EV (electric vehicle) News and Discussion

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › EV (electric vehicle) News and Discussion

1 | ... | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | ... | 731

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1847344 16-Aug-2017 07:13

Linuxluver:
tdgeek:

Quite ironic that Norway is such a big fossil fuel exporter, yet is well into EV?

My understanding is that it is a deliberate offset strategy.

Seems so, they are using the funds to invest for the non FF future

old3eyes

9132 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1340

Subscriber

#1847376 16-Aug-2017 09:00

jarledb:

kingdragonfly:

In particular I'd like Norway type subsidies, who also has a small population and has to import petroleum.

Uhm, you know what Norways biggest export is, don´t you?

Norway also still has a commercial whaling industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Norway

Regards,

Old3eyes

jarledb

Webhead
3274 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1917

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1847723 16-Aug-2017 18:28

old3eyes:

Norway also still has a commercial whaling industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Norway

Mmmmmm whale meat.

Ok ok, I will go stand in the corner now...

Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1847842 17-Aug-2017 01:17

hamish225:

The fast ish chargers are interesting, anyone know what the thought process is on putting those in instead of 50kw or 150kw variants?

It will most likely be to do with how the local lines company structures their fees. They might want a massive capital contribution to add 150KW of load in a remote part of the country. Otherwise capacity fees for capacity that needs to be available during peak times won't be cheap. An EV charger that can't be used during peak times in not much use.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1632

Trusted

Subscriber

#1850794 23-Aug-2017 00:18

hamish225:

The fast ish chargers are interesting, anyone know what the thought process is on putting those in instead of 50kw or 150kw variants?

25kw DC 'fast' chargers are do-able with the existing infrastructure, apparently....and they won't cost a bomb to run. It's worth bearing in mind that charge.net typically pay a fixed monthly fee to have fast charger connected....and most of their charging stations very likely don't make back even the costs at this point......but use is definitely ramping up.

In the meantime, the Wests (Steve and Dee) are funding this network largely out of their own pockets on a 7 year plan to reach profitability.

Those 25kw DC chargers will be fast enough for any current modest EV. A Tesla might have to charge for a couple or 3 hours......to fill....but no need to fill if they are frequent enough. Just charge enough to meet the need.

I'm looking forward to seeing what these units look like.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1632

Trusted

Subscriber

#1850796 23-Aug-2017 00:21

Aredwood:

hamish225:

The fast ish chargers are interesting, anyone know what the thought process is on putting those in instead of 50kw or 150kw variants?

It will most likely be to do with how the local lines company structures their fees. They might want a massive capital contribution to add 150KW of load in a remote part of the country. Otherwise capacity fees for capacity that needs to be available during peak times won't be cheap. An EV charger that can't be used during peak times in not much use.

The central North Island has a terrible power charging structure. You're on one level while your usage is X...but if you tip over into the next threshold even temporarily you get smashed with a higher rate. So many businesses are reluctant to do anything like EV charging as it may balloon their power charges.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1853522 27-Aug-2017 23:17

I guess you are referring to the TLC lines area, and their capacity based pricing structure. What they do is actually the fairest way of doing things. They were the first as they were getting slammed by ski lodges and other accommodation providers using lots of power in winter. But hardly any over the rest of the year. High peak loads but low average loads over the whole year. Meaning the ski lodges weren't paying their fair share of network costs.

Large commercial customers already pay such charges even in Auckland. If their connection size is larger than 69KVA. Have a look at the commercial section of the Vector price schedule. If vector allowed residential customers to go onto the commercial power plans, I would highly consider switching. Interestingly, Low voltage on the northern network has a $11.41 per day fixed fee. but the awesome part of that plan is the per Kw/hr fee is just 0.57c per kW/hr. Compared to standard residential user which is 6.45c per kW/hr. And no demand charges either starting 20:00 to 08:00 (overnight from 8pm to 8am.) All up per KW/Hr prices would be less than 10c per unit on such plans. But due to stupid government laws, I have to pay extra for my power to subsidise those who use electric cooking, (really high peak demand) And extra via my taxes on health spending. As low income people can't afford to keep their homes warm in winter. Despite there being lots of really cheap late night power available on the wholesale market. And lots of unused capacity available to deliver it.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1632

Trusted

Subscriber

#1856181 31-Aug-2017 22:37

Aredwood:

I guess you are referring to the TLC lines area, and their capacity based pricing structure. What they do is actually the fairest way of doing things. They were the first as they were getting slammed by ski lodges and other accommodation providers using lots of power in winter. But hardly any over the rest of the year. High peak loads but low average loads over the whole year. Meaning the ski lodges weren't paying their fair share of network costs.

Large commercial customers already pay such charges even in Auckland. If their connection size is larger than 69KVA. Have a look at the commercial section of the Vector price schedule. If vector allowed residential customers to go onto the commercial power plans, I would highly consider switching. Interestingly, Low voltage on the northern network has a $11.41 per day fixed fee. but the awesome part of that plan is the per Kw/hr fee is just 0.57c per kW/hr. Compared to standard residential user which is 6.45c per kW/hr. And no demand charges either starting 20:00 to 08:00 (overnight from 8pm to 8am.) All up per KW/Hr prices would be less than 10c per unit on such plans. But due to stupid government laws, I have to pay extra for my power to subsidise those who use electric cooking, (really high peak demand) And extra via my taxes on health spending. As low income people can't afford to keep their homes warm in winter. Despite there being lots of really cheap late night power available on the wholesale market. And lots of unused capacity available to deliver it.

"Fair" it may be, but it definitely inhibits all kinds of activity and new activities because of the fear of much higher costs. Once they 'touch' the new range, I'm told, that's them for the year. That doesn't sound very fair.

What you're saying, really, is the electricity reforms of the early 1990s were a bad idea as it left a vast area with expensive infrastructure, hostile climate and a small base to fund it all.

It would have been much better to retain a national power generator, transmission operator and wholesaler....and alongside that let anyone who wants to build solar and wind and small-scale hydro generation and plug it into a grid.

Then you'd have a system intended to plan nationally to meet demand.....and support development in the regions. As it is, the fragmented approach leads to higher costs, local disparity....and fragile infrastructure.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1856188 31-Aug-2017 23:37

Linuxluver:

"Fair" it may be, but it definitely inhibits all kinds of activity and new activities because of the fear of much higher costs. Once they 'touch' the new range, I'm told, that's them for the year. That doesn't sound very fair.

The overall concept is definitely fair. The problem is simply that peak demand is being billed in arrears. Meaning people don't realize that they have exceeded their previous demand peak until they get the bill.

Virtually all modern Smart Meters can be programmed to limit peak demand. This means the customer decides how much peak demand capacity they wish to purchase. If they exceed that, the smart meter automaticly disconnects the power to their house. And after 30minutes (depending on meter programming), the power switches back on again by itself. This means no bill shock, as the customer can't physically exceed the amount of peak demand that they have agreed to pay for.

The meters calculate demand over a set time period. EG 5KW of demand would mean 2.5KW/Hr over a 1/2 hour period. If the customer in this example tries to draw 10KW, the smart meter will record 2.5KW/Hr has been used in just 15min. So the customer will end up with 10KW of load for the first 15min, and 0kW of load (power disconnected) for the second 15min. Overall load averaged over 1/2 an hour - the 5KW of load as agreed. This means that the demand can be exceeded for short periods of time, as long as the total per measuring period (most likely 30min) does get exceeded.

The customer either reduces their load to stop the power constantly going on and off. Or they agree to pay for some extra peak demand capacity. Either way no bill shock. And much easier to explain how peak demand is billed. As everyone already knows that if you put too much load on 1 power point, the fuse blows or breaker trips. So just imagine that same concept for the whole house.

And much better for the lines company - as they will know before winter the likely max expected load they will see. So much easier to plan network investments.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1856197 1-Sep-2017 02:46

Linuxluver:

What you're saying, really, is the electricity reforms of the early 1990s were a bad idea as it left a vast area with expensive infrastructure, hostile climate and a small base to fund it all.

It would have been much better to retain a national power generator, transmission operator and wholesaler....and alongside that let anyone who wants to build solar and wind and small-scale hydro generation and plug it into a grid.

Then you'd have a system intended to plan nationally to meet demand.....and support development in the regions. As it is, the fragmented approach leads to higher costs, local disparity....and fragile infrastructure.

The problem is though - Who should pay for those above costs? Governments are terrible when it comes to proper planning. And there are plenty of examples, both in the public and private sectors, where a bigger organisation just means more expensive prices. Should we set a national electricity price, so most people pay more for power, so a few in mostly rural areas get cheaper power? Should taxpayers give subsidies to power companies or certain power users?

The best answer is that prices should reflect the costs of supply. The best example of this is online shopping. As a shopping website normally charges the exact same price for a product to everyone. With any price differences simply reflecting different delivery costs, or any tax rate differences based on where the customer lives.

In the case of power, those costs should also reflect the environmental cost of carbon emissions. And also take into consideration the prices of fossil fuels. As the main competitors to electricity are fossil fuels. A simplified price structure that gives the best overall outcome is :

Cheapest - offpeak power.

Mid priced - fossil fuels. (petrol, diesel, LPG etc)

Most expensive - peak usage power.

Offpeak power is mostly generated by renewables, and since there is plenty of spare network capacity, the marginal cost of more offpeak generation and network capacity is virtually zero. Offpeak should be cheaper than fossil fuels to encourage fossil fuel energy usage to be switched to renewable generated electricity. This will also encourage more renewable generation to be built.

Peak power should be expensive (either by very high unit costs or capacity charges). To reflect that peak power will be generated by fossil fuels - meaning lower total carbon emissions if an end consumer burns fossil fuels directly instead of using peak time power. And the marginal cost of more peak time load is very expensive. As you have to pay for more generation capacity and network capacity. The marginal cost of using fossil fuels during peak times is also much lower, as fossil fuels are far easier to store than electricity.

The current system of charging a fixed price for electricity is bad. As in alot of cases fossil fuels are cheaper than even late night offpeak electricity (unnesscerally high carbon emissions). And users with high peak demands don't pay the true marginal costs of their peak demand (everyone else subsidises them).

And the old system of central government control, meant that commercial power users were charged more so residential users had cheaper power. Residential power users got power so cheaply that there was no need to insulate your house. Just plug in another heater if you got cold. Commercial power users were protected from the world economy by high tariffs on imported goods. So they could just increase their prices by however much necessary to cover the cost of power. Everyone thought it was a good idea at the time, as no one cared about carbon emissions. And mining for coal and transporting it provided lots of jobs, and transporting coal provided more work for the railways. Most people didn't realise how much more expensive everything was due to the tariffs. Which were effectively like a really high hidden GST rate. And there was also really high inflation, which is a subsidy for borrowing lots of money. So going on a spending splurge to build infrastructure seemed cheaper. Except supposedly in the 70s, interest payments on government debt were 30% of the tax take (due to the high inflation). And now they are around 2% of the tax take.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1632

Trusted

Subscriber

#1857005 1-Sep-2017 22:49

Aredwood:

The overall concept is definitely fair. The problem is simply that peak demand is being billed in arrears. Meaning people don't realize that they have exceeded their previous demand peak until they get the bill.

That sounds right. I know I;ve seen the fear in the eyes when talking about an unknown number of electric cars charging form hotel rooms. I've just suggested they charge 4% or $10 / night for it...and accrue the money against any future rise.....

Virtually all modern Smart Meters can be programmed to limit peak demand. This means the customer decides how much peak demand capacity they wish to purchase. If they exceed that, the smart meter automaticly disconnects the power to their house. And after 30minutes (depending on meter programming), the power switches back on again by itself. This means no bill shock, as the customer can't physically exceed the amount of peak demand that they have agreed to pay for.

Custom blackouts at random times. Insane. Only makes sense if you have solar / wind and batteries to cover any such outages. Otherwise.....it's nuts with sauce on top.

The meters calculate demand over a set time period. EG 5KW of demand would mean 2.5KW/Hr over a 1/2 hour period. If the customer in this example tries to draw 10KW, the smart meter will record 2.5KW/Hr has been used in just 15min. So the customer will end up with 10KW of load for the first 15min, and 0kW of load (power disconnected) for the second 15min. Overall load averaged over 1/2 an hour - the 5KW of load as agreed. This means that the demand can be exceeded for short periods of time, as long as the total per measuring period (most likely 30min) does get exceeded.

The customer either reduces their load to stop the power constantly going on and off. Or they agree to pay for some extra peak demand capacity. Either way no bill shock. And much easier to explain how peak demand is billed. As everyone already knows that if you put too much load on 1 power point, the fuse blows or breaker trips. So just imagine that same concept for the whole house.

And much better for the lines company - as they will know before winter the likely max expected load they will see. So much easier to plan network investments.

Self-imposed rolling blackouts. I can see how that might appeal to some very strange people. Definitely would be option 101 out of a 100 at my house. :-)

Maybe better to just look at the country as a whole - costs and revenue - and set an averaged base price for everyone, everywhere.

No black outs. No chewing nails in the dark to prove how tough anyone is. Just an even power price everywhere. Predictable. No cheaper to be in Auckland or Gisborne or halfway up Mt Ruapehu.

Businesses love that sort of thing. A level playing field for power everywhere.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

kingdragonfly

11389 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11832

Subscriber

#1859141 5-Sep-2017 17:42

kingdragonfly

11389 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11832

Subscriber

#1859159 5-Sep-2017 18:11

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1859305 5-Sep-2017 23:15

Linuxluver:

That sounds right. I know I;ve seen the fear in the eyes when talking about an unknown number of electric cars charging form hotel rooms. I've just suggested they charge 4% or $10 / night for it...and accrue the money against any future rise.....

The "load control periods" as charged by TLC don't apply 24/7. And they signal them using ripple control. So you can wire up power points and other devices which will only be switched on when no load control is taking place.

So a hotel / motel / campground etc can install dedicated power points for EV charging. Which will only be switched on outside of load control times. Sure the EVs might take a little longer to charge, but that shouldn't be a problem for people who are staying overnight. And often they don't do any load control at all. Meaning during those non load control times, you can go nuts and use as much power as you like and pay only your per KW/Hr rate for that power. Have a look at the load control map, Green means no load control.

Linuxluver:

Custom blackouts at random times. Insane. Only makes sense if you have solar / wind and batteries to cover any such outages. Otherwise.....it's nuts with sauce on top.

At the moment every single house already has a max load that they are able to draw at any one time, typically that is 15KVA. Except that limit is set by the pole fuse that serves your property. If you blow it, you have to phone and lodge a fault for your property, Wait for a linesman to come to your property, And then he needs to replace the fuse. It is unlikely that this will all get done in just 30 min. And if it is outside of business hours, you might get charged an after hours callout fee. If the linesman thinks that your wiring is unsafe, he has the right to refuse to connect you. Until an electrical inspector has recertified your wiring. And any repairs have been done. Imagine if this happens on a Friday evening before a long weekend. Good luck even finding an electrician who can come out at short notice, and you will need deep pockets to pay their after hours charges. In otherwords you already have a limit on the capacity that you have available to your house. And the result if you exceed it is already the same (a blackout for just your house).

Add up how many power points you have in your house (I have 20). Each one of them will happily provide 10A all day long. But can I plug a 2.4KW heater (10A load) into every power point at the same time? And run my lights, electric hot water cylinder, and an electric stove and oven all at the same time? Of course not. As the total load will be approx 60KVA, and the connection to my house is only 15KVA. If I wanted to, I could pay extra to get my connection and wiring upgraded to handle 60KVA. But Im happy to live with my 15KVA restriction. And in Dunedin, the lines company there offer cheaper rates if you have a 32A circuit breaker installed on the supply to your house. Limiting your whole house to 8KVA. For people on low incomes, cheaper electricity is more important to them. If you are on a low income, it is unlikely that you could afford to run every single appliance in your house all at the same time anyway. So cheaper per unit costs are more important than paying extra, just for the ability to run everything at the same time.

If you don't want self imposed blackouts, just pay extra for enough capacity so it will never switch off by itself. The main thing is that you can choose how much capacity you want. It is like choosing different UFB plans. If you have 10 people all trying to download, stream, game, and upload at the same time on a 30/10 UFB connection. There would probably be alot of packet loss (data blackouts) for some users. That household can then decide if they want to pay extra to upgrade to gigabit. Or if they will instead take turns using the internet to save on costs. (or just put up with the packet loss) Either way, you can choose what suits you best.

Linuxluver:

Self-imposed rolling blackouts. I can see how that might appeal to some very strange people. Definitely would be option 101 out of a 100 at my house. :-)

Maybe better to just look at the country as a whole - costs and revenue - and set an averaged base price for everyone, everywhere.

No black outs. No chewing nails in the dark to prove how tough anyone is. Just an even power price everywhere. Predictable. No cheaper to be in Auckland or Gisborne or halfway up Mt Ruapehu.

Businesses love that sort of thing. A level playing field for power everywhere.

So in effect you want low income people in South Auckland to pay extra for their power. So the Ski lodges can get cheaper power (and charge lower rates to tourists who can afford skiing holidays). And the Rich and famous who own Queenstown mansions that they only use for a short time each year can also get cheaper power. As that is what would happen if you tried to set a fixed price of power for all of NZ.

It would also cause way higher carbon emissions. As power would cost at least 40c per unit under such a scheme. Meaning everyone who can, will switch as many loads as they can to fossil fuels. You could buy a diesel generator, use the heat from it's radiator to heat your house, and use the electricity it generates as well. For cheaper than paying for power. And virtually everyone would get a woodfire installed for heating. Except there would be massive firewood shortages. So people will use lots of coal as well. With all of those diesel generators, and wood fires burning coal despite not being designed to do so. NZ will soon have more winter air pollution than China.

Either way, if you give subsidies to someone or something, distortions always happen. And often the side effects are not pretty. At least if you have a choice, you can decide if you want to pay extra for no capacity restrictions, buy a Tesla battery and use that to manage your capacity requirements, or load shift your energy usage so you can manage on a lower amount of capacity. The market will then be free to select the lowest overall economic cost to provide however much capacity everyone wants.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1632

Trusted

Subscriber

#1859310 5-Sep-2017 23:33

Aredwood:

So in effect you want low income people in South Auckland to pay extra for their power. So the Ski lodges can get cheaper power (and charge lower rates to tourists who can afford skiing holidays). And the Rich and famous who own Queenstown mansions that they only use for a short time each year can also get cheaper power. As that is what would happen if you tried to set a fixed price of power for all of NZ.

Low income people pay more for their power than anyone already. They try to use so little they end up paying more than guys like me who use 120kWh a day and pay 17c / kWh. Plus many on low incomes end up having to pre-pay for their power...and if they run out of money they get to enjoy your black-out scenario.....right now.

I'm sure you have no shortage of straw men you can haul out as required, but I've been around for a long time and know things can be better and different because they were better and different before mx Bradford and National screwed it all up in the early 90s. Not that wasn't room for improvement.....we just never got the improvement. We got higher power prices everywhere...and silly structures like the one in the central North Island.

Either way, if you give subsidies to someone or something, distortions always happen. And often the side effects are not pretty. At least if you have a choice, you can decide if you want to pay extra for no capacity restrictions, buy a Tesla battery and use that to manage your capacity requirements, or load shift your energy usage so you can manage on a lower amount of capacity. The market will then be free to select the lowest overall economic cost to provide however much capacity everyone wants.

I love this distortions thing. Every one on the river bank.....someone falls in. Don't throw him a life raft, you're distorting the market by subsidising his survival capacity.

I'm well over the Rogernomics drivel that says we should create inequality and won't it be wonderful for the people at top (and we mugs all think we'll be at the top......).

It is wonderful for them. It just isn't wonderful for everyone else.

The present setup has tenants in houses all over NZ with lovely heatpumps they dare not use because they can't afford it.

The present power system isn't working.

As for blowing the fuse on the pole.....the main breaker in my house is less than that capacity....so I'll trip that before the fuse on the pole goes.

But have a large UPS and lots of battery stuff.....so the power going out isn't the inconvenience it used to be before Li-ion batteries were put into almost everything. :-).

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

1 | ... | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | ... | 731