Ionity charging network

BoatMad

Jeditraining1 wrote: »

So inconsistent then and that ladies and gentlemen was and still is the problem with the IEVOA. Things might have changed. Time will tell.

It’s seems you have no desire to read or understand , so common amongst EV detractors or the whiners for whom nothing will ever be right

My position has been entirely consistent on fast chargers , I “personally” have little to complain based on my personal experience of using them , however I have recognized and spoken out on the deficiencies of the network as a national infrastructure and it’s management and the role the esb and CRU have played in this.

It maybe a bit to nuanced for the “ haters” , but I’m sorry , I can only form opinions based on what I actually see on the ground

I’ve no interest in this debate topic, take it to Facebook where you can join in with the others

Silent Running

Even as I move from 28kWh to 64kWh next month, I will still need public rapid charging. I do fairly regular long runs and have needed to stop for 3 rapid charges on most of them. With 64kWh, I'll need to stop for a charge only once, and I'd need a break then anyway.

Now for the chorus of "you bought the wrong car", "wrong tool for the job". I really enjoy driving electric and cost per kilometre isn't a huge factor in my car choice. When I drove diesel, I hated the whole concept of them: rough, smelly, polluting cars. I'll happily drive electric for the rest of my motoring life, unless something better comes along.

So, I'll need public rapid charging. Many like me will also. Those without any choice will also need them. And as the electric fleet grows, this need will grow at the same pace.

I just hope that a fair and reasonable fee can be figured out. I would be all for pricing on electricity consumed. This seems to work well in the UK.

Shortly after fees for charging start, we'll see how the network suddenly frees up as people start to charge at night rate, at home. As competition comes into the market, gouging by any charging companies should cease as they'll have to compete for business. Interesting times ahead.

BoatMad

Yes I do think there will be consolidation in the fast charger market here quite quickly , there’s a bit of “ railway mania “ about some of the installations at present

I suspect we’ll see 100 kw/h batteries in relatively low cost EVs soon enough ( I suspect that will be a plateau for many ), probably delivering circa 700 km range

At that point ,in Ireland , you are in excess of 99% of most people’s requirements.

Most people over estimate the lengths and frequency of long journeys and many involve long stays comparatively , at the destination. The average km driven in Ireland is quite low. ( though high by international standards )suggesting that many car owners do not regularly undertake long journeys at all.

Hence my contention, that fast chargers usage will appeal to a minority of users and of course unfortunately to those that have no access to cheaper forms of charging . They will be rightly gouged in rip off republic as our car ownership is low and outside Dublin , very distributed

The situation is not the same on larger land masses where routinely very long journeys are undertaken

Jeditraining1

BoatMad wrote: »

It’s seems you have no desire to read or understand , so common amongst EV detractors or the whiners for whom nothing will ever be right

My position has been entirely consistent on fast chargers , I “personally” have little to complain based on my personal experience of using them , however I have recognized and spoken out on the deficiencies of the network as a national infrastructure and it’s management and the role the esb and CRU have played in this.

It maybe a bit to nuanced for the “ haters” , but I’m sorry , I can only form opinions based on what I actually see on the ground

I’ve no interest in this debate topic, take it to Facebook where you can join in with the others

You should have been a politician lol

Mike9832

BoatMad wrote: »

I suspect we’ll see 100 kw/h batteries in relatively low cost EVs soon enough ( I suspect that will be a plateau for many ), probably delivering circa 700 km range

Its taken 5 years to go from a low cost 100km €22,000 Leaf 24 to a 200km €32,000 Leaf 40

So I'd say your low cost 700km EV might be here by 2030 at this rate

BoatMad

Mike9832 wrote: »

Its taken 5 years to go from a low cost 100km €22,000 Leaf 24 to a 200km €32,000 Leaf 40

So I'd say your low cost 700km EV might be here by 2030 at this rate

in three years Hyundai have doubled their capacity, Since 2016 when I brought the then new 30 kwh , Nissan have gone to 40 and now 60

so given the interest in EV batteries , Id say 100 Kwh in lower cost cars is less then 5 years away

unkel

BoatMad wrote: »

Id say 100 Kwh in lower cost cars is less then 5 years away

I'd say in 5 years time the cheapest EVs will have no more than 50kWh batteries.

BoatMad

unkel wrote: »

I'd say in 5 years time the cheapest EVs will have no more than 50kWh batteries.

I wasn't talking about the cheapest, but more about cars the middle ground buy

There will always be room for a cheaper car. with a cut back specification. However these cars will be competing with the EV 2nd hand market as EVs are likely to outlast ICE

Mike9832

BoatMad wrote: »

in three years Hyundai have doubled their capacity, Since 2016 when I brought the then new 30 kwh , Nissan have gone to 40 and now 60

so given the interest in EV batteries , Id say 100 Kwh in lower cost cars is less then 5 years away

Yes

Hyundai 28kWh cost €26,000 OTR in 2016 and Kona 64kWh costs €40,000 OTR in 2019

Leaf 30 was what €25,000 in 2016?

Leaf40 is €32,000 in 2019

Leaf60 will be €39,000

That is some progression towards affordable 100kWh EV's

liamog

For automotive batteries per kWh prices are dropping at about 18% per year and energy density is increasing by around 9%.
If the trend continues by 2024 an e-Niro could have a battery of 100kWh, which is the same size/weight as the current 64kWh and at a pack level costing only 60% of the current model.

Now to be fair, I expect we will start to see a stabilisation of range, and that battery sizes will settle down.

KCross

liamog wrote: »

For automotive batteries per kWh prices are dropping at about 18% per year and energy density is increasing by around 9%.
If the trend continues by 2024 an e-Niro could have a battery of 100kWh, which is the same size/weight as the current 64kWh and at a pack level costing only 60% of the current model.

Now to be fair, I expect we will start to see a stabilisation of range, and that battery sizes will settle down.

I think the point is, that the car prices to the consumer have not been dropping over the last few years. Its no good if its dropping for the manufacturer and not the consumer!

Any price improvements on batteries are going to be gobbled up by the manufacturers until serious competition arrives.... and I cant see it on the horizon... can you?

Black_Knight

KCross wrote: »

I think the point is, that the car prices to the consumer have not been dropping over the last few years. Its no good if its dropping for the manufacturer and not the consumer!

Any price improvements on batteries are going to be gobbled up by the manufacturers until serious competition arrives.... and I cant see it on the horizon... can you?

Not while people are happy to shell out 40k on a plastic spec Kona, while the government picks up a 10k tab. I was really hoping the public would show Hyundai where to go with the Irish spec Kona, and force them to either drop the price, or match the UK spec. My guess is it'll be a similar story to the leaf with the 2020 Ioniq. Higher price, slightly higher mileage.

Imaging if the grants disappeared overnight, not a single new EV would be sold at their current prices.

liamog

With the emissions rules in play, you'd be mad to sell a competitively priced EV.
There's the 95gCO2/km target for 2021, followed by a 15% reduction by 2025 and a 37.5% reduction by 2030.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019R0631

The bean counters will be calculating exactly the right number of cars to sell to hit the 2021 target without overachieving.
If you are going to be artificially manipulating the sales number you may as well do so whilst ensuring a high margin on the vehicles you do sell.

My point re the changes in price was addressing BoatMad and his expectation of 100kWh as standard in 5 years.

McGiver

Black_Knight wrote:

Imaging if the grants disappeared overnight, not a single new EV would be sold at their current prices.

What we need is a degressive subsidy - the lower the price the higher the subsidy. This would help with adoption amongst the general population. Germans are seriously thinking about this sort of a subsidy.

Another way is to get rid of the VRT and especially VAT. Norway is doing both. This can be be combined with the above. VRT exemption is not great, VAT exemption is better, the consumer sees a real effect. VRT is not very common in Europe (bar Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland). VRT itself is rather an anomaly so reduction (or elimination) of it for EVs is just a correction of the anomaly rather than anything else. VRT should be abolished IMHO and fuels should be taxed more. VAT exemption would really make an impact (as it did in Norway).

eGolf price in EUR
Norway 34233
Ireland 41450

Flat subsidy off the purchase price as we currently have here is the worst, it doesn't push the car makers to reduce prices.

_ned_

Fully agree on VRT: it's a regressive tax that keeps our fleet old and inefficient, and makes car ownership very expensive. Tax should be on pollution+carbon since that is the crisis we face. I think that EV prices will remain high because that's what the auto industry wants. If you're going to forego giving them the service fees and DPF replacement charges they expect over the lifetime of the car, they'll just front-load service profits onto the car price. Most of the EVs sold here are < 40kW. What's the battery cost? Probably about €8k. Then compare the cost of a motor versus an ICE, gearbox, clutch, DPF/Cat, exhaust. The motor has to be so much cheaper than all that. I know ICEs are mass manufactured, and are relatively cheap for all their complexity. Even so, the EV parts must represent a saving of €2k. So an EV should be about €6k dearer than its ICE equivalent. Then toss in the VRT reduction and SEAI grant, you should be €5-10k cheaper. EV adoption should be on an exponential rise. Instead it is continually being retarded by a multi-trillion dollar dinosaur. And amply aided and abetted by the kind of cheap journalism we saw on Prime Time. (Forgot to charge! Took the wrong turn. How blonde am I?) I've run out of petrol once or twice. I never blamed the car.
On charging fees: the scarce resource is time on the charger, not kWh. Charges should be per minute of connection time. Per kWh let's me happily charge my Outlander while you wait in your L40. Per kWh lets you charge your L40 into rapidgate while some poor sod in a flat Ionic looks on in despair. Then a Model S jumps the queue while the poor Ionic guy wanders off for a coffee, and charges to 100%. A flat fee encourages the long stayers. Per minute means you only use the charger for exactly what you need. You don't hog the charger because it's expensive to stay charging once the rate of charge drops. Simples!

Black_Knight

_ned_ wrote: »

Fully agree on VRT: it's a regressive tax that keeps our fleet old and inefficient, and makes car ownership very expensive. Tax should be on pollution+carbon since that is the crisis we face. I think that EV prices will remain high because that's what the auto industry wants. If you're going to forego giving them the service fees and DPF replacement charges they expect over the lifetime of the car, they'll just front-load service profits onto the car price. Most of the EVs sold here are < 40kW. What's the battery cost? Probably about €8k. Then compare the cost of a motor versus an ICE, gearbox, clutch, DPF/Cat, exhaust. The motor has to be so much cheaper than all that. I know ICEs are mass manufactured, and are relatively cheap for all their complexity. Even so, the EV parts must represent a saving of €2k. So an EV should be about €6k dearer than its ICE equivalent. Then toss in the VRT reduction and SEAI grant, you should be €5-10k cheaper. EV adoption should be on an exponential rise. Instead it is continually being retarded by a multi-trillion dollar dinosaur. And amply aided and abetted by the kind of cheap journalism we saw on Prime Time. (Forgot to charge! Took the wrong turn. How blonde am I?) I've run out of petrol once or twice. I never blamed the car.
On charging fees: the scarce resource is time on the charger, not kWh. Charges should be per minute of connection time. Per kWh let's me happily charge my Outlander while you wait in your L40. Per kWh lets you charge your L40 into rapidgate while some poor sod in a flat Ioniq looks on in despair. Then a Model S jumps the queue while the poor Ioniq guy wanders off for a coffee, and charges to 100%. A flat fee encourages the long stayers. Per minute means you only use the charger for exactly what you need. You don't hog the charger because it's expensive to stay charging once the rate of charge drops. Simples!

<twitch>

liamog

_ned_ wrote: »

Fully agree on VRT: it's a regressive tax that keeps our fleet old and inefficient, and makes car ownership very expensive. Tax should be on pollution+carbon since that is the crisis we face.

A regressive tax is one that decreases as the value of the item being taxed increases. VRT may be many things, but regressive certainly isn't one of them. It's applied flat tax with bands based on CO2 emissions. It needs an overhaul and should be updated to account for non-CO2 emissions.

There's probably scope to turn it into a progressive tax, one that increases as the value increases, but their would be blue murder when people find the tax on luxury cars increases.

_ned_

liamog, same word, different meaning!
I meant "regressive" in the sense that the tax has a negative outcome. But I agree completely with your ideas.
It seems to me that VRT is our government deterring or penalising us for new car purchase. Why? I know they need the money. Those children's hospitals and rural broadband won't pay for themselves! But why deter new car ownership? I was told once that we have the lowest manufacturer price for cars in Europe because we have the highest final sticker price. Hence the paddy-spec cars on sale here. Cars are becoming more fuel-efficient and less polluting as the EU finally tightens the regulations and uses the more realistic WLTP instead of the ridiculous NEDC. Our fuel costs here are cheaper than the UK or Germany, but our cars are the most expensive. Our tax regime punishes new car ownership but not fuel consumption. (Car tax does take fuel efficiency into account to some limited degree).
If they were serious about our emission commitments, we would reverse the focus. Tax CO2 and fuel consumption, and reduce or eliminate tax on the purchase of new vehicles. And definitely promote and encourage the sale of BEVs. As a PHEV owner, I would fully subscribe to providing all the resources, reductions and grants to BEVs only. After a year of ownership, my petrol bill dropped to around €500 from about €2700 in the previous car. (Also got a welcome €500 reduction in car tax.)
I think your idea of a progressive regime is very good. We should have the biggest grants for the lowest price BEVs to encourage the switch for the many rather than the few. The scheme should put pressure on manufacturers to offer lower cost EVs that ordinary people can afford. At the moment, new EVs are just too expensive. €40k for a Kona/Niro/L62. €48.5 for a Model 3 that costs about $37k before incentives in the US. The biggest selling car in Ireland has been the Hyundai Tucson beginning at €27.5k. And Dacia will sell you a Duster for <18k.
I think we need to rethink our tax regime and ask what are we trying to achieve with it.

samih

McGiver wrote: »

What we need is a degressive subsidy - the lower the price the higher the subsidy. This would help with adoption amongst the general population. Germans are seriously thinking about this sort of a subsidy.

Another way is to get rid of the VRT and especially VAT. Norway is doing both. This can be be combined with the above. VRT exemption is not great, VAT exemption is better, the consumer sees a real effect. VRT is not very common in Europe (bar Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland). VRT itself is rather an anomaly so reduction (or elimination) of it for EVs is just a correction of the anomaly rather than anything else. VRT should be abolished IMHO and fuels should be taxed more. VAT exemption would really make an impact (as it did in Norway).

eGolf price in EUR
Norway 34233
Ireland 41450

Flat subsidy off the purchase price as we currently have here is the worst, it doesn't push the car makers to reduce prices.

Norway doesn't have VAT on electric cars but there are no other subsidies. That and the small bit of VRT due to expensive base price of the Golf explains the price difference between here and there. I think the issue is the price gouging of the car makers, not the VRT. VRT will be zero for time being for cheap enough cars.

unkel

_ned_ wrote: »

I was told once that we have the lowest manufacturer price for cars in Europe because we have the highest final sticker price.

That used to be the case. They gave us the cars cheaply as we had to pay a lot of tax on them.

Now it seems to have been reversed. They give us the cars expensively as we have one of the best EV subsidies

In other word, the subsidies are going straight to the manufacturer, they should be abolished asap unless the base price of the car (before taxes) is at the EU average or below it imho.

Silent Running

unkel wrote: »

That used to be the case. They gave us the cars cheaply as we had to pay a lot of tax on them.

Now it seems to have been reversed. They give us the cars expensively as we have one of the best EV subsidies

In other word, the subsidies are going straight to the manufacturer, they should be abolished asap unless the base price of the car (before taxes) is at the EU average or below it imho.

Realistically, the best time to do that is next year, when manufacturers have to move loads of EVs to offset their C02 fines. If they absolutely need to move metal for their own good, the prices should reflect that. We can but hope. :rolleyes:

Mike9832

Silent Running wrote: »

Realistically, the best time to do that is next year, when manufacturers have to move loads of EVs to offset their C02 fines. If they absolutely need to move metal for their own good, the prices should reflect that. We can but hope. :rolleyes:

I'd agree

The condescending Scandinavians selling oil and gas to us plebs will take as many EVs as autogiants can produce

We will be even worse off

McGiver

liamog wrote:

A regressive tax is one that decreases as the value of the item being taxed increases. VRT may be many things, but regressive certainly isn't one of them. It's applied flat tax with bands based on CO2 emissions. It needs an overhaul and should be updated to account for non-CO2 emissions.

I think that's what they do in the Norway - based on CO2 as well as CO/SOx/NOx/PM. It's ridiculous to base it on CO2 however problematic the CO2 issue is. Kind of pointless reducing CO2 fighting climate change if everyone has cancer from PM.

unkel

McGiver wrote: »

It's ridiculous to base it on CO2 however problematic the CO2 issue is. Kind of pointless reducing CO2 fighting climate change if everyone has cancer from PM.

QFT, wish I could thank your post 1000 times.

McGiver

samih wrote:

Norway doesn't have VAT on electric cars but there are no other subsidies. That and the small bit of VRT due to expensive base price of the Golf explains the price difference between here and there. I think the issue is the price gouging of the car makers, not the VRT. VRT will be zero for time being for cheap enough cars.

The VAT is 25% which makes a huge difference. And the VRT (aka Registration Fee) can be rather high as well. Getting away with both is the reason for Norway being the only country where total cost of EV is less than ICE (both petrol and diesel).

McGiver

Silent Running wrote:

Realistically, the best time to do that is next year, when manufacturers have to move loads of EVs to offset their C02 fines. If they absolutely need to move metal for their own good, the prices should reflect that. We can but hope.

VW Norway just have got eGolf sale at €29,600 relatively highly specced (the discount is some €4,500).

Until 31 August 2019 you can save up to 45,700 on e-Golf. In addition, you get the competitive and favorable car insurance  Volkswagen Insurance  for 1 month on the purchase. 

e-Golf 136 hp Campaign kr 289.900

Contains the following equipment:
Alloy wheels 16 "Astana 
Heat pump System 
Electrically retractable exterior mirror 
ACC adaptive cruise control up to 210 km / h 
Parking sensor front and rear 
Proactive passenger protection 
LED headlights and LED backlights 
fatigue Alert 
Front Assist with City emergency brake 
3 years Car-Net Security & Service + 3 years Guide & Inform 

The same car costs €41,500 in Ireland and it's not on sale. Will they put it on sale here as well? There's just the 2 year PCP.

Black_Knight

Anyone what remember when this thread was about ionity chargers?

Sabre Man

(CercleFinance.com) - German auto giant Volkswagen said on Thursday that it is planning to install a total of 36,000 charging points for electric cars throughout Europe by 2025. The charging points will be installed at Volkswagen plants and at about 3,000 Volkswagen dealerships in major towns and cities, the carmaker said.

Water John

Maybe it was earlier in this thread but VW were to have chargers in their dealerships in Ireland by the end of this year.

irishgrover

does anyone have any idea on where the Ionity chargers will be (exclusing the 2 locations alread done/in development)
Specifically interested in a location between Dublin and Galway