ESB public charging plans

heliguyheliguy

My commute does not involve public charging and I have no plans to use the fast charge network in the near future, I still think the proposed charging was wrong and I strongly opposed it.

boardzz

In fact the proposed charges affected those people who charge from home 80-90% of the time as you are then paying a high premium to use a charger a small percentage of your time.
It's people who use the Chargers every day that would benefit the most.

Rafal

Jaketherake wrote: »

I doubt that.
I know myself and at least one other person i know who was planning to buy a leaf has put it off. Lets see what happens in the new year

You may be right that your personal circumstances were identical to everyone else's and that everyone held off on buying a Leaf because of the ESB misjudged actions. Having said that, I have placed an order, and I am eagerly awaiting a new 30kWh Leaf in January.

I have also heard a rumour that Nissan Ireland are close to making their Q1 2016 Leaf sales target some 2 months earlier than expected.

cros13

Rafal wrote: »

You may be right that your personal circumstances were identical to everyone else's and that everyone held off on buying a Leaf because of the ESB misjudged actions. Having said that, I have placed an order, and I am eagerly awaiting a new 30kWh Leaf in January.

I have also heard a rumour that Nissan Ireland are close to making their Q1 2016 Leaf sales target some 2 months earlier than expected.

I may be helping to push them over the line on Monday, swapping the 141 SVE for a 161 SV + CP.

simdan

cros13 wrote:

I may be helping to push them over the line on Monday, swapping the 141 SVE for a 161 SV + CP.

Nice one, but won't you miss the leather, Bose, all round cameras and not to mention a nice set of alloys? Have you gone for the 30Kw battery?

cros13

simdan wrote: »

Nice one, but won't you miss the leather, Bose, all round cameras and not to mention a nice set of alloys? Have you gone for the 30Kw battery?

I gave the Leaf to my dad as a retirement gift, so it his money this time. He hadn't planned on changing it until they take his license. He would love the SVE but SV + CP is in the range of what he's willing to spend.

simdan

cros13 wrote:

I gave the Leaf to my dad as a retirement gift, so it his money this time. He hadn't planned on changing it until they take his license. He would love the SVE but SV + CP is in the range of what he's willing to spend.

Now that's a gift! So you have the i3?

cros13

simdan wrote: »

Now that's a gift! So you have the i3?

Yup, I have the i3. The Leaf is basically a free travel pass in vehicle form, cheap (especially since I pay their electricity bill) and hassle free for my parents to scoot around in.

pwurple

cros13 wrote: »

Yup, I have the i3. The Leaf is basically a free travel pass in vehicle form, cheap (especially since I pay their electricity bill) and hassle free for my parents to scoot around in.

Retired people are a big market for the leaf apparently. I think they are a great car for that market. All the comforts of the heated seats, cameras and so easy to drive.

BoatMad

I received info from my dealer today that the current ESB proposals have not been approved by the commission for energy regulation and as such are merely proposals ....!


what I find rather strange is that the esb would obviously know this and yet clearly publicised a charge ,


I wonder is this the face saving they need......

DrPhilG

Word is that ESB Ecars will be emailing us all tomorrow to officially state that charging plans are on hold pending CER approval and government consultation process.

Villain

Yep as usual the official notice is the last to be released. How they can't learn from mistakes around poor communication is beyond me.

At least with the news that the Government is setting up a consultation group that means nothing will happen before the election and hopefully the promise of a few votes will swing this around the right way.

steelboots

Villain wrote: »

Yep as usual the official notice is the last to be released. How they can't learn from mistakes around poor communication is beyond me.

At least with the news that the Government is setting up a consultation group that means nothing will happen before the election and hopefully the promise of a few votes will swing this around the right way.

Is this consultation group for EVs in general or just around charging points. Would there be a chance with global warming the hot topic they might do more to encourage EVs such as free tolls, parking (I won't mention bus lanes again) etc....

heliguyheliguy

steelboots wrote: »

Is this consultation group for EVs in general or just around charging points. Would there be a chance with global warming the hot topic they might do more to encourage EVs such as free tolls, parking (I won't mention bus lanes again) etc....

I can't think of anything that would sell more ev's in Dublin than access to the bus lanes.

BoatMad

heliguyheliguy wrote: »

I can't think of anything that would sell more ev's in Dublin than access to the bus lanes.

Agreed , a time or EV population limited period of number of years of access to bus lanes would be a powerful incentive that would cost the Gov nothing to implement. Given the numbers it would have negligible effect on bus flow.

DrPhilG

Zero road tax would be a huge incentive in my opinion.

I'm not from Dublin so personally use of bus lanes wouldn't make much impact. But zero road tax would catch everyone's eye, plus it's only fair that an emissions road tax system still charges for zero emissions vehicles.

BoatMad

DrPhilG wrote: »

Zero road tax would be a huge incentive in my opinion.

I'm not from Dublin so personally use of bus lanes wouldn't make much impact. But zero road tax would catch everyone's eye, plus it's only fair that an emissions road tax system still charges for zero emissions vehicles.

on a 23K car, saving 130 quid a year is hardly much of an incentive

DrPhilG

BoatMad wrote: »

on a 23K car, saving 130 quid a year is hardly much of an incentive

I paid around €18k for my car. I'll save almost €500 over the 4 years I intend to own it.

Everybody has been losing their shlt recently over a €200 standing charge proposed by the ESB. Emissions based road tax of €120 on a zero emissions car is every bit as unfair.

I'm not saying that it's going to send everyone scrambling to buy an EV. But the cost of road tax is something that everyone factors into their figures when pricing a new car so ZERO ROAD TAX is a good thing to be able to advertise.

cros13

DrPhilG wrote: »

Emissions based road tax of €120 on a zero emissions car is every bit as unfair.

Well in fairness the logic behind road tax in the first place is to pay for the roads, not the cost of emissions. Now in reality road tax and VRT have become major revenue sources for general funds and local authorities, but that's a whole other argument.

EVs will have to pay road tax at some point. The fact that we pay something now makes the current emissions based funding model more financially sustainable.

IMHO... the best thing to do is introduce a single fixed charge road tax. Then over time you adjust the fixed charge to account for the infrastructure costs.
Alternatively you could go the model of satellite road pricing. GPS and a data logging unit record your usage of the road infrastructure and you get charged per km of travel on the public road. You could eliminate the toll roads as a side benefit, since the PPP partners could just share directly in the revenue.

The place provide a economic forcing function to EV is through a carbon levy. Replace the current €20/ton carbon tax with a €50/ton levy and raise it €10 every year until we're inside our emissions targets. Make it revenue neutral and redistribute the money earned to everyone in a cash payment or tax credit to every resident. Problem solved, with lower income inequality as a side benefit. If the levy is high enough we may even have the opportunity to scrap child benefit since little jimmy will get an equal share too.

BoatMad

I'm not saying that it's going to send everyone scrambling to buy an EV. But the cost of road tax is something that everyone factors into their figures when pricing a new car so ZERO ROAD TAX is a good thing to be able to advertise

I was comparing it to the idea of letting BEVs ( and only BEVS ) use bus lanes, that was my comment that is not much of an incentive by comparison .

BoatMad

The place provide a economic forcing function to EV is through a carbon levy. Replace the current €20/ton carbon tax with a €50/ton levy and raise it €10 every year until we're inside our emissions targets. Make it revenue neutral and redistribute the money earned to everyone in a cash payment or tax credit to every resident. Problem solved, with lower income inequality as a side benefit. If the levy is high enough we may even have the opportunity to scrap child benefit since little jimmy will get an equal share too.

crazy ,nuts, merely loads energy costs back onto users, via inflation, poor get hurt most as they spend a higher proportion

more tax is not a way to solve ANYTHING

cros13

BoatMad wrote: »

crazy ,nuts, merely loads energy costs back onto users, via inflation, poor get hurt most as they spend a higher proportion

more tax is not a way to solve ANYTHING

It's not more tax it's a revenue neutral levy.

The poor would benefit most as it's weapons grade redistribution of wealth.
They automatically would get a substantially bigger cheque from the levy than the additional cost of fossil fuels. It's a net benefit to them.

BoatMad

cros13 wrote: »

It's not more tax it's a revenue neutral levy.

The poor would benefit most as it's weapons grade redistribution of wealth.
They automatically would get a substantially bigger cheque from the levy than the additional cost of fossil fuels. It's a net benefit to them.

raising the cost of fuel , petrol and diesel , hurts everyone , especially the energy poor , raises industry costs that are passed back to the consumer and forces people to consider BEVs on forced cost grounds, that always backfires


politically its impossible as well

You cannot effect a transport revolution , unless the incoming technology offers , faster, cheaper ,better. Railways displaced canals on that basis , steam has eclipsed on the same basis ,

either BEVs cut it or they dont , if they dont , then it is a niche with no future

cros13

1. We emit carbon in direct proportion to the physical quantity of fossil fuel burned.

2. Increasing carbon emissions are causing adverse effects on climate

3. The adverse effects on climate are causing and will cause economic costs in terms of food production, damage from extreme weather events and property loss from sea level rise.

4. Those economic costs are being borne by everyone in some way, but not in proportion to their emissions. i.e. unpriced externality / tragedy of the commons

So the solution is to price the externality and provide the market with the information it needs. It also provides a level of certainty and financial reward needed to justify investments. Ireland has so far done that by introducing a €20/ton carbon tax with the proceeds going into general funds. A €50 carbon levy with a rebate to every resident would effectively be a tax cut to the poor AND a heavier forcing function towards technologies and infrastructure that have substantial long term benefits.

We have to reduce total emissions by 80% in 34 years. Because of much more difficulty cutting emissions from other sectors we'd have to cut transport and electricity production emissions to zero in 14 years. If 100% of vehicles sold today were EVs we still won't manage to swap the entire fleet in 15 years.

So the question isn't "is this plan better than doing nothing and letting the market effect the inevitable switchover". It's how quickly can we move with the minimum amount of resources invested.
And a progressively increasing carbon levy with a rebate will do a better job than a carbon tax.

I don't accept anthropocentric climate change nonsense and add to the nonsense that some countries and probably us too will have to spend billions giving money to other countries ? WTF such a load of nonsense and the IPCC are corrupt, they do not accept any theory against anthropocentric warming and have said that the science is absolutely clear and there is no more debate, yes there is no more debate because they refuse to accept any theories that may or may not contract their own theories.

Many times they have rejected scientific papers and try to discredit other scientists based on where they got their PHD from, or actually try to claim they have no qualifications in the first place or try discredit them in some way all because they are not as corrupt as they are.

They are an unbelievable organisation and the media have been sucked completely in, there is no such thing as Journalists today that seek the truth, they just relay the same BS they hear from other media outlets.

Today it's all about not to be seen to be different or have a different view on something rather than seek the truth.

The media today are controlled too much and there are very few professional Journalists left and to speak out or against something as corrupt as the IPCC would mean their career would be over in a flash !

While I do not agree with anthropocentric warming I do believe their are far more serious consequences from burning fossil fuels with actual harmful emissions, why have the E.U much higher regulations over Nox than Co2 emissions than Europe ? because Nox is harmful, Co2 isn't.

All the Green Monkeys want wind power instead of nuclear, and while we may or may not meet some of our emissions targets from wind the more you remove fossil fuels the more it has to be replaced with alternatives, need I remind anyone the energy content in Petrol or Diesel ? now imagine changing just our transport alone to electric ? where is this energy going to come from ? certainly won't be wind or solar.

The only reason Nuclear isn't being backed in most of Europe is because of public opinion and the saddest thing of all is that new nuclear technologies are far safer than older Nuclear technology and the real kicker is that the older reactors will have to be used well beyond their expected life because no new funding will be made for newer Nuclear reactors. With the exception of France, most of their electricity now comes from nuclear but the more they electrify transport the more energy they will need into the future.

The holy Grail , Fusion, if we ever see it at all, but even if we don't, there is thousands of years supply of Uranium and Thorium in the Earth. If we only put more funding into Molten Salt Thorium reactors !!!

Oh boy am I going to get a lot of flack for this post lol.

heliguyheliguy

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't accept anthropocentric climate change nonsense and add to the nonsense that some countries and probably us too will have to spend billions giving money to other countries ? WTF such a load of nonsense and the IPCC are corrupt, they do not accept any theory against anthropocentric warming and have said that the science is absolutely clear and there is no more debate, yes there is no more debate because they refuse to accept any theories that may or may not contract their own theories.

Many times they have rejected scientific papers and try to discredit other scientists based on where they got their PHD from, or actually try to claim they have no qualifications in the first place or try discredit them in some way all because they are not as corrupt as they are.

They are an unbelievable organisation and the media have been sucked completely in, there is no such thing as Journalists today that seek the truth, they just relay the same BS they hear from other media outlets.

Today it's all about not to be seen to be different or have a different view on something rather than seek the truth.

The media today are controlled too much and there are very few professional Journalists left and to speak out or against something as corrupt as the IPCC would mean their career would be over in a flash !

While I do not agree with anthropocentric warming I do believe their are far more serious consequences from burning fossil fuels with actual harmful emissions, why have the E.U much higher regulations over Nox than Co2 emissions than Europe ? because Nox is harmful, Co2 isn't.

All the Green Monkeys want wind power instead of nuclear, and while we may or may not meet some of our emissions targets from wind the more you remove fossil fuels the more it has to be replaced with alternatives, need I remind anyone the energy content in Petrol or Diesel ? now imagine changing just our transport alone to electric ? where is this energy going to come from ? certainly won't be wind or solar.

The only reason Nuclear isn't being backed in most of Europe is because of public opinion and the saddest thing of all is that new nuclear technologies are far safer than older Nuclear technology and the real kicker is that the older reactors will have to be used well beyond their expected life because no new funding will be made for newer Nuclear reactors. With the exception of France, most of their electricity now comes from nuclear but the more they electrify transport the more energy they will need into the future.

The holy Grail , Fusion, if we ever see it at all, but even if we don't, there is thousands of years supply of Uranium and Thorium in the Earth. If we only put more funding into Molten Salt Thorium reactors !!!

Oh boy am I going to get a lot of flack for this post lol.

The depth of your ignorance astounds me!

cros13

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't accept anthropocentric climate change nonsense

E pur si muove. Reality isn't dependant on your acceptance of it.

That CO2 reflects thermal radiation is a reality. That CO2 in the atmosphere of the planet is a forcing that warms the planet is a reality, you only have to look at Venus right next door. That CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% in the last 200 years is a fact confirmed by essentially every measurement and source of data. That CO2 has not been removed from the atmosphere by more than 2ppm/year in the last 20 million years is a reality. That CO2 released by fossil fuels is in direct proportion to the amount of fuel burned is a reality. That the source of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is overwhelmingly the burning of fossil fuels is a reality. That increasing CO2 is the primary forcing function acting on the earths climate is a reality. That based on every other forcing function barring the emission of other greenhouse gases the earths climate should be cooling is a fact. That the last time atmospheric CO2 was at the current level sea level was 30 meters higher is a reality.

Plus you are forgetting two important gases, Methane and NOX itself, both of which are strong greenhouse gases. The reason we don't talk about methane much is that the major sources of methane are ruminent agriculture and gas production and methane is removed from the atmosphere comparatively quickly so its an easier problem to solve.

Deleted User wrote: »

will have to spend billions giving money to other countries ?

I'm not a big fan of this. I reckon most of the money will disappear into the pocket of the nearest tin pot dictator and his buddies. I'd be very surprised if 5% of the green climate fund went to anything that actually helps.

Still with only €2m committed Ireland isn't doing much of that.

Deleted User wrote: »

IPCC are corrupt, they do not accept any theory against anthropocentric warming

IPCC are wildly optimistic and overly conservative. You don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is.

Deleted User wrote: »

the science is absolutely clear

Yes, and has been since before I was born.

Deleted User wrote: »

and there is no more debate,

Oh... theres plenty of debate. Mostly around exactly how fked we are.
There's no point repeating debates clearly resolved over the last 40 years unless there is some new evidence..... but nobody has presented anything of the sort for decades.

Your theory of progressive falling isn't worthy of debate unless you show a deficiency in the current theory of gravity and propose a falsifiable alternative that fits prior observations.....

Deleted User wrote: »

yes there is no more debate because they refuse to accept any theories that may or may not contract their own theories.

You don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

The "well-substantiated" part requires something called evidence. The "explanation" part requires a posited credible mechanism of action. If something is being dismissed it's because it doesn't meet those basic requirements. Anyone is absolutely free to propose a hypothesis that fits the available evidence and makes testable falsifiable predictions..... let us know how you get on.

Deleted User wrote: »

Today it's all about not to be seen to be different or have a different view on something rather than seek the truth.

The truth matters. And to honestly evaluate the world around you and determine objective truth it necessary to agree on some basic tenets. One of which is just because and idea or view is different doesn't make it equally valid or worthy of consideration.

Deleted User wrote: »

The media today are controlled too much and there are very few professional Journalists left and to speak out or against something as corrupt as the IPCC would mean their career would be over in a flash !

The media are in general scientifically ignorant. And the IPCC aren't that powerful.

Deleted User wrote: »

While I do not agree with anthropocentric warming I do believe their are far more serious consequences from burning fossil fuels with actual harmful emissions, why have the E.U much higher regulations over Nox than Co2 emissions than Europe ? because Nox is harmful, Co2 isn't.

We're not worried about CO2 because of it direct effects on human health. NOX is still a very serious issue but moving to electric transportation and CO2 free power production will solve that problem as a side benefit.

Deleted User wrote: »

where is this energy going to come from ? certainly won't be wind or solar.

Why? What are the magical constraints that prevent those technologies from meeting the vast majority of our energy needs? Cause with the advent of relatively cheap storage I don't see a problem.

Deleted User wrote: »

The only reason Nuclear isn't being backed in most of Europe is because of public opinion and the saddest thing of all is that new nuclear technologies are far safer than older Nuclear technology and the real kicker is that the older reactors will have to be used well beyond their expected life because no new funding will be made for newer Nuclear reactors. With the exception of France, most of their electricity now comes from nuclear but the more they electrify transport the more energy they will need into the future.

I'm a rational person. I have no problem with nuclear power, it's one of the safest most reliable sources of power. I do have a problem with the older reactors designed more to enable reprocessing for weapons material than operate safely or efficiently. And of course building a nuclear reactor in a galvanised shed (Chernobyl) or in a seismically active area (Fukushima) is a fking stupid idea.

Ireland are fking hypocrites about nuclear power. We import almost 5% of our power from Wyfla, the last operational Generation 1 commercial reactor on the planet. But it's all good, because like abortions, we've just exported the problem to the brits and the island of Ireland can remain ideologically pure. That power station would have been decommissioned decades ago if we didn't need it. We whine and bitch about Sellafield while blanketing our own country in far more radioactive emissions from Moneypoint, strategically placed on the west coast for maximum dispersion over populated areas.

The biggest problem from my perspective is the current cost of construction for the promising designs, EPR, evolved VVER and BN-Series, with plants based on those designs way way way over budget. I look at the falling cost of solar and batteries and see the same amount of money going much further.

Deleted User wrote: »

The holy Grail , Fusion, if we ever see it at all, but even if we don't, there is thousands of years supply of Uranium and Thorium in the Earth. If we only put more funding into Molten Salt Thorium reactors !!!

Collectively the planet needs to pump a **** ton of funding into both. But neither will be ready before 2050 at the earliest for wide deployment.

For the moment we've got a big fusion reactor in the sky that does't require building a containment vessel and shows up predictably every day.

Firblog

cros13 wrote: »

We whine and bitch about Sellafield while blanketing our own country in far more radioactive emissions from Moneypoint, strategically placed on the west coast for maximum dispersion over populated areas.

Mind explaining this? Radioactivity from moneypoint?

cros13

Firblog wrote: »

Mind explaining this? Radioactivity from moneypoint?

Most coal contains low levels of uranium and thorium. The fly ash which is carried out with the flue gases contains an order of magnitude or two higher concentration of these elements than the original solid coal.

I worked on an office of emergency planning project with the RPII a few years back. The emissions from moneypoint interfered with their equipment more than 100km downwind of the "stack shadow" that receives most of the fine particulates from moneypoint's actual smoke stacks.

Coal plants emit several times more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear power plants. Enough to actually interfere with the safety monitoring equipment at nearby nuclear plants, something which has actually caused issues in the past where false positives caused by coal emissions have launched leak investigations and the like.

heliguyheliguy

heliguyheliguy wrote: »

The depth of your ignorance astounds me!

Well than you very much for the insult, says a lot more about you to be honest if that's the best you can come up with !