1 hour ago, Gerrycan said:

@lol-lol , recharging "free at work for many". Your employer happens to specialise in this field but is that really true for others?

Agree with the rest of your other points though.

 

I think he's in cloud cuckoo land there with that one at the moment!  Current guidance for workplace charging points generally specifies 5% to 10% pf spaces tops - and many of those are for future provision and won't have charging statins for years yet

10 minutes ago, skomaz said:

 

I think he's in cloud cuckoo land there with that one at the moment!  Current guidance for workplace charging points generally specifies 5% to 10% pf spaces tops - and many of those are for future provision and won't have charging statins for years yet

 

Plus I'm sure they'll find a way to charge BIK on it too.

29 minutes ago, KenONeill said:

 

And, for the benefit of the English, Chargemap shows exactly 2 chargers within walking distance, both at the local hospital.

 

According to zapmap the nearest chargers to me are a 46 minute walk away

2 minutes ago, skomaz said:

 

According to zapmap the nearest chargers to me are a 46 minute walk away

 

About an hour and a half depending on walking speed for me, or 10 minutes in the car.

@AnnoyingPentium

Man maths.

 

15 litres of unleaded would cost me £20.46 at present. 

if i get 10 miles a litre then 150 miles from that with passengers.

 

If i have to charge my e-Corsa in North Ayrshire at 30 pence a kWH that is 45 times 30 pence so only £13.50 and i will get between 120-135 miles & maybe a bit more in good weather.

Last winter i was up and down the A90 to Dyce Airport in freezing temps and got around 2.3 miles per kW.  so 2.3 X 45 so just over 100 miles.

Near 60 miles there and means i have not enough power to get home without following a bus or HGV or charging.

 

OK if free or a cheap home charge setting off,  but if paying @ 30 pence a kWh, but if i have to use a InstaVolt charger @ 42 pence, 

so that is 42 pence x 45 so £18.90 for just over 100 miles. 

 

If i was someplace that required me to use an Ionity charger @ 67 pence to get 45 kWh then £30.15.

The rapid charger @ Ikea is 30 pence a kWh.

Harthill Services BP is 32 pence and ultra rapid 42 pence.

 

We are talking here about fingers crossed the roads stay open and no accidents and diversions adding extra miles on and taking me away from the already unreliable chargers where others in EV's might well be heading for.

 

This is an issue with having a not very large battery capacity or efficient EV. 

Edited 8 November, 20214 yr by roottoot

33 minutes ago, roottoot said:

15 litres of unleaded would cost me £20.46 at present. 

if i get 10 miles a litre then 150 miles from that with passengers.

 

If i have to charge my e-Corsa in North Ayrshire at 30 pence a kWH that is 45 times 30 pence so only £13.50 and i will get between 120-135 miles & maybe a bit more in good weather.

Last winter i was up and down the A90 to Dyce Airport in freezing temps and got around 2.3 miles per kW.  so 2.3 X 45 so just over 100 miles.

Near 60 miles there and means i have not enough power to get home without following a bus or HGV or charging.

 

Aye that's about right for me too, since I average 43-47mpg usually. Thank you

1 hour ago, AnnoyingPentium said:

 

At least with the ICE Fabia, I'm able to venture to most places on Scotland on one tank of petrol. I usually factor in a stop on the return leg to make sure I have petrol to return home. The issue is the lack of consistency with chargers for EVs in Scotland, as you have said, George. It could be an inconvenience (or even a danger, depending on if you break down) to arrive at a place where chargers are either unavailable or are out of use.

 

There is electricity just about everywhere and it just needs more organising to get it run out there.  Why more pubs and guest houses do not add EV charging as part of their offering is a question even if it is 2 or 3 kw granny charging. If you have saved someone a small fortune in fuel then happy days to make hay, charge the guest 25p a kwh for lecky and buy it in at 5p a kwh during the night.  Another angle to make money.

 

We must get out CO2 quickly else Climate change will kill millions.  DVLA need to monitor mileage via MOT etc and get those doing miles to change over either by good deals or it looks like ever higher oil prices will do it anyways.  Not just the fuel but the engine oil waste and not just the CO2 but the NOX and PMs through towns.

 

If the charger is defunct, though ZAP should be able to tell you this or the power network provider then at last resorts one get the RAC etc out. They will use their onboard 

 

Maybe a Tesla Powerwall with some portable gadget when we get the rolling blackout due to shortages of oil and gas !  

 

 

 

Just because there is electric everywhere...

Doesn't mean you can charge at a usable speed off it.

 

Out in the town and country (Eg away from big cities with better transport links already), it's charge at home or the motorway network, with an occasional charger at a supermarket/hotel if you're lucky.

 

EV wise, it's definately only going to be one car of two that goes that route, with the other going diesel and either FWD or AWD.

No chance whatsoever you could give up ICE totally here.

@lol-lolwhen you have a few days free you should take a trip north and see how you get on at some on or off the CPS network, those on the Electric A9, & chargers or off the main routes for Hub charger stations.

  Plenty slow chargers about if you have the time to hang about waiting at them if that is not where actually want to be. 

 

If another £12 million at least of publics money is being thrown at SWARCO / EVolt this year it really needs to show some improvement over the ridiculous set up they oversee now.

 

PS

I Email ZapMap regularly about new chargers still not on their system but in operation and ones a long time out of service, nothing changes.

As for the CPS map, that is just rubbish. 

Months now i have told them a charger 1/2 a mile from me is showing another 1/2 a mile from it's actual location.

There are ones exactly the same around Scotland yet they communicate with them by SIM card and their staff maintain them so know where they are.

Edited 8 November, 20214 yr by roottoot

2 hours ago, lol-lol said:

 

Not just the fuel but the engine oil waste and not just the CO2 but the NOX and PMs through towns.

 

 

If they start doing that then they need to start charging EV's for all the additional PM2.5 emissions from tyres.  A recent Emissions Analytics survey showed tyre PM2.5 'emissions' (ie Non Exhaust Emissions) were 5 one thousand times higher than the test vehicle's exhaust emissions over the same journey.

 

However, A typical EV SUV is 2.5tonnes to 3 tonnes vs around 2 tonnes for ICE vehicle and, as an example for cars, a Nissan Leaf is 1.7 tonnes vs 1.4 tonnes for a similar sized ICE vehicle.

 

Factor that in and EV's create more NEE's and should therefore be being charged for the additional NEE pollution they cause...

Edited 8 November, 20214 yr by skomaz
edited 5 to 1000 to correct the information

18 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

There is electricity just about everywhere and it just needs more organising to get it run out there.  Why more pubs and guest houses do not add EV charging as part of their offering is a question even if it is 2 or 3 kw granny charging. If you have saved someone a small fortune in fuel then happy days to make hay, charge the guest 25p a kwh for lecky and buy it in at 5p a kwh during the night.  Another angle to make money.

 

It is wrong to assume that:

A. People have the infrastructure available locally to effectively and conveniently own an EV car.

B. That people and business owners can afford to install said infrastructure for people to charge their electric cars.

 

18 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

If the charger is defunct, though ZAP should be able to tell you this or the power network provider then at last resorts one get the RAC etc out.

 

C. That people are able to check an internet-enabled device to know of a non-functioning charger on their pre-planned route while travelling said route.

 

I do not wish to come off as aggressive. I am merely stating observations.

Edited 8 November, 20214 yr by AnnoyingPentium

2 hours ago, roottoot said:

I read the figure as being 40% do not have off-street parking in the UK. 

 

An outfit called Anderson, who make home charging points reckon a third of UK households don't have a driveway or garage to install a chargepoint on.  However, it varies significantly, with only 1 in 6 (16%) in the countryside not  having somewhere, rising to 60% in major towns and cities...

 

Also London accounts for 78% of ALL on-street chargers...   so you can guess what that means for the rest of the country, let alone places like Scotland!

Edited 8 November, 20214 yr by skomaz

@lol-lolhas forgotten that Scotland does not have reliable Mobile Phone or Internet or even radio reception on some roads and routes in Scotland to even get Road Traffic Alerts. 

Transport Scotland really is a joke, then the gent that is in charge of the EV Charger Network is sadly a bit deluded in my opinion and experience.

To me it is like a Transport Scotland , CPS / Swarco eVolt love in.

 

The Transport Minister and First Minister need to go on a road trip doing the driving and charging themselves if they do drive.

 

Also the co-leaders of the Scottish Green Party. 

 

 

 

Edited 8 November, 20214 yr by roottoot

2 minutes ago, roottoot said:

Scotland does not have reliable Mobile Phone or Internet or even radio reception

 

Aldi in Prestwick..

 

2 minutes ago, roottoot said:

Road Traffic Alerts. 

 

Worked in Carsphairn but not in Renfrew for us lol in the Punto.

 

But you are correct George, it's a chain reaction, almost.

Edited 8 November, 20214 yr by AnnoyingPentium
Additional Information.

I've made provision for EV-driving guests to charge at 13 amps/3kW with minimal effort or cost to me (calling that a derogatory-sounding term like 'granny charging' seems rude and likely to discourage rather than encourage people to facilitate EV use).  Maybe I'll live long enough to use it on an EV of my own one day, you never know.

 

 

31 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

There is electricity just about everywhere

Further worked example using Benbecula. Population ~2_000, vehicles ~1_000, total public chargers 4. Fuel pumps 8, and even if someone's at each pump at your chosen forecourt they'll be moving in ~10 minutes tops.

3 minutes ago, KenONeill said:

Further worked example using Benbecula. Population ~2_000, vehicles ~1_000, total public chargers 4. Fuel pumps 8, and even if someone's at each pump at your chosen forecourt they'll be moving in ~10 minutes tops.

That's 8 fuel pumps for all 1000 vehicles.

While the 4 public charger only need to service estimate of ~167 vehicles (1 in 6 stat from skomaz posted earlier).

Benbecula is right up there for vehicle ownership with 1 vehicle for each 2 people, adults and children.  Then there is visitors vehicles. 

 

They have fairly done well in the past 10 years.

So many economically inactive as well. 

 

benbecula-profile.pdf

 

 

 

Edited 8 November, 20214 yr by roottoot

1 hour ago, skomaz said:

If they start doing that then they need to start charging EV's for all the additional PM2.5 emissions from tyres.  A recent Emissions Analytics survey showed tyre PM2.5 'emissions' (ie Non Exhaust Emissions) were 5 times higher than the test vehicle's exhaust emissions over the same journey.

However, A typical EV SUV is 2.5tonnes to 3 tonnes vs around 2 tonnes for ICE vehicle and, as an example for cars, a Nissan Leaf is 1.7 tonnes vs 1.4 tonnes for a similar sized ICE vehicle.  Factor that in and EV's create more NEE's and should therefore be being charged for the additional NEE pollution they cause...

 

The additional PMs is only for additional weight as I understand it and taken as a whole I cannot see that a little EV like mine is producing similar PMs to an average ICE car, particularly diesel emissions, and brakes is another area as we tend not to use brakes to slow down in an EV but we use regeneration.   I have read a few articles on this and here is, I think, I well written and balanced appraisal of it....   (Feel free to add your recent scientific source on the issue)....

https://epha.org/electric-vehicles-and-air-pollution-the-claims-and-the-facts/

 

It sounds like we need some better tyre constructs.  A recent Zoe test had the car go 424 miles in standard tyres and 475 on special tyres, quite a difference.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electric vehicles and air pollution: the claims and the facts

1.EVs reduce pollution from brake and tyres

On brake pollution, conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) cars mainly use disc brakes to slow the car down, which emits particle pollution. In contrast, EVs use “regenerative braking” as it restores braking energy back to the car’s battery to power the car. This process reduces the need to use the brakes and therefore reduces particle emissions.

On tyre pollution, EVs have heavier weight compared to ICE cars and, according to some reports, this extra weight increases wear and thus particle pollution. Yet, EVs are mostly fitted with special tyres designed to cope with the heavier weight of batteries to ensure that they do not wear out too quickly. More studies are needed to measure particle emissions from tyres, especially from EVs, but all road vehicles, including heavy SUVs, are to blame for tyre pollution.

 2. EVs reduce particle pollution

Focusing on ‘primary’ particle mass (PM) emissions, i.e those particles which are emitted directly from the exhaust, tyres and brakes, should not lose sight of ‘secondary’ particle pollution. These particles form in the air due to other pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC) and ammonia (NH₃) emitted from the tailpipe. Like primary particles these ‘secondary’ particles also contribute to PM_2.5 (particles smaller than 2.5 microns) and PM₁₀ (particles smaller than 10 microns) pollution, thereby causing poor air quality.  

According to a recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), these secondary particles can contribute up to 29% of the total PM emissions of a car. Most importantly, the OECD study found that when all particle sources associated with cars are counted, including secondary particles, EV cars contribute less PM_2.5 and PM₁₀ than diesel or petrol cars...................................

 

In conclusion, EVs do not produce more pollution than fossil fuelled cars. On the contrary, they eliminate emissions from engine exhaust and significantly reduce emissions from brakes. The evidence on tyres is more mixed. However, claims that EVs create more particle pollution due to tyres are misleading as they ignore their overall air quality benefits. Particle emissions should not be used as an excuse to slow down the transition to zero emission mobility. Instead, regulations should address pollution from brakes and tyres to ensure that emissions from these sources are reduced for all road vehicles.

 

3 hours ago, roottoot said:

@AnnoyingPentium

Man maths.

 

15 litres of unleaded would cost me £20.46 at present. 

if i get 10 miles a litre then 150 miles from that with passengers.

 

If i have to charge my e-Corsa in North Ayrshire at 30 pence a kWH that is 45 times 30 pence so only £13.50 and i will get between 120-135 miles & maybe a bit more in good weather.

Last winter i was up and down the A90 to Dyce Airport in freezing temps and got around 2.3 miles per kW.  so 2.3 X 45 so just over 100 miles.

Near 60 miles there and means i have not enough power to get home without following a bus or HGV or charging.

 

OK if free or a cheap home charge setting off,  but if paying @ 30 pence a kWh, but if i have to use a InstaVolt charger @ 42 pence, 

so that is 42 pence x 45 so £18.90 for just over 100 miles. 

 

If i was someplace that required me to use an Ionity charger @ 67 pence to get 45 kWh then £30.15.

The rapid charger @ Ikea is 30 pence a kWh.

Harthill Services BP is 32 pence and ultra rapid 42 pence.

 

We are talking here about fingers crossed the roads stay open and no accidents and diversions adding extra miles on and taking me away from the already unreliable chargers where others in EV's might well be heading for.

 

This is an issue with having a not very large battery capacity or efficient EV. 

 

I think the Corsa, like the 208 etc, are handsome cars, but with some of its design choices, even things like 17 inch wheels, I think PSA, or whatever they call themselves now, made decision which affected range over sex appeal in the show room.  Renault say the range could drop by 40 % in winter conditions (-6 C)  so which would give me 145 miles range but they also add that one should be using the APP and finishing off the car charge and pre-condition, in effect, the battery and toastie the car on the charger. https://www.renaultgroup.com/en/news-on-air/news/electric-cars-how-to-maximize-your-range-during-the-winter/

So I grabbed 14 kwh of cheap nuclear lecky between 0030 and 0430 on the Octopus 5 p a kwh tariff and got up to 94% with it showing 200 miles range.

 

So if I was going to My Tilbury office tomorrow, 175 miles distant, then would probably be wise to pre-condition and bring battery up to 100% even if it using the daily tariff of 16p a kwh as it is only grabbing 6% more visible on the percentage scale though I suspect it actually goes to more like 102% ie the full 55 kwh capacity as I seem to drive the first near ten miles before it drops down to 99%. 

 

Shame fitting narrower and smaller winter tyres is such a pain as the TPM would not like it unless one bought a second set of TPM valves. 

 

I wish the Zoe was more Tesla shape but then Renault will say you will have the chance to buy the Megane EV soon.

Elon Musk has made over $100B this year, not bad going !  

 

 

 

Edited 8 November, 20214 yr by lol-lol

Apologies - it's a factor of 1000 times more particulates from tyres than from exhausts (I must have held the wrong number in my head as I typed!):

 

Press Release: Pollution From Tyre Wear 1,000 Times Worse Than Exhaust Emissions — Emissions Analytics

 

Even more reason to charge heavier vehicles and EV's for increase NEE emissions...

 

Despite what lol-lol "cannot see"...

1 hour ago, lol-lol said:

 

The additional PMs is only for additional weight as I understand it and taken as a whole I cannot see that a little EV like mine is producing similar PMs to an average ICE car, particularly diesel emissions, and brakes is another area as we tend not to use brakes to slow down in an EV but we use regeneration.   I have read a few articles on this and here is, I think, I well written and balanced appraisal of it....   (Feel free to add your recent scientific source on the issue)....

https://epha.org/electric-vehicles-and-air-pollution-the-claims-and-the-facts/

 

It sounds like we need some better tyre constructs.  A recent Zoe test had the car go 424 miles in standard tyres and 475 on special tyres, quite a difference.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electric vehicles and air pollution: the claims and the facts

1.EVs reduce pollution from brake and tyres

On brake pollution, conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) cars mainly use disc brakes to slow the car down, which emits particle pollution. In contrast, EVs use “regenerative braking” as it restores braking energy back to the car’s battery to power the car. This process reduces the need to use the brakes and therefore reduces particle emissions.

On tyre pollution, EVs have heavier weight compared to ICE cars and, according to some reports, this extra weight increases wear and thus particle pollution. Yet, EVs are mostly fitted with special tyres designed to cope with the heavier weight of batteries to ensure that they do not wear out too quickly. More studies are needed to measure particle emissions from tyres, especially from EVs, but all road vehicles, including heavy SUVs, are to blame for tyre pollution.

 2. EVs reduce particle pollution

Focusing on ‘primary’ particle mass (PM) emissions, i.e those particles which are emitted directly from the exhaust, tyres and brakes, should not lose sight of ‘secondary’ particle pollution. These particles form in the air due to other pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC) and ammonia (NH₃) emitted from the tailpipe. Like primary particles these ‘secondary’ particles also contribute to PM_2.5 (particles smaller than 2.5 microns) and PM₁₀ (particles smaller than 10 microns) pollution, thereby causing poor air quality.  

According to a recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), these secondary particles can contribute up to 29% of the total PM emissions of a car. Most importantly, the OECD study found that when all particle sources associated with cars are counted, including secondary particles, EV cars contribute less PM_2.5 and PM₁₀ than diesel or petrol cars...................................

 

In conclusion, EVs do not produce more pollution than fossil fuelled cars. On the contrary, they eliminate emissions from engine exhaust and significantly reduce emissions from brakes. The evidence on tyres is more mixed. However, claims that EVs create more particle pollution due to tyres are misleading as they ignore their overall air quality benefits. Particle emissions should not be used as an excuse to slow down the transition to zero emission mobility. Instead, regulations should address pollution from brakes and tyres to ensure that emissions from these sources are reduced for all road vehicles.

 

 

Sorry - that's a bit too much of an EV 'love-in' piece for me and, interestingly, the 'article' referred to is nowhere to be seen on Transport and Environment's NGO website...   which makes me wonder about it's veracity given the number of other articles on there...

 

Correction - I've found it - it's actually just an 'opinion piece' and not a full on study...   so no evidence to back it up...

 

Electric vehicles are far better than combustion engine cars when it comes to air pollution. Here’s why - Campaigning for cleaner transport in Europe | Transport & Environment (transportenvironment.org)

 

I say no more...

Edited 8 November, 20214 yr by skomaz

1 hour ago, skomaz said:

Apologies - it's a factor of 1000 times more particulates from tyres than from exhausts (I must have held the wrong number in my head as I typed!):

 

Press Release: Pollution From Tyre Wear 1,000 Times Worse Than Exhaust Emissions — Emissions Analytics

 

Even more reason to charge heavier vehicles and EV's for increase NEE emissions...

 

Despite what lol-lol "cannot see"...

 

I have come across Emission Analytics before over sensational emissions claim on certain cars pollution levels and it does not surprise me they are your source.

I see he has an MA from Oxford, shame it is not a science degree.   I can see why you empathise with him.

Emission Analytics is a tiny company with a turnover of less than £1M.

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07576124/filing-history

 

Edited 8 November, 20214 yr by lol-lol

50 minutes ago, skomaz said:

Sorry - that's a bit too much of an EV 'love-in' piece for me and, interestingly, the 'article' referred to is nowhere to be seen on Transport and Environment's NGO website...   which makes me wonder about it's veracity given the number of other articles on there...

Correction - I've found it - it's actually just an 'opinion piece' and not a full on study...   so no evidence to back it up...

Electric vehicles are far better than combustion engine cars when it comes to air pollution. Here’s why - Campaigning for cleaner transport in Europe | Transport & Environment (transportenvironment.org)

I say no more...

 

Facts are EV do not produce emissions from combustion.

EVs hardly use their brake as they use Regen.

 

EV are usually a bit heavier but at 1.6 tonnes it is hardly heavier than many ICEs, heavier than a Kodiaq which can be over 1.7T curb weight ?

 

The key take away seems to be that certain poor quality tyres give off loads of PMs. The Zoe came with Michelin Primacy tyres so not cheap lower or even mid range tyres. 

 

We have really problems to sort out here and go do without Donald Trumpesque is-information when the world is at stake.

  

1 hour ago, lol-lol said:

 

I have come across Emission Analytics before over sensational emissions claim on certain cars pollution levels and it does not surprise me they are your source.

I see he has an MA from Oxford, shame it is not a science degree.   I can see why you empathise with him.

Emission Analytics is a tiny company with a turnover of less than £1M.

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07576124/filing-history

 

 

Clearly you do not understand the Oxbridge system...   ALL degrees from Oxbridge, whether sciences, engineering or otherwise were historically BA's and then MA's. as they have only recently switched to using other nomenclatures for certain areas of study. 

 

Sad that you use your lack of knowledge to denigrate others.

Edited 8 November, 20214 yr by skomaz