CRU (formerly CER) review of charging infrastructure

Chances are by the time you buy an ev then the range will be north of 300 Kms, you will rarely use a public charger.

Dardania

Deleted User wrote: »

Chances are by the time you buy an ev then the range will be north of 300 Kms, you will rarely use a public charger.

After reading the thread on cheap deals possible due to PCP, I'd be inclined to take the risk with a 24kW leaf if the charger network worked well.

Also...while I would tend to use home charger mainly (just received planning permission to convert garden to driveway, complete with charger spot), I'd be concerned if I drove around the country to hotels, B&Bs etc. and not having access to a good network to charge up

KCross

Dardania wrote: »

Made a submission on this. In the hope that my submission is implemented by the time I buy my next car (95% certain to be EV!)
I would actually generally agree with ESB's option 4, with the conditions that:

quality of service to the end user be guaranteed (with financial penalties if not met) - so enough chargers on site, operational, or else the user gets their next chargeup(s) for free..

A fatal flaw in your position is that option 4 states that there will be no conditions. If you add conditions it means it is under regulation and that's the polar opposite of option 4 and not what eCars want at all! It's more like option 1.

I hope they don't go with option 4!

Also, the idea of getting your next charge free is meaningless in reality as a failed charge probably has you on a flatbed and your day ruined. One free charge won't alleviate that pain!

I like the idea in general of financial penalties to eCars for maybe queuing or out of service chargers. It means they have skin in the game but a penalty of one free charge would mean nothing to them!

Dardania

KCross wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

Made a submission on this. In the hope that my submission is implemented by the time I buy my next car (95% certain to be EV!)
I would actually generally agree with ESB's option 4, with the conditions that:

quality of service to the end user be guaranteed (with financial penalties if not met) - so enough chargers on site, operational, or else the user gets their next chargeup(s) for free..

A fatal flaw in your position is that option 4 states that there will be no conditions. If you add conditions it means it is under regulation and that's the polar opposite of option 4 and not what eCars want at all! It's more like option 1.

I hope they don't go with option 4!

Also, the idea of getting your next charge free is meaningless in reality as a failed charge probably has you on a flatbed and your day ruined. One free charge won't alleviate that pain!

I like the idea in general of financial penalties to eCars for maybe queuing or out of service chargers. It means they have skin in the game but a penalty of one free charge would mean nothing to them!

Yeah, you're right about my option 4 with conditions isn't option 4 as given, but option 1 doesn't fully cover my intent either. In principle, I'm happy for ESB to take on the network (as it also means there is less chance the government will try adding a duty charge onto charging as people move away from ICE if ESB already provide the service, and are competing with home chargers/bigger batteries)

I agree the penalty should be large enough to discourage them from not providing enough capacity. A way I was thinking it could work would be if everyone queuing was incentivised to swipe, then there would be good realtime feedback to motivate ESB to react. As the risk is that ESB would leave you waiting there until the one operational charger is free / they would get the same revenue... or if the charger is altogether failed, your flatbed scenario.
From reading ESB's document, it sounds like they had a mare of a time from their perspective dealing with the dodgy chargers too...


Interestingly, I just saw this consultation pop up, on the same topic approximately:
http://www.dttas.ie/public-transport/english/alternative-fuels-infrastructure

Will have to give it a read and have a spoke

Public Consultation

Alternative Fuels Infrastructure for Transport

Draft National Policy Framework

The Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport is inviting submissions from stakeholders, interested parties and the general public on a Draft National Policy Framework on Alternative Fuels Infrastructure for Transport in Ireland. The closing date for submissions is Wednesday 23rd November 2016

KCross

Dardania wrote: »

In principle, I'm happy for ESB to take on the network (as it also means there is less chance the government will try adding a duty charge onto charging as people move away from ICE if ESB already provide the service, and are competing with home chargers/bigger batteries)

Im not sure I get your logic.
If option 4 is picked eCars will charge what they like and a government duty will be the least of your worries!

I presume you are aware of the charging regime eCars proposed this time last year which they had to withdraw on the orders of the CER?

I also want ESB to own the network but under regulation like the grid.

Dardania

KCross wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

In principle, I'm happy for ESB to take on the network (as it also means there is less chance the government will try adding a duty charge onto charging as people move away from ICE if ESB already provide the service, and are competing with home chargers/bigger batteries)

Im not sure I get your logic.
If option 4 is picked eCars will charge what they like and a government duty will be the least of your worries!

I presume you are aware of the charging regime eCars proposed this time last year which they had to withdraw on the orders of the CER?

I also want ESB to own the network but under regulation like the grid.

I think we're viewing things the same way. Absolutely - the upper cost should be regulated per recharge. So not option 4 as it is given by ESB. My theory would be that the cost should be calculated on a demand & supply basis e.g. 22kW car connects pays a flat rate of say 10, and then the kWh consumption of actual energy supplied. Similar to how commercial electrical connections are charged now, or how domestic bins are paid for (lift fee & weight)
I don't envisage this cost being cheap to the motorist. It would be naive to think that the consumption charge per connection would merely be the 15c/kWh we're accustomed to at home. There would have to be a realistic amount on top to cover maintenance of the charge points, and an amount to allow future investment. I reckon the charging network should be financially self sufficient. Otherwise we could find ourselves in a situation where the EV network wasn't self sufficient financially, and there was a reliance on the government to fund investment & maintenance - which they have shown to be very poor at if we look at Irish Rail.
Looking at ESB's short report, the OpEx costs were less than half compared to the CapEx costs. And I suspect the actual kWh costs were a small portion of those OpEx costs...
Thinking about the cost of a recharge, I would honestly be happy with something similar to what I get from my ICE - my old Ford Focus petrol was working out around 11.60 per 100km of driving in fuel. That's what I would value the EV charge up at. Or possibly even a bit more to allow investment on top. I can always charge up at home if I'm unhappy with the cost, so they would be in competition with home rates - that would provide a balance to the upper cost.
My badly explained point about excise duty is, trying to phrase it better: The government takes in quite a lot of money per year from motorists: http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/motorists-pumped-62million-fuel-levies-7196743 - 2.3 billion in 2015. This doesn't solely go on the roads - it probably gets siphoned off pretty fast to pay for healthcare, social welfare etc.
As people switch to EV from ICE in the future, the government will have a budget hole that they'll want to fill. So my theory is, if the ESB run the charger network, an argument could be made that as ESB is a semi-state, who pays a dividend to government, there is already a route by which funding goes back to the exchequer, to replace the lost ICE fuel excise.
Or alternatively, they'll just increase the Electricity Tax duty, which would be applied to all electricity customers (not just EV) so EV users would be insulated against bearing the burden of a lost 2 billion tax revenue per year...
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/excise/duties/excise-duty-rates.html

isnottheword

Dardania wrote: »

I don't envisage this cost being cheap to the motorist. It would be naive to think that the consumption charge per connection would merely be the 15c/kWh we're accustomed to at home. There would have to be a realistic amount on top to cover maintenance of the charge points, and an amount to allow future investment. I reckon the charging network should be financially self sufficient. Otherwise we could find ourselves in a situation where the EV network wasn't self sufficient financially, and there was a reliance on the government to fund investment & maintenance - which they have shown to be very poor at if we look at Irish Rail....
Thinking about the cost of a recharge, I would honestly be happy with something similar to what I get from my ICE - my old Ford Focus petrol was working out around 11.60 per 100km of driving in fuel. That's what I would value the EV charge up at. Or possibly even a bit more to allow investment on top. I can always charge up at home if I'm unhappy with the cost, so they would be in competition with home rates - that would provide a balance to the upper cost.

I couldn't disagree more. You can't have rates the same as what it costs to fuel a petrol or diesel. Early adopters of EV's have major issues to deal with right now.
eg. integrity of the battery over time (for which any savings they need to put aside for a replacement or for refurbishment - not cheap!); less than satisfactory range; far greater potential for increased asset depreciation (by comparison with EV) at the moment.

What you're proposing needs to happen when the market matures i.e. when the 60kW range EV's come onto the market. Otherwise, what you propose is going to leave current EV drivers/owners frustrated and in limbo. Secondly, it will stunt the development of and progression of the switch to EV. i.e. who in their right mind is going to put up with the short comings (in terms of convenience and cost as you propose it to be) until a 60kW car is available on the market?

As with every other implementation in Europe, this will have to be government subsidised. However, I doubt very much that it could ever reach the levels of investment in Irish Rail!

dardania wrote:

he government takes in quite a lot of money per year from motorists: http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/motorists-pumped-62million-fuel-levies-7196743 - 2.3 billion in 2015. This doesn't solely go on the roads - it probably gets siphoned off pretty fast to pay for healthcare, social welfare etc.

Yes, but that's not ethical. Revenues raised by the motorist should be used to finance the network - and not for other means. IF they have a deficit in healthcare, social welfare, etc., then this has to come out of general taxation.
Of course, we could also strive towards leaner government and public services (yeah, I know - good luck with that in IRL!). Funding currently raised by ICE users should be used to support the fledgling EV network right now. When it approaches critical mass, then I have no problem with what you propose - or that electricity rates are manipulated - to even out usage over 24 hour periods and also levied if necessary to maintain the road and ev network - not anything else.

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

A fatal flaw in your position is that option 4 states that there will be no conditions. If you add conditions it means it is under regulation and that's the polar opposite of option 4 and not what eCars want at all! It's more like option 1.

I hope they don't go with option 4!

Also, the idea of getting your next charge free is meaningless in reality as a failed charge probably has you on a flatbed and your day ruined. One free charge won't alleviate that pain!

I like the idea in general of financial penalties to eCars for maybe queuing or out of service chargers. It means they have skin in the game but a penalty of one free charge would mean nothing to them!

Correct , no right minded EV driver would reccomend option 4.

Option 1 can have retail competition at energy prices with the EV charger network paid for via the whole grid contribution.

You cannot arrive at your conclusion about economic viability with the lack of data provided , hence you are arriving at a false conclusion by way of a false assumption.


This should most definitely be the situation for the next 10 years.

When we have a 50% penetration of EVs and usage patterns at chargers becomes established , then the whole network could be commercialised

It's much more likely that a few large scale supercharger locations will be the requirement rather then this current scatter gun approach. It's likely this " pilot " network will prove to be outdated within that time scale anyway

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

Option 1 can have retail competition at energy prices with the EV charger network paid for via the whole grid contribution.

While I like the idea and it is what I'm "voting" for I could understand how someone would say "why should we subsidise it". We need a compelling argument for that question. I believe we do but it needs to be a well communicated argument.

My gut instinct is that CER will go for option 4 and hide behind EU competition law stating that a state subsidy on the infrastructure will inhibit additional competition in the market. The market doesnt need multiple networks but I feel they might try that argument.

BoatMad wrote: »

You cannot arrive at your conclusion about economic viability with the lack of data provided , hence you are arriving at a false conclusion by way of a false assumption.

This should most definitely be the situation for the next 10 years.

There would definitely need to be 10s of thousands of EV's using the network daily to make it commercially viable. As soon as a charging regime is brought in people will scurry back to their home chargers and eCars will be left with an ongoing unviable network based on the current EV uptake.

I see the network today as a piece of public infrastructure that supports EV adoption. Commercialise it when its possible to do so. eCars saying its possible today is nonsense.

Its hard to tell whether it will be commercially viable in 10yrs or not. The longer range EV's could catch on very fast. You could see exponential growth. The CER reports and the eCars report both predict very large increases in EV adoption by 2020 and beyond. I dont know what exactly they base that on. Probably nothing since they had originally suggested 50k by 2020 and are now downgrading that to 20k! I'd say 20k by 2020 is very unlikely but beyond 2020 it could go exponential.

It will be like the switch from petrol to diesel after the CO2 emissions based motor tax came in in 2008. Once the longer range EV's come and the government add incentives to meet our 2020 targets people will start switching to EV at a much higher rate.

BoatMad wrote: »

It's much more likely that a few large scale supercharger locations will be the requirement rather then this current scatter gun approach. It's likely this " pilot " network will prove to be outdated within that time scale anyway

The alternative-fuels-infrastructure consultation paper suggests the network will grow significantly! I dont know, maybe you are right but a few large scale superchargers isnt much good to someone down in Bantry or up in Gweedore if the superchargers are 50-100 miles away.




Thanks to @Dardania for pointing out that additional consultation paper:
http://www.dttas.ie/public-transport/english/alternative-fuels-infrastructure


We should start another thread on that one and everyone submit their opinion on that as well, as that is the one which discusses in detail how to encourage EV uptake which obviously the charge network is an integral part.

This thread is more about who should own the network.

BoatMad

In my opinion, to not view the current infrastructure as a strategic investment to promote EV uptake is a major flaw in the thinking of the CER. This is the core of my own submission. There is no need for a charging network at all unless there is significant EV growth , the likelihood is that diesel will remain comparatively cheap as the western worlds demand is falling. in iteland , de-incentivising diesels will be very politically difficult, certainly in advance of any mass EV uptake.

Therefore we need EV incentives , one key one is to keep running costs low , at or near night rate electricity as an incentive for X years. Holding the charging network under the cers control is therefore a key enabler. Handing it in an unregulated manner to Ecars could result in disasterious premature commercialisation

The fact is the likelihood is that an EV charger network in 10 years time could be sold off , rather like early mobile phone licenses , for a considerable sum, creating a significant return on investment for the electricity payers of Ireland that have funded the pilot project

BoatMad

future investment be encouraged for new chargers - as per BoatMad's point, the revenue from operating the EV network probably wouldn't fund new chargers, so if ESB eCars were required to install chargers at third party businesses that gain a revenue by having the charger there (say a restaurant or a B&B) the cost of future investment can be met. Of course, the complementary businesses would have to pay the install charge, but they would directly and indirectly make money by having the charger on site (by using their business for something, and also a partial revenue sharing on the charge cost)

This view is interesting , if fatally flawed.

Fundamentally longer range EVs will remove the need for short term low power destination charging . Secondly , with any serious EV uptake be, single or low multiple charge points would be utterly overwhelmed by EVs , there's no point in driving to a charger, if it's constantly in use.

Therefore the current concept of low power single or at most dual slow charger installations at shops and hotels is very unlikely to be useful with even medium scale uptake of long(er) range EVs.

Hence that model is fatally flawed. We have to be very careful about applying today's thinking and experience to 10 years hence.

Once we see significant EV growth , the current scatter gun approach to public charger installations will be totally overwhelmed. You can see it today in key pinch points and that's with terrible EV uptake.

Many if not most sites , especially petrol station based installs , are entirely unsuitable for growth , since no matter what technology, EVs will spend longer charging then filling a petrol car and hence charging sites will have to be physically large to handle the parking sites with rows of high power chargers. In this regard teslas supercharger " parks" will show the way

These sites , along with the associated shopping and dining facilities are likely to be attractive to commercialisation in themselves. The difficulties of providing such sites with the required esb power will present considerable challenges to the esb as teslas initial talks with the esb suggest.

Slow charging ( > 4 hours ) in my view will be limited to overnight , home,work and park and ride type usage patterns as longer range batteries will remove the need for intermediate charging

Realistically , if you got 350 odd kms from home, how often would you need to charge at a public charger ? I can't see mass numbers buying EV until at least that point. And until there are more models to choose from. So from 2020 you may see a lot more EV models, and range by then might even hit a real 400 kms.

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

This view is interesting , if fatally flawed.

Fundamentally longer range EVs will remove the need for short term low power destination charging . Secondly , with any serious EV uptake be, single or low multiple charge points would be utterly overwhelmed by EVs , there's no point in driving to a charger, if it's constantly in use.

Therefore the current concept of low power single or at most dual slow charger installations at shops and hotels is very unlikely to be useful with even medium scale uptake of long(er) range EVs.

Hence that model is fatally flawed. We have to be very careful about applying today's thinking and experience to 10 years hence.

Once we see significant EV growth , the current scatter gun approach to public charger installations will be totally overwhelmed. You can see it today in key pinch points and that's with terrible EV uptake.

Many if not most sites , especially petrol station based installs , are entirely unsuitable for growth , since no matter what technology, EVs will spend longer charging then filling a petrol car and hence charging sites will have to be physically large to handle the parking sites with rows of high power chargers. In this regard teslas supercharger " parks" will show the way

These sites , along with the associated shopping and dining facilities are likely to be attractive to commercialisation in themselves. The difficulties of providing such sites with the required esb power will present considerable challenges to the esb as teslas initial talks with the esb suggest.

Slow charging ( > 4 hours ) in my view will be limited to overnight , home,work and park and ride type usage patterns as longer range batteries will remove the need for intermediate charging

Is your opinion assuming that most EV's will be "long range" in 10 years time?

Tesla's supercharger model is fine for them because they dont do short range and its proprietary to Tesla cars(for now).

However, I see range as one of the price differentiators of the future. Today we have different size engines, in EV world we will have different size batteries. I cant see that changing in the med or even long term as batteries are a large percentage of the cost of the car and will remain so even with reducing battery costs.

Therefore, crystal ball turned on here now, in 10 years time we should have lots of EV's but still a very healthy percentage of those will be "low range". Not as low as today but still relatively low.... (<40kWh being the equivalent of todays 1.0lt petrol).

If that were to be true we would still need the FCP network. A few supercharger sites would hobble those cars to city driving only. Thats not reasonable. You cant put a system in place that favours the rich who can afford long range EV's.

By your own admission ESB will have issues providing these supercharger sites anyway so I cant see your view of the future happening in the next 10 years.

Maybe a few super charger sites, backed up with FCP's for the shorter range EV's and the SCP network to be scrapped... maybe thats more reasonable?

BoatMad

Given the life of a car is relatively short and even shorter for current EVs. I don't think in 20 years time that will see many sub 40-50kwh cars on the road. Many sub optimal EVs will probably be relegated to 2nd car family runabouts where long journeys take place in the longer range EV.

This is easily seen by implication of relatively expensive public charger costs. If it's 7 cents at hone and 30-40 cents at an FCP, then cheap 2nd hand low range EVs arnt going to be using public chargers !!!

Yes in a transition period , 5-10 years we will need combinations of both. The Irish charger network is very poorly designed for expansion with both physical space and electricity supply issues. ( even to install the current range of fcps the esb had to do quite a bit of grid upgrades in places and it remains a very limiting factor to expansion at those places )

In time the idea of a single charger in the back of s shoping centre will be laughable , rather like comparing a mom& pop hand pumped single petrol pump station to current motorway refuelling depots

It's ridiculous to assume people won't be charging at public chargers if they have to pay, I might disturb some existing EV owners but the majority of people will rarely use them. I can't see too many people buying 24-40 Kwh batteries especially as costs come down.

The ESB won't be the only ones installing charge points in the future either as garages scramble to accommodate EV owners, though the ESB could tell garage owners to get lost that they have no available power.....

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

Given the life of a car is relatively short and even shorter for current EVs. I don't think in 20 years time that will see many sub 40-50kwh cars on the road. Many sub optimal EVs will probably be relegated to 2nd car family runabouts where long journeys take place in the longer range EV.

So you are assuming that all cars will be "long range". I think thats a bad assumption in the timeframes we are talking about(10 years, even 15-20 years).

Sure, long term, with improved battery tech they will be all long range but surely thats a long way away... 15+ years.... given the time it takes to develop, trial and mass produce. Also bear in mind the next gen, which we are all waiting for, is likely to be in the 40-50kWh bracket and only the more expensive models in the 50+ bracket. That generation is 2018-2020 so that means we are looking at the generation after that(2025?) to provide long range for the masses. Once that is provided you then have to give it a few more years to penetrate as not everyone can afford to buy new and there will be many thousands of short range EV's still around in 2025 that need to be supported.

Just because there might be a 60kWh Leaf or Bolt or Ioniq in 2020 doesnt mean it will be affordable to the masses. It will probably be priced in the €40k+ bracket. Not a masses type car at all so it will have limited effect on the market in the near term.

For the masses you need a <€20k car and that wont have a 60kWh battery for a very long time.

Am I off the mark on my years or prices or kWh's? Maybe, but not by much, I'd say.

BoatMad wrote: »

This is easily seen by implication of relatively expensive public charger costs. If it's 7 cents at hone and 30-40 cents at an FCP, then cheap 2nd hand low range EVs arnt going to be using public chargers !!!

Why? I dont get your point?
If I have a 48kWh EV in 2020 and I pay 40c/kWh on my occasional long journey why would that stop me from using the car? A "fill" would still be <€20

I will of course minimise my use of the network by leaving on a full charge and only topping up by the amount I need to get to my destination but the network is still required for short range EV's for a long time to come.

Its not a lot different to someone who has a 1.0l petrol and they cant afford a larger car but they still need to travel home at the weekends and pay €40 on petrol. I cant see why 40c/kWh would stop them using the car. There are 24kWh cars in the UK paying almost €7 for 30mins today (which is more than 40c/kWh) and the sky hasnt fallen so I dont think your glass holds water there?

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes in a transition period , 5-10 years we will need combinations of both. The Irish charger network is very poorly designed for expansion with both physical space and electricity supply issues. ( even to install the current range of fcps the esb had to do quite a bit of grid upgrades in places and it remains a very limiting factor to expansion at those places )

Agreed. They dont have to expand in those locations though. They should look at more motorway service type locations where they can put in multiple chargers rather than the one per site they currently have, if not for reliability reasons alone.

The CER and the Dept of Transport seem to be going the way of expanding the current network based on the consulation papers. I havent seen anything in the docs about supercharger stations. So even if your point of view is the right one it doesnt look likely unless both of them do a U-turn on their thinking. I guess thats what the consultation is for!

BoatMad wrote: »

In time the idea of a single charger in the back of s shoping centre will be laughable , rather like comparing a mom& pop hand pumped single petrol pump station to current motorway refuelling depots

Agreed, single chargers is not the way forward. There needs to be multiples per site but I dont think a few supercharger sites on the island is the way to go either.

Dardania

Wish I could quote posts correctly - two browsers not working for me with it.

Either way, @isnottheword: I do believe one can have the same operational rates for EV public chargers, compared with ICE vehicles. I do acknowlegde the additonal costs that EV drivers from the last few years face (batteries dwindling, to even lower range, and the lastest one of poor reslale values) however:
EV users can & do avail of very cheap running costs by recharging at home, overnight. Indeed, a grant was given to all new EV drivers (first 2000) for this purpose? Also, cheaper tax, VRT etc...
And to clarify my position, while I think the EV chargers should "wipe their nose" operational cost wise for whoever run them (and should be charged appropriately) - I do agree that additonal investment is needed in new EV chargers. And the government funds have a part to play there (e.g. local authorities, NRA on the motorways etc.) alongside commercial entities that benefit by having EV users waiting 30 minutes at a time.
On your non ethical argument about motorist derived revenue, I agree it's wrong (including the VAT being charged on VRT and other such tricks they get up to) - however I don't think we're going to win the argument there.

@KCross: your point about asking to for the justification as to "Why we should subsidise it" is a good question to ask. The public would get antsy if, I feel, if they were subsidising people's usage of the chargers (why should Jimmy in his 151 car get free motoring, and I have to pay E10 / 100km?) However as a member of the presently non EV driving public, I would be more than happy for subsidising provision of infrastructure for EV chargers (strictly CapEx - no OpEx), knowing that I can avail of them in future, and there's no long term tax derived recurrent payment.
ANd I do agree with your point about 10 years hence, we will still see low capacity batteries.

@BoatMad: I think the perception of your comment "[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is no need for a charging network at all unless there is significant EV growth" could be interpreted perhaps differently to how you intend it? You might view it that the cost for running the charging network is so minimal that it is insignificant, and it can promote EV adoption by the masses...whereas my interpretation is: "this guy wants free motoring for as long as he can get away with it"[/font]
[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And with the costs incentive - to be fair, EV users can avail of low running costs, by charging at night, in their homes! What is the usual proportion of charging for an EV user comparing private (at home charging) vs. public charging? Heavily slanted towards charging at home?[/font]
[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I take your point about the complementary businesses such as restaurant & B&Bs with low power single chargers not really being useful...but that wasn't my whole intent there. Sure it has to be multiple chargers to make it useful - like your Tesla supercharger park idea.[/font]

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To ask a general question to all - when does everyone think the charger network should be commercialised? Thinking about it, the 2 years are up, CER needs to decide what to do...impetus that forms the basis of this consultation is an arbitrary time period. What is the better way to start making the chargers pay for themselves?
It's a hard question to answer I'd say, as a lot of people have skin in the game - but what is fair?
As perhaps one of the conditions (if it does go to ESBN) could be a graduated approach to charging e.g. 50% of the OpEx cost charged to users upon 2500 EVs registered in Ireland, 100% upon 5000 cars - something like that?[/font]

isnottheword

Dardania wrote: »

Wish I could quote posts correctly - two browsers not working for me with it.

Either way, @isnottheword: I do believe one can have the same operational rates for EV public chargers, compared with ICE vehicles. I do acknowlegde the additonal costs that EV drivers from the last few years face (batteries dwindling, to even lower range, and the lastest one of poor reslale values) however:
EV users can & do avail of very cheap running costs by recharging at home, overnight. Indeed, a grant was given to all new EV drivers (first 2000) for this purpose? Also, cheaper tax, VRT etc...
And to clarify my position, while I think the EV chargers should "wipe their nose" operational cost wise for whoever run them (and should be charged appropriately) - I do agree that additonal investment is needed in new EV chargers. And the government funds have a part to play there (e.g. local authorities, NRA on the motorways etc.) alongside commercial entities that benefit by having EV users waiting 30 minutes at a time.

We're not that far apart in our thinking. All I would say is that even with the current savings, the majority won't countenance EV ownership due to the shortcomings right now. I'm the first person in the regional town where I live to go the EV route and the 2nd at work (my employer being one of the largest in the region). Plenty of interest but many say they won't live with the shortcomings (mainly range, the need to control speed to maximise range, potential for depreciation in a rapidly changing technology and fears over the integrity of the battery over time).
That's my rationale for saying that EV use must remain significantly cheaper than ICE right now - to nurture the transition and encourage people to make the leap; furthermore, to counterbalance the need for battery replacement down the road (which will cut in to the majority of any savings in any event) and the general inconvenience current EV owners have to put up with. If that has to come from government subvention, so be it - we're not talking massive numbers in the grand scheme of things.

Dardania wrote: »

On your non ethical argument about motorist derived revenue, I agree it's wrong (including the VAT being charged on VRT and other such tricks they get up to) - however I don't think we're going to win the argument there.

Well, we can win the argument hands down - but I agree it wont stop gov.ie carrying on the practice. There are more blatant wrong-doings in gov.ie that are on-going and will need to be fixed before we ever get to making them address this one.

KCross

Dardania wrote: »

And with the costs incentive - to be fair, EV users can avail of low running costs, by charging at night, in their homes! What is the usual proportion of charging for an EV user comparing private (at home charging) vs. public charging? Heavily slanted towards charging at home?

The consultation papers say that 90% of users use the home chargers and I suspect only a small handful of those use the car for regular long journeys that require the charge network. So, yes, heavily slanted to home charging.

Dardania wrote: »

To ask a general question to all - when does everyone think the charger network should be commercialised? Thinking about it, the 2 years are up, CER needs to decide what to do...impetus that forms the basis of this consultation is an arbitrary time period. What is the better way to start making the chargers pay for themselves?
It's a hard question to answer I'd say, as a lot of people have skin in the game - but what is fair?
As perhaps one of the conditions (if it does go to ESBN) could be a graduated approach to charging e.g. 50% of the OpEx cost charged to users upon 2500 EVs registered in Ireland, 100% upon 5000 cars - something like that?

Commercialised when its possible to do so. With 2000 EV's (not users!) thats simply not possible. Just to pay the annual Opex of €4m would cost us €2k each and you can be absolutely sure that a whole load of people will stop using the network if high charges come in, which will leave those that are reliant on it paying an ever larger price to make up for that shortfall!

Clearly it cant be commercialised right now even though thats what eCars want to do.

I think they realise that the network usage is only going to go one direction and thats up as EV's become more popular and they have only one opportunity to get control of it and so they are pushing for that now. If they get control there will be no going back.

I think commercialisation, under regulation, should be tied to usage of the network, i.e. charge sessions (>10mins) completed.

Tying it to number of EV's in the country doesnt mean alot since alot of people dont use it at all. Tying it to charge sessions makes more sense as it shows viability of the network.

So, pick a reasonable price that the market will pay per charge and then divide that into your Opex costs and you have a rough idea of when it will be commercially viable. Lots of variables in that equation that are open to interpretation (what will the market pay, what is a charge session etc) but at least it bears some resemblance to the market and not just a grab of the network and charge what you like!

Dardania

KCross wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

And with the costs incentive - to be fair, EV users can avail of low running costs, by charging at night, in their homes! What is the usual proportion of charging for an EV user comparing private (at home charging) vs. public charging? Heavily slanted towards charging at home?

The consultation papers say that 90% of users use the home chargers and I suspect only a small handful of those use the car for regular long journeys that require the charge network. So, yes, heavily slanted to home charging.

Dardania wrote: »

To ask a general question to all - when does everyone think the charger network should be commercialised? Thinking about it, the 2 years are up, CER needs to decide what to do...impetus that forms the basis of this consultation is an arbitrary time period. What is the better way to start making the chargers pay for themselves?
It's a hard question to answer I'd say, as a lot of people have skin in the game - but what is fair?
As perhaps one of the conditions (if it does go to ESBN) could be a graduated approach to charging e.g. 50% of the OpEx cost charged to users upon 2500 EVs registered in Ireland, 100% upon 5000 cars - something like that?

Commercialised when its possible to do so. With 2000 EV's (not users!) thats simply not possible. Just to pay the annual Opex of 4m would cost us 2k each and you can be absolutely sure that a whole load of people will stop using the network if high charges come in, which will leave those that are reliant on it paying an ever larger price to make up for that shortfall!

Clearly it cant be commercialised right now even though thats what eCars want to do.

I think they realise that the network usage is only going to go one direction and thats up as EV's become more popular and they have only one opportunity to get control of it and so they are pushing for that now. If they get control there will be no going back.

I think commercialisation, under regulation, should be tied to usage of the network, i.e. charge sessions (>10mins) completed.

Tying it to number of EV's in the country doesnt mean alot since alot of people dont use it at all. Tying it to charge sessions makes more sense as it shows viability of the network.

So, pick a reasonable price that the market will pay per charge and then divide that into your Opex costs and you have a rough idea of when it will be commercially viable. Lots of variables in that equation that are open to interpretation (what will the market pay, what is a charge session etc) but at least it bears some resemblance to the market and not just a grab of the network and charge what you like!

Interesting way to look at it indeed.
Let's say average distance driven is 20,000km per year (a blend of petrol & diesel from this: http://www.cartell.ie/2010/11/average-mileage-in-ireland/)
If 90% of EV charging is at home, 10% is in public chargers (a small fudge - I'm sure some employers offer charges)
So, 2,000km range per driver to be publicly charged per year.
Say most charge ups get 120km range? Equates to 17 charges per driver per year.
If E4m is the OpEx cost for the network as it is, lets allow a small bump to E5m for a bit of overhead in the OpEx, to accomodate additonal users needs such as electricity, maybe even some limited investment.
At 17 charges per user per year, into E5m - the combined cost of 1 charge would be E295k. That's ludicrous - it needs to be spread among more people.
I'm going to say people would be happy to pay the same cost per km of EV range as they do for ICE range. And suggest a number of E10 ex VAT / 100km as being tolerable. So E12 (or E15 inc VAT) to charge an EV to 120km range.
That suggests near enough 25,000 users would be required, making 17 charges a year, priced at E12, to achieve E5m revenue.
However, another way of looking at it would be to recognise that if the 90% charging at home is very cheap, people might be more ready to pay a bit more than E12 ex VAT to use a public charger. In which case, the number of average users to achieve breakeven would reduce...

isnottheword

Dardania wrote: »

I'm going to say people would be happy to pay the same cost per km of EV range as they do for ICE range. And suggest a number of E10 ex VAT / 100km as being tolerable. So E12 (or E15 inc VAT) to charge an EV to 120km range.

That's fighin' talk!

Ok, you have now priced me out of my EV. My previous ICE cost me less than that in fuel than what you're proposing. I do 128KM round trip 5 days / week plus some running about locally on the w/end. That was costing me approx. €45/week in diesel.

For that, I could drive anywhere I wanted at whatever speed I wanted (within reason of course) without range anxiety - without having to find charging points, spend time waiting at charging points, hope that charging points are actually working at the time, etc.
Furthermore, I will have a big outlay when it comes time to replace battery. All the while, range is being degraded as the battery degrades.

The sum total of what I'm saying is that based on your calcs, I'd be putting that EV on the market immediately - albeit so would everyone else (ergo- I wouldn't be able to sell it). And that would be the fostering of EV from a status of stunted growth to one where it's completely dead in the water (whilst other countries with more progressive policies will be making greater in-roads due to a more progressive approach).

KCross

Dardania wrote: »

Interesting way to look at it indeed.
Let's say average distance driven is 20,000km per year (a blend of petrol & diesel from this: http://www.cartell.ie/2010/11/average-mileage-in-ireland/)
If 90% of EV charging is at home, 10% is in public chargers (a small fudge - I'm sure some employers offer charges)
So, 2,000km range per driver to be publicly charged per year.
Say most charge ups get 120km range? Equates to 17 charges per driver per year.
If E4m is the OpEx cost for the network as it is, lets allow a small bump to E5m for a bit of overhead in the OpEx, to accomodate additonal users needs such as electricity, maybe even some limited investment.
At 17 charges per user per year, into E5m - the combined cost of 1 charge would be E295k. That's ludicrous - it needs to be spread among more people.
I'm going to say people would be happy to pay the same cost per km of EV range as they do for ICE range. And suggest a number of E10 ex VAT / 100km as being tolerable. So E12 (or E15 inc VAT) to charge an EV to 120km range.
That suggests near enough 25,000 users would be required, making 17 charges a year, priced at E12, to achieve E5m revenue.
However, another way of looking at it would be to recognise that if the 90% charging at home is very cheap, people might be more ready to pay a bit more than E12 ex VAT to use a public charger. In which case, the number of average users to achieve breakeven would reduce...

There are too many holes in your calculations to discuss them!
e.g. You dont get 120km from a charge. Average would be closer to charge from 20-80%, not the 100% which you assume.
Of the 90% using their home chargers, which you have removed from your calculations, they will also use the network from time to time.
This is why Im saying it needs to be tied to usage, not number of EV's and unfortunately we dont have that data from eCars.

But I'd agree in general that we need north of 20k users on the network, maybe even 50k, to make it viable and even at that we are still only talking about covering Opex. The Capex still needs to be funded!

Dardania

isnottheword wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

I'm going to say people would be happy to pay the same cost per km of EV range as they do for ICE range. And suggest a number of E10 ex VAT / 100km as being tolerable. So E12 (or E15 inc VAT) to charge an EV to 120km range.

That's fighin' talk!

Ok, you have now priced me out of my EV. My previous ICE cost me less than that in fuel than what you're proposing. I do 128KM round trip 5 days / week plus some running about locally on the w/end. That was costing me approx. 45/week in diesel.

For that, I could drive anywhere I wanted at whatever speed I wanted (within reason of course) without range anxiety - without having to find charging points, spend time waiting at charging points, hope that charging points are actually working at the time, etc.
Furthermore, I will have a big outlay when it comes time to replace battery. All the while, range is being degraded as the battery degrades.

The sum total of what I'm saying is that based on your calcs, I'd be putting that EV on the market immediately - albeit so would everyone else (ergo- I wouldn't be able to sell it). And that would be the fostering of EV from a status of stunted growth to one where it's completely dead in the water (whilst other countries with more progressive policies will be making greater in-roads due to a more progressive approach).

What about the maybe E2.20 per 100km from home charging for the 90% of the time when you charge it? Is that not vastly cheaper than diesel?
How I'm estimating E2 is: say EV range is 120km, and the battery holds 24kWh. allow 10% for charger losses, so you need to consume 26.4kWh to charge to 24kWh capacity / 120km range. 26.6kWh at a nightrate cost of E0.10 per kWh means a charge is costing E2.64. Scale that down for 100km distance, it's costing E2.20 per 100km driven.

So say you do 700 km (incl. running round the parish at weekend) for E45 per week. Thats 36,400 km per year, at a cost of E2,340 for the diesel mileage.
Then the electric
Taking the scheme of 90% home charging to 10% public charging, and if home charging costs E2.20 / 100km, and my proposed price of E15 per 120km charge.
90% of 36,400km is 32,760km. At E2.20 per 100km, you would spend E720.72 per year.
10% of 36,400km is 3,640km. At my notional E15 per 120km recharge, you'd have 31 public recharges, costing E465.
So your total elec costs would be E1,185.72

How is E1,185.72 not better than E2,340? Again, strictly comparing fuel costs per your post.
Have I made a fundamental error in my calc (cuase this is the logic I'm applying as to whether I buy electric...)

Dardania

KCross wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

Interesting way to look at it indeed.
Let's say average distance driven is 20,000km per year (a blend of petrol & diesel from this: http://www.cartell.ie/2010/11/average-mileage-in-ireland/)
If 90% of EV charging is at home, 10% is in public chargers (a small fudge - I'm sure some employers offer charges)
So, 2,000km range per driver to be publicly charged per year.
Say most charge ups get 120km range? Equates to 17 charges per driver per year.
If E4m is the OpEx cost for the network as it is, lets allow a small bump to E5m for a bit of overhead in the OpEx, to accomodate additonal users needs such as electricity, maybe even some limited investment.
At 17 charges per user per year, into E5m - the combined cost of 1 charge would be E295k. That's ludicrous - it needs to be spread among more people.
I'm going to say people would be happy to pay the same cost per km of EV range as they do for ICE range. And suggest a number of E10 ex VAT / 100km as being tolerable. So E12 (or E15 inc VAT) to charge an EV to 120km range.
That suggests near enough 25,000 users would be required, making 17 charges a year, priced at E12, to achieve E5m revenue.
However, another way of looking at it would be to recognise that if the 90% charging at home is very cheap, people might be more ready to pay a bit more than E12 ex VAT to use a public charger. In which case, the number of average users to achieve breakeven would reduce...

There are too many holes in your calculations to discuss them!
e.g. You dont get 120km from a charge. Average would be closer to charge from 20-80%, not the 100% which you assume.
Of the 90% using their home chargers, which you have removed from your calculations, they will also use the network from time to time.
This is why Im saying it needs to be tied to usage, not number of EV's and unfortunately we dont have that data from eCars.

But I'd agree in general that we need north of 20k users on the network, maybe even 50k, to make it viable and even at that we are still only talking about covering Opex. The Capex still needs to be funded!

point taken RE e.g. You dont get 120km from a charge. Average would be closer to charge from 20-80%, not the 100% which you assume.
So in theory I would be 40% off....
I'm suggesting back-of-envelope calcs - they may not be right, but they are points that could be built upon.
For clarity, I understood that of a given EV user, they would use their home chargers 90% of the time, as against 10% with public chargers - that's not the case? The case was 90% of EV users use home chargers solely, 10% public chargers solely?

Villain

Dardania wrote: »

What about the maybe E2.20 per 100km from home charging for the 90% of the time when you charge it? Is that not vastly cheaper than diesel?
How I'm estimating E2 is: say EV range is 120km, and the battery holds 24kWh. allow 10% for charger losses, so you need to consume 26.4kWh to charge to 24kWh capacity / 120km range. 26.6kWh at a nightrate cost of E0.10 per kWh means a charge is costing E2.64. Scale that down for 100km distance, it's costing E2.20 per 100km driven.

So say you do 700 km (incl. running round the parish at weekend) for E45 per week. Thats 36,400 km per year, at a cost of E2,340 for the diesel mileage.
Then the electric
Taking the scheme of 90% home charging to 10% public charging, and if home charging costs E2.20 / 100km, and my proposed price of E15 per 120km charge.
90% of 36,400km is 32,760km. At E2.20 per 100km, you would spend E720.72 per year.
10% of 36,400km is 3,640km. At my notional E15 per 120km recharge, you'd have 31 public recharges, costing E465.
So your total elec costs would be E1,185.72

How is E1,185.72 not better than E2,340? Again, strictly comparing fuel costs per your post.
Have I made a fundamental error in my calc (cuase this is the logic I'm applying as to whether I buy electric...)

You are rarely going to be charging from 0% battery so your figures will be better than that.

Based on fuel costs an EV is a winner all the time, unless of course you are going to public charge a lot and the ESB get their way.

The issue is you have to factor in other aspects of driving an EV to get a fair comparison, Range anxiety being the number 1 issue, having to drive without the heater in Winter because of range anxiety is no fun.

You also then have to factor in the extra time taken to complete journeys and the restrictions it puts on you, we have two cars and take the diesel when traveling together but say like last weekend where my wife was away my plans for the weekend were restrained by the car range and the fact that the FCP in Carlow is out, for weeks and will be for weeks more.

Would I have gladly paid an extra €10 last weekend in fuel to be able to go where I wanted? damn yes! This is why I think for now a PHEV is the best option, until we can get 60kw battery EV's below €40k mark

KCross

Dardania wrote: »

Have I made a fundamental error in my calc (cuase this is the logic I'm applying as to whether I buy electric...)

Dont buy EV based on that logic.

We have no idea how the charging for charging debate will turn out. If could be free for years to come. It could be their original proposal of a monthly standing charge plus a per use charge or anything else in between.

If you are going to buy an EV "today" do it based on the fact that it suits your usage profile (i.e. limited public charging required) and therefore you will save on your current ICE diesel and maintenance.

Anything else around charging for charging is pure speculation and will probably be wrong and blow your calculations out of the water.

What is your intended usage profile?
How many km per day?
How many longer journeys per month and how far are they and are there chargers en-route?
Will you be able to install a home charger?

KCross

Villain wrote: »

The issue is you have to factor in other aspects of driving an EV to get a fair comparison, Range anxiety being the number 1 issue, having to drive without the heater in Winter because of range anxiety is no fun.


Would I have gladly paid an extra €10 last weekend in fuel to be able to go where I wanted? damn yes! This is why I think for now a PHEV is the best option, until we can get 60kw battery EV's below €40k mark

I would argue that if you have to turn off the heating to make your destination the EV is the wrong car for you for now. There should be a good 20% margin above your daily requirement before you buy an EV.

If you are constantly range anxious there is no joy in having the EV then and I would agree the PHEV is the best option.

If you can do your full daily drive on one home charge there is no beating an EV. No range anxiety, no charging issues(out of service or queuing or price or simply having to wait for it charge!), no diesel bill and all the upsides of the EV drive (torque, smoothness, emissions) and the gadgets (remote heating control etc).

I would not have bought an EV if I had to daily use the charge network.

isnottheword

@dardarnia: My bottom line on the matter is that gov.ie need to foster EV usage. We're in the early days. There are some major drawbacks to driving EV - so there have to be plus points to counterbalance that - if we are to get the numbers up. We all seem to agree that if we can get numbers up, there is some hope of reaching a self financing charging system (albeit it will take a big shift).

By putting an unreasonable (unreasonable in the sense that its not viable for the private user) cost on public charging now, you are limiting the use of EV's. The suggestion is made that home charging is used predominately. Of course, every EV user will use home charging as the first option - as the default option. However, if my employer doesn't have EV charging, anybody doing a commute like mine is going to be priced out of it....at a time when we should be fostering every conceivable way to get the numbers up.

Once again, if gov.ie have to take a hit on this, it's not a big investment in the grand scheme of things (by comparison with how public finances are spent otherwise). I'd compare this with how we lagged behind on broadband for years as the approach was wrong (and will be wrong once again if they hand over a monopoly to Ecars/ESB).

Ordinarily people have enough objections to going EV as it stands - don't give them more. People will tell you that 60kW vehicles are on the way. However, by the time these filter down to the ordinary joe in the 2nd hand market (to an acceptable/affordable price point), we're talking a good few years yet. In the interim, those majority of drivers should be given compelling reasons to drive 24/30kW EV's.


Lastly, a very easy measure that could be implemented - incentivise employers to install EV charge points for their employees.

KCross

isnottheword wrote: »

Lastly, a very easy measure that could be implemented - incentivise employers to install EV charge points for their employees.

I agree with all your points in that post and also the above point, which is in my submission to the alternative fuels consultation paper.

They do provide an incentive today on that point (capital writeoff in year 1) but they need to give a grant to buy the charger rather than a capital writeoff.

Villain

isnottheword wrote: »

@dardarnia: My bottom line on the matter is that gov.ie need to foster EV usage. We're in the early days. There are some major drawbacks to driving EV - so there have to be plus points to counterbalance that - if we are to get the numbers up. We all seem to agree that if we can get numbers up, there is some hope of reaching a self financing charging system (albeit it will take a big shift).

By putting an unreasonable (unreasonable in the sense that its not viable for the private user) cost on public charging now, you are limiting the use of EV's. The suggestion is made that home charging is used predominately. Of course, every EV user will use home charging as the first option - as the default option. However, if my employer doesn't have EV charging, anybody doing a commute like mine is going to be priced out of it....at a time when we should be fostering every conceivable way to get the numbers up.

Once again, if gov.ie have to take a hit on this, it's not a big investment in the grand scheme of things (by comparison with how public finances are spent otherwise). I'd compare this with how we lagged behind on broadband for years as the approach was wrong (and will be wrong once again if they hand over a monopoly to Ecars/ESB).

Ordinarily people have enough objections to going EV as it stands - don't give them more. People will tell you that 60kW vehicles are on the way. However, by the time these filter down to the ordinary joe in the 2nd hand market (to an acceptable/affordable price point), we're talking a good few years yet. In the interim, those majority of drivers should be given compelling reasons to drive 24/30kW EV's.


Lastly, a very easy measure that could be implemented - incentivise employers to install EV charge points for their employees.

Obviously if your daily commute is tight then you wouldn't buy and EV but even for the odd longer journey having to turn off heater is a real pain

Dardania

KCross wrote: »

isnottheword wrote: »

Lastly, a very easy measure that could be implemented - incentivise employers to install EV charge points for their employees.

I agree with all your points in that post and also the above point, which is in my submission to the alternative fuels consultation paper.

They do provide an incentive today on that point (capital writeoff in year 1) but they need to give a grant to buy the charger rather than a capital writeoff.

SEAI could administer it.
May be a tongue in cheek suggestion - would the present owners be happy with a grandfathering scheme for new adopters that make up the initial 2000 owners, whereby they're insulated from charges on the public network?

isnottheword

Villain wrote: »

Obviously if your daily commute is tight then you wouldn't buy and EV but even for the odd longer journey having to turn off heater is a real pain

Why not - if we can get employers (through savvy .gov incentives) to install chargers OR if there are public chargers that happen to be conveniently located for some people (by happenstance, this must apply to some potential EV users).

isnottheword

Dardania wrote: »

May be a tongue in cheek suggestion - would the present owners be happy with a grandfathering scheme for new adopters that make up the initial 2000 owners, whereby they're insulated from charges on the public network?

I'm not sure I follow? You mean the first 2k would be immune from charges? If I was selfish, then I guess I'd be saying happy days! However, I don't think that would address the general issue (getting more EV drivers on the road to the extent that a charging network could become viable or near-viable).

Villain

isnottheword wrote: »

Why not - if we can get employers (through savvy .gov incentives) to install chargers OR if there are public chargers that happen to be conveniently located for some people (by happenstance, this must apply to some potential EV users).

Based on current conditions

Dardania

isnottheword wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

May be a tongue in cheek suggestion - would the present owners be happy with a grandfathering scheme for new adopters that make up the initial 2000 owners, whereby they're insulated from charges on the public network?

I'm not sure I follow? You mean the first 2k would be immune from charges? If I was selfish, then I guess I'd be saying happy days! However, I don't think that would address the general issue (getting more EV drivers on the road to the extent that a charging network could become viable or near-viable).

That would be the idea, for a while at least - the 2k early adopters took the hit on an unproven technology, on behalf of the country, and provided proper feedback to the charge network operator on how to build a comprehensive, high quality public charge network. So in theory they could be "accommodated" with their low range vehicles, having given enough feedback to ESB eCars, and their own personal network of family & friends as to the benefit of EVs.
And if the EV network were operated on a commercial basis for people beyond the 2000 early adopters, it could gain enough revenue to fund expansion. Coupled with conntinued investment from the tax payer also.
The reason I'm asking it as a tongue in cheek question, is because the early adopters are benefiting quite a bit by having free charging, and that may be clouding/swaying their opinion on commercialising the EV charger network...

isnottheword

Dardania wrote: »

The reason I'm asking it as a tongue in cheek question, is because the early adopters are benefiting quite a bit by having free charging, and that may be clouding/swaying their opinion on commercialising the EV charger network...

Call me a cynic but you get nothing for nothing in this life. There's a reason why the network has been free up until this point. For that very same reason, I believe it should continue to be free for some time longer (albeit with control over misuse of chargers).

The time is not right yet for full on charging model.

Secondly, the time will NEVER be right to hand over the network to a monopoly!

Provide the incentives to the driving public to put up with the many downsides there currently are to driving EV - in order to wean them off ICE. As the network gets stronger and more competent and as the numbers grow, then we can look seriously at commercialisation. Move too fast and you will kill off completely what is already a take-up with very low traction.

BoatMad

Either way, @isnottheword: I do believe one can have the same operational rates for EV public chargers, compared with ICE vehicles. I do acknowlegde the additonal costs that EV drivers from the last few years face (batteries dwindling, to even lower range, and the lastest one of poor reslale values) however:
EV users can & do avail of very cheap running costs by recharging at home, overnight. Indeed, a grant was given to all new EV drivers (first 2000) for this purpose? Also, cheaper tax, VRT etc...
And to clarify my position, while I think the EV chargers should "wipe their nose" operational cost wise for whoever run them (and should be charged appropriately) - I do agree that additonal investment is needed in new EV chargers. And the government funds have a part to play there (e.g. local authorities, NRA on the motorways etc.) alongside commercial entities that benefit by having EV users waiting 30 minutes at a time.
On your non ethical argument about motorist derived revenue, I agree it's wrong (including the VAT being charged on VRT and other such tricks they get up to) - however I don't think we're going to win the argument there.

You miss the point . Its a stated aim of the state to decarbonise private transport by 2035 and to have 50,000 EV on the road by 2020 !!!!

therefore we need positive incentivisation to achieve that, one of the clear ways is to make running EVs cheaper then ICE .

when we have the national fleet largely switched over, then of course EVs will have too pay like any others. Its also true that at that time with longer range EVs , the whole need and requirement for public chargers will be different. It may be that the Gov will extract running costs from EV users in a different way then simply charging for their " fuel "

whats clear is that , at the moment with 2000 odd EVs on the road and the annual uptake in the hundreds , its not the time ti de-incentivise EV take-up in any way , in fact the opposite is true and hence public charging such remain free for the present, as well as incentives like free tolls, parking , bus lanes access etc should be considered

BoatMad

That would be the idea, for a while at least - the 2k early adopters took the hit on an unproven technology, on behalf of the country, and provided proper feedback to the charge network operator on how to build a comprehensive, high quality public charge network. So in theory they could be "accommodated" with their low range vehicles, having given enough feedback to ESB eCars, and their own personal network of family & friends as to the benefit of EVs.
And if the EV network were operated on a commercial basis for people beyond the 2000 early adopters, it could gain enough revenue to fund expansion. Coupled with conntinued investment from the tax payer also.
The reason I'm asking it as a tongue in cheek question, is because the early adopters are benefiting quite a bit by having free charging, and that may be clouding/swaying their opinion on commercialising the EV charger network...

that assumption has never been backed up with any hard data from any source in Ireland , in fact no commercial projection has been advanced by the ESB, that is in the public domain, hence all it is is an unproven assumption and we know what assumption stands for right !

BoatMad

They do provide an incentive today on that point (capital writeoff in year 1) but they need to give a grant to buy the charger rather than a capital writeoff.

I fail to see the difference, the only advantage of a grant would be to facilitate cash flow for very small business, who are unlikely to have suitable car parking spaces in the first place,

a 1 year write-off against taxes, is virtually a grant

BoatMad

The reason I'm asking it as a tongue in cheek question, is because the early adopters are benefiting quite a bit by having free charging, and that may be clouding/swaying their opinion on commercialising the EV charger network...

early adopters, by dint of their buying overly expensive EV cars with dubious residuals and short range are hardly " benefiting ".

Again you miss the point, the stated aim of the state is to decarbonise private transport , its not a matter of balancing petrol and electric drivers costs , its nearly to de-incentise petrol and incentivise EVs thats the idea of low cost running costs of EVs

Dardania

BoatMad wrote: »

That would be the idea, for a while at least - the 2k early adopters took the hit on an unproven technology, on behalf of the country, and provided proper feedback to the charge network operator on how to build a comprehensive, high quality public charge network. So in theory they could be "accommodated" with their low range vehicles, having given enough feedback to ESB eCars, and their own personal network of family & friends as to the benefit of EVs.
And if the EV network were operated on a commercial basis for people beyond the 2000 early adopters, it could gain enough revenue to fund expansion. Coupled with conntinued investment from the tax payer also.
The reason I'm asking it as a tongue in cheek question, is because the early adopters are benefiting quite a bit by having free charging, and that may be clouding/swaying their opinion on commercialising the EV charger network...

that assumption has never been backed up with any hard data from any source in Ireland , in fact no commercial projection has been advanced by the ESB, that is in the public domain, hence all it is is an unproven assumption and we know what assumption stands for right !

hard data is hard to get if the field is unknown...sometimes best judgement is all one can do...
found an interesting article related to this topic over the weekend: http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/let-there-be-light-the-day-all-ireland-went-electric-1.2845679
ESB roll out of electricity to rural Ireland was an interesting read - they had "ambassadors" in each parish to advocate electricity to everyone else.
Anyway, I've softened my position a bit post all the discussion on this thread - I'm more focused on quality of service to the end user should be number 1 priority.

BoatMad

Dardania wrote: »

hard data is hard to get if the field is unknown...sometimes best judgement is all one can do...
found an interesting article related to this topic over the weekend: http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/let-there-be-light-the-day-all-ireland-went-electric-1.2845679
ESB roll out of electricity to rural Ireland was an interesting read - they had "ambassadors" in each parish to advocate electricity to everyone else.
Anyway, I've softened my position a bit post all the discussion on this thread - I'm more focused on quality of service to the end user should be number 1 priority.

Its worth noting that the debates in the dail about the rate the ESB set for units post ardnacrusha was a source of huge debate, with many complaining that it was more expensive then the town gas systems it replaces, ( shades of the ESB today !!)

I'm more focused on quality of service to the end user should be number 1 priority.

NO, the only debate today , is that we must incentivise the take-up of EVS to reach the decarbonisation targets. thats means raising the annual take-up of EVs from hundreds yearly to 1000s yearly and even more initially. All goals should have this in mind

Thats the only issue, everything else must be subservient too that . failure to achieve mass take-up will leave EVs as a niche transport method.

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

I fail to see the difference, the only advantage of a grant would be to facilitate cash flow for very small business, who are unlikely to have suitable car parking spaces in the first place,

a 1 year write-off against taxes, is virtually a grant

My understanding is that you use the capital value to reduce your corporation tax(i.e. your profit). So you effectively get 12.5% "back" from your capital investment. Thats not enough is my point.

Thats why Im saying a grant is required where a decent %(maybe 50%) of the purchase price of the charger is paid for. I'm not talking about giving additional grants for buying a car... just the chargers, to then encourage employees to buy EV's.

Some evidence here of people deciding to look/buy at an EV because their employer has a charge point. Just the presence of the charger will make people think about it and thats a good thing... it will raise the profile of EV.

Dardania

BoatMad wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

hard data is hard to get if the field is unknown...sometimes best judgement is all one can do...
found an interesting article related to this topic over the weekend: http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/let-there-be-light-the-day-all-ireland-went-electric-1.2845679
ESB roll out of electricity to rural Ireland was an interesting read - they had "ambassadors" in each parish to advocate electricity to everyone else.
Anyway, I've softened my position a bit post all the discussion on this thread - I'm more focused on quality of service to the end user should be number 1 priority.

Its worth noting that the debates in the dail about the rate the ESB set for units post ardnacrusha was a source of huge debate, with many complaining that it was more expensive then the town gas systems it replaces, ( shades of the ESB today !!)

I'm more focused on quality of service to the end user should be number 1 priority.

NO, the only debate today , is that we must incentivise the take-up of EVS to reach the decarbonisation targets. thats means raising the annual take-up of EVs from hundreds yearly to 1000s yearly and even more initially. All goals should have this in mind

Thats the only issue, everything else must be subservient too that . failure to achieve mass take-up will leave EVs as a niche transport method.

Okay I get your point. It does need some translation so that it can be achieved...

How about:
Split the overall objective into tangible conditions, to be imposed on the charger network operator
E.g.
Objective: decarbonisation
Conditions on charge point operator: high quality of service and low price

?

I'd say with ESB original rural electrification roll out, their objective may have been to allow economic development of the country due to electricity
The conditions could have been value for cost of install and speed of deployment.

Also, quality of service wasn't evident rurally, judging by that article.

isnottheword

Dardania wrote: »

How about:
Split the overall objective into tangible conditions, to be imposed on the charger network operator
E.g.
Objective: decarbonisation
Conditions on charge point operator: high quality of service and low price

No charging for charging to continue for the moment - to be reviewed periodically. The only clause I'd add to this - is that a measure should be taken to stop abuse of chargers eg. fees to apply within X minutes of a car completing a charge (if still connected). An absolute time limit to be enforced to deal with PHEVs. In reality, they shouldn't really need to be charging - they can do so at home - and 'top up' with petrol if on longer journeys. They shouldn't be allowed to hog the network.

Lastly, review of charging infrastructure - there are issues at some charging point locations (not even taking into account issues with maintenance of the chargers themselves). Coordination with the land owners ref. need to clamp if ICE's park up in ecar parking places.

Dardania

They're having the debate in the US on this too: https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/07/us-plans-electric-car-charging-networks-for-highways/

josip

Here ya go Mad Lad
http://newatlas.com/nissan-technical-centre-europe-vehicle-to-grid-chargers/46290/

KCross

josip wrote: »

Here ya go Mad Lad
http://newatlas.com/nissan-technical-centre-europe-vehicle-to-grid-chargers/46290/

I really dont get this V2G business.
The last thing I'd want is the grid uncharging my car regardless of the time of the day or what they paid me for it.

What about if I have an emergency or just a spur of the moment decision to go somewhere and the grid has uncharged the car. It just doesnt seem like a system anyone would sign up to.

I'm sure there are a few people who are very low mileage users who could consider it but I'd still question the viability of it.

Also bearing in mind the wear and tear on the battery itself. The grid is basically getting you to wear out your battery for their benefit. They would need to give me a very good kWh rate (a multiple of what they charge me) for me to consider wearing out my battery and inconvenience for their benefit.

Where are the benefits here to the end user. I just dont see them?

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

I really dont get this V2G business.
The last thing I'd want is the grid uncharging my car regardless of the time of the day or what they paid me for it.

What about if I have an emergency or just a spur of the moment decision to go somewhere and the grid has uncharged the car. It just doesnt seem like a system anyone would sign up to.

I'm sure there are a few people who are very low mileage users who could consider it but I'd still question the viability of it.

Also bearing in mind the wear and tear on the battery itself. The grid is basically getting you to wear out your battery for their benefit. They would need to give me a very good kWh rate (a multiple of what they charge me) for me to consider wearing out my battery and inconvenience for their benefit.

Where are the benefits here to the end user. I just dont see them?

Valid points. Typical trial V2G installs use about 10 % of battery capacity and pay you for that.

At present none of the trial models show a competitive cost structure that is scalable

isnottheword

BoatMad wrote: »

Valid points. Typical trial V2G installs use about 10 % of battery capacity and pay you for that.

At present none of the trial models show a competitive cost structure that is scalable

Presumably this would only really be of benefit (to whomever operates V2G) whenever there is a mass market of EV's out there already. i.e. much further down the road.

From the point of view of the individual participant in such a scheme, I guess it would be hard to justify given the impact on wear n' tear ...unless there is some major improvement in battery tech where this becomes more and more negligible.....?