Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

CRU (formerly CER) review of charging infrastructure

1246716

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Dardania


    BoatMad wrote: »
    That would be the idea, for a while at least - the 2k early adopters took the hit on an unproven technology, on behalf of the country, and provided proper feedback to the charge network operator on how to build a comprehensive, high quality public charge network. So in theory they could be "accommodated" with their low range vehicles, having given enough feedback to ESB eCars, and their own personal network of family & friends as to the benefit of EVs.
    And if the EV network were operated on a commercial basis for people beyond the 2000 early adopters, it could gain enough revenue to fund expansion. Coupled with conntinued investment from the tax payer also.
    The reason I'm asking it as a tongue in cheek question, is because the early adopters are benefiting quite a bit by having free charging, and that may be clouding/swaying their opinion on commercialising the EV charger network...

    that assumption has never been backed up with any hard data from any source in Ireland , in fact no commercial projection has been advanced by the ESB, that is in the public domain, hence all it is is an unproven assumption and we know what assumption stands for right !
    hard data is hard to get if the field is unknown...sometimes best judgement is all one can do...
    found an interesting article related to this topic over the weekend: http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/let-there-be-light-the-day-all-ireland-went-electric-1.2845679
    ESB roll out of electricity to rural Ireland was an interesting read - they had "ambassadors" in each parish to advocate electricity to everyone else.
    Anyway, I've softened my position a bit post all the discussion on this thread - I'm more focused on quality of service to the end user should be number 1 priority.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Dardania wrote: »
    hard data is hard to get if the field is unknown...sometimes best judgement is all one can do...
    found an interesting article related to this topic over the weekend: http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/let-there-be-light-the-day-all-ireland-went-electric-1.2845679
    ESB roll out of electricity to rural Ireland was an interesting read - they had "ambassadors" in each parish to advocate electricity to everyone else.
    Anyway, I've softened my position a bit post all the discussion on this thread - I'm more focused on quality of service to the end user should be number 1 priority.
    Its worth noting that the debates in the dail about the rate the ESB set for units post ardnacrusha was a source of huge debate, with many complaining that it was more expensive then the town gas systems it replaces, ( shades of the ESB today !!)
    I'm more focused on quality of service to the end user should be number 1 priority.


    NO, the only debate today , is that we must incentivise the take-up of EVS to reach the decarbonisation targets. thats means raising the annual take-up of EVs from hundreds yearly to 1000s yearly and even more initially. All goals should have this in mind

    Thats the only issue, everything else must be subservient too that . failure to achieve mass take-up will leave EVs as a niche transport method.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,030 ✭✭✭✭KCross


    BoatMad wrote: »
    I fail to see the difference, the only advantage of a grant would be to facilitate cash flow for very small business, who are unlikely to have suitable car parking spaces in the first place,

    a 1 year write-off against taxes, is virtually a grant

    My understanding is that you use the capital value to reduce your corporation tax(i.e. your profit). So you effectively get 12.5% "back" from your capital investment. Thats not enough is my point.

    Thats why Im saying a grant is required where a decent %(maybe 50%) of the purchase price of the charger is paid for. I'm not talking about giving additional grants for buying a car... just the chargers, to then encourage employees to buy EV's.

    Some evidence here of people deciding to look/buy at an EV because their employer has a charge point. Just the presence of the charger will make people think about it and thats a good thing... it will raise the profile of EV.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Dardania


    BoatMad wrote: »
    Dardania wrote: »
    hard data is hard to get if the field is unknown...sometimes best judgement is all one can do...
    found an interesting article related to this topic over the weekend: http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/let-there-be-light-the-day-all-ireland-went-electric-1.2845679
    ESB roll out of electricity to rural Ireland was an interesting read - they had "ambassadors" in each parish to advocate electricity to everyone else.
    Anyway, I've softened my position a bit post all the discussion on this thread - I'm more focused on quality of service to the end user should be number 1 priority.
    Its worth noting that the debates in the dail about the rate the ESB set for units post ardnacrusha was a source of huge debate, with many complaining that it was more expensive then the town gas systems it replaces, ( shades of the ESB today !!)
    I'm more focused on quality of service to the end user should be number 1 priority.


    NO, the only debate today , is that we must incentivise the take-up of EVS to reach the decarbonisation targets. thats means raising the annual take-up of EVs from hundreds yearly to 1000s yearly and even more initially. All goals should have this in mind

    Thats the only issue, everything else must be subservient too that . failure to achieve mass take-up will leave EVs as a niche transport method.

    Okay I get your point. It does need some translation so that it can be achieved...

    How about:
    Split the overall objective into tangible conditions, to be imposed on the charger network operator
    E.g.
    Objective: decarbonisation
    Conditions on charge point operator: high quality of service and low price

    ?

    I'd say with ESB original rural electrification roll out, their objective may have been to allow economic development of the country due to electricity
    The conditions could have been value for cost of install and speed of deployment.

    Also, quality of service wasn't evident rurally, judging by that article.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,087 ✭✭✭isnottheword


    Dardania wrote: »
    How about:
    Split the overall objective into tangible conditions, to be imposed on the charger network operator
    E.g.
    Objective: decarbonisation
    Conditions on charge point operator: high quality of service and low price
    No charging for charging to continue for the moment - to be reviewed periodically. The only clause I'd add to this - is that a measure should be taken to stop abuse of chargers eg. fees to apply within X minutes of a car completing a charge (if still connected). An absolute time limit to be enforced to deal with PHEVs. In reality, they shouldn't really need to be charging - they can do so at home - and 'top up' with petrol if on longer journeys. They shouldn't be allowed to hog the network.

    Lastly, review of charging infrastructure - there are issues at some charging point locations (not even taking into account issues with maintenance of the chargers themselves). Coordination with the land owners ref. need to clamp if ICE's park up in ecar parking places.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Dardania




  • Registered Users Posts: 13,575 ✭✭✭✭josip




  • Registered Users Posts: 12,030 ✭✭✭✭KCross


    josip wrote: »

    I really dont get this V2G business.
    The last thing I'd want is the grid uncharging my car regardless of the time of the day or what they paid me for it.

    What about if I have an emergency or just a spur of the moment decision to go somewhere and the grid has uncharged the car. It just doesnt seem like a system anyone would sign up to.

    I'm sure there are a few people who are very low mileage users who could consider it but I'd still question the viability of it.

    Also bearing in mind the wear and tear on the battery itself. The grid is basically getting you to wear out your battery for their benefit. They would need to give me a very good kWh rate (a multiple of what they charge me) for me to consider wearing out my battery and inconvenience for their benefit.

    Where are the benefits here to the end user. I just dont see them?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    KCross wrote: »
    I really dont get this V2G business.
    The last thing I'd want is the grid uncharging my car regardless of the time of the day or what they paid me for it.

    What about if I have an emergency or just a spur of the moment decision to go somewhere and the grid has uncharged the car. It just doesnt seem like a system anyone would sign up to.

    I'm sure there are a few people who are very low mileage users who could consider it but I'd still question the viability of it.

    Also bearing in mind the wear and tear on the battery itself. The grid is basically getting you to wear out your battery for their benefit. They would need to give me a very good kWh rate (a multiple of what they charge me) for me to consider wearing out my battery and inconvenience for their benefit.

    Where are the benefits here to the end user. I just dont see them?

    Valid points. Typical trial V2G installs use about 10 % of battery capacity and pay you for that.

    At present none of the trial models show a competitive cost structure that is scalable


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,087 ✭✭✭isnottheword


    BoatMad wrote: »
    Valid points. Typical trial V2G installs use about 10 % of battery capacity and pay you for that.

    At present none of the trial models show a competitive cost structure that is scalable
    Presumably this would only really be of benefit (to whomever operates V2G) whenever there is a mass market of EV's out there already. i.e. much further down the road.

    From the point of view of the individual participant in such a scheme, I guess it would be hard to justify given the impact on wear n' tear ...unless there is some major improvement in battery tech where this becomes more and more negligible.....?


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭ Kingston Scarce Belly


    josip 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 ! :D

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,030 ✭✭✭✭KCross


    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 ! :D

    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! :D

    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.


  • Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭ Kingston Scarce Belly


    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! :D

    lol yeah I never thought about that ! :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Dardania


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,087 ✭✭✭isnottheword


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Dardania


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,030 ✭✭✭✭KCross


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Dardania


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Dardania


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    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 )


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Dardania


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,030 ✭✭✭✭KCross


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Dardania


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,030 ✭✭✭✭KCross


    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."


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Dardania


    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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,087 ✭✭✭isnottheword


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,030 ✭✭✭✭KCross


    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!


Advertisement