EV general discussion

Kenai said:
Well then you can't expect them to install a load of capacity that will sit unused for most of its time, unless rather than minor 'congestion' pricing on occasion, you'd prefer to see permanently higher pricing all round to pay for 95% unused infrastructure?
Click to expand...
No - I would expect them to install however much infrastructure they feel is needed for the demand, and to not charge any sort of congestion pricing.

If they have undersupplied, then they should let their customers experience reflect that (by having their customers wait) - instead of adopting the route that increases their profits by congestion charging.
 
rypt said:
This is the part that doesn't make sense to me

I'd expect that as part of creating a new EV charging zone, the company would have to apply for planning permission, engage the power networks, etc.

I would think that whatever agreement was reached between all the parties involved would include the EV charging company paying for the power network to provide the necessary connectivity within a specific timeframe for the project.
Click to expand...
Power doesn't work quite like that - if you're asking for a significant enough upgrade, it doesn't matter how much money you want to throw at them, all the wayleaves, permissions, designs, construction etc. that they might need to sort can take years upon years.

Just plan ahead you might say - that's fine but it's even more investment committed without return - would you do it with your own money?
 
rypt said:
This is the part that doesn't make sense to me

I'd expect that as part of creating a new EV charging zone, the company would have to apply for planning permission, engage the power networks, etc.

I would think that whatever agreement was reached between all the parties involved would include the EV charging company paying for the power network to provide the necessary connectivity within a specific timeframe for the project.
Click to expand...
They do… the power networks simply can’t connect them fast enough.

There are 10’s of fully constructed sites that have been waiting for power for years. One site in the U.K. was famously fully constructed for 5 years awaiting power.

These projects are not simple. Many of them are bogged down in wayleave hell for years or require tens of miles of roadworks to connect up, new substations etc. you can’t just close the M6 for a week so you can dig it up to run a big fate cable under it.
 
rypt said:
The discussion was specifically about how Tesla charges more in the US to trickle charge - and they are both the car company and the charging operator in that case
Click to expand...
Let’s not start using trickle charge as an actual term. Tesla charge more money to charge the vehicle over 90%. Likely as a reaction to selfish hogger annoying the majority users. Bp pulse have the same if you are on a 50kW+ for over 90 mins. It’s to stop selfish people abusing it. Stop the conspiracy crap

Also why compare the US to the UK. Very different markets
 
Last edited:
Kenai said:
Power doesn't work quite like that - if you're asking for a significant enough upgrade, it doesn't matter how much money you want to throw at them, all the wayleaves, permissions, designs, construction etc. that they might need to sort can take years upon years.

Just plan ahead you might say - that's fine but it's even more investment committed without return - would you do it with your own money?
Click to expand...
b0rn2sk8 said:
They do… the power networks simply can’t connect them fast enough.

There are 10’s of fully constructed sites that have been waiting for power for years. One site in the U.K. was famously fully constructed for 5 years awaiting power.

These projects are not simple. Many of them are bogged down in wayleave hell for years or require tens of miles of roadworks to connect up, new substations etc. you can’t just close the M6 for a week so you can dig it up to run a big fate cable under it.
Click to expand...


I never said it was simple, but sounds like the problem is "government" (be that local or national) by not providing a means to fast-track all the planning steps
 
rypt said:
No - I would expect them to install however much infrastructure they feel is needed for the demand, and to not charge any sort of congestion pricing.

If they have undersupplied, then they should let their customers experience reflect that (by having their customers wait) - instead of adopting the route that increases their profits by congestion charging.
Click to expand...
Which they do, for the normal demand and this sets the price accordingly.

They could install 5 times the capacity so it's available a couple of times per year but that has to be paid for, so prices will be permanently much higher for everyone all of the time to pay for all that under utilised infrastructure.

Or they can install enough for normal demand, charge a reasonable price and for the odd occasion everyone turns up at once, encourage them to move on a bit quicker with a congestion fee.

You seem to be posting like this is routine daily problem rather than something that happens only during particularly busy periods.
 
rypt said:
I never said it was simple, but sounds like the problem is "government" (be that local or national) by not providing a means to fast-track all the planning steps
Click to expand...
Get them to scrap all NHS waiting lists whilst they are at it ?

Trolling is obvious now. You don’t even have an Ev and talking about some made up issues that doesn’t even exist

Could have all the chargers in the world. Won’t help if people just sit on them anyway when their car is fully charged
 
Last edited:
Simon said:
Let’s not start using trickle charge as an actual term.
Click to expand...
Trickle Charge was the term brought in when it came to mobile phones needing to charge that last 20% to save the battery after fast charging to 80%.

Why would it not be appropriate to use it in the EV context for the exact same behaviour?
 
Kenai said:
Which they do, for the normal demand and this sets the price accordingly.

They could install 5 times the capacity so it's available a couple of times per year but that has to be paid for, so prices will be permanently much higher for everyone all of the time to pay for all that under utilised infrastructure.

Or they can install enough for normal demand, charge a reasonable price and for the odd occasion everyone turns up at once, encourage them to move on a bit quicker with a congestion fee.

You seem to be posting like this is routine daily problem rather than something that happens only during particularly busy periods.
Click to expand...
Or they could not congestion charge, and everything would be the same except that they don't get to generate extra profit
 
rypt said:
Trickle Charge was the term brought in when it came to mobile phones needing to charge that last 20% to save the battery after fast charging to 80%.

Why would it not be appropriate to use it in the EV context for the exact same behaviour?
Click to expand...
No. As a granny charge is 2kW. Public is 7-11kW.

So a car slowing down to say 20kW for the last 10% is hardly a trickle

Trickle charge in a automotive context is a 12v battery charger like a CTEK which keep the 12v battery from going flat…
 
rypt said:
Or they could not congestion charge, and everything would be the same except that they don't get to generate extra profit
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be the same, there would be more congestion as users will occupy chargers for longer.

(But only very occasionally remember, not routinely enough to be worth spending and charging people for all the time)
 
Last edited:
rypt said:
Or they could not congestion charge, and everything would be the same except that they don't get to generate extra profit
Click to expand...
The fee is to stop charger hogging… and it’s faster to go another 100miles and charge again anyway for anyone sensible

You really don’t seem to understand it’s not about profits. It’s about reducing congestion!


Should London invest in more roads rather than have a congestion charge?
 
Last edited:
Are there any other bits of infrastructure we should build to multiple times the normally required capacity just to deal with very occasional demand spikes?

Who gets to pay for it all sitting unused most of the time?
 
There was an article on BBC earlier today BTW about the state of the public charging network on the main routes vs the governments target

www.bbc.co.uk

Motorway electric car charge point target missed, says RAC

The RAC motoring organisation says the government has missed its target for installing charging points.
www.bbc.co.uk

My understanding of the main delays has been planning (the UKs favourite NIBMY passtime of trying to avoid any progress) and the NG having a massive backlog of infrastructure requirements*

*On this one they have a specific taskforce going through them all and booting the speculative ones out. TwitX is a good resource for following national grid to see what they are upto
 
Kenai said:
Are there any other bits of infrastructure we should build to multiple times the normally required capacity just to deal with very occasional demand spikes?

Who gets to pay for it all sitting unused most of the time?
Click to expand...

Wasn't the M25 built based on future projected needs, not the demand there and then?

I would expect all core infrastructure to be kept at future demand needs, not current demand levels
 
The swimming pool analogy works perfectly if you consider overfilling the pool by even 1 drop as "game over". Sure, at the start you'd be filling it with a fire hose on full blast, because that's going to be a lot quicker than a normal garden hose, but you wouldn't want to use that same hose for the last few %, because unless you were extremely lucky, you'd overfill it. Towards the end, you'd turn the water right down, and when it was almost full, you'd spend several hours adding water drop-by-drop until 100%.

Or you'd just fill it up with the fire hose to "almost full" (in this case ~80%) and get on with your day.

When you're charging at home, it doesn't matter if that last few % takes 3 hours, because the car is just sitting there while you sleep, and not preventing anyone else from charging.

rypt said:
Wasn't the M25 built based on future projected needs, not the demand there and then?

I would expect all core infrastructure to be kept at future demand needs, not current demand levels
Click to expand...

There's a difference between "future" needs and "spike" needs.

If you wanted the M25 (or any other major road) to be built for spikes in demand (along with compensating for potential road closures), then they'd be 20 lanes wide in both directions with a redundant route running alongside "just in case". That doesn't sound like particularly good use of road funding to me!

Who is going to pay for 50x £30k rapids to be installed when 45 of them are going to be idle 360 days of the year?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom