CRU (formerly CER) review of charging infrastructure

07-11-2016 10:27pm

josip wrote: »

Here ya go Mad Lad
http://newatlas.com/nissan-technical-centre-europe-vehicle-to-grid-chargers/46290/

I would like if they released a domestic only version where you could charge your car on night rate and run the house off the car for cooking etc at peak times if you wish.

My average daily consumption before the Leaf was 6.5 Kwh per day, now it's 17, this is with work charging and for 30,000 kms a year excluding free public charging which to be hones't isn't a lot.

I could charge off the work charge point and use that to run the house when I'm home. Though in reality when on shift I'm gone at 6.50-7am and home at 9 PM so wouldn't be using a huge amount an when off shift if I have 350 odd kms range I'd most likely keep that for driving when I'm off shift. It would give me around 280 kms for free after I get home to use on my days off.

A 100 Kwh Model S would be great for this !

Anyway, it's a step int he right direction.

KCross · 07-11-2016 11:21pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I would like if they released a domestic only version where you could charge your car on night rate and run the house off the car for cooking etc at peak times if you wish.

My average daily consumption before the Leaf was 6.5 Kwh per day, now it's 17, this is with work charging and for 30,000 kms a year excluding free public charging which to be hones't isn't a lot.

I could charge off the work charge point and use that to run the house when I'm home. Though in reality when on shift I'm gone at 6.50-7am and home at 9 PM so wouldn't be using a huge amount an when off shift if I have 350 odd kms range I'd most likely keep that for driving when I'm off shift. It would give me around 280 kms for free after I get home to use on my days off.

A 100 Kwh Model S would be great for this !

Anyway, it's a step int he right direction.

I can only imagine the moaning you'd be doing when everyone starts hogging the charger network to rob the electricity to drive their houses!

I guess this V2G thing is early days and is a long way off production so charging for charging will be well bedded in by then.

07-11-2016 11:30pm

KCross wrote: »

I can only imagine the moaning you'd be doing when everyone starts hogging the charger network to rob the electricity to drive their houses!

lol yeah I never thought about that !

BoatMad · 08-11-2016 12:21pm

I guess this V2G thing is early days and is a long way off production so charging for charging will be well bedded in by then.

Yes indeed, its a bit of a " solution looking for a problem " type of things

Dardania · 08-11-2016 1:29pm

It could possibly play a role in maintaining grid inertia...be a pain to achieve in practice however

isnottheword · 08-11-2016 1:50pm

Dardania wrote: »

It could possibly play a role in maintaining grid inertia...be a pain to achieve in practice however

possibly something that could come into play much further down the line. ie. when there is a mass of ev's out there and battery tech is at a level (in terms of capacity, durability and price point) whereby pinching 10% from an array of ev batteries may not be such a big deal?

..just a thought.

Dardania · 08-11-2016 2:09pm

isnottheword wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

It could possibly play a role in maintaining grid inertia...be a pain to achieve in practice however

possibly something that could come into play much further down the line. ie. when there is a mass of ev's out there and battery tech is at a level (in terms of capacity, durability and price point) whereby pinching 10% from an array of ev batteries may not be such a big deal?

..just a thought.

It could work two ways:
- load from vehicles to the grid (e.g. if there's a drop in frequency due to the wind not blowing, the EVs could export to the grid to ride through until some gas turbine somewhere spins up)
- load from the grid to the vehicles (e.g. the EVs could all be charging at 60% of their max rated power, and if the wind blows extra hard, and frequency starts increasing: the EVs could charge a bit faster, to act as a governer)
Very interesting talk on this topic in Engineers Ireland a few months ago

KCross · 08-11-2016 2:16pm

Dardania wrote: »

It could work two ways:
- load from vehicles to the grid (e.g. if there's a drop in frequency due to the wind not blowing, the EVs could export to the grid to ride through until some gas turbine somewhere spins up)
- load from the grid to the vehicles (e.g. the EVs could all be charging at 60% of their max rated power, and if the wind blows extra hard, and frequency starts increasing: the EVs could charge a bit faster, to act as a governer)
Very interesting talk on this topic in Engineers Ireland a few months ago

Well.... on the basis that that wouldnt involve alot of kWh's being sent/received and the inconvenience of having to plug the car in all the time I'd need them to pay me a standing charge for my services!

Seriously though, based on what I've seen/read so far I dont see the value proposition for end users. It seems useful to the grid more than the end user. I'm not going to inconvenience myself everyday for a few measly quid.

I guess we need to see where it goes and what they pay end users and then run the numbers.

Dardania · 08-11-2016 2:23pm

KCross wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

It could work two ways:
- load from vehicles to the grid (e.g. if there's a drop in frequency due to the wind not blowing, the EVs could export to the grid to ride through until some gas turbine somewhere spins up)
- load from the grid to the vehicles (e.g. the EVs could all be charging at 60% of their max rated power, and if the wind blows extra hard, and frequency starts increasing: the EVs could charge a bit faster, to act as a governer)
Very interesting talk on this topic in Engineers Ireland a few months ago

Well.... on the basis that that wouldnt involve alot of kWh's being sent/received and the inconvenience of having to plug the car in all the time I'd need them to pay me a standing charge for my services!

Seriously though, based on what I've seen/read so far I dont see the value proposition for end users. It seems useful to the grid more than the end user. I'm not going to inconvenience myself everyday for a few measly quid.

I guess we need to see where it goes and what they pay end users and then run the numbers.

I would doubt that any money would change hands for this - I'd say if they were serious about it, they'd be formulating regulations about behaviour of EVs being imported to the country.
It will become a more pertinent issue in time as grids move away from nice big spinning masses of metal to wind power etc...but guessing how grid operators think, they would probably rather Rotary UPS type kit installed around the country to ride through disturbances.

Interesting thread on slashdot about new Tesla buyers having to pay for their supercharger use: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/16/11/07/2029251/new-tesla-buyers-will-have-to-pay-to-use-superchargers

BoatMad · 09-11-2016 11:51am

Dardania wrote: »

It could work two ways:
- load from vehicles to the grid (e.g. if there's a drop in frequency due to the wind not blowing, the EVs could export to the grid to ride through until some gas turbine somewhere spins up)
- load from the grid to the vehicles (e.g. the EVs could all be charging at 60% of their max rated power, and if the wind blows extra hard, and frequency starts increasing: the EVs could charge a bit faster, to act as a governer)
Very interesting talk on this topic in Engineers Ireland a few months ago

was at that

wasn't impressed, technically its understandable , but commercially theres no model that makes sense

BoatMad · 09-11-2016 11:56am

KCross wrote: »

Well.... on the basis that that wouldnt involve alot of kWh's being sent/received and the inconvenience of having to plug the car in all the time I'd need them to pay me a standing charge for my services!

Seriously though, based on what I've seen/read so far I dont see the value proposition for end users. It seems useful to the grid more than the end user. I'm not going to inconvenience myself everyday for a few measly quid.

I guess we need to see where it goes and what they pay end users and then run the numbers.

The idea would be that , say all chargers would be fitted with two way energy flows and telemetry. SO its not that you have to change anything, you just use your car as normal.
The V2G company buys energy from you ( all of you ) and acts as a short term generator to the grid.

the issue I could never get a handle on , is that by definition, the sale price of generator energy is far less then the costs that would have to be paid to you to recharge at retail energy prices. Hence I could never get a answer on the economic model of this technology

Dardania · 09-11-2016 11:59am

BoatMad wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

It could work two ways:
- load from vehicles to the grid (e.g. if there's a drop in frequency due to the wind not blowing, the EVs could export to the grid to ride through until some gas turbine somewhere spins up)
- load from the grid to the vehicles (e.g. the EVs could all be charging at 60% of their max rated power, and if the wind blows extra hard, and frequency starts increasing: the EVs could charge a bit faster, to act as a governer)
Very interesting talk on this topic in Engineers Ireland a few months ago

was at that

wasn't impressed, technically its understandable , but commercially theres no model that makes sense

at best, we'll see a centrally controlled load shedding of non instant loads (like EVs) in times of load grid supply capability.

BoatMad · 09-11-2016 12:14pm

Dardania wrote: »

at best, we'll see a centrally controlled load shedding of non instant loads (like EVs) in times of load grid supply capability.

without massive upgrading of domestic charge points, I cant see that happening , The ESB technical report does not see any particular issue with supporting wide scale domestic charging ( other then certain infrastructure improvements to the grid )

Dardania · 13-11-2016 8:50pm

Just reading the http://www.dttas.ie/public-transport/english/alternative-fuels-infrastructure paper.

They mention the idea of EVs in future being used to store variable wind power for the grid...

I'll debate the topic at an intellectual level until the cows come home, but I'd be very worried to see it as part of policy....

Anyone else have thoughts on the paper?

Seems a much less technical, more political piece, compared to the CERs

KCross · 14-11-2016 1:52pm

Dardania wrote: »

Just reading the http://www.dttas.ie/public-transport/english/alternative-fuels-infrastructure paper.

They mention the idea of EVs in future being used to store variable wind power for the grid...

I'll debate the topic at an intellectual level until the cows come home, but I'd be very worried to see it as part of policy....

Anyone else have thoughts on the paper?

Seems a much less technical, more political piece, compared to the CERs

Why would it concern you if it were part of policy? Policy doesnt mean it would be mandatory.

The paper has some aspirational and crystal ball stuff in it (e.g. Hydrogen fuel cells etc) and they are just throwing out the possibilities that exist and requesting feedback.

Supporting V2G as a policy wouldnt bother me. I just dont think I'd sign up to it myself. I'd need to see some facts/figures before I'd allow them take power out of my car.

Dardania · 21-11-2016 12:46pm

KCross wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

Just reading the http://www.dttas.ie/public-transport/english/alternative-fuels-infrastructure paper.

They mention the idea of EVs in future being used to store variable wind power for the grid...

I'll debate the topic at an intellectual level until the cows come home, but I'd be very worried to see it as part of policy....

Anyone else have thoughts on the paper?

Seems a much less technical, more political piece, compared to the CERs

Why would it concern you if it were part of policy? Policy doesnt mean it would be mandatory.

The paper has some aspirational and crystal ball stuff in it (e.g. Hydrogen fuel cells etc) and they are just throwing out the possibilities that exist and requesting feedback.

Supporting V2G as a policy wouldnt bother me. I just dont think I'd sign up to it myself. I'd need to see some facts/figures before I'd allow them take power out of my car.

To answer your question, the reason I would be concerned if V2G were actively used for grid stability purposes is it would suggest that more "controlled" methods of grid stability weren't being provided. And we would be at risk of brown outs etc. as a result.

KCross · 31-01-2017 11:31am

FYI:

I was wondering when a decision was going to be made so I asked.
They have replied and said "... expecting to publish a decision paper in Q2 2017."

Dardania · 31-01-2017 11:35am

KCross wrote: »

FYI:

I was wondering when a decision was going to be made so I asked.
They have replied and said "... expecting to publish a decision paper in Q2 2017."

Was curious also myself...
Hopefully it is so they can implement everyone's idea nicely!

isnottheword · 31-01-2017 11:43am

KCross wrote: »

FYI:

I was wondering when a decision was going to be made so I asked.
They have replied and said "... expecting to publish a decision paper in Q2 2017."

How soon thereafter is it likely that a 'decision' is implemented? i.e. what's the normal timeline for these types of consultative processes in this regard? Immediate implementation or is there some other red tape/delay until implementation?

Dardania wrote: »

Was curious also myself...
Hopefully it is so they can implement everyone's idea nicely!

We live in hope! With a bit of luck, they will have learned something from what Ecars tried to plough through back in Nov '15.

KCross · 31-01-2017 11:50am

isnottheword wrote: »

How soon thereafter is it likely that a 'decision' is implemented? i.e. what's the normal timeline for these types of consultative processes in this regard? Immediate implementation or is there some other red tape/delay until implementation?

I doubt there is a simple answer to that. Every consultation is going to be different and obviously dependent on what they actually decide.

If they go with the options outlined in the paper they could decide to just leave it as is for a few more years in which case its business as usual... effectively "immediate implementation".

If they decide to hand control to eCars it depends on whether they have a charging plan ready to hit the ground.... which I bet they do!

31-01-2017 11:58am

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 · 31-01-2017 12:08pm

[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 · 31-01-2017 2:31pm

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.

31-01-2017 2:34pm

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 · 31-01-2017 5:48pm

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

31-01-2017 5:50pm

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

Dardania · 31-01-2017 6:48pm

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...

31-01-2017 10:21pm

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

KCross · 06-04-2017 2:13pm

@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 · 06-04-2017 2:18pm

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 · 06-04-2017 3:04pm

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 · 06-04-2017 5:09pm

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 · 07-04-2017 11:50am

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 · 07-04-2017 11:57am

goldfish wrote: »

Subsidised by whom?

You if you pay for electricity

cros13 · 07-04-2017 12:29pm

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 · 07-04-2017 3:19pm

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 + â‚¬30/month (by contrast my home charging on night rate is 6c/kWh)
Their capital expenditures and running costs for Q4 2016 were over â‚¬2.5 million
Their revenue increased by 60% in Q4 vs previous year to ~â‚¬60,000
So â‚¬60k of revenue to cover â‚¬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 · 07-04-2017 5:19pm

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 · 07-04-2017 5:24pm

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 · 07-04-2017 5:35pm

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 · 07-04-2017 5:45pm

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 · 07-04-2017 5:59pm

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 · 07-04-2017 6:25pm

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 · 07-04-2017 6:27pm

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 · 07-04-2017 6:31pm

isnottheword wrote: »

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

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

isnottheword · 07-04-2017 6:32pm

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 · 07-04-2017 6:33pm

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 · 07-04-2017 6:36pm

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 · 07-04-2017 6:38pm

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 · 07-04-2017 6:43pm

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 · 07-04-2017 6:45pm

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

CRU (formerly CER) review of charging infrastructure

Comments