Fox "News" Trashes EVs + Ecotality

[hyperlexis]

Breaking news from Fox.....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/31/feds-lax-in-granting-100m-for-electric-car-charging-stations-says-watchdog/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Alas, it gives no link to the actual report....

Although they may have something of a point, "private industry" has failed in many respects to properly build an EV charging infrastructure. The feds and states should be doing this on their own. If they can install parking meters and lamp posts without using such middlemen, they can, and should be installing chargers.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Ecotality and 350Green should be exposed.

 

[Boourns]

What do you expect from Fox News? It's guised as a story about the report, but it's just a critique of EVs meant to fuel the misplaced rage of John Q. Redneck. The logic of the underlying point is just idiotic. Essentially they're arguing that because all of the chargers aren't being used 100% of the time they shouldn't be built at all. That's like saying there's no point in building any new roads unless each new road will be jammed with rush our traffic from the day it opens.

Also, it misleads the timeline of the claimed events. The headline and first few paragraphs make it sound like there was "weak demand" for EVs and THEN Ecotality got the grant. Turns out, even if their claim for weak demand is true, the grant was awarded in anticipation of demand for chargers that turned out to be (they claim) lower than expected.

Here is the report if anyone is interested: http://www.doe.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/07/f2/OAS-RA-13-29.pdf

 

[thankyouOB]

I agree with the previous poster.

Surprise, the fox report has errors.
and second surprise, it is tilted against EVs and the OB administration.

NO, the $100 million was not just for the public chargers. It included the installation of residential chargers, such as those many MNL members received.
whatever you want to say about the public roll out, the residential program was effective and the chargers, after some balkiness with early betas which were part of the development project portion of the program, has worked well.
yes, the program paid government rates, which were higher than some local electricians charge.

i have a charger and it still works flawlessly, though it had some problems in the first six months. service calls were handled well. there is a website with data. Though I find its utility marginal, but that could be me.
i do very much like the EVSE intranet in my household, which allows me to monitor and regulate charge to the LEAF.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Sounds to me like they spent a disproportionate amount of the money overpaying for home EVSEs that people would have bought anyway when more of it should have gone to enticements for public facilities.

So at the end of the day how many public stations have they installed?

 

[GetOffYourGas]

What irks me about this whole situation is the misunderstanding of cause and effect. Chicken and Egg. Whatever you want to call it.

ECOtality was supposed to roll out public infrastructure AHEAD of demand using government funds. This in turn STIMULATES demand. The company has since claimed that they are not rolling out chargers because there is no demand. It's all FUBAR. ECOtality deserves some bad press, and we should be clear that their poor execution of this program is a significant cause of the lower demand.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

This in turn STIMULATES demand.

I don't think it does. The availability of public infrastructure does not motivate anyone to buy an EV, but the absence of it is an inhibitor.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

This in turn STIMULATES demand.

I don't think it does. The availability of public infrastructure does not motivate anyone to buy an EV, but the absence of it is an inhibitor.

Fair enough. How about this: infrastructure supports demand.

 

[Deleted member 9549]

This in turn STIMULATES demand.

I don't think it does. The availability of public infrastructure does not motivate anyone to buy an EV, but the absence of it is an inhibitor.

As someone who just leased a LEAF, I can say that in my case, the availability of local L2 charge stations was instrumental in our decision to get an EV. It helped with awareness and it eased range anxiety which is the prime reason why people do not get an EV.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

And, if there was adequate QC, or even workplace EVSE, apartment and condo dwellers would join in.

 

[thankyouOB]

and here is a companion piece about the evils of solar, which is on the fox frontpage:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/31/states-argue-for-cutting-off-solar-subsidies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[mhkp]

and here is a companion piece about the evils of solar, which is on the fox frontpage:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/31/states-argue-for-cutting-off-solar-subsidies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is nothing in there about the evils of solar. In fact its saying solar is a growing and maturing channel of energy.

The issue is that because its so successful the financial subsidies no longer make sense to taxpayers. Its a financial critique.

 

[thankyouOB]

the evils are the TPs of opponents, which declare that solar is costing regular users in higher rates.

if utilities didnt pay the homeowner for the power being provided by the homeowner with a solar array on her roof, they would have to pay to build a coal plant or gas plant or to buy power from someone else.
and there would instead be ALL the externalized costs on EVERYONE of the burning of fossil fuels. that is a real cost that is being ignored.
it is a cost that solar eliminates.

(do you have a LEAF, or do you are you a paid troll for fox?)

 

[dgpcolorado]

the evils are the TPs of opponents, which declare that solar is costing regular users in higher rates.

That's actually true for many places with net metering. Depends on how infrastructure charges are allocated between some sort of fixed service charge and actual energy use rates. Someone has to pay for lines, linemen, office staff for billing and myriad other things necessary to provide the lines and electricity to the customer base. The more net metering accounts that zero out their bills, the more those grid costs get passed on to the other customers. In my, admittedly tiny, power co-op area the cost to provide infrastructure to the customers is $35/month. The fixed service charge (independent of electricity usage) was recently doubled to $16/month. The rest of the infrastructure costs are built into electricity rates and paid by other customers. I presume that the infrastructure cost would be substantially lower in dense urban areas, as opposed to my remote rural area, but there is some sort of cost that needs to be passed on to ratepayers, irrespective of how much electricity they use.

So, what is a fair distribution of costs? As a net metering customer I use my power co-op grid just like everyone else even though I pay nothing for electricity. More net metering customers who avoid paying for electricity means more infrastructure costs getting spread among the remaining customers — unless the fixed service charge is sufficiently high.Your point that solar/renewables have other benefits is well taken, I think, and I agree. But not everyone else buys that view, as you well know.

 

[mhkp]

the evils are the TPs of opponents, which declare that solar is costing regular users in higher rates.

if utilities didnt pay the homeowner for the power being provided by the homeowner with a solar array on her roof, they would have to pay to build a coal plant or gas plant or to buy power from someone else.
and there would instead be ALL the externalized costs on EVERYONE of the burning of fossil fuels. that is a real cost that is being ignored.
it is a cost that solar eliminates.

(do you have a LEAF, or do you are you a paid troll for fox?)

I own a Rav4ev and am considering a LEAF for my wife. Thanks for your warm welcome. :roll:

 

[mrdcmills]

I've gone 12k miles in 10 months w/ the L1 that came with the car. I'm waiting to see if the EMW is an affordable charging station. I seldom plug in away from home. In central Fla. it'd just one more parking place you can't use. Handicapable, take out only, expectant mothers, employee of the month, police only.

 

[davidcary]

the evils are the TPs of opponents, which declare that solar is costing regular users in higher rates.

That's actually true for many places with net metering. Depends on how infrastructure charges are allocated between some sort of fixed service charge and actual energy use rates. Someone has to pay for lines, linemen, office staff for billing and myriad other things necessary to provide the lines and electricity to the customer base. The more net metering accounts that zero out their bills, the more those grid costs get passed on to the other customers. In my, admittedly tiny, power co-op area the cost to provide infrastructure to the customers is $35/month. The fixed service charge (independent of electricity usage) was recently doubled to $16/month. The rest of the infrastructure costs are built into electricity rates and paid by other customers. I presume that the infrastructure cost would be substantially lower in dense urban areas, as opposed to my remote rural area, but there is some sort of cost that needs to be passed on to ratepayers, irrespective of how much electricity they use.

So, what is a fair distribution of costs? As a net metering customer I use my power co-op grid just like everyone else even though I pay nothing for electricity. More net metering customers who avoid paying for electricity means more infrastructure costs getting spread among the remaining customers — unless the fixed service charge is sufficiently high.Your point that solar/renewables have other benefits is well taken, I think, and I agree. But not everyone else buys that view, as you well know.

I live in a suburban area and my net metering results in a bill of $15+demand charges. They are variable and obviously set by the utility. These charges are presumably to match their costs for infrastructure since they will probably average $30 a month. Unfortunately, when the infrastructure is accounted for in this way, the payback for solar gets longer. But it is fair.

Just because your co-op doesn't adequately charge you, does not mean that is the norm around the country.