarines obviously that are here maybe for a few years more but maybe not long into the future.

 

.................................

They are generating a lot of electricity that is going to the National Grid to power homes and industry not in Scotland & maybe even in France.

http://insider.co.uk/record-level-renewable-electricity-generated-29595999

 

 

 

 

Edited 3 October, 20232 yr by toot

17 minutes ago, toot said:

Re EDF. 

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/closure-of-power-stations-by-2028-will-significantly-reduce-energy-generation

 

The only Nuclear Power station in Scotland which is owned by EDF will be getting decommissioned any year now and that will be the end of Nuclear generated electricity in Scotland for a decade or 3 or maybe longer.

Other than the Nuclear Submarines obviously that are here maybe for a few years more but maybe not long into the future.

 

 

 

 

By then scotland will have so much tidal and wind power, and hopefully battery and eventually hydro-storage power it will not need a Chenobyl/ Three Mile Island potential within its borders.  Not sure Scotland will every have much solar except in June and July.

 

 

 

@lol-lolPlease do not talk trash about Solar in Scotland on the East coast, but not just in the East.

Just look at the actuality of it and the current Solar Farms and the planned and in use ones.

I have 3 now within a few miles of where is live and there are many hours of daylight and sun 12 months of the year.

 

http://solarfeeds.com/mag/the-biggest-solar-projects-in-scotlan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 3 October, 20232 yr by toot

19 minutes ago, toot said:

@lol-lolPlease do not talk trash about Solar in Scotland on the East coast, but not just in the East.

Just look at the actuality of it and the current Solar Farms and the planned and in use ones.

I have 3 now within a few miles of where is live and there are many hours of daylight and sun 12 months of the year.

 

http://solarfeeds.com/mag/the-biggest-solar-projects-in-scotlan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Super glad to see it.  

 

How much solar in November, December, January and February when you are some at nearly 60 degrees latitude plus adding the 23 degrees of the obliquity of the ecliptic ?

I know from my panels that in the depths of winter I am getting only 1 or 2% of my rated output ie about tenth of summer power.

 

Mind you solar panels have dropped in price massively and all we now need is for the efficiency of panels to move up from around 20% to around 50% and their usage will be further reinforced.

 

Scotland not helped by picture as below.....

https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2014/07/is-the-uk-sunny-enough-for-solar-panels-to-work