CRU (formerly CER) review of charging infrastructure

So how would the ESB make money ? what incentive would they have to invest in more chargers and more powerful chargers ? our Network is already very behind.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So how would the ESB make money ? what incentive would they have to invest in more chargers and more powerful chargers ? our Network is already very behind.

Ultimately being the fuel stations instead of convention fuel stations would be one way of considering it.

Perhaps data transfer of vehicle information.

Big data etc. WiFi points at charge stations

Food.

Alot to be monitised

KCross

Deleted User wrote: »

So how would the ESB make money ? what incentive would they have to invest in more chargers and more powerful chargers ? our Network is already very behind.

No incentive whatsoever. Thats why the eCars preferred proposal of handing it over unregulated would be a disaster. eCars will just gouge the current users for easy money and improve nothing.

I hope they go with something in between where it is regulated and subsidised (exactly like it is now) and then maybe a moderate charging regime once the uptake levels hit something reasonable like 20k EV's on the road.

That will allow expansion of the network and we will have to pay for it sooner or later so I think it should be tied to the number of EV's.

samih

Norway seem to have an interesting system in place. Some of the chargers are up to 25 yoyo's per 30 minutes use but you can subscribe for a month for a fixed charge of say €40 for unlimited charges when you need to use them. For example if you're planning a long journey in one weekend it will cost you 25-40 EUR with any additional use within that month free if you go for the 40 option. Then the rest of the time you just use your home charger and don't pay anything.

slave1

I think an allowance system would be a good idea, e.g. 50hours free a year and the consumer pays thereafter

I don't see how a company can make profit at that rate, or at least get "some" revenue.

Dardania

It's interesting we're coming back to this topic a few months later...mature reflection and all that.
(breaking with what I proposed previously) I agree that some form of government funding should be provided in the medium term to overcome the low numbers using presently.
I forget the exact article where I saw it - this is in the same area:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/ireland-avoiding-responsibilities-on-emissions-says-eu-group-1.2950970
But the jist was that Ireland is on track to meet it's emissions reduction targets that were committed to for 2030, but is falling short on spending committed at the same time. EVs would be a great way...

What's much more important now is more chargers not free charging.

KCross

@BoatMad, in another thread you said this about eCars and CER and in an effort to keep threads on topic I said I'd continue it here:

BoatMad wrote: »

In fact runor has it they are locked in a " play chicken " with the CER over the chargers. ( as in who will do nothing for the longest time until CER wilts )

How does that game of chicken play out? I would have thought a waiting game would be bad for eCars as they are losing money at present giving free electricity and paying support staff. Surely a quick decision is what they want?

Also, what reason, in your opinion, have the CER to side with eCars? What has the CER to lose by picking option 1, which is to make the charge network part of the RAB? Do the ESB have a hold over the CER in some way?

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

@BoatMad, in another thread you said this about eCars and CER and in an effort to keep threads on topic I said I'd continue it here:



How does that game of chicken play out? I would have thought a waiting game would be bad for eCars as they are losing money at present giving free electricity and paying support staff. Surely a quick decision is what they want?

Also, what reason, in your opinion, have the CER to side with eCars? What has the CER to lose by picking option 1, which is to make the charge network part of the RAB? Do the ESB have a hold over the CER in some way?

All operational costs are being billed bs k to the CER

The esb ( ESN Networkk) and the CER are in a kind of haves around each other's balls , both are annoyed they need the other

The ESB has made it crystal clear it wants full uncontrolled economic access to the charging network. It does not want RAB , because ESB network can't profit from infrastructure ( but merely cover its costs )

Esb also now using its " experience" to bid and manage networks in Europe ( I think it just won one in Europe )

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

All operational costs are being billed bs k to the CER

Well, not the CER as such, but the consumers via the DuOS?
Thats is the same as option 1 so the CER has no need to lose the game of chicken over that?

BoatMad wrote: »

The ESB has made it crystal clear it wants full uncontrolled economic access to the charging network. It does not want RAB , because ESB network can't profit from infrastructure ( but merely cover its costs )

True, they do understandably want free reign on it, but my question is what has the CER to lose by ignoring them and going the RAB route?

BoatMad wrote: »

Esb also now using its " experience" to bid and manage networks in Europe ( I think it just won one in Europe )

Thats fair game. I wouldnt fault them for that. In fact its a good thing, it keeps them current with technology.

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

Well, not the CER as such, but the consumers via the DuOS?
Thats is the same as option 1 so the CER has no need to lose the game of chicken over that?




True, they do understandably want free reign on it, but my question is what has the CER to lose by ignoring them and going the RAB route?




Thats fair game. I wouldnt fault them for that. In fact its a good thing, it keeps them current with technology.

Well all DUoS comes to CER. It's how it's funds itself and pays for the distribution

I can't say why , but I suspect the delay is that CER will pick option 1 but will need to agree with ESB management terms. I suspect CER will not announce until it has esb on side

goldfish

KCross wrote: »

No incentive whatsoever. Thats why the eCars preferred proposal of handing it over unregulated would be a disaster. eCars will just gouge the current users for easy money and improve nothing.

I hope they go with something in between where it is regulated and subsidised (exactly like it is now) and then maybe a moderate charging regime once the uptake levels hit something reasonable like 20k EV's on the road.

That will allow expansion of the network and we will have to pay for it sooner or later so I think it should be tied to the number of EV's.

Subsidised by whom?

Calahonda52

goldfish wrote: »

Subsidised by whom?

You if you pay for electricity

cros13

goldfish wrote: »

Subsidised by whom?

All electricity customers... who will all have to be driving EVs anyway in the 10-15 years.

There are barely more EVs than public chargepoints and because of home charging the average EV owner uses the public infrastructure far less often than the average combustion engine owner visits petrol stations.

I have no problem paying for public charging but it won't cover the
To give an example of the current situation:

The Netherlands has more EVs per capita than Ireland.
One of their charging networks is FastNed who provide rapid charging only at 57 dual rapid stations (vs. 107 rapids and 1,400 streetside for ESB)
They charge 59c/kWh or have a number of monthly service plans that reduce those rates as low as 19c/kWh + €30/month (by contrast my home charging on night rate is 6c/kWh)
Their capital expenditures and running costs for Q4 2016 were over €2.5 million
Their revenue increased by 60% in Q4 vs previous year to ~€60,000

So €60k of revenue to cover €2.5million in capital costs and running expenses. The Irish network costs over €8 million a year excluding any expansion and we have 4,000 EVs/PHEVs, the netherlands has over 120,000 EVs/PHEVs on the road (yeah...40 for every EV on the road in Ireland).

ergo... we can't pay anything more than a token amount. On the other hand we materially reduce the amount in fines the EU takes for Ireland not meeting our emissions targets... we were originally relying on 350,000 EVs being on Irish roads by 2020 to meet the targets (NL had a 200k target which they will meet easily). Those fines amount to €170 million this year alone and €8.5 billion by 2030.

isnottheword

cros13 wrote: »

One of their charging networks is FastNed who provide rapid charging only at 57 dual rapid stations (vs. 107 rapids and 1,400 streetside for ESB)
They charge 59c/kWh or have a number of monthly service plans that reduce those rates as low as 19c/kWh + €30/month (by contrast my home charging on night rate is 6c/kWh)
Their capital expenditures and running costs for Q4 2016 were over €2.5 million
Their revenue increased by 60% in Q4 vs previous year to ~€60,000
So €60k of revenue to cover €2.5million in capital costs and running expenses.

FastNed seem to think they can make this profitable. Seems like a tall order but perhaps there's an economy of scale at some point....??

josip

isnottheword wrote: »

FastNed seem to think they can make this profitable. Seems like a tall order but perhaps there's an economy of scale at some point....??

Depends on the patience of the investors.
At this point in time, the CEO probably spends more time reassuring the investors than evangelizing Fastnet towards the public.
They are dependent on the market growth rate which they can only slightly influence.
One change in a government policy might scupper their business model.
Their investors might be stretched, have to dilute their shareholding or banks might start to squeeze them.
But if they have deep enough pockets and the ear of the government then first mover advantage could be very rewarding

BoatMad

josip wrote: »

Depends on the patience of the investors.
At this point in time, the CEO probably spends more time reassuring the investors than evangelizing Fastnet towards the public.
They are dependent on the market growth rate which they can only slightly influence.
One change in a government policy might scupper their business model.
Their investors might be stretched, have to dilute their shareholding or banks might start to squeeze them.
But if they have deep enough pockets and the ear of the government then first mover advantage could be very rewarding

The jury is very much " out" on whether public charging can be a self standing commercial undertaking. Certainly in Ireland with our spatial distribution , I would be of the belief , that Ireland would not sustain commercial operations outside the GDA and perhaps Cork

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

The jury is very much " out" on whether public charging can be a self standing commercial undertaking. Certainly in Ireland with our spatial distribution , I would be of the belief , that Ireland would not sustain commercial operations outside the GDA and perhaps Cork

Any qualification to your statement?

Are you saying regardless of mass adoption it is still doubtful because longer range makes the public chargers unnecessary?

I would also have thought that its on the motorways they would be used most not necessarily in the cities themselves.

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

Any qualification to your statement?

Are you saying regardless of mass adoption it is still doubtful because longer range makes the public chargers unnecessary?

I would also have thought that its on the motorways they would be used most not necessarily in the cities themselves.

I have yet to see a business plan that suggests thats Ireland in the medium term (<10 years ) could support a commercial FCP project. Longer range will infact transfer customers away from FCPs to their house, further undermining the economics of FCPs. Even ESB business plan is misguided in that regard ( and its a terrible outline plan)

MY own view is that electricity should be free and road pricing used to recover costs

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

MY own view is that electricity should be free and road pricing used to recover costs

I've seen road pricing mentioned quite a bit in various forums. How does road pricing work in reality without fraud making a joke of it? Is it tied to mileage or automated tolls or what?

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

I've seen road pricing mentioned quite a bit in various forums. How does road pricing work in reality without fraud making a joke of it? Is it tied to mileage or automated tolls or what?

quite easily tied to a GPS reporting car usage via telemetry , the Leaf does this at the moment

there are several other technology options as well including automated tolling etc etc

isnottheword

BoatMad wrote: »

quite easily tied to a GPS reporting car usage via telemetry , the Leaf does this at the moment

there are several other technology options as well including automated tolling etc etc

A blockchain based smart contract could deal with this very efficiently.

BoatMad

isnottheword wrote: »

A blockchain based smart contract could deal with this very efficiently.

I see the rooms of graphics boards .....

isnottheword

BoatMad wrote: »

I see the rooms of graphics boards .....

Meh....not sure about the rooms of 'graphics boards'. However, it's the (near) future - embrace it

BoatMad

isnottheword wrote: »

Meh....not sure about the rooms of 'graphics boards'. However, it's the (near) future - embrace it

to hack the blockchains !! ( using graphics floating point processors)

isnottheword

BoatMad wrote: »

to hack the blockchains !! ( using graphics floating point processors)

Blockchain (provided it's not been bastardised) is a public ledger. It's impossible to hack - as it's on multiple (as in thousands) computers around the world - not belonging to a centralised authority - it's decentralised.

Therefore, it's impossible to 'hack' it.

BoatMad

isnottheword wrote: »

Blockchain (provided it's not been bastardised) is a public ledger. It's impossible to hack - as it's on multiple (as in thousands) computers around the world - not belonging to a centralised authority - it's decentralised.

Therefore, it's impossible to 'hack' it.

well yes and no, lets not get into the pros and cons of blockchains

isnottheword

BoatMad wrote: »

well yes and no, lets not get into the pros and cons of blockchains

Showers, phones, blockchains - we can do it all right here on the EV forum.

Seriously though, a public ledger published by multiple independent computers worldwide online can't be hacked.

BoatMad

isnottheword wrote: »

Showers, phones, blockchains - we can do it all right here on the EV forum.

Seriously though, a public ledger published by multiple independent computers worldwide online can't be hacked.

yes I know, the issue is that in its practical usage and the fact that you cant compare every blockchain , the reality is the practical implementation reveals weaknesses