Queen's Speech: Petrol stations to go electric

goz83

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Yes - some sort of ringfenced infrastructure loading on motor tax would work. The value would be up for grabs but I do think EV owners should be contributing to the cost of the infrastructure if as it proves, the installation and maintenance of the network is not commercially viable.

Eirgrid or similar could manage the charger network and support and energy providers could sell electricity on the network - much like the domestic energy market.

Great. Well, the current motor tax system is based on emissions. An EV is zero emission and we pay still pay €120 per year motor tax. Ring fence that!

oppenheimer1

goz83 wrote: »

Great. Well, the current motor tax system is based on emissions. An EV is zero emission and we pay still pay €120 per year motor tax. Ring fence that!

Electric power doesn't all come from windmills you know. No such thing as a zero emissions vehicle that's charged off the Irish grid.

goz83

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Electric power doesn't all come from windmills you know. No such thing as a zero emissions vehicle that's charged off the Irish grid.

Back to that argument eh? EV is zero emission. The source of electricity has very little to do with me. The power used is 100% clean and motor tax is based on vehicle emissions.

Now, are you going to go on about the emissions released to create a car?

oppenheimer1

goz83 wrote: »

Back to that argument eh? EV is zero emission. The source of electricity has very little to do with me. The power used is 100% clean and motor tax is based on vehicle emissions.

Now, are you going to go on about the emissions released to create a car?

EV drivers are not compelled to pay motor tax you know...

You are free to go and drive it on any private road you want for free.

Orebro

I really enjoyed this place while it wasn't like the main Motors forum - all good things.

goz83

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

EV drivers are not compelled to pay motor tax you know...

You are free to go and drive it on any private road you want for free.

As are ICE drivers. Was there some sort of point you were trying to make there?

oppenheimer1

Orebro wrote: »

I really enjoyed this place while it wasn't like the main Motors forum - all good things.

And I enjoyed the debate in this place until some people started to thread spoil.

Ok.

pwurple

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This perfectly illustrates the problem with providing national blanket coverage with public chargers if users are only availing of them 3 times a year with the current gen limited range models. That's why pay on access won't work.

I here proposed that chargers would be available on an ad-hoc basis but the charge here would have been €50 a go, so €450 total over three years, not bad tbh.

And who faffs about at a petrol station? 5mins, full tank, job done.

I fundamentally disagree with you, but perhaps os we are coming from different angles. I wish to improve people's quality of life, health and financial circumstances. Less traffic noise/pollution, less time wasted sitting in cars getting unhealthy, more time with family having fun.

If I was a policy maker that had anything to do with transport, my long term goals would be:
1)Reduction in population car needs. This would be achieved through encouragement of high density housing and mixed development (shops, restaurants, services) near employment hubs. Increase in targeted public transport, further reduction in unused public transport. Reduction in rural roads if there are alternative routes. Abilty to pool vehicles within groups of friends, families or small communities, with a shared ownership strategy through taxation and insurance mechanisms. Encouragement of single-occupancy small transportation (bikes, mopeds).

2) Encouragement strategy for EVs. Including incentives for home off-peak charging, workplace charging, hotel and parking station charging. In my utopia, there is no route charging required at all, only destination charging. Several companies I visit have banks of chargers, powered by their own generators (usually wind), which run the facility, charge the employee cars, and feed back to the grid. When I visit california their carparks are solar panels on a car charger port. This is ideal future state. Charger = facility requirement similar to a toilet.


And go ahead and time how long you spend driving directly home vs doing a petrol stop. I see enough stats on them... everyone underestimates.

goz83

I mostly agree with your utopia pwurple. It's just on the shared car scheme. I know there are elements pushing this, but I am one of those people who is too selfish to want to share a car.....unless I have to with my wife. I take pride in my belongings and keep them clean and in the best condition. Not everyone has that sense of pride in theirs and centainly not in other peoples belongings. Look at any car older than 3 years and the dings and scrapes serve only to prove my point.

I would love to also own a motorcycle, or even a moped. In fact, I have been meaning to turn my learner permit to a full license. An obstacle here is cost of insurance on top of everything else.

ELM327

Orebro wrote: »

I really enjoyed this place while it wasn't like the main Motors forum - all good things.

That's to be viewed as a positive though. As the popularity of EVs grow, so too will the number of detractors. Who ironically drive de tractors. (sorry that's an awful joke!!:o)

If he's here bothered enough to keep giving out in our land of milk and honey then he's obviously staunchly against EVs for some reason. And sure, if we don't change away from ICE we won't last much longer anyway given the cancers and respiratory diseases that using diesels in cities bring.

pwurple

goz83 wrote: »

I mostly agree with your utopia pwurple. It's just on the shared car scheme. I know there are elements pushing this, but I am one of those people who is too selfish to want to share a car.....unless I have to with my wife. I take pride in my belongings and keep them clean and in the best condition. Not everyone has that sense of pride in theirs and centainly not in other peoples belongings. Look at any car older than 3 years and the dings and scrapes serve only to prove my point.

I would love to also own a motorcycle, or even a moped. In fact, I have been meaning to turn my learner permit to a full license. An obstacle here is cost of insurance on top of everything else.

Well it wouldn't be mandatory! Just another option for more FREEDOM.
Young people, elderly people who use a car once a week, groups of house sharers, you know yourself. Why can't we share if it suits us?

I have a motorbike, I had a moped when I was younger, they are brilliant. Flexible, fun, don't take up much room, and you're not hauling a tonne of metal around with you, so very efficient. I used to use it May - September.. and tax/insure it for that period. but they changed the damn tax rules, so I didn't use it at all this year. Someone wants motorbikes off the road for some reason, when they should be encouraged IMHO.

The bloke who was charging away beside me at work yesterday afternoon was on a electric motorbike. He was delighted with it altogether, and I know him a bloody long time, would be an old skool petrol head back in the day.

oppenheimer1

pwurple wrote: »

I switched for these reasons in this order
1) Total cost of ownership. (Not just fuel, servicing, tax, maintenance).
2) Convenience and efficient use of my time (which is my MOST valuable asset). Never having to go faff about in a petrol station. Lack of maintenance required. Never having to defrost a car in the morning again.
3) Eco reasons
4) Technology early adopter. I've an interest in technology that improve my life satisfaction.

.

You'd really have given up all this, as well as over €1000 in fuel savings if you had to pay a subscription to the public network of €360/yr?

pwurple

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You'd really have given up all this, as well as over €1000 in fuel savings if you had to pay a subscription to the public network of €360/yr?

How many times do I need to say the same thing?

Yes
Yes
And yes again.

One more time, maybe it will get into that noggin, yes.

A subscription model is not for me.
I do not get tied into contracts of that nature.

If that was a requirement of electric ownership, it would have been a deal-breaker for me.

goz83

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You'd really have given up all this, as well as over €1000 in fuel savings if you had to pay a subscription to the public network of €360/yr?

Have you not wondered why Renault EV sales were so poor in the UK & Ireland? Or how about why so few Leafs were sold with battery rental?

People don't like being tied into contracts, especially when it eats into the monthly savings. Better to pay a higher upfront, more painful payment ( or medium term loan ) than to be gouged with monthly fees.

oppenheimer1

pwurple wrote: »

How many times do I need to say the same thing?

Yes
Yes
And yes again.

One more time, maybe it will get into that noggin, yes.

A subscription model is not for me.
I do not get tied into contracts of that nature.

If that was a requirement of electric ownership, it would have been a deal-breaker for me.

Well then it's clear you don't put too high of value in those items you list or otherwise your decision would not be rational.

Battery lease wasn't a success because the lease cost was far too high. That said they still sold in the UK.

The point in making, and I don't think it's too controversial, is that the users should be paying for their charger network - at the very minimum the upkeep of it. €25-30 is not punitive and is optional. Those that never use the public network would not need to pay and those that only use it once or twice a year could pay a high one off access charge. EV owners are by and large from higher socio-economic groups than the average in society so they can well afford to pay for their infrastructure maintenance at a minimum.

The alternative is a sparse public network centered on urban areas or no network at all. A comprehensive full public network hasn't a hope of being financially sustainable with pay on access - ever.

oppenheimer1

goz83 wrote: »

Have you not wondered why Renault EV sales were so poor in the UK & Ireland? Or how about why so few Leafs were sold with battery rental?

People don't like being tied into contracts, especially when it eats into the monthly savings. Better to pay a higher upfront, more painful payment ( or medium term loan ) than to be gouged with monthly fees.

I wasn't proposing people be gouged. The monthly fee proposed is low, and well below what most part at present for their monthly supply of diesel.

A higher up front loading would work too. Let's scrap the VRT grant and put a €2900 infrastructure loading on top of the price of the car. No one would even notice it.

goz83

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Well then it's clear you don't put too high of value in those items you list or otherwise your decision would not be rational.

Battery lease wasn't a success because the lease cost was far too high. That said they still sold in the UK.

You fail to note that it was still much cheaper to rent a battery and pay for electricity than it is to pay for petrol/diesel in the vast majority of cases. People dislike monthly fees a lot more than they like savings.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The point in making, and I don't think it's too controversial, is that the users should be paying for their charger network - at the very minimum the upkeep of it. €25-30 is not punitive and is optional. Those that never use the public network would not need to pay and those that only use it once or twice a year could pay a high one off access charge.

You're not an EV driver, so while I appreciate the point you're trying to make, it just doesn't hold water. A €25-€30 monthly fee IS too punitive, because it's not a fair system. Some would get huge benefit, while the person who uses it a couple of times per month gets shafted. It would discourage EV ownership in many cases. It's backwards thinking.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

EV owners are by and large from higher socio-economic groups than the average in society so they can well afford to pay for their infrastructure maintenance at a minimum.

You make a grand assumption right there. Look at all the second hand EV sales and/or pcp deals. You might find your assumption to be incorrect.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The alternative is a sparse public network centered on urban areas or no network at all. A comprehensive full public network hasn't a hope of being financially sustainable with pay on access - ever.

The alternative is that the Government get the finger out and fund a network to help reduce emissions by increasing EV uptake and once a critical mass is there......that's when you start charging. Don't go picking green tomatoes.

goz83

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

A higher up front loading would work too. Let's scrap the VRT grant and put a €2900 infrastructure loading on top of the price of the car. No one would even notice it.

That would kill imports....of which there are quite a lot. And it would also push the on the road price up to and over the 30k mark for new purchases in many cases. That psychological price point would again discourage many. Your ideas would at best slow EV uptake by decades.

KCross

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The point in making, and I don't think it's too controversial, is that the users should be paying for their charger network - at the very minimum the upkeep of it. €25-30 is not punitive and is optional. Those that never use the public network would not need to pay and those that only use it once or twice a year could pay a high one off access charge.

No one disagrees the users should pay. Just not front loaded on the early adopters. It clearly still needs a subsidy.

At least you are starting to think about those that rarely use it in your above statement. The optics of having to pay a high subscription that you rarely use just doesn't sit well with the public and would be a bad idea for EV uptake, which should be your goal here, not trying to make it pay for itself at this stage(only hundreds of users use the system)

There are many charging plans you could dream up but a one where you potentially have to pay €300+/yr for two or 3 charges just won't fly. You need a lesson in retail.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The alternative is a sparse public network centered on urban areas or no network at all. A comprehensive full public network hasn't a hope of being financially sustainable with pay on access - ever.

Of course it has. You just need many more users.

This isn't a lot different to, say, the initial rollout of electricity in the country. You don't charge the first few thousand users for the capital(or maintenance) cost of Ardnacrusha. Its state subsidised and a reasonable fee charged for the use of the electricity.


Fortunately your opinion is very much in the minority. Even the ESB have changed their opinion on it so hopefully whatever charge system they introduce is reasonable and in the interests of EV uptake and not focussed, as you are, on making the early adopters pay for the laggards.

oppenheimer1

goz83 wrote: »

You fail to note that it was still much cheaper to rent a battery and pay for electricity than it is to pay for petrol/diesel in the vast majority of cases. People dislike monthly fees a lot more than they like savings.

Aside from some posters in this thread, most people are rational economic actors. The problem with battery rental was that the charges were so high that the typical monthly running cost was close to diesel but had all the drawbacks of EV. A subscription to part fund the running of the network establishes early on that it will not be free forever. €360/yr would only cover 12% of the current network annual running cost so it isn't fair to say I'm suggesting the whole burden is being placed on early adopters, but since the early adopters are getting the greatest benefit they should pay something. €5 per connection if you're using the network 3 times a year but made your purchasing decision based on there being national charger coverage just won't cut it and will never be sustainable on it's own.

goz83 wrote: »

You're not an EV driver, so while I appreciate the point you're trying to make, it just doesn't hold water. A €25-€30 monthly fee IS too punitive, because it's not a fair system. Some would get huge benefit, while the person who uses it a couple of times per month gets shafted. It would discourage EV ownership in many cases. It's backwards thinking.
You make a grand assumption right there. Look at all the second hand EV sales and/or pcp deals. You might find your assumption to be incorrect.
.

No one would get shafted. The subscription would pay for the network to be there if and when you need it. Just because some would use it more than others doesn't lessen the benefit of the presence of the network for all drivers.

It wasn't me that was saying it. People can't on the one hand say EV drivers are wealthier than average when it suits their argument, then when it doesn't suggest that they're not.

ELM327 wrote: »

Generally an EV charging is an ideal customer for a MSA/service station, captive for 20-30 minutes and generally from a good socio-economic background with disposable income, so predisposed to purchasing overpriced coffee when they wait to charge!

goz83 wrote: »

The alternative is that the Government get the finger out and fund a network to help reduce emissions by increasing EV uptake and once a critical mass is there......that's when you start charging. Don't go picking green tomatoes.

The government has built a network of 50% national coverage. I have said I wouldn't be wholly bothered if they funded the national roll out but that maintenance cost should be part funded by the users but that part funding should be a substantial but not punitive individual contribution, where €360/yr seems fair.

The present system you have people engaging in unsustainable behaviours, (if we were all doing 60k km/yr the country would be forever gridlocked) without paying any direct contribution for the infrastructure which allows them to abuse road infrastructure put in place for everyone's benefit. While a subscription won't stop such behaviours, it will at least transfer part of the cost of that behaviour onto the group of drivers engaging in it, rather than the rest of society.

pwurple

Oppenheimer1, what is your objective here?

I have gone to some lengths to explain in basic terms the big picture model, the individual reasoning, and everything in between. You've failed to take any of it on board, and are instead slinging around insults.

What are you actually trying to achieve? ( Because it looks remarkably like trolling. )

Where is your evidence that adding additional risk and cost to a product at innovator stage of market acceptance is beneficial?

goz83

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The problem with battery rental was that the charges were so high that the typical monthly running cost was close to diesel but had all the drawbacks of EV.

I agree. It was and is too high. It has left many EV owners in a position where they can't sell their car. It did make the cars much cheaper to buy though and the lower oberall repayments were attractive for a while. That's where short term thinking gets you though.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

A subscription to part fund the running of the network establishes early on that it will not be free forever. €360/yr would only cover 12% of the current network annual running cost so it isn't fair to say I'm suggesting the whole burden is being placed on early adopters, but since the early adopters are getting the greatest benefit they should pay something. €5 per connection if you're using the network 3 times a year but made your purchasing decision based on there being national charger coverage just won't cut it and will never be sustainable on it's own.

Anyone buying an EV knows that the network will not be free to use for long. That does not need to be established. Your one size fits all subscription does not fit all. It would make a whole lot more sense to offer people different plans, depending on their use of the network, starting from €5 and up to €30 (or more) per month. If it were up to me, I would suggest a pay by use system. Any subscription payments creates an unfair system and encourages bad behaviour.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

No one would get shafted. The subscription would pay for the network to be there if and when you need it. Just because some would use it more than others doesn't lessen the benefit of the presence of the network for all drivers.

The people using it a couple of times a month would be shafted. The people using it a few times per day would be the beneficiaries.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It wasn't me that was saying it. People can't on the one hand say EV drivers are wealthier than average when it suits their argument, then when it doesn't suggest that they're not.

You did say it though. Maybe someone else brought it up first, but you made the suggestion, as your own, in the post I quoted. It suited you to make the suggestion and I put forward that it's BS. I'm certainly not rolling around in a bed of cash. Between myself and my wife, we own 2 EVs and the combined cost of them both, including cost of going to the UK for the first one is under 18k. We sold our petrol cars for just over 2k combined, so it works out at under 8k per car. That's economical sense....not rich mans land.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The government has built a network of 50% national coverage. I have said I wouldn't be wholly bothered if they funded the national roll out but that maintenance cost should be part funded by the users but that part funding should be a substantial but not punitive individual contribution, where €360/yr seems fair.

The present system you have people engaging in unsustainable behaviours, (if we were all doing 60k km/yr the country would be forever gridlocked) without paying any direct contribution for the infrastructure which allows them to abuse road infrastructure put in place for everyone's benefit. While a subscription won't stop such behaviours, it will at least transfer part of the cost of that behaviour onto the group of drivers engaging in it, rather than the rest of society.

The cost might seem fair to someone who burns cash on Diesel. Working off black and white figures, yes, there is some logic in what you say. However, you don't get, or don't want to get that slapping on any sort of charging for the network now would be a really bad idea. I would argue that more EV drivers on the road is beneficial to society, as it means less one less smoking tail pipe in oir communities. I'm happy if my taxes are subsidising something like that.

Gridlock is no fun to anyone, so whether you are driving ICE, or EV, you won't go driving for fun if it means driving in heavy traffic. I don't follow your argument there.

You also seem to have skipped the part where I spoke about EV drivers paying motor tax for vehicles that are emissions free. We already pay a fee as I see it toward the network.

oppenheimer1

pwurple wrote: »

Oppenheimer1, what is your objective here?

I have gone to some lengths to explain in basic terms the big picture model, the individual reasoning, and everything in between. You've failed to take any of it on board, and are instead slinging around insults.

What are you actually trying to achieve? ( Because it looks remarkably like trolling. )

Where is your evidence that adding additional risk and cost to a product at innovator stage of market acceptance is beneficial?

I have never questioned your bona fides, so please don't question mine. The point I'm trying to get across is that a pay on access system of charging will never work for EV's no matter how many are on the road. This is because as EV numbers increase so will range, which reduces the need for chargers and therefore will never be viable as a business. But I also think the users of the network should pay or at least make a meaningful contribution to it's running cost until there are enough users to make the system self (although I doubt it can be). This is not radical thinking - and certainly not controversial. I mean if EV drivers cannot handle this modest charge, road pricing (4-6c/km) will never be introduced. The constant refrain will be "it's not the right time, do you want to kill the EV?"

Hold on now, I haven't insulted anyone let alone been throwing them around. My posts may point out flaws in others logic but are always respectful. If anyone has had had to deal with abuse it is me.

If you think I'm trolling, report my posts.

KCross

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The point I'm trying to get across is that a pay on access system of charging will never work for EV's no matter how many are on the road. This is because as EV numbers increase so will range, which reduces the need for chargers and therefore will never be viable as a business.

Why won't it work? Have you worked out the numbers or just a gut feeling you have? Have you modelled it for 100k EV's, 500k EV's etc? Can you share the numbers?

Are all EV networks around the world doomed then and they really should listen to oppenheimer and start a subscription model?!


As range increases it will reduce the need for access to the network for some people. However, as range increases it brings more users like yourself into the fray. A real world 300km EV still needs charging if you want to do Cork-Dublin return or if you are a travelling salesman etc.

There is also the issue of those in apartments who can't install an EVSE so they will need regular access to the network but they won't come into the equation until longer range EV's are available so they only need the network, say, once a week.


I'd also expect more commercial vehicles to start being used.

You're continuing to put forward the subscription idea based on how things are today. You need to have longer vision if you want EV's to succeed.

We have 70 FCP's today. There are only a few hundred users out of 2800 EV's and there is already queueing in places. Ramp that up to 100s of thousands of users and you still think the network can't stand on its own feet?!!!!

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But I also think the users of the network should pay or at least make a meaningful contribution to it's running cost until there are enough users to make the system self (although I doubt it can be).

So you are advocating hitting the early adopters for the benefit of the laggards!

That is really short sighted of you.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This is not radical thinking - and certainly not controversial.

It certainly is controversial. Aren't you feeling the push back!?
Did you not notice the push back when the ESB tried to introduce a subscription model!

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I mean if EV drivers cannot handle this modest charge, road pricing (4-6c/km) will never be introduced. The constant refrain will be "it's not the right time, do you want to kill the EV?"

Not at all, I think everyone on here knows charging is coming. You simply ring fence it until you hit a certain penetration level and then there is no "its not the right time".