Electric Car Charge Points

creedp

Deleted User wrote: »

Who said C02? I don't give a **** about C02!

So we do agree on something:)

The main point to people is the FACT electric cars offer the cheapest way of driving, that's all that most people care about.

EV's are only cheaper to run becasue they are not, as yet, subject to the same level of taxation as ICE's. By the way you don't seriously think that high levels of taxation currently applied to ICE's has something to do with the envoronment, do you?

creedp

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I have to renew my motor tax this month, €160 currently which is the same as any regular car in Tax Band A. As for extra taxes on electricity, that is more complex than you realise. I've posted about this before, but the ESB are investing in building a smart grid in Ireland. Smart grid technology usually incorporates EV's as being part of the grid. As in EV's can charge at night time on excess electricity that would normally be wasted or even wind energy not being used and then during the day it can power your home or be released into the grid generally.

I'm not talking about the cost of gnerrating a unit of electricity, I'm talking about levying excessive duties on the motor fuel. Currently there are massive duties levied on motor fuel over and above those applied to other uses of the same fuel, e.g. home heating oil is somewhere around 90cent/ltr but when put into the tank of a car its 1.60ltr. I know people seem to accept this is reasonable due to peak oil and the envoronment and all that stuff but in reality its simply a tax on motoring. In my view the same will be applied to EV's in the future or else general taxation will be increased or new sources of taxation will be introduced to make up the shortfall from motor fuel taxes. You don't seriously think the Govt will allow this source of revenue to disappaear because of the warm glow generated from EV's. Bottom line excessive motor fuel taxes have nothing to due with the environment or peak oil and everything to do with the soft touch that is motoring and that is not going to go away.

eringobragh

Deleted User wrote: »

I would rather the tax payer pay for energy that is generated in Ireland to help generate more Irish jobs than taxpayers money go to the banks that abused their powers and get away with it!

Deleted User wrote: »

The free charging was offered initially until the esb figured out the billing system and have 0 plans to continue offering free electricity afaik!

I don't have an e.v and I probably won't for a few years yet, only because I can't afford it at this time, so I have nothing to benefit from free charging.

But anything that converts people to a more efficient and quieter transport is a good thing as far as I'm concerned!

Yes but..How does it generate jobs as you claimed?...unless you count the already employed ESB worker installing the €10,000 euro charge stations with tax payers money (including his wages)

Joe 90

creedp wrote: »

No I'm not that curious at all. I understand now that this is a trial period and after that there will be charges for the use of this service which is fair enough. What I still can't get my dinosaur head around is why EV owners should be able to commute around the country without having to pay the punitive motor taxes levied on other categories of car users? I know the EV is seen by some as the saviour of the polar bear and reducing our dependance on foreign oil [but increasing it on Russian gas, maybe that's not as bad] but the last time I looked an EV is still a motor vehicle and in my opinion should be subject to the motor taxes, albeit maybe at reduced rates, as all other vehicle users. Because we are worried about CO2 we gave diesel cars reductions in Motor Tax/VRT based on their CO2 emmissions. However, no one called for duty free motor diesel or free Motor Tax. I would consider the same should apply to EV's. Recognising their contribution to reducing dependance on oil, etc, etc, they should be subject to a lower fuel duty [but not a duty free fuel] in this case electricity. Applying the same rate of duty as on domestic electricity doesn't seems to cut it with me given the motor vehicle's status as a luxury item in Irish taxation policy.

I wouldn't loose too much sleep over it. As soon as enough people have locked themselves and large chunks of their cash into EVs they will be hit by tax in some shape or form, probably a fairly big chunk of tax(es). Just look at what is going to happen to low emission conventional cars.

Joe 90

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not talking about either car.

I'm talking about the fact electricity is far cheaper to drive on than anything else.

People Don't understand this ?

You got a 30 K golf and a 30 K leaf the leaf is far cheaper to fuel.

You spend 25 k on a golf and 30 k on a leaf and you do 20K miles a year, the leaf works out still cheaper to fuel. And that 5 k would be paid back in 2 years at 20K a year on diesel.

You spend 2 grand on an ice car and 30k on the Leaf the Leaf is still far cheaper to fuel, get it ?

From a saving money point of view it obviously makes sence to buy the ice at 2k, but the leccy is still far cheaper to fuel.

Im not talking saving money here!

o god how many times can I say it.

Right I'm off to work, talk tomorrow folks, or at 1 am

Only because the fuel for the Golf is highly taxed. When there are enough Leafs (Leaves?) for the government to feel the pain the the Leaf owners will share the pain. He will have paid his extra 5k or whatever over the cost of the Golf and somehow or other the government will recoup the tax he does not pay on diesel or petrol.

Sesshoumaru

creedp wrote: »

I'm not talking about the cost of gnerrating a unit of electricity, I'm talking about levying excessive duties on the motor fuel. Currently there are massive duties levied on motor fuel over and above those applied to other uses of the same fuel, e.g. home heating oil is somewhere around 90cent/ltr but when put into the tank of a car its 1.60ltr. I know people seem to accept this is reasonable due to peak oil and the envoronment and all that stuff but in reality its simply a tax on motoring. In my view the same will be applied to EV's in the future or else general taxation will be increased or new sources of taxation will be introduced to make up the shortfall from motor fuel taxes. You don't seriously think the Govt will allow this source of revenue to disappaear because of the warm glow generated from EV's. Bottom line excessive motor fuel taxes have nothing to due with the environment or peak oil and everything to do with the soft touch that is motoring and that is not going to go away.

I think you're reading me wrong. A unit of electricity put into an EV is currently used exclusively for moving the vehicle on the roads. If things stayed that simple then a smart meter could probably be used to levy a tax on electricity used for charging EV's.

What I'm talking about is what happens when EV's take in electricity at night and supply it back to the grid during the day time. Currently the ESB and other countries are considering paying EV owners for this service. At the moment we generate a lot of electricity both during the day and nighttime. However it is only during the day that you get the massive peaks in usage. Having EV's feeding back in to the grid during the day when not in use would help even out the demand for electricity between night and day, thereby increasing the efficiency of our grid.

Even ignoring smart grid technology for the moment, would you tax day time charging the same as night time charging? Charging at night time an EV owner is most definitely using electricity that would otherwise have been wasted. Like I said, it's not as simple as the energy supply system used for ICE cars. How about someone who uses their own solar array to charge their car?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/motors/2011/0601/1224298200715.html

Prof Wrixon’s 6 sq m array generates 7,200 kilowatt (kW) hours a year; he estimates that his car will need 5,000kW a year to satisfy his driving requirements, which are around 10,000km a year. His journeys are mostly short ones to Cork city and back.

Anan1

Joe 90 wrote: »

I wouldn't loose too much sleep over it. As soon as enough people have locked themselves and large chunks of their cash into EVs they will be hit by tax in some shape or form, probably a fairly big chunk of tax(es). Just look at what is going to happen to low emission conventional cars.

This is true but, given that large power plants are inherently many times more efficient than ICE, old-fashioned cars will still be getting hit harder.

creedp

Joe 90 wrote: »

Only because the fuel for the Golf is highly taxed. When there are enough Leafs (Leaves?) for the government to feel the pain the the Leaf owners will share the pain. He will have paid his extra 5k or whatever over the cost of the Golf and somehow or other the government will recoup the tax he does not pay on diesel or petrol.

How about a 'precious metal in battery tax' - PMBT. This will be necessary to minimise the environmental cost associated with the consumption of depleting resources of such precious in car batteries. Its an extension of the polluter pays principle. This could be applied as either a VRT tax for EV's or an annual motor tax. How could anyone argue against such a policy?

By the way I have no problem with EV's despite what I go on with here, but I do think that cars are excessively taxed because they are perceived, wrongly or rightly, as a luxury item and an easy touch. This will/should apply equally to EV's and no amount of claims re: clean energy and dependance on peak oil will change that. Big Phil Hogan or his successor will see to that.

Bruthal

Anan1 wrote: »

This is true but, given that large power plants are inherently many times more efficient than ICE, old-fashioned cars will still be getting hit harder.

Thats true alright.

With electric cars though, the ineffeciencies and co2 emmissions will still exist, they are just being moved to the generating stations. Although emmissions can likely be better dealt with when they are concentrated to these stations.

At the end of the day, its all about revenue from peoples cars. The new low emmission motor taxes were only sustainable while they were relatively low in numbers, from the governments point of view.

creedp

Anan1 wrote: »

This is true but, given that large power plants are inherently many times more efficient than ICE, old-fashioned cars will still be getting hit harder.

I always hear this as an argument in favour of EV's yet when it come to using heat pumps for heating a domestic home you are penalised because electricity is seen as a dirty fuel and suffers from significant losses due to transmision losses over the grid. Consequently any grants associated with electric home heating have been discontinued. Which is correct? In fact for domestic heating people are being encouraged to install efficient oil boilers instead? Now why should electricity be seen as inefficient compared to oil for home heating but apparently the new saviour for motoring? So much so that people continue to get substantial taxpayers grants to switch to EV's. I'm confused

Anan1

creedp wrote: »

I always hear this as an argument in favour of EV's yet when it come to using heat pumps for heating a domestic home you are penalised because electricity is seen as a dirty fuel and suffers from significant losses due to transmision losses over the grid. Consequently any grants associated with electric home heating have been discontinued. Which is correct? In fact for domestic heating people are being encouraged to install efficient oil boilers instead? Now why should electricity be seen as inefficient compared to oil for home heating but apparently the new saviour for motoring? So much so that people continue to get substantial taxpayers grants to switch to EV's. I'm confused

That's a good question. I'm guessing the answer is that the heat produced by burning oil is a wasteful by-product of an ICE, whereas it's the very point of a home heating system.

Sesshoumaru

creedp wrote: »

I always hear this as an argument in favour of EV's yet when it come to using heat pumps for heating a domestic home you are penalised because electricity is seen as a dirty fuel and suffers from significant losses due to transmision losses over the grid. Consequently any grants associated with electric home heating have been discontinued. Which is correct? In fact for domestic heating people are being encouraged to install efficient oil boilers instead? Now why should electricity be seen as inefficient compared to oil for home heating but apparently the new saviour for motoring? So much so that people continue to get substantial taxpayers grants to switch to EV's. I'm confused

Well I don't work from the assumption that government policy is always right, so I don't suffer any such confusion. MIT did a study on the well to wheel efficiency of EV's compared to ICE. Here's the summary

http://web.mit.edu/evt/summary_wtw.pdf

Well to wheel is the only way to measure the efficiency correctly. After all it takes a lot of energy to drill oil out of the ground or seabed, transport it several times, refine it and transport it again before it ever gets pumped into the cars fuel tank.

Bruthal

Anan1 wrote: »

That's a good question. I'm guessing the answer is that the heat produced by burning oil is a wasteful by-product of an ICE, whereas it's the very point of a home heating system.

Id say thats a good assessment on it. Producing heat from oil or gas is more efficient than producing mechanical movement from it.

Electrical heating has burned fuel at one end to produce electricity, then transmitted it, and heats water or air at the other end.

Using oil/gas in the boiler at home is directly using the heat produced.
But the losses in transmission are low, (thats why high voltages are used in transmission)

So the main gain is, a kw of heat is cheaper through gas than electricity. But electric motors are far more efficient at producing propulsion than ICE`s are.

Oil/gas heating is much more controllable than electric as well. Anyone with storage heaters will know about that one.

Sesshoumaru

creedp wrote: »

How about a 'precious metal in battery tax' - PMBT. This will be necessary to minimise the environmental cost associated with the consumption of depleting resources of such precious in car batteries. Its an extension of the polluter pays principle. This could be applied as either a VRT tax for EV's or an annual motor tax. How could anyone argue against such a policy?

By the way I have no problem with EV's despite what I go on with here, but I do think that cars are excessively taxed because they are perceived, wrongly or rightly, as a luxury item and an easy touch. This will/should apply equally to EV's and no amount of claims re: clean energy and dependance on peak oil will change that. Big Phil Hogan or his successor will see to that.

Are you talking about rare earth metals? because firstly they are used in all sorts of high technology. Also they are not all that rare!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/commodities/9151608/China-angers-the-world-as-battle-for-rare-earth-metals-escalates.html

The 17 rare earth metals, including dysprosium and neodymium, are essential components in modern technology such as iPhones, wind turbines, halogen lights and even precision-guided missiles. China produces more than 95pc of these minerals and it has imposed a quota restriction on their export.
EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said China’s export quotas and export duties give Chinese companies an unfair competitive advantage.
“China’s restrictions on rare earths and other products violate international trade rules and must be removed,” Mr De Gucht said. “These measures hurt our producers and consumers in the EU and across the world, including manufacturers of pioneering hi-tech and 'green’ business applications.”
Rare earth metals are not rare, despite the moniker. Cerium, for example, is more common in the Earth’s crust than copper or lead. It is the 25th most common element of the Periodic Table.

astrofool

creedp wrote: »

Could you plug in your electric kettle to have a nice cup of [free] tea or maybe your ipad ... I think its bizarre that the taxpayer is funding free electricity for EV's and yet thousands are being cut off by the ESB for the non payment of electricity bills .. talk about a perverted sense of priorities!

It's to try and build a critical mass of EV cars, then they can start charging for it.

No point in charging when the demand is so low, as you'll just drive that demand away.

Also, the cost to ESB is effectively nothing as they always supply more electricity than is required by the system anyway, and the small load made by the few chargers there are would not affect their loading patterns yet.

22moomoo

Stillogan Park Hotel has just had not one but three electric charge points installed at the Hotel!

http://talbothotelgroup.blogspot.com/2012/03/stillorgan-park-goes-electric.html

creedp

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Well I don't work from the assumption that government policy is always right, so I don't suffer any such confusion. MIT did a study on the well to wheel efficiency of EV's compared to ICE. Here's the summary

http://web.mit.edu/evt/summary_wtw.pdf

Well to wheel is the only way to measure the efficiency correctly. After all it takes a lot of energy to drill oil out of the ground or seabed, transport it several times, refine it and transport it again before it ever gets pumped into the cars fuel tank.

While Im not questioning the veracity of the view that EV's may be more efficient than current ICEs. Would I be correct in saying that the massive diffences being reported in this article have something to do with comparing 2006 ICE in American cars which are predominantly 'large' petrol engines of dubious efficiency to EV's which are designed from an efficiency perspective. Could the same be said for highly efficient modern EU diesel engine? Also I know CO2 is a different matter but the 'footprint' differential been spoken is also related to a comparison between high CO2 emitting petrol and electricity where 20% is genertating from zero CO2 nuclear. Best case scenario from an EV perspective.

Back to basics again I am not arguing against EVs. Im simply saying its a bit rich to think that EVs should not have to contribute more in terms of tax revenue. Just because they don't have motor fuel in their tanks doesn't mean they shouldn't/won't be subject to a new form of taxation to replace fuel duty. As said before fuel duty is simply a revenue raising tool which has very little to do with the fact that oil is used to propel an ICE.

creedp

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Are you talking about rare earth metals? because firstly they are used in all sorts of high technology. Also they are not all that rare!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/commodities/9151608/China-angers-the-world-as-battle-for-rare-earth-metals-escalates.html

Oil is used all across the economy but it is only when it is used in motor vehicles that is it taxed probibitively. Same could apply to 'rare' metals. There doesn't have to be a rational basis for a tax. Plenty of examples of that already!

Sesshoumaru

creedp wrote: »

Oil is used all across the economy but it is only when it is used in motor vehicles that is it taxed probibitively. Same could apply to 'rare' metals. There doesn't have to be a rational basis for a tax. Plenty of examples of that already!

EV's are not the first type of vehicle to be encouraged by government policy. Long before the first proper EV rolled out of the showroom, national policy has been encouraging people to purchase fuel efficient cars that fall into tax band A. So just to be clear, government policy encouraging EV's as a desirable car for citizens to buy is not setting a new precedent. That just relates to cars, we could talk about subsidising certain air routes (Aer Arann have a few I think). Plus anything else the government subsidises or encourages through policy, there are lots of things you could list! So I don't feel EV owners are getting such special treatment that you seem to think they are receiving. At least no more than someone flying Aer Arann on a subsidised route or the person who gets a grant for insulating their home.

I'm also all for everyone paying their fair share. Right now though I also believe in encouraging the uptake of EV's. In future that may mean adding some kind of tax to electricity EV's use, although personally I believe that to be unworkable for reasons I went into earlier. Maybe we'll change the tax system completely? I'm certainly open to new ideas on it!

Bruthal

astrofool wrote: »

Also, the cost to ESB is effectively nothing as they always supply more electricity than is required by the system anyway, and the small load made by the few chargers there are would not affect their loading patterns yet.

The use of an electric kettle in a house cost effectively nothing either, simply because its load is tiny compared to the overall grid loading. The electricity to power it however, is generated as its being used, so generation matches load continously.

Some ways of storing energy can be used, storage heaters store energy as heat, turlough hill uses water pumping up to the top reservoir at night, both items were intended to have more grid generation at night and less during the day.

So charging the electric car does have a cost at these charge points. But it would be tiny in the overall scheme of things at the moment.

So anyone with the electric car would benefit in a big way from the night rate meter as mentioned earlier.

creedp

creedp wrote: »

So we do agree on something:)



EV's are only cheaper to run becasue they are not, as yet, subject to the same level of taxation as ICE's. By the way you don't seriously think that high levels of taxation currently applied to ICE's has something to do with the envoronment, do you?

HAHA that's 2 things we agree on, something wrong there!

But Electricity can not by taxed to the same extent as petrol or diesel, or your electric bill that's 80 euros will end up 500 euro's, that's not going to happen.

I think for some time electric vehicles will be left alone because Kyoto dictates that we reduce emissions that we simply can not do without changing a significant number of cars to electric. what happens in years to come is anybody's guess. I think more tax will be got with the introduction of water tax, property tax, and possibly waste water tax in the future is highly possible. So it won't be as attractive to screw the motorist.

If tax collected was put into the infrastructure like it's supposed to then I have no problem, but due to complete corruption in the Government, solicitors, barristers, judges, bankers, Guards, all the top dogs, means the IMF now have us by the balls.

Where else in the world but Ireland would you have civil servants retire with full pension and then can be rehired ? yes only in Ireland. Corruption of unions is another one!

Sometimes I think I would prefer the mainlanders come and take the country over and throw all the Unions and corrupt top politicians, bankers etc the hell out of their positions and out of Ireland. Jail the mother Fuc***s, take their pensions and make them live on the dole, see how they like that!!!

I would gladly my tax go to pay their dole than their crazy high salaries and pensions!!! Imagine Enda kenny earning more than the U.S president ?

Where did this rant come from ? I got home at 3 am so my head is Fuc**d

creedp

creedp wrote: »

I always hear this as an argument in favour of EV's yet when it come to using heat pumps for heating a domestic home you are penalised because electricity is seen as a dirty fuel and suffers from significant losses due to transmision losses over the grid. Consequently any grants associated with electric home heating have been discontinued. Which is correct? In fact for domestic heating people are being encouraged to install efficient oil boilers instead? Now why should electricity be seen as inefficient compared to oil for home heating but apparently the new saviour for motoring? So much so that people continue to get substantial taxpayers grants to switch to EV's. I'm confused

You are completely missing the greater picture!!!

You can install solar and wind turbine in the future and drive on your own clean electricity!

If you are to drive on electricity it would cost you a tiny fraction of driving on petrol and diesel, and yes ev's are far more efficient than ice, and don't forget that wind can charge cars at night that would otherwise have to be switched off, thus significantly reducing particle,nox and other cancer causing exhaust. My garden plants and forest's however, will love your co2 so does this mean that ev's will cause plant's trees, and crops not to grow as quick ? hmmm

"Word forest reduction linked to a drop in co2 from ice cars!!!"

creedp

creedp wrote: »

I'm not talking about the cost of gnerrating a unit of electricity, I'm talking about levying excessive duties on the motor fuel. Currently there are massive duties levied on motor fuel over and above those applied to other uses of the same fuel, e.g. home heating oil is somewhere around 90cent/ltr but when put into the tank of a car its 1.60ltr. I know people seem to accept this is reasonable due to peak oil and the envoronment and all that stuff but in reality its simply a tax on motoring. In my view the same will be applied to EV's in the future or else general taxation will be increased or new sources of taxation will be introduced to make up the shortfall from motor fuel taxes. You don't seriously think the Govt will allow this source of revenue to disappaear because of the warm glow generated from EV's. Bottom line excessive motor fuel taxes have nothing to due with the environment or peak oil and everything to do with the soft touch that is motoring and that is not going to go away.

It's the mismanagement of funds that is the problem the waste is terrible, the Government couldn't run a brothel never mind a small Island!

The local road where I live is a disgrace, yet I drive in Dublin every day and don't see anything like the broken roads that I see here, my local road parts of it have 0 surface and only clay to drive on, I've been on to my local TD and the usual crap, they have been on to Kildare County wasters and have promised the road will be fixed, and nothing has been done.

So if it isn't good enough to have the bad roads in Dublin, why is it good enough in the south of Kildare ??? why ? I pay my taxes ???

If they do anything here it's tar and chippings thrown over broken road surfaces, they haven't the money, yet they pay for the same potholes to be filled in every month over and over and over, they won't put a proper foundation and proper tar mac surface. Dublin gets nice tar mac surfaces.

If there is any sign of a tar mac road in Kildare it's tar and chippings straight over it, and it's for "grip in winter" they say did ye ever hear anything like it ?

Grip in winter ? I don't see it in Germany and they have far worse winters than here!!!

Gombean Ireland, always has been, always will be!

creedp

creedp wrote: »

How about a 'precious metal in battery tax' - PMBT. This will be necessary to minimise the environmental cost associated with the consumption of depleting resources of such precious in car batteries. Its an extension of the polluter pays principle. This could be applied as either a VRT tax for EV's or an annual motor tax. How could anyone argue against such a policy?

By the way I have no problem with EV's despite what I go on with here, but I do think that cars are excessively taxed because they are perceived, wrongly or rightly, as a luxury item and an easy touch. This will/should apply equally to EV's and no amount of claims re: clean energy and dependance on peak oil will change that. Big Phil Hogan or his successor will see to that.

Eah, what about mining the minerals for ice cars ? that's just as polluting!

Joe 90

robbie7730 wrote: »

Id say thats a good assessment on it. Producing heat from oil or gas is more efficient than producing mechanical movement from it.

Electrical heating has burned fuel at one end to produce electricity, then transmitted it, and heats water or air at the other end.

Using oil/gas in the boiler at home is directly using the heat produced.
But the losses in transmission are low, (thats why high voltages are used in transmission)

So the main gain is, a kw of heat is cheaper through gas than electricity. But electric motors are far more efficient at producing propulsion than ICE`s are.

Oil/gas heating is much more controllable than electric as well. Anyone with storage heaters will know about that one.

In fact if you want to be efficient heating the house with oil or gas the combined heat and power unit makes sense. Burn your fuel in an ICE with drives a generator and use the waste heat from the ICE for heating and hot water.

Joe 90

Joe 90 wrote: »

In fact if you want to be efficient heating the house with oil or gas the combined heat and power unit makes sense. Burn your fuel in an ICE with drives a generator and use the waste heat from the ICE for heating and hot water.

That would be good if petrol or diesel were cheap!

Solar prices are fairly attractive now, and considering how much petrol and diesel costs, for our driving needs a year around 20K miles means driving on solar would pay for itself in 5 or 6 years, after that most of my energy would be generated by solar.

Wind turbine prices and installations are not coming down, which it should because solar is now much cheaper than wind. Making solar much more attractive. But a hybrid system is always going to be better!

No reason why wind and solar can't charge your car and be used to heat your house.

Anan1

Joe 90 wrote: »

In fact if you want to be efficient heating the house with oil or gas the combined heat and power unit makes sense. Burn your fuel in an ICE with drives a generator and use the waste heat from the ICE for heating and hot water.

That might make sense in a poorly-insulated house in the depths of winter.:)

We got the cavity insulation and 12" of insulation in the attic and the difference is amazing. I know it wasn't the coldest winter but compared to a normal winter it has made a big difference.

The windows need replacing badly next.

We usually get away with 500 litres of oil or less, the last 2 winters of course being so cold and having 0 insulation meant we used a fair bit, about 700 litres.

creedp

Deleted User wrote: »

Eah, what about mining the minerals for ice cars ? that's just as polluting!

My point being it is easy to come up with a reason to introduce/increase taxation on vehicles. As I referred topreviously, burning oil to heat a house is just as polluting as using it in car but its not taxed in the same manner. Thereby, ditto for precious metals used in car batteries.

astrofool

robbie7730 wrote: »

The use of an electric kettle in a house cost effectively nothing either, simply because its load is tiny compared to the overall grid loading. The electricity to power it however, is generated as its being used, so generation matches load continously.

Some ways of storing energy can be used, storage heaters store energy as heat, turlough hill uses water pumping up to the top reservoir at night, both items were intended to have more grid generation at night and less during the day.

So charging the electric car does have a cost at these charge points. But it would be tiny in the overall scheme of things at the moment.

So anyone with the electric car would benefit in a big way from the night rate meter as mentioned earlier.

So, as you switch on your electric kettle, a turbine spins faster instantaneously to create more power.....?

You can do some light reading on loading patterns, base load, capacity factor etc. on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant

I repeat my assertion, the cost to ESB of providing power to these charge points at the moment, will effectively be nothing (as in the power stations producing electricity will not increase their output due to the demand the charging points place on the network).

Bruthal

astrofool wrote: »

So, as you switch on your electric kettle, a turbine spins faster instantaneously to create more power.....?

No, very roughly its like this, overall there is a 50hz frequency maintained, a slightly increased load reduces the grid frequency and vice versa. There is a tolerance to work between, so switching on a kettle will have a miniscule impact. Historical load trends are used to maintain the balance between generation and loading, and grid frequency indicates a live reading of the balance.

You can do some light reading on loading patterns, base load, capacity factor etc. on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant

This base load is simply the loading that is always there. It is like the minimum load below which the grid load never really goes. It does not mean that generating stations are generating unused electricity. All electricity generated is being used, through transmission losses, power factors/line capacitance etc, and real watts power demands.

Slightly higher generating capacity can be output for the same load, but this results in marginally higher frequency, and voltage, which means marginally higher meter readings. But this frequency tolerance is very tight.

I repeat my assertion, the cost to ESB of providing power to these charge points at the moment, will effectively be nothing (as in the power stations producing electricity will not increase their output due to the demand the charging points place on the network).

You have the power stations producing no extra electricity part too simplified though. If just one extra kettle is switched on tommorrow compared to today, then it is true that the same generating capacity will power it. But this will involve an infinitly small reduction in grid frequency due to a tiny extra loading on the same generation output. This also means a tiny voltage reduction. Reduced voltage means lower meter readings for other users using the same items at a now slightly lower wattage.

Now this would all be infinitely small, but you can see how increasing the loading on the same generating output does have a financial effect eventually. So if the loading kept increasing, but generating output stayed the same, the revenue through meter readings would reduce, if the new loading was bill free. Now this is greatly exhagerated of course, as this wont happen for a few chargers. But you can see how all loading has a cost.

It would be so small for a few chargers in fact, that the difference would be bigger from random criteria.

But whats happening is the generated power is now shared with the chargers, and however small its demand is on a grid compared to the total demand, its not free.

But your assertion that it is tiny in the scheme of things is true. But so its the cost of powering my house.

el pasco

A point that I would like to make is that electric vehicles get a subidy of around €10,000 (It is around €9,500 I think €5,000 grant plus No-VRT from the government)
If this is factored in to the cost of an EV then I am not sure if EV are as economical vivable as some people are making then out to be

Therefore an Nissan Leaf would cost around €40,000 just to buy
I saw a YouTube video and it said that factoring in the cost of renting a battery for a Renault Fluence Z.E. €79/month would wipe out any saving of around €1,000 a year

Secondly in Ireland EV get there power from power stations which produce about 50g/Co2/km which is about half what the lowest cars produce at the present time
I think that this should be factored in to the cost as if petrol and diesel pay a carbon tax then why not electricity for EV and electricity in general?

I think that the best option at the minute is the plug in hybrid which has the best of both system you can run the cars solely on batteries for around 26km and for speed below 30km/h on the hybrid battery and for other speeds a combination of petrol/battery power
These cars can be charged the same as electric only cars
Toyota and Volvo have cars which are plug in hybrids at the minute that I know of with more cars expected to come on stream in the future

The best solution would actually be to try and de-motorise our society
With modern and up and coming technology it is no longer necessary to travel as much
You can order you shopping online work from home use teleconference etc
I think that with cycling and walking and better planning particular in town planning we could all drive a lot less as we do as a nation drive a lot more than our European counterparts
Remember all of the energy and resources that go into making a electric vehicle?
It is a sexy idea Oh I drive a EV look how great I am where as if we walk or cycled for the short journeys then we wouldn't even need a car for a lot of journeys
In Ireland 60% of car trips are less than 4km!

This would mean that we could reduce the amount we drive cars by a lot
We could instead just rent cars for when we need then like they do in many European countries which is a lot cheaper

One final point is that the information that the esb will get from electric cars like they know when and where you charge your car and what time and they can probably track your car and how you use it (The Nissan Leaf can tell you where your power went to and keeps a record) This could be like a big brother state soon especially with "Smart Meters"
Just something to think about...

Matt Simis

Just updating this thread to say there are 2 new Electric charging points being opened in Trim, in the town centre area public carpark (just down from the petrol station):



Now if only I had a Tesla Model S Id be set..

That's strange, The charge points didn't even show up on the E-cars map even as points under design !

Little point painting them green because an ICE car currently has every legal right to park in a E.V bay. I would box them in for them being an ass.

Still no 44 KW A/C charge points and still no new fast DC charge points.

colm_mcm

So would it be free to park there then?

colm_mcm

colm_mcm wrote: »

So would it be free to park there then?

I would imagine that would be up to each Co. Council but in reality they can't have free parking for E.V bays because legally no such bays exist and an ICE car could park there perfectly legally and nothing can be done about it except e.v owners boxing them in as I would do if I needed to charge.

I was in Belfast a few weeks ago and across from Day's hotel there are 2 E.V bays which were occupied by ICE cars. It's really taking the Piss and not fair if an E.V owner needs to charge, IMO it's just plain ignorance anyone who would park in an e.v bay, bit like people parking in Disabled bays.

The laws are about to change so that E.B bays are going to be officially recognised and ICE cars and owners will be fined or towed.

paddy147

Deleted User wrote: »

I would imagine that would be up to each Co. Council but in reality they can't have free parking for E.V bays because legally no such bays exist and an ICE car could park there perfectly legally and nothing can be done about it except e.v owners boxing them in as I would do if I needed to charge.

I was in Belfast a few weeks ago and across from Day's hotel there are 2 E.V bays which were occupied by ICE cars. It's really taking the Piss and not fair if an E.V owner needs to charge, IMO it's just plain ignorance anyone who would park in an e.v bay, bit like people parking in Disabled bays.

The laws are about to change so that E.B bays are going to be officially recognised and ICE cars and owners will be fined or towed.

Bring a really long extension cable with you then.:pac::pac::D

Or else dont buy an electric car,then you wont have to complain so much.;)

It's interesting that someone deleted my last post from yesterday without any reason why ?

Matt Simis

Deleted User wrote: »

I would imagine that would be up to each Co. Council but in reality they can't have free parking for E.V bays because legally no such bays exist and an ICE car could park there perfectly legally and nothing can be done about it except e.v owners boxing them in as I would do if I needed to charge.

The rest of that carpark is pay and display, so it is confusing/odd if EVs are allowed to park and charge for free (charging is still not billed right?).

But by the same token, I cant imagine many ICE drivers being willing to pay to park at a fuel pump while filling up so... :pac:

colm_mcm

Deleted User wrote: »

It's interesting that someone deleted my last post from yesterday without any reason why ?

Deleted User wrote: »

That's strange, The charge points didn't even show up on the E-cars map even as points under design !

Little point painting them green because an ICE car currently has every legal right to park in a E.V bay. I would box them in for them being an ass.

Still no 44 KW A/C charge points and still no new fast DC charge points.

Deleted User wrote: »

I would imagine that would be up to each Co. Council but in reality they can't have free parking for E.V bays because legally no such bays exist and an ICE car could park there perfectly legally and nothing can be done about it except e.v owners boxing them in as I would do if I needed to charge.

I was in Belfast a few weeks ago and across from Day's hotel there are 2 E.V bays which were occupied by ICE cars. It's really taking the Piss and not fair if an E.V owner needs to charge, IMO it's just plain ignorance anyone who would park in an e.v bay, bit like people parking in Disabled bays.

The laws are about to change so that E.B bays are going to be officially recognised and ICE cars and owners will be fined or towed.

I can see both of these posts. Is there another one you're looking for or is it one of these you can't see?

Matt Simis

colm_mcm wrote: »

I can see both of these posts. Is there another one you're looking for or is it one of these you can't see?

I blame the Oil company illuminati.

Also, Colour=LIME!?

colm_mcm

Just doing my bit for the environment matt

RandomAccess

Referring to ICE cars and ICE drivers is becoming just as annoying as motorcyclists referring to car drivers as Cagers.. Wish this crap would stop.

I can see why there might be a need for a term but I don't agree with the way it is being applied.

colm_mcm

ICE is hardly a derogatory term though, it just differentiates from electric cars in a discussion usually about EVs

Bruthal

RandomAccess wrote: »

Referring to ICE cars and ICE drivers is becoming just as annoying as motorcyclists referring to car drivers as Cagers.. Wish this crap would stop.

I can see why there might be a need for a term but I don't agree with the way it is being applied.

Ice cagers

RandomAccess

colm_mcm wrote: »

ICE is hardly a derogatory term though, it just differentiates from electric cars in a discussion usually about EVs

I think that as soon as you have a term like this which people latch onto that it inevitably helps polarise people into a them and us state. Perhaps I am being swayed by the extreme opinions I see on autoblog green comment threads.


The simplest terms are almost always loaded with connotations, south side vs north side. And so on. Points made anyways, will see if it develops a mind of its own or not.

colm_mcm

Would it be as bad if they used the actual words rather than the acronym, I mean when you say something like




I would imagine that would be up to each Co. Council but in reality they can't have free parking for Electric Vehicle bays because legally no such bays exist and an Internal combustion engine car could park there perfectly legally and nothing can be done about it except electric vehicle owners boxing them in as I would do if I needed to charge.

RandomAccess

colm_mcm wrote: »

Would it be as bad if they used the actual words rather than the acronym, I mean when you say something like




I would imagine that would be up to each Co. Council but in reality they can't have free parking for Electric Vehicle bays because legally no such bays exist and an Internal combustion engine car could park there perfectly legally and nothing can be done about it except electric vehicle owners boxing them in as I would do if I needed to charge.

Electric or non-electric, perhaps.
Maybe im the only one it rankles with. Carry on....

Matt Simis

RandomAccess wrote: »

Electric or non-electric, perhaps.
Maybe im the only one it rankles with. Carry on....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine
ICE is an absolutely correct and perfect and not new term (there has been ICE vs "something" for 100years). "Non-electric" actually implies a deviation from a norm, which would be somewhat misleading and derogatory.

In reading old mechanical guides and manuals the acronym "ICE" or term Internal Combustion Engine is used.. I dont get why because EVs are somewhat available we would have to go rebrand everything else. Infact EV drivers could make the exact same compliant you are making, "EV" has a swath of negative connotations.


Just stop reading Green propaganda.

colm_mcm

colm_mcm wrote: »

I can see both of these posts. Is there another one you're looking for or is it one of these you can't see?

One post vanished, not bothered reposting.