Can I add an EV charger for a PHEV to this CU

[morqthana]

But you don't have to spend time trying to help me understand your posts - I do understand them. But they're all about billing.

And I happen to agree with all the things we can do with billing. We could even, with current technology, incorporate ANPR so that drivers don't need to swipe or wave a card - just pull up to the charger and plug in.

But the fact that we'd need millions of pavement chargers installed (there are 8.5M vehicles parked on streets overnight, every night) is not a billing issue.

The fact that the average cost of a slow public charger is over 50p/kWh is not a billing issue.

 

[JohnW2]

But you don't have to spend time trying to help me understand your posts - I do understand them. But they're all about billing. And I happen to agree with all the things we can do with billing. We could even, with current technology, incorporate ANPR so that drivers don't need to swipe or wave a card - just pull up to the charger and plug in.

Same here - I fully understand, and agree with, what has been said about the mechanics of 'billing'.

But the fact that we'd need millions of pavement chargers installed (there are 8.5M vehicles parked on streets overnight, every night) is not a billing issue. The fact that the average cost of a slow public charger is over 50p/kWh is not a billing issue.

Exactly - and those issues are surely beyond dispute? .. and, as I wrote, seemingly not really addressable other than by some sort of 'subsidising' - which, in turn, would not be much of a solution.

 

[morqthana]

"Subsidising" is actually just provision of public infrastructure, like roads, street lamps, signage, pavements, drainage.

Charging for the use of them isn't a problem, and there's no law of nature which says that we can't use billing technology to make the cost of energy from a slow public charger the same as a home one, or vice-versa, leaving people to buy a home charger if they want the convenience of that, or using higher priced faster chargers as and when they want (or need) that convenience.

It can't be left to "the market" to provide them though, any more than we let "the market" spot road or bridge building opportunities.

Norway has 1/12th the population of the UK, but over 1/2 as many public chargers.

 

[JohnW2]

"Subsidising" is actually just provision of public infrastructure, like roads, street lamps, signage, pavements, drainage.

Sure - but my point was that that 'public infrastructure' is financed by tax/duty-payers. Hence if public EV charging was 'subsidised' to make it cheaper then some other people (or maybe even the same ones!) would inevitably, in one way or another, become 'worse off' to pay for that 'subsidy'.

 

[morqthana]

What about all the non-driving taxpayers and the payments they make for roads?

What about all the childless taxpayers and the payments they make for schools?

If we want a society we have to pay for it, and everybody has to pay, people can't pick & choose which bits they pay for and which not.

Unless we want to bake structural inequalities into the EV charging network we will have to equalise the cost of charging at home and the cost of charging outside the home.

The blue line needs to become "7kW home or public charger".

And if installing the millions of chargepoints needed isn't profitable enough for private operators at that rate then the Govt will have to do it.

 

[morqthana]

What happens, or doesn't happen, if they cannot connect?

Eric - check out Louis Rossmanns videos on YT, and his associated consumer rights Wiki.

There's an increasingly pernicious problem of companies making products which have to connect to their servers to work, and then they start doing things like stopping them working if you also use a competitor's associated product. Or they decide that you now have to pay a regular subscription fee.

Or they just go out of business and the servers go away.

 

[JohnW2]

What about all the non-driving taxpayers and the payments they make for roads?

That one is less straightforward, since even 'non-driving' taxpayers are reliant on 'the roads' - they expect to be able to travel in buses, coaches and taxis, they expect to have deliveries to their homes by road, they expect to be able to go to shops and buy things that have been delivered to those shops by road etc. It is therefore not unreasonable that they pay something towards 'upkeep of the roads' etc. - although one would also expect that people who also 'use the roads' directly by being drivers' would pay more (which is the case).

If we want a society we have to pay for it, and everybody has to pay, people can't pick & choose which bits they pay for and which not.

That's obviously the case in relation to major/fundamental aspects of society, but doesn't have to apply to everything, particularly not to things about which people do make choices ....

Unless we want to bake structural inequalities into the EV charging network we will have to equalise the cost of charging at home and the cost of charging outside the home.

... one could take your argument to an extreme and have a system in which all EV charging and all petrol/diesel used by road vehicles was made available at zero cost, and paid for by taxpayers in general - but I suspect that would not be regarded as very 'fair', or acceptable.

I suppose a lot depends upon how far you would like society to go down the path towards 'extreme socialism'. In theory, almost everything (food, clothing, furniture, holidays etc. etc., even cars and houses) could be made available to everyone at 'zero cost' and financed out of general taxation - but the sting in the tail of that would necessarily be a very substantial reduction in 'personal choice'!

 

[morqthana]

That one is less straightforward, since even 'non-driving' taxpayers are reliant on 'the roads' - they expect to be able to travel in buses, coaches and taxis, they expect to have deliveries to their homes by road, they expect to be able to go to shops and buy things that have been delivered to those shops by road etc. It is therefore not unreasonable that they pay something towards 'upkeep of the roads' etc. - although one would also expect that people who also 'use the roads' directly by being drivers' would pay more (which is the case).

Even 'non-driving' taxpayers are reliant on 'the roads' - they expect to be able to travel in and have deliveries to their homes by EVs, they expect to be able to go to shops and buy things that have been delivered to those shops by EVs etc. It is therefore not unreasonable that they pay something towards the charging infrastructure which will be needed - although one would also expect that people who also 'use the roads' directly by being drivers' would pay for the electricity they use.

That's obviously the case in relation to major/fundamental aspects of society, but doesn't have to apply to everything, particularly not to things about which people do make choices ....

The plan is that people will not be able to choose anything other than an EV if they want a V.

... one could take your argument to an extreme and have a system in which all EV charging and all petrol/diesel used by road vehicles was made available at zero cost, and paid for by taxpayers in general - but I suspect that would not be regarded as very 'fair', or acceptable.

I suppose a lot depends upon how far you would like society to go down the path towards 'extreme socialism'. In theory, almost everything (food, clothing, furniture, holidays etc. etc., even cars and houses) could be made available to everyone at 'zero cost' and financed out of general taxation - but the sting in the tail of that would necessarily be a very substantial reduction in 'personal choice'!

One could take any argument to extreme, but I've not suggested that anything be made available to anyone at zero cost, only that we need to fix the problem where EV owners with driveways pay a fraction of the amount to charge their cars than do people who don't have driveways, and that we cannot leave it to private enterprise to fund the installation of the millions of extra charging points we will need.

 

[JohnW2]

Even 'non-driving' taxpayers are reliant on 'the roads' - they expect to be able to travel in and have deliveries to their homes by EVs, they expect to be able to go to shops and buy things that have been delivered to those shops by EVs etc. It is therefore not unreasonable that they pay something towards the charging infrastructure which will be needed - although one would also expect that people who also 'use the roads' directly by being drivers' would pay for the electricity they use.

I don't think that your fairly minor changes to my paragraph materially alter the spirit of what I was saying.

The plan is that people will not be able to choose anything other than an EV if they want a V.

Maybe the crucial part of that statement is "if they want a V"? I'm far from convinced that, in the long term, the concept of privately owned vehicles (at least cars), most of which are 'not on the road' for a high proportion of their life, will be either sensible or sustainable. I realise that there would be lots of difficulties to overcome, but what if 'pool EVs', and the electricity needed to charge them, were provided at zero direct cost, that being financed by general taxation? It would then still be possible for people to 'choose' to have a vehicle of their own, but they would then have to pay (additionally) for both the vehicle and the electricity used to charge it.

One could take any argument to extreme, but I've not suggested that anything be made available to anyone at zero cost, only that we need to fix the problem where EV owners with driveways pay a fraction of the amount to charge their cars than do people who don't have driveways, and that we cannot leave it to private enterprise to fund the installation of the millions of extra charging points we will need.

I realise that you were not suggesting anything that extreme, but was pointing out that you were heading in that direction, hence requiring a decision as to where one 'drew the line'.

Given that the costs (infrastructure, maintenance, 'running', administration and maybe 'profit') of providing public EV charging are unavoidable, is it perhaps the case that we are looking at the 'inequality' the wrong way around - i.e. should we perhaps regard the (true) cost of public EV charging to be the 'correct' cost, but with those engaging in home charging not paying enough?

 

[ericmark]

It would then still be possible for people to 'choose' to have a vehicle of their own, but they would then have to pay (additionally) for both the vehicle and the electricity used to charge it.

When I lived in North Wales, there was no NEED for me to have a car. From around 7 am buses ran past my house from Mold to Chester, until around 6 pm, and even then it was a short walk to catch the bus which did not go past the house.

My bus pass was well used, mainly as parking in Chester was not easy, so what I lost in extra transport time I gained by not having to use a park and ride system.

OK Wrexham was more of a problem, but answer was simple, I did not shop in Wrexham.

I don't consider taxi's as public transport, they must use more fuel to private cars, but they do remove the parking problem, used with public transport they can work well.

However where I live now is very different, so this weekend is a beer festival, so Friday night the train runs into Welshpool leaving at 6 pm and the return is at 10:30 pm, great, I have a train pass, but the walk up the hill from the station to my home, is a problem, only ½ mile at most, but no taxi's in the village, not that taxi's could cope with a train load of people who are clearly all going to arrive at 23:15 pm by steam train.

And will of course not be driving.

But what ever time, there is a problem, buses are few and far between, and the Cambrian Railway has not got a very good safety record, head on crashes, and hitting farm trailers even when farmer asked and got permission to cross the line.

Pool cars are nothing new, and it has be tried with e-bikes as well, but last year went to Newcastle, and would not have dreamed of using my car for local runs, the transport system was very good, but Shrewsbury is our local large town, and there is no way to get there and back by public transport, and this is the problem, what works in London, may not work here, and any system has to work nation wide.

If we did not have cars, then our bus and rail service would be so much better, I lived in Hong Kong for a time, would not have dreamed of owning a car, there was no need, but we don't all live in large cities.

 

[JohnW2]

When I lived in North Wales, there was no NEED for me to have a car. From around 7 am buses ran past my house from Mold to Chester, until around 6 pm, and even then it was a short walk to catch the bus which did not go past the house.

I wasn't suggesting that we will ever see the end of 'privately-driven' cars but rather that widespread 'privately-owned' cars may not be a a very viable concept in the distant future.

As you go on to say, 'pool cars' comes with its problems, particularly in non-urban locations, but none of the problems are theoretically insuperable. For it to work reasonably, the pool of cars in all locations (including non-urban ones) obviously needs to be large enough that one is likely to be available whenever one needs it, and I suspect that it would always be necessary for there to be some 'privately-owned' cars in remote areas, where it wouldn't be practical or sensible to have an appreciable 'pool' of vehicles available.

However, I think it could,at least theoretically, be largely done. The greatest issues to be addressed (in addition to the number and location of available 'pool cars') would probably be issues relating to 'accountability' (regarding use/abuse of the vehicles), eligibility to use them and things like insurance etc.

 

[morqthana]

I don't think that your fairly minor changes to my paragraph materially alter the spirit of what I was saying.

But they highlight the spirit of what I was - the provision of millions of pavement chargepoints is a societal need.

Maybe the crucial part of that statement is "if they want a V"? I'm far from convinced that, in the long term, the concept of privately owned vehicles (at least cars), most of which are 'not on the road' for a high proportion of their life, will be either sensible or sustainable. I realise that there would be lots of difficulties to overcome, but what if 'pool EVs', and the electricity needed to charge them, were provided at zero direct cost, that being financed by general taxation? It would then still be possible for people to 'choose' to have a vehicle of their own, but they would then have to pay (additionally) for both the vehicle and the electricity used to charge it.

Be careful if you go down that road - there are swivel-eyed trolls under all the bridges, with clubs bearing the rune "you will own nothing and be happy".

I realise that you were not suggesting anything that extreme, but was pointing out that you were heading in that direction, hence requiring a decision as to where one 'drew the line'.

I wasn't heading there at all, just saying that the pavement charging infrastructure should be a public investment. Just like toll roads or bridges where users still pay per-use.

Given that the costs (infrastructure, maintenance, 'running', administration and maybe 'profit') of providing public EV charging are unavoidable, is it perhaps the case that we are looking at the 'inequality' the wrong way around - i.e. should we perhaps regard the (true) cost of public EV charging to be the 'correct' cost, but with those engaging in home charging not paying enough?

A problem in search of a billing solution? So, a new even smarter form of smart metering, or separately metered chargepoints, some way to stop people putting a "dumb" EV outlet on a shower circuit?

Because of a choice to leave it to private enterprise to install all the pavement chargers, and a choice to charge them more than households for electricity?

Not much of a vote-winner...

 

[ericmark]

I am told, when homes first got electric supplies, there were two meters, one for lighting and one for power, and using a smoothing iron powered from the light socket was fraud, however it was very hard to police, and we went to one meter for all, until the advent of storage heaters, and then again two meters, the white meter for the off-peak supply.

This also caused problems as one could not use the off-peak supply for items like immersion heaters without some special timers, so today I have an off-peak supply which uses the same meter and distribution unit as the peak supply, and it is up to me to set timers to use the off peak to the full.

So we have a whole range of tariffs, for some we need to give the supplier control of when used, but other it is simply a case of compare the tariffs, and see which one fits our use best. So for example we have these two.

Both the same supplier, neither requires you to give supplier control, I can't see why anyone would want A, I went for B, but I could decide on either for a year, since there is often a charge to change, clearly if agreeing to pay by the day then far more expensive, but we are free to select which one, and if I want to take my EV to a public charge point, and charge it up and then return home to use it to power my house, there is nothing to stop me, although clearly would cost a silly price.

And if I run out of battery I could have to pay up to 39.9p/kWh because I have not recharged it when the energy is cheap. Like buying an ice-cream off a street vendor in London, it cost more than going into Lidi. As to the price of lighter fuel per gallon compared with petrol, car may run off it, but no one would try doing it.

Where the problem lies, is where you buy a car thinking the fuel will cost A, and then government changes means it costs B, but the base price of fuel has been there for all to see for a long time, and no good complaining if you did not check on the price first.

 

[JohnW2]

Be careful if you go down that road - there are swivel-eyed trolls under all the bridges, with clubs bearing the rune "you will own nothing and be happy".

I must say that I thought it was you who had started moving down that road ...

I wasn't heading there at all, just saying that the pavement charging infrastructure should be a public investment. Just like toll roads or bridges where users still pay per-use.

... as above, I would think that's a start of movement down 'that road'. What else do you think should be "public investment"? In addition to EV charging, you've already mentioned roads and schools, and we obviously already have things like the NHS and 'emergency services', 'defence' and all sort of other things, so we've already dipped more than the tips of our toes into that.

More specifically, if you feel that public EV charging should be "public investment", one doesn't have to move far from that to suggest that the same should be the case for fuel (petrol/diesel/LPG) used by vehicles? In particular, in terms of the 'inequalities' you feel need to be addressed, in the case of oil and LPG, the VAT charged when this is used for vehicles is much more than when it is used for heating a home.

..., or separately metered chargepoints, some way to stop people putting a "dumb" EV outlet on a shower circuit?

Are you not here implying what I suggested - that maybe the 'inequality' needs to be addressed by increasing the cost of home EV charging (e.g. charging an EV from a shower circuit)?

 

[morqthana]

View attachment 383912

Shurely shome mishtake?