Vancouver to set fees for Electric car charging

[GRA]

The general public seems ignorant of the fact that government subsidies for ICE cars, to cover the hidden environmental and health costs associated with burning fossil fuels, make EVs look comparatively expensive. If EVs were as heavily subsidized as ICE cars (via incentives and infrastructure), then EVs would, without a doubt, be much cheaper than ICE equivalents.

This article discusses the cost implications if consumers had to foot the bill for the true cost of a gallon of gasoline:

https://thinkprogress.org/heres-what-ga ... ed088e8f38

... accounting for the social costs of burning gasoline would add an average of $3.80 per gallon to the pump price, raising the price to $6.27 ...

So, if the price of gas at the pump was $6.27 per gallon, there would be a landslide of consumers switching to EVs. Thanks to oil industry lobbyists though, transparency with respect to the true operating costs of an ICE vs EV will never trickle down to the consumer because governments worldwide are complicit.

As has already been mentioned in other threads, all this is true, and irrelevant. Anyone who's interested can find this out for themselves, but only a small % are so interested.

[SageBrush]

@GRA
You are telling me what you think is ideal when I'm only pointing out that the public chargers in Vancouver has a captive audience.

No, I'm saying that while I'm in firm agreement that Vancouver should switch from providing free charging to making people pay for it, the odds of them doing so while pricing it profitably are minimal. After all, if it were possible to make public charging profitable there would be no need for governments to provide it, but we have 6.5 years of proof showing that it isn't, so barring some major technological breakthrough (like what? it's not as if most of the cost drivers aren't mature), we're not going to see it. Governments exist to do things which for-profit firms either can't or won't do. Of course, Vancouverites could decide that public charging is a public good and tax themselves to fund it even though it operates at a loss, as is the case with public transit.

Did you read the Vancouver council report ? They heartily disagree with you.
Perhaps you could point out where they are wrong.

[alozzy]

@GRA

Not sure how my comments are irrelevant, I think they get right to the heart of the matter.

You said:

... I'm saying that while I'm in firm agreement that Vancouver should switch from providing free charging to making people pay for it, the odds of them doing so while pricing it profitably are minimal. After all, if it were possible to make public charging profitable there would be no need for governments to provide it, but we have 6.5 years of proof showing that it isn't, so barring some major technological breakthrough ...

I raised the topic of government complicity with big oil's agenda because it's the major reason that for profit charging vendors are struggling to make money. If gasoline was $6.27 per gallon, those same vendors could make decent margins and still undercut gas prices.

What's likely to happen is that the big oil companies will roll out EV charging infrastructure, like Shell has already announced they'll do:

https://electrek.co/2017/02/01/shell-el ... -stations/

They'll use their political influence to muscle in, with sweetheart deals and government (our) money, to build out nation-wide EV charging infrastructure, then stick it to the consumer by raising gas prices while also setting EV charging at a price point that earns them huge profits. Oligarchies hate competition...

[GRA]

@GRA

Not sure how my comments are irrelevant, I think they get right to the heart of the matter.

You said:

... I'm saying that while I'm in firm agreement that Vancouver should switch from providing free charging to making people pay for it, the odds of them doing so while pricing it profitably are minimal. After all, if it were possible to make public charging profitable there would be no need for governments to provide it, but we have 6.5 years of proof showing that it isn't, so barring some major technological breakthrough ...

I raised the topic of government complicity with big oil's agenda because it's the major reason that for profit charging vendors are struggling to make money. If gasoline was $6.27 per gallon, those same vendors could make decent margins and still undercut gas prices.

What's likely to happen is that the big oil companies will roll out EV charging infrastructure, like Shell has already announced they'll do:

https://electrek.co/2017/02/01/shell-el ... -stations/

They'll use their political influence to muscle in, with sweetheart deals and government (our) money, to build out nation-wide EV charging infrastructure, then stick it to the consumer by raising gas prices while also setting EV charging at a price point that earns them huge profits. Oligarchies hate competition...

They're irrelevant because the facts aren't important, only the perception is, and the public, who's had this info for at least the past quarter century, simply doesn't care. Nor, with the current administration and congress, is anything going to change. As to energy companies 'muscling in,' sure they will if they think it's worth doing, and the more providers the better. They're energy companies, and they'll sell whatever they can. After all, it was a division of Shell who was one of the first companies to mass produce commercial PV modules, and both ARCO and BP also had such divisions. And Exxon commercialized the very first Lithium battery back in the '70s. They got out of those businesses because the volume and profit margins were too small for them to bother, not because they were trying to hold up deployment (not that that isn't or hasn't been a motivation for them at various times).

And no company can raise charging rates too high, as long as public utilities sell electricity for home use. Even if public utility regulators were to suffer regulatory capture, there's enough PV around now, and battery prices are low enough, that it will just drive people completely off-grid.

[GRA]

@GRA
You are telling me what you think is ideal when I'm only pointing out that the public chargers in Vancouver has a captive audience.

No, I'm saying that while I'm in firm agreement that Vancouver should switch from providing free charging to making people pay for it, the odds of them doing so while pricing it profitably are minimal. After all, if it were possible to make public charging profitable there would be no need for governments to provide it, but we have 6.5 years of proof showing that it isn't, so barring some major technological breakthrough (like what? it's not as if most of the cost drivers aren't mature), we're not going to see it. Governments exist to do things which for-profit firms either can't or won't do. Of course, Vancouverites could decide that public charging is a public good and tax themselves to fund it even though it operates at a loss, as is the case with public transit.

Did you read the Vancouver council report ? They heartily disagree with you.
Perhaps you could point out where they are wrong.

Yes, I read it, and I've pointed out that 6.5 years of real-world experience indicates that it almost certainly can't be done. I also provided their list of priorities, where 'return on investment' ranked fourth, 'inexpensive compared to fossil-fuels' ranked sixth (i.e. dead last), and then they gave themselves a huge out. They also wrote :

The City will introduce the following rates, with adjustments expected as user sensitivity to pricing is better understood. . . .

It is expected that the introduction of user fees will cover the operating costs of EV charging infrastructure. It is also expected that a 5 year return-on-investment is possible even with a modest decrease in utilization.. Because few jurisdictions in North America have implemented pricing for the purposes of easing congestion, projections will be challenging prior to implementing the program.

In short, even they realize that the odds of them doing this at break-even (let alone a profit) are minimal, but they don't want to say so. And of course, if you can only charge at 16 amps or so your costs are effectively double, which means most PHEVs will use gas as the cheaper option.

[SageBrush]

@GRA
Selective reading, much ?

Try reading the report with an open mind, then you might at least get the facts straight.

[GRA]

@GRA
Selective reading, much ?

Try reading the report with an open mind, then you might at least get the facts straight.

I read the report including the appendix, and compared that with the empirical evidence, just as I do with claims by e.g. Tesla as to their meeting cost or time projections. I find both to be lacking a high probability of success. If Vancouver manages to break even at their current pricing, even having lost most of the PHEVs that were formerly using the charging stations (through June, the Chevy Volt has led Canadian PEV sales for 48 out of 72 months*, so losing most of them and similar sub-4kW OBC cars represents a lot more than just the "modest decrease in utilization" which they claim will allow a 5-year payback, not the 1.5 years in their most optimistic forecast), no one will be more pleased than me to be proved wrong.

I would have been just as pleased to be proved wrong over my opinion that the El Hierro wind system couldn't supply anywhere close to 100% of the load (although that's what the government claimed it would), and could only provide a much lower % at a very high cost, based on the system specs, resource and demand profiles. Unfortunately, I was right. Let's agree to check back in a few years and see how Vancouver's doing.

*Via GCR:

Plug-in electric car sales in Canada, May 2017: what dominance looks like

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1110819_plug-in-electric-car-sales-in-canada-may-2017-what-dominance-looks-like

and http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1111386_plug-in-electric-car-sales-in-canada-june-2017-prime-time