Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The reason why the charging points aren't used much might be because they are so expensive

A full charge on an a small City car like the Renault Zoe is about ?12 at home. ?20 on a lamp-post charger and ?34 on the Source charger.I wonder if Southwark made any stipulations about cost?

Google says 300-395km, so let's say 200 miles, and that costs ?34.


Renault claim their 1 litre petrol Clio does 66mpg around town. Chinny reckon to that, but even if we accept 50mpg, at 125p per litre of petrol (says google), that gives us ?22.50 for the same amount of miles.


So that is VERY expensive IMHO. Charging infrastructure should not only be available, but be price controlled. Most of the cost of petrol is tax so what is the excuse for Source? (Apart from upfront capital costs, but then other industries don't expect customers to pay through the nose for this.)

I wonder what the rental terms are for these charging points - fixed price or a %age of revenue? If the latter the council has no interest in pegging charges. Rather the reverse. Indeed, who is selling the power to the provider? Is it an energy co or are they buying it via the council? For the council, whatever the payment structure, they are turning parking spaces (which we used to, and still do, pay for through the Council Tax) into revenue generators. As they do for CPZs. This is all about uncapped revenue generation. In this case with, I'm guessing, no hypothecation.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I wonder what the rental terms are for these

> charging points - fixed price or a %age of

> revenue? If the latter the council has no interest

> in pegging charges. Rather the reverse. Indeed,

> who is selling the power to the provider? Is it an

> energy co or are they buying it via the council?

> For the council, whatever the payment structure,

> they are turning parking spaces (which we used to,

> and still do, pay for through the Council Tax)

> into revenue generators. As they do for CPZs. This

> is all about uncapped revenue generation. In this

> case with, I'm guessing, no hypothecation.


Perhaps a FOI request required to obtain the info from the council.

I chatted to one of the founders of Char.gy recently (they do some of the lamppost points in Southwark - not the ones on Townley)

Informally, he told me that the business model is that they ask councils to jointly fund the installation and then they make their money on the metered electricity.

Councils have all got targets around installing more EV charging points, so this model seems to be a reasonable cooperation.


In an ideal world, this would be provided directly by the council without a private company putting on their margin, but I don't think councils have got a pot to pee in at the moment. Putting in the infrastructure costs money - that has to be paid for from somewhere


The Source chargers are very expensive, much more expensive than the lampposts - I would assume that is because the charging company have to make a larger contribution because the infrastructure is much more significant.


By way of reference, it costs me ?2 to charge my PHEV at home, ?4 on a lamppost and ?10 on Townley Road



And finally, my POV: more EV charging points are essential - we have to incentivise EV use over petrol/diesel. In a city where most of us dont have driveways, only these type of chargers becoming ubiquitous is going to seriously increase the % of EVs in this city (just go to Amsterdam if you want to see how it should be done).


Its a chicken and egg thing - people wont buy EVs unless they know they can charge them. I think its good to see these points going in as it will encourage more people to go electric (I didn't feel I could go fully electric specifically because there weren't enough chargers)


And people HAVE to be able to park next to them. People moaning that this means a few parking spaces lost have probably never had that awful feeling of running out of charge in a City with poor EV infrastructure

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda and far more across their briefs than any minister I've seen in years. The consensus was that Labour are so unpopular and untrusted by the electorate already, as are the Conservatives, that breaking the manifesto pledge on income tax wouldn't drive their approval ratings any lower, so they should, and I quote, 'Roll The Dice', hope for the best and see where we are in a couple of years time. As a strategy, i don't know whether I find that quite worrying or just an honest appraisal of what most governments actually do in practice.
    • They are a third of the way through their term Earl. It's no good blaming other people anymore. They only have three years left to fix what is now their own mess. And its not just lies in the manifesto. There were lies at the last budget too, when they said that was it, they weren't coming back for more tax and more borrowing. They'd already blamed the increase in NIC taxes on what they claimed was a thorough investigation. They either knew everything then or they lied about that too .   They need to stop lying and start behaving. If they don't the next government won't be theirs, it will be led by Nigel Farage.  They have to turn it round rapidly. Blaming other people, telling lies and breaking promises isn't going to cut it any more.
    • Is it lame? Or is it Lamey? (sorry)
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...