This has to happen here

Rippy

Came across this :
The future of charging points surely .
Thousands of potential charge points right there on the kerb side already
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-4607870/A-1-000-conversion-turn-lampposts-EV-chargers.html

Soarer

As pointed out previously, the problem here is our street lamps are on the inside of the footpath, whereas in the UK they're next to the road.

niallb

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=104150072

bk

Soarer wrote: »

As pointed out previously, the problem here is our street lamps are on the inside of the footpath, whereas in the UK they're next to the road.

As pointed out previously, that simply isn't the case! It can differ from street to street. All the street lamps around me are on the outside of the path.

BoatMad

bk wrote: »

As pointed out previously, that simply isn't the case! It can differ from street to street. All the street lamps around me are on the outside of the path.

This has been debated elsewhere

1. All new lights are placed on the inside of the footpath

2. Many older light posts were moved to the inside , again this is for motorist safety

3. Yes some remain but " going forward " assuming charge points in lamps next to the road is an assumption that will largely be false


Secondly , as discussed elsewhere , the wiring and supply infrastructure is not present in these lamps to support multiple AC chargers

This is leaving aside the fact that increasing range will render all this type of low power charging unneccessary

And the fact that it's not possible or desirable to further dedicate any significant amount of street parking to EVS

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

This is leaving aside the fact that increasing range will render all this type of low power charging unneccessary

And the fact that it's not possible or desirable to further dedicate any significant amount of street parking to EVS

I'll leave the lamp post debate to bk as I don't know about that but I think your vision of the future is too black and white. You seem wedded to the IEVOA idea that these large super charge parks are the only solution and that everyone needs to use rapid charging only in the future because we will all have increased range... maybe that will be true in 2050 but in the next 20yrs it won't be true.

I'd agree the charge parks are important but not the only solution people could/should use and the charge parks should be for those doing long journeys or those with no on/off street parking options.

Every idea doesn't have to be scalable to the entire market. It just has to service the customers in that area/estate/etc.

For instance, this ubitricity idea, is a good one in my mind. If there is headroom to supply 6-10A off the post and its in the right place why not utilise it? It will mean one less EV having to travel to your super charge park.

Also bear in mind that one of the important elements of switching to EV's is that they can soak up unused capacity at night. If you have your way most people will be charging at your super parks by day which makes the grid more lopsided than it already is..... we need to encourage every solution that allows people to charge at night. It doesn't have to be high power in all cases.

BoatMad

A few points

Since I largely authored the Ievoa submission on fast charging , it's not surprising

A. The same submission argues that the priority is arterial road based fast charging parks. Note the word priority. This priority is also the LEV taskforce priority, priorities exists because money and resources are not unlimited

B, on street , i.e. Public street , charging is utterly unscalable, Because unless you equip every street parking place with chargers , you are forced to dedicate that space to EVs. That's not desirable or fair as you exclude other residents of that street from using that space , in Dublin street chargers are being removed in residential streets

You also encourage long term on street parking which is a policy many cites and especially Dublin is set against

Unless you have a dedicated parking space , the argument being advanced by the authorities is that in essence you should not be facilitated In owning a private car.

This is only getting more draconian with recent changes in planning laws allowing residential developments within access to public transport to not need any provision for private cars.


Hence for a variety of reasons , technical , social, policy fairness, etc , the idea of large scale urban on street charging is simply pie in the sky wishful thinking.

Several solutions exist for the non dedicated parking , EV driver and the IEVOA has outlined its thinking on this ( we have not obsessed on fast charger parks, merely agreed they are the priority )

There is a need for commercial car parking in urban centres that contain multiple " slow " AC chargers. Ie Qparks etc

Plus the need to facilitate commercial fast chargers in other centres as the operators so desire , super markets , etc. These are not substitutes for a national strategic fast charger strategy but no obstacle should be placed in their way.

Then we have incentives for work chargers being considered , thus is also a solution and other destination style solutions again solely installed on a commercial basis.

The fact remains that owning a car in a city will become increasingly expensive and frustrating, BEV or ICE , that's clearly the policy makers perspective.

Given the huge percentage in Ireland of private driveways , the highest in Europe , cause we love our semi-D, the day night electricty split will largely be consumed by home charging in housing estates. In fact Informed speculation suggests that EVs will over consume night electricity , and smart meters will actually have cheaper periods in day light hours rather then a simple day night split.

The lamp post charger simply doesn't suit technically , socially or policy wise , sorry , elect a new Gov and change all of DCC !!!

BoatMad

For instance, this ubitricity idea, is a good one in my mind. If there is headroom to supply 6-10A off the post and its in the right place why not utilise it? It will mean one

This has been debated elsewhere , largely there isn't headroom nor in many cases is the pole situated near the car parking point

Solutions have to be scalable because otherwise it just benefits the few " here and now" adherents. " I'm all right jack " that Ireland is sometimes famous for

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

A. The same submission argues that the priority is arterial road based fast charging parks. Note the word priority. This priority is also the LEV taskforce priority, priorities exists because money and resources are not unlimited

I agree, it should be the priority. That doesn't mean the lower priorities should be forgotten though.

BoatMad wrote: »

B, on street , i.e. Public street , charging is utterly unscalable, Because unless you equip every street parking place with chargers , you are forced to dedicate that space to EVs. That's not desirable or fair as you exclude other residents of that street from using that space , in Dublin street chargers are being removed in residential streets

There you go again.... the scalability argument!

It doesn't have to scale to the entire market and you don't have to dedicate any spaces to EV's either. If a particular estate/area has a low power charging solution (lamp posts or otherwise) it should be encouraged.

It helps the grid. It saves the user from having to go out of their way to a rapid and saves them wasting 30mins or more of their day sitting at a rapid.

As range increases you won't need to get access to the low power chargers every night.... just get yourself into the space once or twice a week and you are good.

BoatMad wrote: »

You also encourage long term on street parking which is a policy many cites and especially Dublin is set against

Unless you have a dedicated parking space , the argument being advanced by the authorities is that in essence you should not be facilitated In owning a private car.

This is only getting more draconian with recent changes in planning laws allowing residential developments within access to public transport to not need any provision for private cars.

You are focussed on Dublin and how it will work there. The rest of the country exists too!

Again, it doesn't have to scale or work everywhere but encourage it where it does make sense which will be in a lot of areas/estates etc.

I know the general direction is to get cars out of city centres. I've no issue with that. Still plenty of suburbs who could utilise low power solutions.

BoatMad wrote: »

Hence for a variety of reasons , technical , social, policy fairness, etc , the idea of large scale urban on street charging is simply pie in the sky wishful thinking.

I'd argue that's your Dublin centric biased view. I know you don't live in Dublin but your opinions seem solely based around Dublin.

Again, doesn't have to be large scale. Put it in where it makes sense.

BoatMad wrote: »

In fact Informed speculation suggests that EVs will over consume night electricity , and smart meters will actually have cheaper periods in day light hours rather then a simple day night split.

"informed speculation"!
Thats a good basis for policy! :P

BoatMad wrote: »

The lamp post charger simply doesn't suit technically , socially or policy wise , sorry , elect a new Gov and change all of DCC !!!

Technically, it works.

Socially... not getting what the social issue is. If a street has 20 cars on it and 5
lamp posts exists with enough power whats the issue.... thats 5 cars a night. Everyone gets a full charge every 4 days... probably enough for most people as longer range cars become the norm. Thats 20 people that don't have to visit an FCP during the day!

Policywise.... that can be changed. Thats what the task force is setup for. I hope they don't think the IEVOA opinion(i.e. yours) has a monopoly on how things should be done!

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

This has been debated elsewhere , largely there isn't headroom nor in many cases is the pole situated near the car parking point

Solutions have to be scalable because otherwise it just benefits the few " here and now" adherents. " I'm all right jack " that Ireland is sometimes famous for

You are stuck on this scalability thing. In your eyes if it doesn't scale to everyone its out. Thats short sighted.

There is no "Im all right jack" here. In fact it would generate some money for the relevant council as the ubitricity idea has a billing aspect to it.

And I'm not limiting this to just ubitricity/lamp posts.... any low power solution that services an area at night saving the user going to an FCP has to be considered a good thing for them and the grid.

BoatMad

Technically, it works.

Socially... not getting what the social issue is. If a street has 20 cars on it and 5
lamp posts exists with enough power whats the issue.... thats 5 cars a night. Everyone gets a full charge every 4 days... probably enough for most people as longer range cars become the norm. Thats 20 people that don't have to visit an FCP during the day!

Policywise.... that can be changed. Thats what the task force is setup for. I hope they don't think the IEVOA opinion(i.e. yours) has a monopoly on how things should be done!

Technically in Ireland , the wiring associated with lampposts will not support a density of 7 kw chargers This has been covered elsewhere.

Here's the social issue ,

There are five lamps on a residential street with 20 parking spaces , each lamp happens to be outside a particular house ,

strangely there are three EVs on the street , a proportion considerably in advance of today's EV penetration

So, do you Deny 2 spaces to your neighbours ICE , merely to facilitate a " potential " EV. How do you discourage visiting EVs from hogging what are in essence residential street spaces

Secondly it's DCC avowed policy that non residential on street parking is time limited , nominally to three hours and that parking fees are pitched to prevent abuse and encourage non car usage.

Hence paying for parking and then paying for electricity is not cost effective for the EV owner

Nor is expecting EVs to " shuffle around " to allow 20 to be charged , nor will a 3kw charging car , be charged in 4 hours ( more like 12 )

Remember we have 30 years of ice transistion to manage , these " voters" can be thrown to the wolves !!

Urban policy makers want to remove the private car from urban spaces , BEV or not, it matters little to them

As for Ievoa and the taskforce, it's the taskforce that have decided interurbsn fast charging is the priority , we were then asked to give our view on that, which we did.

We also mentioned and covered the issue of on street charging , and the private car " homelessness issue "

Again , and on street EV charging is mere tokenism , it can't scale to deal with 1000s of EVs entering the city daily in the future.

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

You are stuck on this scalability thing. In your eyes if it doesn't scale to everyone its out. Thats short sighted.

There is no "Im all right jack" here. In fact it would generate some money for the relevant council as the ubitricity idea has a billing aspect to it.

And I'm not limiting this to just ubitricity/lamp posts.... any low power solution that services an area at night saving the user going to an FCP has to be considered a good thing for them and the grid.

No the grid has far more challenges supporting a widespread rise in medium current addition , then in selected large scale power installations , this is clearly spelt out in the Ecars technical report

And ecars have commented that the current on street units are far more costly per Kw to install and maintain then FCPs.

Low power on street charging is simply counter to car usage policy , local authority policy and is not capable of scaling as EV penetration grows.

Don't argue this with me , talk to an urban planner

I'm not against low power AC charging , but I do feel it will not play a large part in future EV usage outside dedicated home , work or destination charging.

In Europe and in direct policy opposition to say the US, the existence of the private car in densely built up areas is not considered sustainable. why consider facilities for an EV future that simply won't exist and where increasing autonomous cars/car sharing and go-car style solutions will fill the need for " car" journeys and car ownership.

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

Technically in Ireland , the wiring associated with lampposts will not support a density of 7 kw chargers This has been covered elsewhere.

It doesn't have to be 7kW. 2kW is fine. This is overnight charging we are taking about, not fast charging.

BoatMad wrote: »

Here's the social issue ,

There are five lamps on a residential street with 20 parking spaces , each lamp happens to be outside a particular house ,

strangely there are three EVs on the street , a proportion considerably in advance of today's EV penetration

So, do you Deny 2 spaces to your neighbours ICE , merely to facilitate a " potential " EV. How do you discourage visiting EVs from hogging what are in essence residential street spaces

You don't discourage/deny anything. You don't allocate spaces just for EV's. Everything stays the same as it is today except you have a lamp post that can charge an EV, if required. Thats what they have done in other cities with this ubitricity solution.

Its up to the EV owner to get the space on an equal basis to every other car on the road. They don't have a right to it.

BoatMad wrote: »

Secondly it's DCC avowed policy that non residential on street parking is time limited , nominally to three hours and that parking fees are pitched to prevent abuse and encourage non car usage.

Hence paying for parking and then paying for electricity is not cost effective for the EV owner

Im talking primarily about residential parking. People with permits to park there overnight or in estates where there is no fee for parking but you don't have a space right outside your door.

BoatMad wrote: »

Nor is expecting EVs to " shuffle around " to allow 20 to be charged , nor will a 3kw charging car , be charged in 4 hours ( more like 12 )

No shuffling required. You get yourself into the space enough times in the week to cover what you need and anything beyond that you go to your nearest rapid.

BoatMad wrote: »

Urban policy makers want to remove the private car from urban spaces , BEV or not, it matters little to them

When you say urban spaces... can you define that.... is it just the city centre or are you also including suburbs?

This lamp post idea (or any other low power solution) is not suitable for city centre. It would be primarily for people who park in the same area every night (because they are resident there) but who don't have the ability to mount an EVSE on their house and run a cable to their car.

BoatMad wrote: »

As for Ievoa and the taskforce, it's the taskforce that have decided interurbsn fast charging is the priority , we were then asked to give our view on that, which we did.

As I said, I agree with that priority.

BoatMad wrote: »

We also mentioned and covered the issue of on street charging , and the private car " homelessness issue "

You seem to only have one solution for that, which is to divert everyone out to rapid chargers by day. That I disagree with. It should not be only one solution. Utilise every available solution where it makes sense.

BoatMad wrote: »

Again , and on street EV charging is mere tokenism , it can't scale to deal with 1000s of EVs entering the city daily in the future.

Why is it tokenism if it works?
What has 1000's of EV's coming into the city got to do with it? This is about overnight charging for locals, not people commuting into the city.

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

And ecars have commented that the current on street units are far more costly per Kw to install and maintain then FCPs.

The ubitricity idea costs far less than the eCars SCP's. Thats the whole idea of it... its cheap to retrofit.

BoatMad wrote: »

Low power on street charging is simply counter to car usage policy , local authority policy and is not capable of scaling as EV penetration grows.

Scale Scale Scale. I give up!

BoatMad wrote: »

I'm not against low power AC charging , but I do feel it will not play a large part in future EV usage outside dedicated home , work or destination charging.

I'd agree with that. However, I see the likes of ubitricity in the same light as the three you mentioned.... "outside dedicated home , work or destination charging"

Why do you see them any differently to an ubitricity on a lamp post outside my house?
Ubitricity is a slow overnight charger... it just happens that I don't own it or pay for it through my energy provider.

BoatMad wrote: »

In Europe and in direct policy opposition to say the US, the existence of the private car in densely built up areas is not considered sustainable. why consider facilities for an EV future that simply won't exist and where increasing autonomous cars/car sharing and go-car style solutions will fill the need for " car" journeys and car ownership.

I've no disagreement with you on this point either. Maybe this is where we are at odds here. I'm talking about locations where the power is available, where people already park their cars overnight... why not provide a solution for that scenario.

If you take a policy decision to remove overnight resident parking for a densely populated area then fine, but thats not the use case that this thread is about.

BoatMad

I've no disagreement with you on this point either. Maybe this is where we are at odds here. I'm talking about locations where the power is available, where people already park their cars overnight... why not provide a solution for that scenario.

Why spend years and millions , assuming it's even technically possible , given the urban car usage/ownership model is predicted to change considerably

I see no point , you might as well reinstall horse watering troughs

My only issue is urban on street public charging . It's not technically , socially or policy wise a sustainable solution. The fact the charger is on a lamp post is irrelevant

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

Why spend years and millions , assuming it's even technically possible , given the urban car usage/ownership model is predicted to change considerably

It will be a billable solution so it should wash its own face. If not then, of course, its a non-runner.

What will this new ownership model be? I don't think anyone knows that yet. Crystal ball stuff, many decades away.

Are you predicating your opinion on autonomous vehicles becoming ubiquitous and people not owning cars but "hailing them"... is that what your objection boils down to?

We are so far from that point its laughable.

We need solutions for the next 20 years, not 2050.

BoatMad wrote: »

My only issue is urban on street public charging . It's not technically , socially or policy wise a sustainable solution. The fact the charger is on a lamp post is irrelevant

I've argued already you are wrong on all those points. You need more than one solution. That solution already exists for some areas, why not use it? Don't give me scale again please. If it works in a location, why not use it?



Taking you to task on your scalability, since you are so wedded to that.... show me the model that proves that super charge parks will have enough capacity (time and power) to support hundreds of thousands of cars? Not to mind the lost productivity that people will have sitting at rapids... even with improved charge times.

You need more than the super charge parks to solve this issue and we should be looking for every available solution, not just one.

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

It will be a billable solution so it should wash its own face. If not then, of course, its a non-runner.

What will this new ownership model be? I don't think anyone knows that yet. Crystal ball stuff, many decades away.

Are you predicating your opinion on autonomous vehicles becoming ubiquitous and people not owning cars but "hailing them"... is that what your objection boils down to?

We are so far from that point its laughable.

We need solutions for the next 20 years, not 2050.





I've argued already you are wrong on all those points. You need more than one solution. That solution already exists for some areas, why not use it? Don't give me scale again please. If it works in a location, why not use it?



Taking you to task on your scalability, since you are so wedded to that.... show me the model that proves that super charge parks will have enough capacity (time and power) to support hundreds of thousands of cars?

You need more than the super charge parks to solve this issue and we should be looking for every available solution, not just one.

This is my last post , as let's agree to disagree

Lamp post charging has largely been discounted in Ireland on the back of technical issues and the siting of lamp posts

That does not preclude any LA from doing local projects in whatever way they want. More power to them.

But that's not the same as strategic systems like super fast interurban solutions

So I don't discount any charging solution, merely that I don't think this is a priority , we need to prioritise or we'll get a similar hodge podge like the current system . This isn't Gaybos , let's have one for everyone in the audience

I also think the shared ownership model and autonomous or semi autonomous systems will be implemented far quicker then 20 years. Private car ownership in urban areas will be discouraged and will decline

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

Lamp post charging has largely been discounted in Ireland on the back of technical issues and the siting of lamp posts

discounted by you, that doesn't count!

BoatMad wrote: »

That does not preclude any LA from doing local projects in whatever way they want. More power to them.

Good, so we agree then, not disagree!

BoatMad wrote: »

But that's not the same as strategic systems like super fast interurban solutions

Of course. Thats a completely different use case. Im talking about overnight residential charging.

BoatMad wrote: »

So I don't discount any charging solution, merely that I don't think this is a priority , we need to prioritise or we'll get a similar hodge podge like the current system . This isn't Gaybos , let's have one for everyone in the audience

Again, as I said a few times, I agree with you on the priorities.

BoatMad wrote: »

I also think the shared ownership model and autonomous or semi autonomous systems will be implemented far quicker then 20 years.

You are more optimistic than me on that one then. I can see it working in places like the US in the medium term but not so much here.

Our infrastructure isn't up to scratch by a long way and like most things Ireland will trail behind in bringing it up to a standard that an autonomous vehicle can navigate around.

BoatMad wrote: »

Private car ownership in urban areas will be discouraged and will decline

Agree, Im sure it will.