Electric cars

Herzlos

DELETED USER wrote:

The main thing they need to get on with is on-street charging for people without driveways.

Not necesarily - if the cars spend enough time in car parks (work, supermarket, cinema) that have charging facilities or pass near fast chargers, then they might never actually need to park at home.


Cars, even ones kept on street, are usually used to get to some sort of destination with some vague frequency, and destination charging will be possible in most places.

DrEskimo

silverwhistle wrote: »

Just out of interest, how much do they charge? In my village there is a double 50/43 kW post (Chad/CCS/T2) run by GeniePoint which charges 30p and a £1 connection fee, which means it's only useful for journey top ups.


If I do get a second hand EV I'd have to add in the cost of hard standing, so lower powered, lower cost alternatives in addition would be useful for people in my position. I doubt I'd be getting a 41kWh battery!

So my lonely post is run by Polar, which if you subscribe to the Polar Plus model is £7.85 per month, and then most posts charge £0.108/kWh. I tend to charge around 26/27kWh per week, so it works out at about £0.17/£0.18/kWh, which is not far off what I pay for my home energy.

There is also a rapid charger at a rather lovely hotel which doesn't charge anything per kWh, so if I use that on occasion I can keep costs down further.

I have just finished the 3month free trial, and I'm in two minds if I want to keep it, but it gets so expensive if you don't subscribe (£1.50 per hour on 7kW posts). I was against the monthly fee model at first, but I use it enough that the subscription works out fair IMO. If I had home charging I wouldn't consider it.

silverwhistle wrote: »

LOL, and you wonder why people think you are unremittingly negative about EVs! At least you occasionally give us an unintended laugh with your negativity.

I didn't want to point out that the picture of the posts he used has tethered cables too....

In my admittedly short EV ownership, I haven't once had to pick up a soiled cable, but there we are....!

Herzlos wrote: »

Not necesarily - if the cars spend enough time in car parks (work, supermarket, cinema) that have charging facilities or pass near fast chargers, then they might never actually need to park at home.


Cars, even ones kept on street, are usually used to get to some sort of destination with some vague frequency, and destination charging will be possible in most places.

Actually, you end up finding places to park by chargers that actually give you better access and since parking charges rarely apply, you end up substituting parking costs as 'fuel' costs. For example I used to park in a shopping centre that charged around £2 for parking. Now I found a Holiday Inn very close by that allows me to park for free for 90mins, and it's a rapid charger, so I can get around 25kWh in the battery at around £2.50.

Done this in lots of places now....

Martyn1981

buglawton wrote: »

I think you're being numerical.
You have to include policy into the predictions of when EV will become more the norm.
Hence I'm being pragmatic.
And, it's only when people realise how much the govt local and national drags it's heels, saying one thing and doing the opposite, that activism will begin, to give the powers that be a nudge.

Are you saying isn't room on this thread for both the technical and the social aspects to be discussed?

To recap, you said that BEV's might have to pay a carbon tax, as their deployment may add leccy demand faster than RE can displace FF generation.

I gave actual figures (reality and facts) showing that even with a very optimistic roll out, your claim was entirely false.

You also suggested cost of RE could slow rollout.

I explained that the cost is almost now subsidy free, and that the rollout was fine in the past when subsidiy costs were actually high, very high, so again, your claim was entirely false.

Since then, you've simply repeated your claims, and then stated that you are a pragmatist (base your opinions on reality and facts), and again I've pointed out that that claim is entirely false.

At no point have you provided facts and figures.
At no point have you challenged my facts and figures.

So your claims/suggestions are clearly wrong, as is your claim to be a pragmatist, since you have discarded the facts and reality at every turn, and continued to suggest or argue for the opposite.

As I said, there's nowhere really to go here, since I've provided facts, you haven't. So if you still disagree with me, and believe in your original suggestions about BEV's and grid carbon intensity, then I think it's for you to supply some numbers (and facts), rather than simply making false statements that deny reality.

Edit - an addition in the hope of ending this, as I can see how you are slowly and steadily trying to move the discussion away from your original false claim that I challenged:

buglawton wrote: »

The other thing to say that if all motoring energy consumption were to switch to electric, there'd probably have to be carbon taxes on EV due to renewable sources being unable to cope with demand, until the far off future.

And are now apparently challenging my use of facts, whilst at the same time falsely claiming to be a pragmatist:

buglawton wrote: »

I think you're being numerical.

If you still believe your claim, then provide some numbers to support it?

If you are a pragmatist, then provide some facts to support it?

Otherwise, please end your fact-free pursuit of falsehoods.

NigeWick

DoaM wrote: »

The problem for this government (and perhaps also the UK Labour party) is that promoting RE is high on the Scottish government's (aka SNP) agenda ... and the main UK parties don't want to be seen as aligning with the SNP.

Saving our future isn't political, it's just a necessity. I say this as somebody who lives at sea level on a flood plain near tidal waters.

Martyn1981

NigeWick wrote: »

I say this as somebody who lives at sea level on a flood plain near tidal waters.

Even my normal positivity struggles with that sentence. Perhaps?

NigeWick

DELETED USER wrote:

The main thing they need to get on with is on-street charging for people without driveways.

Why? I ask as BP, Shell and others are putting up larger numbers of rapid chargers all over the country. Many of them at fossil fuel selling places.

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Even my normal positivity struggles with that sentence. Perhaps?

I intend to move somewhere 250 feet above present sea level when our daughters do in a few years time.

[Deleted User]

Herzlos wrote: »

Not necesarily - if the cars spend enough time in car parks (work, supermarket, cinema) that have charging facilities or pass near fast chargers, then they might never actually need to park at home.


Cars, even ones kept on street, are usually used to get to some sort of destination with some vague frequency, and destination charging will be possible in most places.

The problem with that is people who have home charging will be paying a hell of a lot less than those who don't for the electricity. So people who don't have a driveway, the people who probably have lower incomes, will be paying the most.

They could possibly fix it by having some system that billed public charging to your home bill.

NigeWick

DELETED USER wrote:

The problem with that is people who have home charging will be paying a hell of a lot less than those who don't for the electricity.

How many people with fossil burners have "home charging" now? No doubt HMGov Plc will find a way of taxing all vehicles no matter what their motive energy before long.

DrEskimo

DELETED USER wrote:

The problem with that is people who have home charging will be paying a hell of a lot less than those who don't for the electricity. So people who don't have a driveway, the people who probably have lower incomes, will be paying the most.

They could possibly fix it by having some system that billed public charging to your home bill.

In relative terms, yes, but in absolute terms it's still cheap.

I pay around £18.65 a month for about 100kWh, so that's £0.1865/kWh. Not far off the £0.15 I pay for my home energy.

If I had home charging I could make use of dual tariffs like Octopus Go that charge £0.05 between the hours of 00:30-04:30, making my 'fuel' bill just £5, so relatively speaking I am paying over 3x more than I could pay if I had home charging*. But in absolute terms, £18.65 per month for 'fuel' is still cheap (far cheaper than my old petrol bill at ~£120 per month), it's just that home charging can be ridiculously cheap....

* although I am not accounting for potentially higher day time energy use with these dual tariffs, so that would offset some of the savings.