Can't really complain about cable reaching or placement issues, it's more due to stupid non-standard charge port locations. Only after all cars do the same to have charge port to the rear left (as example), then charge points can be installed to account for this.

 

Plugged in not charging is very poor. With CCS, that suggests a charge was probably never started in the first place!?

 

Sorry Zoe owners, I think it's about time the Type 2 tethered cable on rapids are removed. But need to install 22 kW type 2 AC socket nearby.

Plenty of those 22 & 7 kWs if they bother going to them..  

There are Mk1 Zoe cars that arrive wanting a 43 kW AC. not that many but the Zoe owner i moved to let charge used to own one and used these chargers when he had it for a rapid charge.

 

A lovely morning before the rain, i was there very early and the Audi was plugged in at that time.

before chargers wars started.  Not so nice later on, thank goodness for canopies.  The outside charger was working early on then not a few hours later.

Edited 8 November, 20223 yr by roottoot

2 hours ago, roottoot said:

Again the Hyundai plugged into the CCS for who knows how long and not charging.

The Audi sitting for hours on the 43 kW AC and the Corsa doing the same for 2 hours getting 11 kWh max while there were plenty chargers available if the parked at them and used their own cable.

The other chargers were all getting used and people were waiting and the Orange car made charging another Corsa awkward on the CCS. 

So is the takeaway from this and your other posts that EV owners can be a pretty selfish bunch at times?  As that's the impression (or at least some of them...)

Many of them.  Greedy and inconsiderate.     Then the Council's / hosts  can be crap.  I am currently charging at the charger that has been switched on for weeks and not yet in commission.  Working just fine though.  

 

 

@wyx087

With the 43kW AC on the side is how SWARCO are supplying them to Local Authorities.

Someone must advise and approve and splash the council tax payers dosh. 

Time they started bring in some money on this one. 

Edited 8 November, 20223 yr by roottoot

Out of interest, if this is not commissioned how do you start a charge? (I understand it is powered up)

Tap the CPS card and it starts.  Not yet showing on the app.  The temp sign seems clear enough that they are waiting on longer cables. 

Odd as the cables are plenty long enough. Looks like they were supplied and fitted.

Just a pity that they could not paint EV Charging bay on the spaces and not have a sign post to the right of the chargers like they have at the left bay .  

 

Or not block a pavement at a very large car park and next to a garden that is a tourist attraction. 

 

The usual incompetence between Angus Council departments / employees, management.

Housing, roads department, finance and elected members. 

 

 

Edited 9 November, 20223 yr by roottoot

Edinburgh airport park and ride has 6 rapid chargers with 5 out of operation and the 1 on service had a Polestar 2 plugged in for 80 minutes and at 95%.     There is a 30 minute max charge time then a £30 penalty.    I charged for 30 mins and it cost £8.12.       yesterday on free chargers I used 3 for 60 mins each but nobody came needing to charge until the last one and as I was away to unplug.       An Ark would be the most appropriate today.   In torrential rain when charging a car you really want to just tap a card and plug in. Not call call centres to have them reset chargers and all the carry on it takes.   ?how can Scotland's capital city and airport area have such crap mobile reception in some bits.  

Edited 18 November, 20223 yr by toot

6 rapid chargers still out of service at Edinburgh airport this morning.  Nearest hub had 5 rapids out of order.  Thank goodness for a LIDl just 4 miles from the airport with a PodPoint at 40 pence a kWh .   City of Edinburgh really is the pits for those wanting to just get electricity in a car and get the funk on your way. 

 

 

 

This is what I'm talking about.

I think some of the affluent folks with EVs have absolutely no idea what it's like to be hard-up, and find yourself being forced to fall in line with someone else's green agenda.

They're always banging on about how they want to do something about "poverty", but they don't seem to actually have any experience of it themselves.

 

I have married friends with five kids living in rented accommodation.

At the moment they get by with two cheapo cars which allows them to squeeze everyone in when they all go somewhere, but they don't all travel together most of the time.

They can't afford one EV, far less two.

Even if they could afford an EV (they can't), what if their landlord doesn't want an EV charger fitted to their property, for whatever reason?

The government has imposed artificial deadlines that are going to cause a lot of people a lot of bother.

 

Another example: My lovely elderly neighbour stopped driving fairly recently. She had a 16 year-old automatic Vauxhal Corsa that did her quite nicely until driving was beyond her.

I suspect there are quite a few elderly people who bought a car a few years ago and intend for it to see them out. They're perfectly fine to be driving, but it would be impossible for them to afford to buy a replacement vehicle. It can't be nice to be elderly and find yourself priced off the road because your older vehicle no longer complies with the ULEZ zone that you suddenly find yourself living in.

Edited 6 December, 20223 yr by EnterName
third person changed to first

Or worse still (perhaps) to have the means to buy a new compliant vehicle or perhaps sons/daughters buy it for them only for them to find that they cannot operate or live with a games console on wheels, it would freak me out even at my age.

The government deadlines in 12 years time are only on brand new cars, which by extension are usually people who are most likely able putting in charge points for at their off-street parking.

In 2040, there will still be a lot of choices for cheap fossil fuel cars that are 5 years or older. In 20 years time, 2042, one can still choose to buy and run a cheap second hand car that is refuelled at a petrol station. Meaning this change to EV would not affect said "poverty" family for 20+ years.

 

Landlords currently still have access to the charge point installation grant.

 

Counter-point: my retired parent's Volvo S40 is a 14 years old car but it is ULEZ compliant. They are perfectly happy to drive this until beyond economical repair. They don't feel they have been priced off the road with their current car. They would like to get an EV after that and my Dad has no problem operating my Tesla, though, he is very good with computers as programming algorithms was part of his later career.

 

 

 

It's not "someone else' green agenda". It's just another change in the motoring industry due to overwhelming scientific consensus. There will always be innovators and slow followers, the latter is always favoured by those who are less flexible with their finances. There's at least 20 years for this change to affect them.

22 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

The government deadlines in 12 years time are only on brand new cars, which by extension are usually people who are most likely able putting in charge points for at their off-street parking.

In 2040, there will still be a lot of choices for cheap fossil fuel cars that are 5 years or older. In 20 years time, 2042, one can still choose to buy and run a cheap second hand car that is refuelled at a petrol station. Meaning this change to EV would not affect said "poverty" family for 20+ years.

What evidence do you have to support your claim that "In 2040, there will still be a lot of choices for cheap fossil fuel cars that are 5 years or older. "? The deadline was introduced arbitrarily and can be brought forward or pushed back on the whim of whoever is in power. If the government decides to apply draconian taxes in the form of some "green levy" to fossil fuels, which results in fuel dramatically rising in price, it's perfectly possible to price out those "slow followers" simply by making it beyond their means to fuel their car.
 

28 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Counter-point: my retired parent's Volvo S40 is a 14 years old car but it is ULEZ compliant. They are perfectly happy to drive this until beyond economical repair. They don't feel they have been priced off the road with their current car. They would like to get an EV after that and my Dad has no problem operating my Tesla, though, he is very good with computers as programming algorithms was part of his later career.

Your counter point is "I have affluent parents who could afford to buy a replacement car if they needed to, anyway they don't need to as their present car is ULEZ compliant."

Well that's lovely for your parents and comforting for you, I'm sure. No worries for your family, no wonder you can't see what all the fuss is about.

Fuel prices managed to nearly double in a couple of years not so long ago. (Source https://www.racfoundation.org/data/uk-pump-prices-over-time )

Just because you and your family are alright, that doesn't mean everyone else can accommodate a sudden hike in fuel prices.

 

32 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

It's not "someone else' green agenda". It's just another change in the motoring industry due to overwhelming scientific consensus. There will always be innovators and slow followers, the latter is always favoured by those who are less flexible with their finances. There's at least 20 years for this change to affect them.

The science is always "settled" right up until it isn't. Of course it's a lot easier to have a scientific consensus if you don't allow any counter-points.

2030.  Almost 2023 already.   Conventional new petrol and diesel car new sales to end. UK.  EU maybe also.  Is that vans as well?       It is really really really so soon.  We will see. 

2 hours ago, EnterName said:

What evidence do you have to support your claim that "In 2040, there will still be a lot of choices for cheap fossil fuel cars that are 5 years or older. "? The deadline was introduced arbitrarily and can be brought forward or pushed back on the whim of whoever is in power. If the government decides to apply draconian taxes in the form of some "green levy" to fossil fuels, which results in fuel dramatically rising in price, it's perfectly possible to price out those "slow followers" simply by making it beyond their means to fuel their car.

Simple maths, assumption is the dates won't change, I can't see it being brought forward, I can only see it being delayed, unfortunately IMHO. 

2035 is ban for anything that contains a tailpipe. 2030 is only banning non-electrified vehicles, after 2030 you can still buy cars that are refueled at petrol station. 

Typical cars last 12-15 years. 

So 2042, 20 years from now, it will be possible to buy an 8 years old car that is refueled at petrol station, with 4+ years of use left. 

 

The yellow vest protest has shown that "green levy" on fossil fuel, though necessary IMHO, are very unpopular and has the potential to de-stablise a nation. I don't think UK gov will do anything like this. We shall see...... more likely to put more tax on EV's. 

 

2 hours ago, EnterName said:

Your counter point is "I have affluent parents who could afford to buy a replacement car if they needed to, anyway they don't need to as their present car is ULEZ compliant."

 

Fuel prices managed to nearly double in a couple of years not so long ago. (Source https://www.racfoundation.org/data/uk-pump-prices-over-time )

Just because you and your family are alright, that doesn't mean everyone else can accommodate a sudden hike in fuel prices.

Unfortunately it does read that way, it was not my intent. My point was very old cars are still ULEZ compliant and not all old folks are scared of computer-on-wheels. Only through horrendous planning can one be caught out by expanding ULEZ zones. 

 

I, too, had noticed petrol and diesel prices have risen by a lot over last few years. This and natural gas prices are the main driving force for our current hyper inflation. All families are affected by this, poorer are affected more due to higher percentage of their income goes to essentials. 

This is the curse of geopolitical fuel. The sooner we move away from this to be independent from foreign powers, the better. 

 

2 hours ago, EnterName said:

The science is always "settled" right up until it isn't. Of course it's a lot easier to have a scientific consensus if you don't allow any counter-points.

There is no debate because climate change is not a political issue. Scientific debate among scientists occurred many years ago before reaching this consensus. Any counter-point from general public isn't going to contribute anything to what has already been examined by peer reviewed papers that had been published in well regarded journals. 

 

It may feel like climate change scientific consensus is undemocratic when being told so. But the scientific methods are well established, this method is acceptable for everything else. Only difference is that now after reaching the consensus, swift action has to be taken that affects everyone. So it feels like this "green" thing is thrust upon us like a king's decree. 

After the latest revelations about changes to Ethereum mining and the massive reduction in its power consumption, a claimed 99.84% no less! (BBC article suggest a greater saving than the power consumption of Ireland or perhaps even Austria!), then things are taking a turn for the better. The article also suggests that the emissions savings are greater than that made by all current EVs!! Now you add in zero emissions fuel such as the stuff Porsche has been playing with and you keep ICE engines on the road, also saving on the massive energy use and emissions created in making new cars, we start to make a positive step forward. It's an interesting article and I'll take it with a pinch of salt, but even if it's only 10% true, it's a positive turn in the right direction.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63872983

 

 

I realise that's a bit more about energy, but energy is so part and parcel of the EV debate I thought it worth posting in here. 

I read the whole article several times, like many others that I have also read on the subject I did not understand a single word 🤣

 

Please don't try to explain it to me, I'm a lost cause and from the little that I do know or understand on the subject I really don't want to understand any more

 

Suffice to say that when I first read of the amount and cost of the electricity being used for this so called "mining" it sounded absurd and obscene to me, in the current climate all the more so.

Another thing that would help the energy crisis and prevent power cuts (and possible issues for EV users?) would be if the plethora of external Christmas lights were bloody well turned off! I love houses needlessly over decorated with Christmas lights and plastic chintz, but this year isn't the year for it and I have never seen as many over decorated houses in my life. Astonishing numbers and they are burning through juice from afternoon until midnight and many stay on right though the night too. Ridiculous. Even though many are LED lights, they still all add up. 

 

 

Bah Humbug!

 

 

 

Rant over

 

 

Disclaimer: I am referring to houses that look like they have been decorated by the Griswolds in the above rant 

Edited 7 December, 20223 yr by Lady Elanore

On 06/12/2022 at 15:33, wyx087 said:

Unfortunately it does read that way, it was not my intent. My point was very old cars are still ULEZ compliant and not all old folks are scared of computer-on-wheels. Only through horrendous planning can one be caught out by expanding ULEZ zones.

This is clearly inaccurate, albeit through ambiguity, and I'm surprised I'm the only person to point this out.

While it's true that the majority of older PETROL cars are ULEZ compliant, because they only have to meet Euro 4 emission standards, diesel cars have to meet Euro 6 emission standards. The majority of diesel cars on the road were not ULEZ compliant when ULEZ in London was introduced, which is why taxis were exempted from the charge.(Until 2025, afaik.)

 

On 06/12/2022 at 15:33, wyx087 said:

There is no debate because climate change is not a political issue. Scientific debate among scientists occurred many years ago before reaching this consensus. Any counter-point from general public isn't going to contribute anything to what has already been examined by peer reviewed papers that had been published in well regarded journals. 

I respectfully disagree. However it has been made clear to me by the powers that be, that Briskoda is not a place for me to explain why I disagree. So unfortunately I cannot do more than disagree. Hopefully I am actually allowed to disagree, though that remains to be seen.

Yes, diesels as young as 2015, 7 years old, are not compliant. A couple of my neighbours are facing this with their 2013-2014 diesels. ULEZ is due to be expanded to cover my home by end of next year. My previous car (2013 Octavia 2.0 TDI) was also not compliant and would have costed me every time I drive it. Result of this was that non of nearby dealer were interested in this diesel.100% of Facebook/NextDoor interest were lead with "is it ULEZ compliant" and zero interest after that. I finally managed to sell it to a dealer in Hamel Hampstead just outside M25. 

 

But as you said, very old petrol are all compliant. I'm not sure when Euro 4 became mandatory, but I know 14 year old petrol cars are compliant and typical car expected lifetime is up to 15 years. So I think it's safe to say majority of petrol on the roads are compliant. Hence very old and cheap petrol cars are compliant. Sometimes one may have to trouble a hundred or so  miles into the country to get a good deal on a cheap petrol car. 

 

Disagreeing is normal in society with hugely different backgrounds. I think it's unfortunate views on EV adoption, manufacturing origin and climate change get the "political" sticker slapped on. Well, manufacturing origin is perhaps political motivated. The other 2 are not a political matter, it's a matter of personal views and how it may differ from consensus. 

3 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Disagreeing is normal in society with hugely different backgrounds. I think it's unfortunate views on EV adoption, manufacturing origin and climate change get the "political" sticker slapped on. Well, manufacturing origin is perhaps political motivated. The other 2 are not a political matter, it's a matter of personal views and how it may differ from consensus. 

The disagreement isn't political, the silencing of dissent is most certainly political.

The science was settled as to what defines a man and a woman until very recently.

Now the "science" has been changed, and any dissent from the new "science" is silenced.

25 minutes ago, EnterName said:

The disagreement isn't political, the silencing of dissent is most certainly political.

The science was settled as to what defines a man and a woman until very recently.

Now the "science" has been changed, and any dissent from the new "science" is silenced.

Science is always changing because there are always new technology and thus new discoveries. We cannot say just because the consensus changed or unrelated theories changed, it means new or previous consensus or theories had an agenda or are not to be trusted. Remember, in science, there is no definitive conclusions. Even gravity is just an observation of a theory.

 

I don't know what is your background. But I've always been STEM orientated. So I had always followed science and held my belief with exports of the fields. Up until ~2010 I felt climate change is nothing that concerns me, it's still an on going public debate. But after researching it, it's clear the experts of the field had a consensus and opposition usually have other motivation. The tactics are well documented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

I trust these guys (groups of experts in their respective fields with well referenced papers) more than any individual claiming otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists

 

 

 

It's best we stick to the thread. The social divide is a real concern. It's really bad that the poor are trapped by rising fuel prices and no where to cheaply recharge EV. Personally I don't see adoption and charging will be an issue, hence I didn't agree with that video. My issue is charging cost.

Edited 8 December, 20223 yr by wyx087

2 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Science is always changing because there are always new technology and thus new discoveries. We cannot say just because the consensus changed or unrelated theories changed, it means new or previous consensus or theories had an agenda or are not to be trusted. Remember, in science, there is no definitive conclusions. Even gravity is just an observation of a theory.

 

I don't know what is your background. But I've always been STEM orientated. So I had always followed science and held my belief with exports of the fields. Up until ~2010 I felt climate change is nothing that concerns me, it's still an on going public debate. But after researching it, it's clear the experts of the field had a consensus and opposition usually have other motivation. The tactics are well documented:

I don't know how you wrote those two sentences without catching yourself and thinking, "Ooh! Hang on a minute...".

 

At least we can agree on a shared concern for people who can't have their own home charger for their EV. 🤝

First sentence is about how expert consensus is reached, why it changes overtime. Second is about myself discovering the public debates and industrial lobbying are often not scientific based. There is no contradiction.

 

 

Re charging for people without home charger:

 

Pay a monthly subscription for their local street-side charge points (similar to home owners pay one-off install cost). This allows them to access much cheaper off-peak pricing.

 

Off peak pricing like this.

me-of