No it really does not.
It really does not work on the basis that
YOU can magic away real life problematic consequences of ideas
YOU propose simply by ignoring everyone who points them out and pretending they don't actually exist.
I'm only ignoring the really irrelevant ones, just to try and keep things from wandering all over the place. I've responded to silly non-problems like "where will the people in this tower block park and charge their ev?"
That's not a "non-problem".
It is a very
REAL problem when the response to concerns about lack of an EV charging infrastructure equivalent to the fossil fuel one is "
doesn't matter, because almost everybody can charge their vehicles overnight at home because hardly anybody drives so far in a day that they would exhaust the range they can add at home".
You're inventing problem after problem and keep shifting goalposts around, seeming not to grasp the core of what I'm saying, which hasn't changed
I'm not inventing them - I am pointing them out.
And I know full well what you are saying.
Nor am I shifting goalpoasts around, and if I keep on asking you "
well what about {something new}?" it's because of an (increasingly stupid, it seems) hope that you might grasp the problems which lie at the core of your proposals.
Oh, you want a full business plan presenting, when the debate started from a "technological possibility" viewpoint.
No.
But I do want some evidence
THAT YOU HAVE ACTUALLY THOUGHT THINGS THROUGH.
OK, I guess that's you setting out your stall of the level of effort I have to go to to get you to understand. I'm not really willing to go that far because I'd like you to fill in some of the gaps/you're not a dragon I'm pitching to, but I'll respond on a few more points. I am reaching the point where I'll choose to stop responding, not because I agree with you or think you're right, I just have other stuff I need to be getting on with. If you want to take that as me saying you're right, I can cope with that
Be aware that none of that bluster negates the fact that I
am correct, nor that your refusal to stop responding is based on anything other than the realisation, which you cannot bear to recognise, that I am. Or at the very least that you have
NOT thought this through and you do
NOT have a solution to the problems with your proposals.
To keep it simple, let's say that the homeowner pays for access to the pool of street ChargePoints. After all he'd have to pay for one if he had a driveway, so in this system I'm proposing where there is a pool of them and one can use any, let's have them pay for install of one, keep things equal. Maybe if there is some financial shortfall you'd be keen to jump on as your next halting problem, let's charge them a bit more; after all houses without off street parking are cheaper but we're trying to close the functionality gap here so paying a little more to solve the problem the cheaper house has and put it nearer the standing of the dearer house seems fair
If you want to engage in social engineering to make housing more equitably priced there are probably more efficient ways to do it than via differential running costs for EVs. Although it seems that you want to raise the overall cost of cheaper housing to bring it closer to the more expensive.
Would you be OK with ICEV owners who live in cheaper housing without off-street parking being made to pay more for their petrol/diesel when they fill up than ICEV owners who live in more expensive housing with such parking, on the grounds that their cheaper housing means it's OK for them to pay more?
And before you start yet again with your fingers-in-your-ears "I can't hear you", the above is
NOT me inventing problems or shifting goalposts, it's me responding to
WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY SAYING about the idea that people should pay more to charge their car if they don't have off-street parking because their houses are cheaper.
[ASIDE]I do sometimes wonder where you live, if you think that houses without off-street parking are necessarily cheaper than those with.[/ASIDE]
Same place as his drivewayed neighbour. Or a different place. These are just a couple of charge points after all, broadly the same maintenance requirements etc.
Oh for pity's sake.
If I have a chargepoint installed, I pay to buy it. I pay to have it installed. I pay for any maintenance needed. I pay for the electricity it delivers, at whatever my domestic tariff is.
Those are all costs for me. But at least one cost I don't have is the need to install and maintain any IT systems to bill myself for the electricity it delivers.
If you try to run a business where all you have are costs, then after quite a short space of time you will have no business.
If the Acme EV Charging Company installs public chargers then the capital costs of acquiring them are investments, and they
MUST make a return on those. And they are bound to be more expensive than my one.
The costs of installing them will be higher than the costs of installing mine as they will be engaging in street furniture installation, risk assessments, project management. They'll need permission for full or partial road and footway closures. They'll need to do excavations and making good, not just drilling a hole in a house wall for a cable to run through. They'll need utilities involvement as they can't just flip a switch on a CU while they connect the chargepoint. They'll need all the business admin infrastructure to run a commercial operation.
And when they go into operation, the prices they charge will have to deliver a profit margin over the operational costs, and to provide a return on those investments which make the whole enterprise worthwhile.
But all you do is to say "
well we have ways to bill the people charging their cars", which is not something I dispute, but that's
all you keep saying (apart from the let-them-eat-cake philosophy of "well let them pay more, then"), and
that's what I, and I suspect JohnW2, mean when we criticise you for ignoring real problems.
The electricity is the same electricity that would pass through his meter, except it comes through a different meter that he temporarily claims ownership of when charging. It goes on his bill, like all his other electricity. It doesn't have to pass through the meter bolted to his house to appear on his bill
The electricity is the same.
The price is not.
This:
it isn't more viscous.. it's just a metered quantity of stuff and the price of it is not dependent on the point at which it comes out of the wire;
is completely false
Where does the money to maintain the phone masts, or the national grid, or the visa network, or.. come from?
Do you
really believe that bogus "analogies" like that are going to make people think you've got a point?
"That could never work because [morqthana] cannot conceive how the finances would work" does not mean that it cannot work
Let's summarise how this all started.
It grew out of discussion of the point about whether people should be able to have single-phase chargepoints which are rated at >7kW if they want. You and Flameport both said that 7kW ones are absolutely fine for most people's needs, which I don't disagree with,
and nowhere will you find me saying that I do disagree.
But when I pointed out to you that
Not everybody can have a 7kW system because of a lack of offstreet parking capacity at their house,
You replied
Another argument I've never held much regard for.
And given what you've said since then we can expand that reply to say
"Another argument I've never held much regard for, because all we need to do is to put in place a billing technology solution, and it really won't matter if public chargepoint users pay an order of magnitude more to charge their vehicles than people with offstreet parking."
