The biggest stumbling block for EV uptake

knipex

BloodBath wrote: »

Sigh. The same old straw-man arguments.

You might have a point if all of these things were mined, manufactured etc in cities or beside the path ways you walk or the road you drive. They aren't.

You don't have to breath the pollution they produce for the most part and they are still far cleaner than combustion engine vehicles.

Ah...

The its the well established "somewhere else" environmental school of thought..

Sigh...

BloodBath wrote: »

and they are still far cleaner than combustion engine vehicles

Sigh

Did I ever claim otherwise ?

Sigh

You were the one that said the only environmental impact (particulate wise) was from tyre wear.

Sigh

Orebro

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Atmospheric Environment I believe.

Link?

goz83

It's a bit nuts really, because the suggestion seems to be that around half of PM from ICEs comes from the tyres and brakes :pac:

Interesting to see that the researcher was (no financially :rolleyes: ) helped by a vested interest.

oppenheimer1

Orebro wrote: »

Link?

http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf

There are other studies as well.

I've produced research paid for by industry, it doesn't make it less valid. There was a professor from one of the British red bricks on TV recently and effectively agreed with the premise. He was arguing (like myself) that the car should be banished from cities and no exception should be made for the EV.

BloodBath

knipex wrote: »

Ah...

The its the well established "somewhere else" environmental school of thought..

Sigh...




Sigh

Did I ever claim otherwise ?

Sigh

You were the one that said the only environmental impact (particulate wise) was from tyre wear.

Sigh

Sorry for the sigh but I'm sick of seeing the same old tired arguements against EV's.

Do your research. Somewhere else yes. Away from areas that contain over 90% of the population. That doesn't make sense to you? No?

I didn't state that either. I'm talking about localised pollution. The one that has a major impact on the health of millions of people around the world.

-Edit-

Tesla is a prime example of how it should be done. Massive 100% solar powered factory in the middle of the desert. Are you really going to argue that this method is just as dirty as having hundreds of millions of combustion engine vehicles on the road. The materials to make these combustion engine vehicles are not that different outside of the battery tech. Massive fuel cargo ships are also 1 of the biggest polluters in the world. Getting it out of the ground and refining it isn't exactly clean either.

Add to that a network of clean electricity and you're looking at massive reductions in global emissions.

oppenheimer1

BloodBath wrote: »

Sorry for the sigh but I'm sick of seeing the same old tired arguements against EV's.

Do your research. Somewhere else yes. Away from areas that contain over 90% of the population. That doesn't make sense to you? No?

I didn't state that either. I'm talking about localised pollution. The one that has a major impact on the health of millions of people around the world.

-Edit-

Tesla is a prime example of how it should be done. Massive 100% solar powered factory in the middle of the desert. Are you really going to argue that this method is just as dirty as having hundreds of millions of combustion engine vehicles on the road. The materials to make these combustion engine vehicles are not that different outside of the battery tech.

Add to that a network of clean electricity and you're looking at massive reductions in global emissions.

Given that a car is stationary 95% of the time - if you average it out there is only 50m vehicles on the road at any one time - globally.

For Irelands case there are only 125k cars on the road on average even though there are 2.5m vehicles. Its for this reason that vehicle emissions are much smaller than people realise.

And in terms of local pollution - because EVs are substantially heavier they have far higher non-exhaust PM emissions than ICE. There may not be any benefit in PM terms in switching to EVs.

Sleeper12

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this before but there are tons of houses in Dublin that don't have parking front or rear. They don't have dedicated parking spaces. This would be a huge barrier in getting an electric car imo.

BloodBath

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Given that a car is stationary 95% of the time - if you average it out there is only 50m vehicles on the road at any one time - globally.

For Irelands case there are only 125k cars on the road on average even though there are 2.5m vehicles. Its for this reason that vehicle emissions are much smaller than people realise.

And in terms of local pollution - because EVs are substantially heavier they have far higher non-exhaust PM emissions than ICE. There may not be any benefit in PM terms in switching to EVs.

Total crap. I find it amazing how people can side against a technology that will massively improve the quality of life and health of millions of people and other life around the world.

Combustion engine vehicles are primitive. We've moved on.

Your arguments are straw-man pseudo science nonsense perpetrated by the oil industry.

Sleeper12

oppenheimer1 wrote:

And in terms of local pollution - because EVs are substantially heavier they have far higher non-exhaust PM emissions than ICE. There may not be any benefit in PM terms in switching to EVs.

I agree with you here. I depends how they generate the electricity. If it's wave power or wind we'll be fine but there's not much difference in burning fossil fuel in your petrol car or in the ESB generator to charge your car.

BloodBath

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I agree with you here. I depends how they generate the electricity. If it's wave power or wind we'll be fine but there's not much difference in burning fossil fuel in your petrol car or in the ESB generator to charge your car.

Yes there is. Do your homework.

oppenheimer1

BloodBath wrote: »

Total crap. I find it amazing how people can side against a technology that will massively improve the quality of life and health of millions of people and other life around the world.

Combustion engine vehicles are primitive. We've moved on.

Your arguments are straw-man pseudo science nonsense perpetrated by the oil industry.

Do you even know what a straw man is?

If its pseudo science, feel free to take it apart and enlighten us all, but I'm the one that has posted the paper from a peer reviewed journal - not you.

Sleeper12

BloodBath wrote:

Yes there is. Do your homework.

I'm not against electric vehicles. They are the way to go. They are our future. I don't own one yet as I drive 400 to 500 miles per week in a small van. I need air conditioning during the summer & heating in the winter. There's not an ev that suits my needs yet but I look forward to the day I can get one.
I'm just agreeing with another poster when they say that ev aren't as clean as some people think. There's pollution at manifacture, generating power & again in disposal.

BloodBath

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Do you even know what a straw man is?

If its pseudo science, feel free to take it apart and enlighten us all, but I'm the one that has posted the paper from a peer reviewed journal - not you.

Yes I do. Your arguments are a prime example.

Do you expect me to read the paper and review it for you?

Even if it was accurate it only focuses on a small factor rather than the whole picture which is classic straw man.

To really compare them we would need accurate calculations of all pollution caused by drilling for and refining oil vs mining lithium and other battery components. Transporting and storing fuel or electricity. The material costs and environmental factors of all of the other materials used. The methods of producing the electricity for EV etc

Not to mention the environmental factors involved with oil disasters both in transport and in drilling.

It's obvious which technology is magnitudes more damaging than the other without having to review papers on the subject.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm not against electric vehicles. They are the way to go. They are our future. I don't own one yet as I drive 400 to 500 miles per week in a small van. I need air conditioning during the summer & heating in the winter. There's not an ev that suits my needs yet but I look forward to the day I can get one.
I'm just agreeing with another poster when they say that ev aren't as clean as some people think. There's pollution at manifacture, generating power & again in disposal.

Fair enough. It doesn't make sense for you yet. Hopefully the tech and infrastructure improves enough in the next 20 years to cover most use cases. I am confident it will.

Sleeper12

BloodBath wrote:

Fair enough. It doesn't make sense for you yet. Hopefully the tech and infrastructure improves enough in the next 20 years to cover most use cases. I am confident it will.

I'm confident that it will be a lot sooner than 20 years. I believe that things will change very quickly now that the UK & Germany have laid down their plans as far as the petrol engine is concerned. It's out there now, car companies have a deadline and they will step up to the mark.
It looks like Europe will be driving electric vehicles and Trump will have Americans driving coal powered cars.

oppenheimer1

BloodBath wrote: »

Yes I do. Your arguments are a prime example.

Do you expect me to read the paper and review it for you?

Even if it was accurate it only focuses on a small factor rather than the whole picture which is classic straw man.

....

Fair enough, you can't refute the point I made.

Orebro

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf

There are other studies as well.

I've produced research paid for by industry, it doesn't make it less valid. There was a professor from one of the British red bricks on TV recently and effectively agreed with the premise. He was arguing (like myself) that the car should be banished from cities and no exception should be made for the EV.

A study aided by a vested interest - carry on selling your snake oil man.

oppenheimer1

Orebro wrote: »

A study aided by a vested interest - carry on selling your snake oil man.

Is there anything in it that you can refute? No, oh...

Nothing wrong with pointing out that EVs are heavy and dirty.

Orebro

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Is there anything in it that you can refute? No, oh...

Nothing wrong with pointing out that EVs are heavy and dirty.

Gotta go. Busy finishing a paper linking vaccines to autism.

Sabre Man

Please let's get back on topic guys.

Orebro

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160502-nonehaust.html

Among their main conclusions were:

EVs were the best alternative to diesel and gasoline vehicles across all categories. EVs have no exhaust emissions and reduced non-exhaust pollutants as well as low electricity generation associated emissions. Hooftman et al.concluded that EVs tend to emit up to eight times less non-exhaust PM than diesel vehicles and at least two times less than gasoline powertrains—findings at opposition with some of the earlier studies on the topic. (Including the earlier quoted paper by oppenheimer)

liamog

By complete coincidence the authors of the paper Victor R.J.H. Timmers and Peter A.J. Achten work for a company who create diesel engines http://www.innas.com/free-piston-engines.html

It was a peer review, so no original research. It's as much an argument to ban busses as any other vehicle, as the only premise is heavy = bad.

Orebro

And I believe Trimmers is studying for a BEng at the moment - not exactly the credentials of an authority on transport emissions.

I'd wonder if a highly respected institution like Edinburgh Uni is even aware of being associated with this.

liamog

Orebro wrote: »

And I believe Trimmers is studying for a BEng at the moment - not exactly the credentials of an authority on transport emissions.

I'd wonder if a highly respected institution like Edinburgh Uni is even aware of being associated with this.

They were taken off the paper after notifying the journal that they were not involved.

oppenheimer1

Orebro wrote: »

And I believe Trimmers is studying for a BEng at the moment - not exactly the credentials of an authority on transport emissions.

I'd wonder if a highly respected institution like Edinburgh Uni is even aware of being associated with this.

The article was published in a peer reviewed journal so his peers saw some merit in his idea. His method appears sound and indeed logical - heavier cars induce greater wear on roads and stir up more dust.

aliveandkicking

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with pointing out that EVs are heavy and dirty.

Careful oppenheimer, your mask is really starting to slip now...

Anyway:

1.Tobacco companies paying for studies to refute that smoking is bad for you,

2. Soft drink companies paying for studies to say sugar isn't unhealthy,

3. Vested interests in big oil/traditional auto paying for studies dismissing the benefits of EVs.

1 completely failed , 2 is failing big time now, 3 will undoubtedly fail.

The reason all will fail? Because the truth always wins in the end. So let oppenheimer and his fellow cranks continue with their charade if they so wish. I'll continue laughing at them as they become ever more preposterous. At this stage they are not far off calling for the reintroduction of smoky coal, asbestos piping and mercury dental fillings!

Evd-Burner

positron wrote:

There's a fast charger in the newly refurbished Lidl here in Drogheda. Not sure if there is one in the newly built Lidl in Portmarnock, will check this weekend.

There isn't

oppenheimer1

aliveandkicking wrote: »

Careful oppenheimer, your mask is really starting to slip now...

...

The reason all will fail? Because the truth always wins in the end. So let oppenheimer and his fellow cranks continue with their charade if they so wish. I'll continue laughing at them as they become ever more preposterous. At this stage they are not far off calling for the reintroduction of smoky coal, asbestos piping and mercury dental fillings!

What mask?

Just as an aside, there is nothing wrong with asbestos pipes. Once in-situ they're fine. The problems are when you go working on them, cutting particularly. Silver amalgam is still widely used in the dental industry too.

I'm no fan of smoky coal though - what they burn down in Moneypoint to keep your EVs on the road.

KCross

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The article was published in a peer reviewed journal so his peers saw some merit in his idea. His method appears sound and indeed logical - heavier cars induce greater wear on roads and stir up more dust.

It doesn't bode well when the University distanced itself! It clearly wasn't peer reviewed well enough.

Anyhow, Table 5 of his study gives some figures. If you take out the resuspension figure the ICE pollutes significantly more than an EV (26mg/km vs 16.1mg/km). Thats 60% more pollution created as opposed to stirred up!

He then makes an assumption that an EV resuspends more based on weight and hence makes up the lost ground by inflating that figure for EV.

If the pollution from the ICE didn't happen in the first place there would be much less for the EV to resuspend!


I'd question a few things in the study
- Do EV's really resuspend more based on weight. Aerodynamics would have a large part to play in that and I dont think this element of the study is in any way proven.
That portion of the study started with "Hypothesised influence of weight" and ends with "These factors together should cause increased resuspension."

He doesn't seem too confident in his hypothesis, does he? The definition of hypothesis is something not yet tested or proven!

And yet this hypothesis is the one thing that is used to slant the study against EV to make it look like ICE is on a par with EV!

- A lot of weight was added to emissions controls of ICE (DPF's in particular) but we all now know that emissions controls in real world driving are very different to what the manufacturers told us so I'd say the exhaust figures are under-estimated.... grossly!

Off the top of my head, didn't they say diesel gate had 40 times the emissions on the road than on the rolling road, not sure if that was for NOx or PM or what but the figures were horrendous.

- I dont believe the tyre wear is worse on an EV. Not based on my personal experience anyway. Its more down to tyre choice than vehicle weight.

goz83

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

And in terms of local pollution - because EVs are substantially heavier they have far higher non-exhaust PM emissions than ICE. There may not be any benefit in PM terms in switching to EVs.

You need to have your car checked out, because there must be diesel fumes leaking into the cabin. There may not be any benefit in PM terms by switching to EV? The muddied article you quoted even quoted 50% less PMs from an EV and I wouldn't be holding the article in high regard.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I agree with you here. I depends how they generate the electricity. If it's wave power or wind we'll be fine but there's not much difference in burning fossil fuel in your petrol car or in the ESB generator to charge your car.

I think the main difference is where the pollution is. A dirty diesel parked outside the school with the engine running is pumping poison onto and into oir children. An EV parked in front of it, turned on, will not poison our kids. The electricity was generated (worst case scenario) by a coal power station miles away from any built up areas.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The article was published in a peer reviewed journal so his peers saw some merit in his idea. His method appears sound and indeed logical - heavier cars induce greater wear on roads and stir up more dust.

The University wanted nothing to do with it. Being heavier does not mean the car will produce more PMs either. Have you considered why brakes last longer on an EV? I think that just might suggest less brake dust, not more.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'm no fan of smoky coal though - what they burn down in Moneypoint to keep your EVs on the road.

Better to burn it in the middle of nowhere than in a built up urban, or city. If it's not going into anyones lungs, that's a big plus.

unkel

goz83 wrote: »

Being heavier does not mean the car will produce more PMs either. Have you considered why brakes last longer on an EV? I think that just might suggest less brake dust, not more.

unkel wrote: »

Except EVs don't create brake dust most of the time they are braking

Saw an NCT test of a Tesla Model S recently (in the Netherlands, which has a population density of about 10 times that of Ireland. Suffice to say you need to do a lot more accelerating and braking there than you do here). It had done 400k km, and the original brake discs were about half worn. It was on its second set of brake pads. Tesla Model S is a 2,200kg car. This example is normal. Not exceptional.

Maybe this can give some reflection to some of the people posting in this thread who don't really understand how EVs work in practice.

BloodBath

unkel wrote: »

Saw an NCT test of a Tesla Model S recently (in the Netherlands, which has a population density of about 10 times that of Ireland. Suffice to say you need to do a lot more accelerating and braking there than you do here). It had done 400k km, and the original brake discs were about half worn. It was on its second set of brake pads. Tesla Model S is a 2,200kg car. This example is normal. Not exceptional.

Maybe this can give some reflection to some of the people posting in this thread who don't really understand how EVs work in practice.

Wouldn't the regenerative braking reduce a lot of the wear on the brake pads?

cros13

knipex wrote: »

Seriously ??

Most electricity in Ireland is from the combustion of fossil fuels. Gas mainly but Coal and oil are also present.

Actually for nightsaver (i.e. when most cars are charging) and annualised we're not that far off 50/50 renewable/fossil (hell, in several nightsaver periods in December we've hit over 80% renewable). You are also ignoring the inherent efficiency advantages of EVs, we use a (literal) fraction of the energy to do the same job.

knipex wrote: »

Your batteries, motors etc also don't magically appear. You need to look a the full lifecycle impact from design to manufacture to disposal..

On average production emissions for an EV are not inherently much more than 10% above an equivalent ICE vehicle. There are exceptions, production emissions for my i3 were 25% below an equivalent ICE vehicle (independently audited by TUV & including subcontractors and suppliers). In any case, in all but the worst of grid fuel mixes the difference is made up in a matter of months of operation.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm not against electric vehicles. They are the way to go. They are our future. I don't own one yet as I drive 400 to 500 miles per week in a small van. I need air conditioning during the summer & heating in the winter. There's not an ev that suits my needs yet but I look forward to the day I can get one.

Agreed that the current options wouldn't suit, but 38kWh eNV200... going into production in November should suit you. For reference I do 50% higher weekly mileage than you in an EV with a 22kWh pack, you'd be grand with the new eNV200...

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Is there anything in it that you can refute? No, oh...

Nothing wrong with pointing out that EVs are heavy and dirty.

Your points have been repeatedly refuted multiple times on the forum, pretty much every time you've brought them up....

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'm no fan of smoky coal though - what they burn down in Moneypoint to keep your EVs on the road.

The vast majority of nights that Moneypoint is operating it's not needed. The only reason Moneypoint stays running is that a condensing steam cycle power plant can't be turned on and off like a switch... it can take days and costs hundreds of thousands of euro to restart the plant from cold so they keep it running overnight despite the lack of demand.

In fact EVs have two effects on the market for Moneypoint's power overnight that actually means that us taking the power from the grid at these times makes the grid greener overall. One is that we provide a market for wind power that would be otherwise curtailed increasing the profitability of wind farms. Second (and acknowledged by ESB in CER submissions) is that we increase the load factor overnight reducing the requirements for capacity payments to fossil generators, in Moneypoints case the effect of this can be a reduction in the net income of the power station.

unkel wrote: »

Saw an NCT test of a Tesla Model S recently (in the Netherlands, which has a population density of about 10 times that of Ireland. Suffice to say you need to do a lot more accelerating and braking there than you do here). It had done 400k km, and the original brake discs were about half worn. It was on its second set of brake pads. Tesla Model S is a 2,200kg car. This example is normal. Not exceptional.

After 120,000km of very aggressive driving my i3's factory brake pads were only half worn according to the last report from Joe Duffy's. In the report I got after my winter wheels were swapped on after the first 12 months of ownership there was a typo... it said 70% worn for the fronts... it was actually 7%.

BloodBath wrote: »

Wouldn't the regenerative braking reduce a lot of the wear on the brake pads?

Exactly the point.

oppenheimer1

BloodBath wrote: »

Wouldn't the regenerative braking reduce a lot of the wear on the brake pads?

The study I quoted conservatively put brake dust from EVs at zero because the effect of regenerative braking on PM levels is hard to quantify.

cros13

In case you were interested opp.... today's cold startup price (changes daily) for Moneypoint is €338,073.51 and the no load price is €2,971.17/hour.

So the shutdown would need to be effectively guaranteed to be at least 114 hours (4.75 days) for it to be financially justifiable to do a cold shutdown (i.e. stop burning coal).

And that's ignoring the time it would take to start it up again.

oppenheimer1

cros13 wrote: »

In case you were interested opp.... today's cold startup price (changes daily) for Moneypoint is €338,073.51 and the no load price is €2,971.17/hour.

So the shutdown would need to be effectively guaranteed to be at least 114 hours (4.75 days) for it to be financially justifiable to do a cold shutdown (i.e. stop burning coal).

And that's ignoring the time it would take to start it up again.

Interesting cros, but not relevant to the discussion

liamog

Uhh, oppenheimer1, you're the one who introduced Moneypoint to the discussion ...

BoatMad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You need to correctly incentive installing chargers. Allow the owners of the chargers to make money. If there is a profit to make they will spring up every where

Only if the return is at commercial rates.
You are assuming EVs will pay whatever rate is necessary to make chargers viable. This is a big assumption

CruelCoin

Falcon L wrote: »

What I took from the call is that the government have lost the will to increase EV ownership.

Maybe they've realised that it's not actually cleaner?

That big battery bank got manufactured with appalling environmental impacts somewhere the other side of the world, and the power it actually uses primarily comes from oil and peat powered stations.

Whether the fumes come out of the exhaust or a smoke stack, you're still polluting.

liamog

BoatMad wrote: »

Only if the return is at commercial rates.
You are assuming EVs will pay whatever rate is necessary to make chargers viable. This is a big assumption

It only takes €30 a day based on ESBs own figures. Between subscriptions for regular users reasonable enough one off fees, and location sponsorship I'd say the business model is almost doable on the east coast.

cros13

CruelCoin wrote:

That big battery bank got manufactured with appalling environmental impacts somewhere the other side of the world, and the power it actually uses primarily comes from oil and peat powered stations.

Would you like to explain where you got any of that from?

The first part as a priority please, the second is easily dismissed as eirgrid fuel mix data is public, peat was less than 10% of grid power all of last year (and now gets lumped into the "other" segment with hydro etc in the live data. Oil was 0.5%.

The Irish grid is way cleaner than the US grids and even the most pessimistic well to wheel analyses have EVs roundly beating the average combustion vehicle in emmisions in every US market. The UCS reports include emmisions for every material including processing and mining down to the fuel sources for the mining equipment.....

I'd also point out that the primary materials used in lithium ion automotive batteries have some of the cleanest mining processes of any metals and minerals used in modern manufacturing and that most manufacturers source their raw materials from the cleaner sources in the developed world for sound economic reasons, usually to save on transport costs.

flaneur

At a policy level I would suspect the softening is due to a definite lack of electricity generation capacity and a rapid economy growth.

We need more CO2 neutral power generation on stream if we are going to really make e-cars a serious part of the transport policy here.

That’s not unique to Ireland either, relative few countries that don’t have big existing nuclear fleets (France) or that have access to lots of hydro - Canada, Norway etc or solar (Spain, much of the USA etc) actually have sufficient capacity to roll this out rapidly.

What’s worrying me is Ireland has stalled on green energy too.

We’ve been all talk and policy documents and are heading into a major CO2 fine under ageeements we committed to.

Our CO2 progress was largely down to a massive economic collapse that took out CO2 heavy construction sector stuff. All of they will be back online shortly and we are going to be hugely off target.

Also the power system isn’t going to have much room for expanding demand.

Also a reason I would question why the state has been chasing high energy use data centers they create very few jobs and little tax revenue. Our electricity supplies are rather finite and need to be focused on economically useful uses.

BoatMad

liamog wrote: »

It only takes €30 a day based on ESBs own figures. Between subscriptions for regular users reasonable enough one off fees, and location sponsorship I'd say the business model is almost doable on the east coast.

6 million a year to run the current operation , spread over about 2000 users , assuming a certain percentage will hardly use public chargers at all

That's around 3000 Euros per annum from every EV owner , I think not

.??

BoatMad

I attended the joint DTTAS, DOECA civil service task force on low energy vehicles stakeholder day.

Far from softening on EVs support , the task force is intent on recommending additional supports for EVs

* confirmation that purchase support will continue

* reducing motor tax to zero

* extending home charger support grant including consideration for those buying second hand EVs

* incentives like free parking are being considered

* aggressive policy measures to accelerate charger installations in apartments and also state offices and institutions ( schools etc )

* financial measures to incentivise installation of workplace chargers

* removal or significant reduction of BIK on company BEVs. ( including removing BIK on work charging ) this measure alone will cost an additional 20-40 million in taxes forgone

* incentives for EV taxis

* purchase guidelines for state EV purchases.


Far from going soft , they are if anything doubling down

liamog

100 Fast Chargers at €30 a day is €1,000,000 a year.
That's €500 a year, or around €42 Euro a month.

734 EVs have been registered new or imported in the last 7 months (beepbeep.ie)

Abandon the slow charge network, it's a distraction, and apparently a very expensive one.

BoatMad

CruelCoin wrote: »

Maybe they've realised that it's not actually cleaner?

That big battery bank got manufactured with appalling environmental impacts somewhere the other side of the world, and the power it actually uses primarily comes from oil and peat powered stations.

Whether the fumes come out of the exhaust or a smoke stack, you're still polluting.

Stuff and nonsense and largely " fake news "

Lithium isn't mined , it's extracted via brine " washing " Li battery factories are some of the most modern around , like LG or the giga factory

At times at night Ireland has a surplus of green energy and it's one of the goals of the CER to use home EV charging to soak up wasted green energy , like wind l where currently at night Ireland has to cull wind generation at present

stop regurgitating nonsense from biased sectors with vested interests

BoatMad

liamog wrote: »

100 Fast Chargers at €30 a day is €1,000,000 a year.
That's €500 a year, or around €42 Euro a month.

734 EVs have been registered new or imported in the last 7 months (beepbeep.ie)

Abandon the slow charge network, it's a distraction, and apparently a very expensive one.

Paul Mulvaney , chairmen of esb board , stated to the dail committee that the current charger network as managed by ecars costs 6 million per annum to operate.

Given significant numbers of EVs are doing quite small mileage with little requirement to access a paid for , public charger network , that means the running cost would be spread amongst quite a small number of EV users

The esbs own estimates suggest it will be 5 years plus to break even and that does not factor in capital requirements to expand or upgrade the network.

European charger networks are facing similar dilemmas with huge amount of gov support needed to kick start charger networks.

We are a long long way from commercial operation

liamog

The RCN report which ESB contributed to indicated that installation of an FCP was approx €80,000. At the committee they reported an installation cost of €50,000.

They're either incorrectly accounting for the capital cost of installation by not spreading it over an expected timeframe or they are grossly mismanaging the programme to be spending €6,000,000 a year on it.

Every home charger supplied is one less regular customer for a public network, pushing successful commercial operation further into the future.

BoatMad

liamog wrote: »

The RCN report which ESB contributed to indicated that installation of an FCP was approx €80,000. At the committee they reported an installation cost of €50,000.

They're either incorrectly accounting for the capital cost of installation by not spreading it over an expected timeframe or they are grossly mismanaging the programme to be spending €6,000,000 a year on it.

Every home charger supplied is one less regular customer for a public network, pushing successful commercial operation further into the future.

I can only comment on Paul mulvaneys statement, to my knowledge there is no publically available reliable costing on the current network nor any future business plan

The future is large scale mega charge parks , that are relatively few in number , backed by home , work and certain destination charging , on street charging has no future

The current network was funded as a research project , it's not an indication of correct strategy nor any sort of implementation of one.

liamog

The only thing I've not found is other network operating costs.

In the US L3 charger installations are estimated at the same approx $50,000. This leads me to believe that the previous reported capital costs seem accurate.

There is something off about the reported eCars costs, it's one of the main reasons I wouldn't trust them with full ownership of the network.

On the plus side, if my numbers are correct, maybe we should start a BoardsChargeNetwork as we'll be extremly competitive against a paid eCars network.

I was surprised at the 734 number for new/imports this year (Leaf, Zoe, Ioniq (ex. hybrid rid + I3). I think there is a very fair chance we'll hit 1000 by year end, that's a 50% increase in our EV fleet.

BoatMad

liamog wrote: »

The only thing I've not found is other network operating costs.

In the US L3 charger installations are estimated at the same approx $50,000. This leads me to believe that the previous reported capital costs seem accurate.

There is something off about the reported eCars costs, it's one of the main reasons I wouldn't trust them with full ownership of the network.

On the plus side, if my numbers are correct, maybe we should start a BoardsChargeNetwork as we'll be extremly competitive against a paid eCars network.

I was surprised at the 734 number for new/imports this year (Leaf, Zoe, Ioniq (ex. hybrid rid + I3). I think there is a very fair chance we'll hit 1000 by year end, that's a 50% increase in our EV fleet.

Can't say , in the absence of real data , all we can use is public statements

I know that many fcp installs required significant esb prep work including in many cases upgrades to the local MV infrastructure