eCars get €10m to develop 150kW charging network

liamog

Kramer wrote: »

To ensure whichever charger he needs to use on his only trip outside the M50 each year, is available .

Actually, it seems all Tesla superchargers throughout Europe cost between 25c & 35c per kWh.
Fair.

https://www.tesla.com/en_EU/support/supercharging

Makes sense for Tesla to charge per kWh as they have a more consistent range of charging speeds. 35c/kWH works out at about 24c/min if you scale that down to a 50kW charger from 120kW.

liamog

discostu1 wrote: »

So the ESB provide most of the Charging in London and for Taxis Coventry I don't know the cost of charging there but would be interesting. Also EasyGo the lads who provide the Lidl chargers have a charging framework I don't know what it is but again if eCars under cut them and others significantly we are back to a Monopoly and I suspect possibly a court case

They charge 29p/kWh in the UK or 25p/kWh with a £4 per month subscription.
Easygo charge 35c/min for their DC charger in Monaghan but have a €1.50 pay&go connection fee.

unkel

liamog wrote: »

I can't see a reason economic, or social, to set the fee at such a high level for a network that is being built by funds from general taxation to decrease CO2 emissions from private transportation.

This is true.

Not sure how legal all this is though. Wasn't there an issue around this and was ownership to be transferred to another body or even sold off? What happened to that?

If you keep a state subsidised charging network, it will never have real competition (unless from other subsidised networks like Ionity and Tesla). And even if you do keep it state subsidised, it can only be a temporary measure. The price will shoot up once EVs become more mainstream (and the price of diesel / petrol will have rocketed because of carbon taxes)

Mike9832

liamog wrote: »

What's your goal in charging 50c/min?

I can't see a reason economic, or social, to set the fee at such a high level for a network that is being built by funds from general taxation to decrease CO2 emissions from private transportation.

So people buy an EV fit for purpose

Motorway driving alot buy a Tesla, Audi, VW ID, Mercedes etc

You dont cut a field with a corded electric lawnmower you buy a proper a lawnmower

Need to get not fit for purpose slow charging Leafs off the network

They have a place, just not clogging up chargers for long range/fast charging EVs designed for motorway travel

Need to think about future

Its sad but stuff like Leafs are the past and they had a great run

liamog

50c/min means even the most efficient vehicle available to buy in Ireland (Ioniq) costs more to charge on a public DC charger per km than it does to run a petrol car.

That's €30 for 50kWh of electricity or 60c/kWh, approx 3.5 times home day electricity rates.

Kramer

liamog wrote: »

50c/min means even the most efficient vehicle available to buy in Ireland (Ioniq) costs more to charge on a public DC charger per km than it does to run a petrol car.

Yes, but if you don't need to use the fast chargers often, or ever even, then who cares?
It seems to me that many urbanites (Dubs ), who infrequently need to use fast public chargers are in favour of extortionate fees, justified by the sole reason of profitability for the operator. This profitability will ensure competition & take the burden off the tax payer.

Reasonable arguement until you realise very few will use the network with that level of charging, ultimately curtailing EV adoption & leading to most going back to ICE.

Paddy The Pirate

Oh fan fckintastic.. "green" energy ahoy.. it's bllsht and you all know it. All these "green" cars powered by coal and gas, with horrible stripmining for the lithium and slavery too..

liamog

unkel wrote: »

This is true.

Not sure how legal all this is though. Wasn't there an issue around this and was ownership to be transferred to another body or even sold off? What happened to that?

If you keep a state subsidised charging network, it will never have real competition (unless from other subsidised networks like Ionity and Tesla). And even if you do keep it state subsidised, it can only be a temporary measure. The price will shoot up once EVs become more mainstream (and the price of diesel / petrol will have rocketed because of carbon taxes)

My guess is once the number of EVs reaches a similar volume to Norway we'll see commercial rates become viable. Fortum charges 2.5nok/min for 50kW and 3.5nok/min for 180kW. I'm not sure how profitable their network is at that price.

bk

Paddy The Pirate wrote: »

Oh fan fúckintastic.. "green" energy ahoy.. it's búllshīt and you all know it. All these "green" cars powered by coal and gas, with horrible stripmining for the lithium and slavery too..

Clearly the Diesel fumes are getting to your brain

Kramer

bk wrote: »

Clearly the Diesel fumes are getting to your brain

Think he might be running on ethanol actually - very green .

unkel

liamog wrote: »

My guess is once the number of EVs reaches a similar volume to Norway we'll see commercial rates become viable. Fortum charges 2.5nok/min for 50kW and 3.5nok/min for 180kW. I'm not sure how profitable their network is at that price.

Fastned has been using the same commercial rates for a few years now. They did so even when EV penetration in the Netherlands was lower than it is in Ireland today. It still made commercial sense

They obviously didn't make a profit though. But that's par for the course in disruptive businesses. Amazon only ever made losses for what, nearly 20 years or so? :eek:

I'm really not keen on the tax payer paying for the charging infrastructure and subsidising the cost of fuel. That really is not an efficient way to spend tax payers money.

liamog

unkel wrote: »

Fastned has been using the same commercial rates for a few years now. They did so even when EV penetration in the Netherlands was lower than it is in Ireland today. It still made commercial sense

They obviously didn't make a profit though. But that's par for the course in disruptive businesses. Amazon only ever made losses for what, nearly 20 years or so? :eek:

I'm really not keen on the tax payer paying for the charging infrastructure and subsidising the cost of fuel. That really is not an efficient way to spend tax payers money.

I agree with the second half, they shouldn't subsidise the "fuel", but for the moment the charging infrastructure is a major blocker to EV adoption. Private vehicles are one of the key areas we can move the dial on when it comes to our national CO2 emissions. Removing the blocker by funding the infrastructure is a necessary evil.

Fastned's key asset was getting the early real estate at service areas. Same as Ecotricity were able to manage in the UK. The Dutch having been somewhat better at exploiting an oppurtunity than the Brits.

unkel

liamog wrote: »

they shouldn't subsidise the "fuel", but for the moment the charging infrastructure is a major blocker to EV adoption. Private vehicles are one of the key areas we can move the dial on when it comes to our national CO2 emissions. Removing the blocker by funding the infrastructure is a necessary evil.

Agree with your sentiments. Pitch that against the huge fines we are imminently facing. I can live with the tax payer very quickly paying for a much better fast charging network and thus following your logic only charging say 25c/minute for the moment

A far more efficient way to spend tax payers money to reduce emissions is a feed in tariff for renewables. A perfect solution. Pay householders / businesses less per kWh than it would cost the state to produce the same kWh. Win - win

liamog wrote: »

Fastned's key asset was getting the early real estate at service areas.

There were public auctions and they won many of them. Which means they did pay the full commercial values for the sites. Agree that those sites were key to their success. I saw an interview with one of the founders and I got the impression he was most proud of getting the sites alright

Zenith74

unkel wrote: »

A far more efficient way to spend tax payers money to reduce emissions is a feed in tariff for renewables. A perfect solution. Pay householders / businesses less per kWh than it would cost the state to produce the same kWh. Win - win

When I was debating home solar myself and looking into why there is no FIT in Ireland I came across this - https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/energy/consultations/Documents/28/consultations/Economic%20Analysis%20to%20underpin%20the%20new%20RESS%20in%20Ireland.pdf.

Page 36 has an interesting chart showing the Euro cost per MWh generated (essentially the efficiency of tax money spent) for various types of renewable energy generation projects.

Home PV solar: €221/MWh
Large scale PV solar: €121/MWh
Large onshore wind: €89/MWh
Large hydro (repowering): €32/MWh

Based on that home solar and FITs etc. are quite an inefficient way to spend tax money, it would be much better for the government incentivise large scale solar/wind projects.

There are also some interesting social issues discussed in the paper, around who can afford to put in home solar and the impact that has on poorer people who may not be able to afford it. Also the risk that poorer people end up paying higher standing charges to maintain the grid if those that can afford home solar reduce contributions.

An interesting read if this is your thing I though .

Black_Knight

Zenith74 wrote: »

There are also some interesting social issues discussed in the paper, around who can afford to put in home solar and the impact that has on poorer people who may not be able to afford it. Also the risk that poorer people end up paying higher standing charges to maintain the grid if those that can afford home solar reduce contributions.

An unfortunate cycle to be stuck in. Those with money can upgrade their home electronics to be more efficient rated product, thus using less electricity. They can upgrade their windows, doors, and insulation to provide a warmer home and thus using less oil/gas/electricity. Now they can install PV or get an electric car (or both) and get even more savings.

Unfortunately for the less well off, it's nothing new.

Gumbo

Black_Knight wrote: »

Unfortunately for the less well off, it's nothing new.

That's why we have a grant system to off set some cost.
For those less well off, we have the Warmer Homes Scheme which provides complete house upgrade for free, I'm talking EWI, Ventilation, Roof etc

Then there's the people in social housing. Its not their house to upgrade, but eventually the Local Authorities will upgrade its stock on a rolling basis. It has already started.

irishgrover

Zenith74 wrote: »

......
There are also some interesting social issues discussed in the paper, around who can afford to put in home solar and the impact that has on poorer people who may not be able to afford it. Also the risk that poorer people end up paying higher standing charges to maintain the grid if those that can afford home solar reduce contributions..... ..

this very much concerns me from a social equity point of view. It's all well and good having incentives and grants and whatnot towards greener energy (carrot) and having increased carbon taxes (stick). However the reality is that the majority, if not all, of the incentives are currently out of reach of a huge number of society whereas the still get beaten with the same stick....

Only a subset of society can affort an EV to avail of grants, same with grants for newer boilers, or better insulation, or solar installs etc...... but everyone will get hit by carbon taxes... The gap will widen because statistically richer people live in newer, better insulated, greaner houses... and poorer people live in less efficient conditions and are therefore more exposed to higher carbon usage etc

creedp

unkel wrote: »

Fastned has been using the same commercial rates for a few years now. They did so even when EV penetration in the Netherlands was lower than it is in Ireland today. It still made commercial sense

They obviously didn't make a profit though. But that's par for the course in disruptive businesses. Amazon only ever made losses for what, nearly 20 years or so? :eek:

I'm really not keen on the tax payer paying for the charging infrastructure and subsidising the cost of fuel. That really is not an efficient way to spend tax payers money.

The taxpayer is massively subsidising EVs already and I didn't hear anyone complain about the €10k taxpayer subsidy they got when buying a brand new shiny EV or the €600 grant to install an EV charger, or the reduce tolls, etc.

The taxpayer is also subsidising people to install new more efficient home heating system, retrofit their houses with higher levels of insulation, install solar panels, etc as this is seen as positive for the environment etc, etc.

The taxpayer is also massively subsidising fuel for farmers as this is seen as, I think, an essential method to reduce food prices.

In any case there seems to be a reasonably popular opinion that EV owners, particularly those with older vehicles, should not be subsidised and indeed should be fleeced when using one form of charging, i.e. FCPs but should continue to be subsidised by the taxpayer when using SCPs.

samih

kanuseeme wrote: »

As a Phev owner .. .my car only charges at 17 Kw max and tapers down the closer it gets to 80% and it then stops, I have restarted it and it continues to charge with less Kw's , I forget exactly but around 3.5 kw at 95%.

Have the thought ever occurred to you that there is a reason why your car stops charging at 80%? The car is basically telling you that it's pointless to wait another 30 minutes to put that final 2 kWh/35c daytime rates worth of electricity but do the last 4 kilometers by engine instead. If the engine consumed 10 liters/100 km you would save 0.4 liters of petrol which is about 60 cent. Do you really only value your time at 1.20 an hour?

The cost savings on PHEV are so small in general that I again personally I wouldn't even bother to save a few euro worth of petrol by plugging in waiting at a quick charger at some drab garage when you can just drive somewhere else and either plug it in in some town instead or just drive back home by petrol and plug it in there at the end of the day.

If ecars decides to go for per minute billing on rapid chargers this would make trickle charging pointeless (as paying 6 yoyo for 35c of electricity doesn't rightly make any sense) and thus leave the chargers free for BEVs that could take in 20 kWh or more in that 30 minutes and allows the drivers to continue their journey for another 150 or so kilometers instead of PHEVs 4 km gained in the same time frame.

unkel

Zenith74 wrote: »

Based on that home solar and FITs etc. are quite an inefficient way to spend tax money

You're not getting the point of FIT. As a government you pay the homeowner only a fraction of the costs of their solar install. You pay a pittance. Like 5 or 6c/kWh, so just €50-€60/MWh, not much more than the wholesale costs other electricity during the day. Enough for many homeowners though to decide to install. Much better money spent than just giving people the current €3,800 subsidy (which is largely going into the profits of the installer, same as the first time buyers grant for houses during the boom, etc.)

And you don't have any responsibility for the production, that lies solely with the home owner. And their install of PV gives you back a large whallop of cash to start with (VAT) before you even pay out a cent in FIT

Agree with the hydro though, we could have 100% renewable electricity fro the whole country from just one massive man made lake at a high site on the west coast. Pump water up 200m with wind when it is windy and drop it down 24/7 for electricity generation

unkel

creedp wrote: »

The taxpayer is massively subsidising EVs already and I didn't hear anyone complain about the €10k taxpayer subsidy they got

Yes this is true. Without this subsidy almost nobody would have bought an EV a few years ago. We need to rapidly bring this down to zero over the next few years as EVs are going to be mass produced much cheaper than they have been. There are already signs that new EVs are overpriced, like a near €40k small, poor spec crossover like the Kona EV, so we are already sending a lot of this subsidy to the car manufacturers

It's essential that we get as many people buying EVs as possible, but of course only using efficient tax money for this. Free motortax and free tolls would be good ways of spending tax money. It costs relatively very little and in this country they would give huge bragging rights in the pub, making everybody want to jump on the band wagon, even more so than people jumped on the diesel bandwagon 10 years ago. And of course not just a carrot but a massive stick in the form of rapidly increasing costs of fossil fuels and all taxes associated with fossil cars

who_ru

unkel wrote: »

Yes this is true. Without this subsidy almost nobody would have bought an EV a few years ago. We need to rapidly bring this down to zero over the next few years as EVs are going to be mass produced much cheaper than they have been. There are already signs that new EVs are overpriced, like a near €40k small, poor spec crossover like the Kona EV, so we are already sending a lot of this subsidy to the car manufacturers

It's essential that we get as many people buying EVs as possible, but of course only using efficient tax money for this. Free motortax and free tolls would be good ways of spending tax money. It costs relatively very little and in this country they would give huge bragging rights in the pub, making everybody want to jump on the band wagon, even more so than people jumped on the diesel bandwagon 10 years ago. And of course not just a carrot but a massive stick in the form of rapidly increasing costs of fossil fuels and all taxes associated with fossil cars

exactly - i'm conscious of my carbon foot print like the next person but i'm not going to be forking out €40k for a bang average EV in this lifetime that's for sure.

kanuseeme

samih wrote: »

Have the thought ever occurred to you that there is a reason why your car stops charging at 80%? The car is basically telling you that it's pointless to wait another 30 minutes to put that final 2 kWh/35c daytime rates worth of electricity but do the last 4 kilometers by engine instead. If the engine consumed 10 liters/100 km you would save 0.4 liters of petrol which is about 60 cent. Do you really only value your time at 1.20 an hour?

The cost savings on PHEV are so small in general that I again personally I wouldn't even bother to save a few euro worth of petrol by plugging in waiting at a quick charger at some drab garage when you can just drive somewhere else and either plug it in in some town instead or just drive back home by petrol and plug it in there at the end of the day.

If ecars decides to go for per minute billing on rapid chargers this would make trickle charging pointeless (as paying 6 yoyo for 35c of electricity doesn't rightly make any sense) and thus leave the chargers free for BEVs that could take in 20 kWh or more in that 30 minutes and allows the drivers to continue their journey for another 150 or so kilometers instead of PHEVs 4 km gained in the same time frame.

I never thought about it, I presumed it was to protect the battery, as I will not waste my time looking for it on google. I will assume your right.

As for my time, its my time if I want to wait, I will wait, the other option is waiting while not charging at some other drab place. To save 1.20 you have to earn 1.20 and pay tax on it also spend money to get to your place of work, take care of the pennies the pounds will look after themselves.

To be honest I do not have the full cost of my phev per km, but I do know the petrol cost , at just 3 cent a km, my previous Lexus ct was around 5.6 cent a km when I only used self charging fluid. I honestly hope to improve on those figures, but if charging for charging comes in it will reduce my savings.

I do not understand why some of you, want to bring it in so fast, reading this site http://www.moneyguideireland.com/electric-cars-facts-figures.html the gov wants 10% of cars to be electric, it will be difficult to achieve that if there is not an incentive .

I made suggestions on how to improve things,like to share the power between 4 cars, each taking the max in turn, would you really miss 3.5 kwh from your 20 kwh .

Your best was to suggest that I use petrol, which is bad I believe.

Others are complaining about older leafs not being able take the max charge available, how much complaining will you do when your car is comparable to those leafs?

As for my few kms are they any different from your kms when using electric?

I did not complain about waiting in a drab garage, but I do not have to complain about waiting either that is why I bought my car.

I do not know how many fast chargers there are, I do not know how many dino pumps either, but there will have to be more chargers to cater for the growing numbers switching to electric, and I believe charging for charging will slow it down.

samih

kanuseeme wrote: »

I never thought about it, I presumed it was to protect the battery, as I will not waste my time looking for it on google. I will assume your right.

As for my time, its my time if I want to wait, I will wait, the other option is waiting while not charging at some other drab place. To save 1.20 you have to earn 1.20 and pay tax on it also spend money to get to your place of work, take care of the pennies the pounds will look after themselves.

To be honest I do not have the full cost of my phev per km, but I do know the petrol cost , at just 3 cent a km, my previous Lexus ct was around 5.6 cent a km when I only used self charging fluid. I honestly hope to improve on those figures, but if charging for charging comes in it will reduce my savings.

I do not understand why some of you, want to bring it in so fast, reading this site http://www.moneyguideireland.com/electric-cars-facts-figures.html the gov wants 10% of cars to be electric, it will be difficult to achieve that if there is not an incentive .

I made suggestions on how to improve things,like to share the power between 4 cars, each taking the max in turn, would you really miss 3.5 kwh from your 20 kwh .

Your best was to suggest that I use petrol, which is bad I believe.

Others are complaining about older leafs not being able take the max charge available, how much complaining will you do when your car is comparable to those leafs?

As for my few kms are they any different from your kms when using electric?

I did not complain about waiting in a drab garage, but I do not have to complain about waiting either that is why I bought my car.

I do not know how many fast chargers there are, I do not know how many dino pumps either, but there will have to be more chargers to cater for the growing numbers switching to electric, and I believe charging for charging will slow it down.

At the moment there is a variable, often quite small financial incentive for many to choose to wait at the chargers but it is not sustainable for anybody to use expensive equipment (=the charger) to trickle charge a car that could more effectively be driven on petrol whle the fully electric cars cannot when they are used on trips beyond the range.

You as a PHEV driver should absolutely use the chargers as much as possible but be mindful that you are not stuck at the drab petrol station if you chose not to unlike the 2011 LEAF driver waiting behind you that will need the charger to get where they are going (unless they are locals and freeloading).

If you find yourself continuosly looking to charge at the public chargers maybe you have chosen the wrong tool for the job and should consider getting a full BEV instead. I mean you did chose a hybrid so that you don't need to rely on charging on the long trips, right? The same applies to also the BEV drivers, i.e. if you currently rely on the public charging network several times a week the pricing on the chargers should encourage you to buy for example a longer range BEV to cater for you normal routes.

The public DC charging pricing should encourage every driver to use private charging as much as possible so that the public stations can be used for their intended purpose of enabling driving beyond the range of the battery in timely fashion. It doesn't make sense to encourage anybody to plug in for extended time to trickle charge a battery at a very small fraction of the full capacity of the limited and expensive resource of a DC charger.

kanuseeme

samih wrote: »

At the moment there is a variable, often quite small financial incentive for many to choose to wait at the chargers but it is not sustainable for anybody to use expensive equipment (=the charger) to trickle charge a car that could more effectively be driven on petrol whle the fully electric cars cannot when they are used on trips beyond the range.

You as a PHEV driver should absolutely use the chargers as much as possible but be mindful that you are not stuck at the drab petrol station if you chose not to unlike the 2011 LEAF driver waiting behind you that will need the charger to get where they are going (unless they are locals and freeloading).

If you find yourself continuosly looking to charge at the public chargers maybe you have chosen the wrong tool for the job and should consider getting a full BEV instead. I mean you did chose a hybrid so that you don't need to rely on charging on the long trips, right? The same applies to also the BEV drivers, i.e. if you currently rely on the public charging network several times a week the pricing on the chargers should encourage you to buy for example a longer range BEV to cater for you normal routes.

The public DC charging pricing should encourage every driver to use private charging as much as possible so that the public stations can be used for their intended purpose of enabling driving beyond the range of the battery in timely fashion. It doesn't make sense to encourage anybody to plug in for extended time to trickle charge a battery at a very small fraction of the full capacity of the limited and expensive resource of a DC charger.

I could go into this more, but I am trying to say that more chargers are needed, better designed, to make full use of expensive equipment, by allowing a car to trickle charge, a BEV might need 4 km to get home and 3 other cars getting what they need at the same time.

Charging for charging is not going to help the switch to E.V but it might help some feel better that chargers are free from phev's, locals, freeloaders. would they have bought one if it was not free?

There is no car at the moment that is reasonable priced that can replace a 4 year old outlander.

my suggestion of resetting the charger after 10 minutes puts an end to people leaving their car unattended and I do not know of how any one could sit at a charger at the moment and trickle charge and not feel embarrassed with someone waiting is beyond me. If it was me I would ask.

Water John

Well Michael Healy Rae has just told the nation on prime time that the battery in an electric car will only last a couple of years.

unkel

Says more about the imbeciles that keep voting him #1

Silent Running

Water John wrote: »

Well Michael Healy Rae has just told the nation on prime time that the battery in an electric car will only last a couple of years.

I don't know all of his businesses, but I'm assuming he has a petrol station or two, or his family does. The Healy-Raes are the worst kind of national politicians.

unkel

"Hazel Chu, newly elected Green Party councillor for Pembroke, says we are living in democracy and people should be able to express their views.

She said: "It was a debate last night because Catherine Martin made good points. But I hate to see it turn into a shouting match, with people not caring about the facts.

"When the argument is not fact-based then it is an issue. Last night a claim was made that you have to change the battery in an electric car every two years. This is not true, it is every seven years or so," Ms Chu said."

Dear oh dear oh deary me. You'd expect a public representative from the green party to have a bit better understanding of EVs at this stage.

Silent Running

unkel wrote: »

"Hazel Chu, newly elected Green Party councillor for Pembroke, says we are living in democracy and people should be able to express their views.

She said: "It was a debate last night because Catherine Martin made good points. But I hate to see it turn into a shouting match, with people not caring about the facts.

"When the argument is not fact-based then it is an issue. Last night a claim was made that you have to change the battery in an electric car every two years. This is not true, it is every seven years or so," Ms Chu said."

Dear oh dear oh deary me. You'd expect a public representative from the green party to have a bit better understanding of EVs at this stage.

She should read this.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1133037/Nissan-Leaf-electric-car-myth-busted