Minister Ryan announces that the taxpayer will foot the bill for future purchases of vehicles by big business

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Hermes wrote:

...

The infrastructure issue dramatically influences the above picture. Allow me to make a comparison. The electrical grid is similar to the water grid. The actual infrastructure is very old and barely copes with present demand. On top of this the methodology we use to supply electricity, ie cables and wiring etc., is prone to losses too. It's not like copper and aluminium are super-conductive. The point you made
about heat losses is interesting in this respect. There's no way possible to convert the heat losses from the infrastructure into useful energy. Also, you must couple copper and iron losses in transformers etc. into the inefficiency picture we're forming. Short of everyone driving to their nearest powerstation to 'fill up' there's no way of reducing these losses. Even if we did drive to the power stations, we'd be adding further consumption into the picture. And indeed, distributing the saved energy itself would be again prone to losses.

...

Yeah, I'd agree with all of that. And there are lots of transformers and cables between the two. Domestic power may have to go through 4 or 5 transformer stages before arriving at one's house.

Stepping up to 110KV for transmission
Stepping back to 38KV for area Distribution
Stepping down to 10KV for local distribution
Stepping down to 220V for domestic use

There may be more, I'm not well up on network topologies.
Given these trafos are about 80% efficent (depends on lots of parameters) the overall trafo efficiency is 0.8 ^ 4 = 0.41 or 41%.

Thats before adding cables. Not very nice, is it?

Also, there are significant inefficiencies in the battery charging process. The 220V ac mains has to be rectified and regulated to about 14V dc to be suitable for charging. (I'm assuming a 12V nominal battery). You could throw in another 0.8 for this bit.

Now you can switch on your motor, and off you go. And may the road rise with you. But you won't get the same amount of energy out of the battery that you put in.

f*in hell that's a lot of loss ! Sorry I couldn't address that point Hermes - all the better to start that Anarchist haven down in West Mayo.

How can the grid be updated to account for all that loss - it's awful. More localism should help - you drive to your local petrol station now but in the future you'll be driving to your turbine... Or what about good domestic turbines you stick on your chimney ? A battery is 50 kw after all - a small turbine coupled with solar panels could run your car for you, no ?

I'm going to start an algae farm by hook or by crook

Hermes wrote:

eoinmn wrote:

Hermes wrote:

What I'm concerned about here is twofold.

i. The taxpayer footing the bill for vehicles for big business and subsidising their running costs

Would it be ok if they were little businesses?

It would offend me a lot less, especially if they were indigenous. But as we know such companies are in the vast minority of those who would or indeed could avail of this giveaway.

The “giveaway” amounts to no more than 12.5% of the cost of the car, over a number of years.

Do you fancy one of them, Hermes and tonys? I think maybe we are making it all too complicated. Much smaller and lighter cars of any technology would reduce the energy demand. And we are years behind the US on car share schemes.

Tonys wrote:

The “giveaway” amounts to no more than 12.5% of the cost of the car, over a number of years.

From the Times article I linked to at the start of this thread:

The Times wrote:

Under a scheme to cut the State’s €6 billion annual bill for imported
oil, businesses that purchase electric vehicles will be able to write
off 100 per cent of the cost.

Are you suggesting that because a company will not change its car every year, that the giveaway will be spread out over a number of years?

If so, that hardly suggests that this not a 100% giveaway, much less that it is a 12.5% giveaway. Aside from that, why would a big company not buy more cars than it needs to capitalise on the giveaway? It's not like there's a law out there stating that you have to drive your car. Extra cars are assets waiting to be liquidated after borrowing on the worth of the free giveaway. Not to mention the possibility of depreciation being written off too.

cactus flower wrote:

Do you fancy one of them, Hermes and tonys? I think maybe we are making it all too complicated. Much smaller and lighter cars of any technology would reduce the energy demand. And we are years behind the US on car share schemes.

To be honest I don't want one. Smaller and lighter cars use less energy, it does not follow that they cause less energy demand.

If I had my way, I'd develop public transport to a degree where everyone's needs could be met efficiently and then I'd make it a free service. This would end our splurging on the oil market and would free our roads from congestion completely. The cost of doing this would more than adequately be covered in our reduction in pollution, oil consumption and time management. Ireland would become efficient and environmentally friendly all in the one move. And even better, from a political standpoint, whomsoever introduced it, would be worshipped as a god by the population at large.

Hermes wrote:

Tonys wrote:

The “giveaway” amounts to no more than 12.5% of the cost of the car, over a number of years.

From the Times article I linked to at the start of this thread:

The Times wrote:

Under a scheme to cut the State’s €6 billion annual bill for imported
oil, businesses that purchase electric vehicles will be able to write
off 100 per cent of the cost.

Are you suggesting that because a company will not change its car every year, that the giveaway will be spread out over a number of years?

If so, that hardly suggests that this not a 100% giveaway, much less that it is a 12.5% giveaway. Aside from that, why would a big company not buy more cars than it needs to capitalise on the giveaway? It's not like there's a law out there stating that you have to drive your car. Extra cars are assets waiting to be liquidated after borrowing on the worth of the free giveaway. Not to mention the possibility of depreciation being written off too.

That’s a 100% write off against corporation tax and thereby saving the company 12.5% of the cost of the car, probably spread over 5 years, it’s no big deal.

tonys wrote:

That’s a 100% write off against corporation tax and thereby saving the company 12.5% of the cost of the car, probably spread over 5 years, it’s no big deal.

Out of interest, what is your view of the Greens as a FF partner, tonys? Do you get the sense, given recent events, that they are wobblers?...

toxic avenger wrote:

tonys wrote:

That’s a 100% write off against corporation tax and thereby saving the company 12.5% of the cost of the car, probably spread over 5 years, it’s no big deal.

Out of interest, what is your view of the Greens as a FF partner, tonys? Do you get the sense, given recent events, that they are wobblers?...

No, I’ve been quite impressed so far, both with the job their ministers are doing and their steadfastness under fire, it can’t be easy being in Government for the first time at the moment.
As for recent events, the budget was a complete balls up & anyway, to be honest I half expected them to jump ship at the first bad weather forecast, but so far so good.

tonys wrote:

No, I’ve been quite impressed so far, both with the job their ministers are doing and their steadfastness under fire, it can’t be easy being in Government for the first time at the moment.
As for recent events, the budget was a complete balls up & anyway, to be honest I half expected them to jump ship at the first bad weather forecast, but so far so good.

We'll know come the mini-budget next year, I suppose. I detected definite wobble on the medical card fiasco, and couldn't help thinking Gogarty was flown as a kite. Time will tell.

I thought the evironmental movement had rejected electric cars as ultimately more polluting because of the issue of battery disposal - they're filthy things apparently.

http://www.lead.org.au/lanv3n2/lanv3n2-6.html

http://www.mrsharkey.com/charging2.htm

On the other hand, 'Who killed the elctric car'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car

Disposal of any battery type is problematic:

http://www.hazardouswaste.utah.gov/SWBranch/Adobe/P2Factsheets/Batteryfact.pdf

Also, isn't it the case that we have to give up burning stuff in unlimited quantities?

Bring back horses and sailing ships.

This seems like a good study on overcoming the more volatile nature of lithium batteries.

Link

I still can't find anything definitive on their relative environmental merits:

Greentech report on environmental and political aspects of lithium batteries

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10077965-54.html

Aragon wrote:

Disposal of any battery type is problematic:

http://www.hazardouswaste.utah.gov/SWBranch/Adobe/P2Factsheets/Batteryfact.pdf

from that pdf

Quote :

Batteries as a Federal Hazardous Waste
Batteries (except lead-acid batteries) are not specifically regulated under Federal RCRA regulations. However, many batteries may exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste, including ignitablity, corrosivity, reactivity and/or toxicity and require management as such. In addition, some states have promulgated hazardous waste regulations that are more stringent that the Federal regulations.

So some states have more stringent regulations .... the pdf is from Utah. Begs the question as to what is "hazardous waste". "Ignitibility" could refer to shoe polish, paint stripper, alcohol. "Corrositivity" could refer to similar household substances. As for toxicity, someone died recently inhaling Lynx deodorant.

From the same document

Quote :

Lithium Batteries::Lithium batteries are subdivided into the following categories:
! Lithium-manganese dioxide batteries are non-hazardous solid wastes.
! Lithium-sulfur dioxide batteries (single-cell) are non-hazardous solid wastes.
! Lithium-sulfur dioxide batteries (multi-cell) may be non-hazardous solid waste or
characteristic hazardous wastes. If equipped with a Complete Discharge Device (ADD),
the batteries are considered a non-hazardous solid waste after discharging. If not equipped
with an ADD, multi-cell lithium-sulfur dioxide batteries are characteristic hazardous waste
due to ignitability (D001) and reactivity (D003).
! Lithium-thionyl chloride batteries (multi-cell) are characteristic hazardous wastes. If these
batteries have an ADD, after discharge, these batteries are a characteristic hazardous
waste due to the toxicity (chromium D007), ignitability (D001) and reactivity (D003).

Look under your sink and you might find plenty of examples of stuffs that could be classified as "hazardous waste".

The word "hazardous" can be very misleading. Particularly so when one is having an environmental conversation. The problem is of course that the word should always be qualified. All in all, the lithium-ion battery is one of my favourites and is possibly the least environmentally hazardous batteries ever invented. It can even be reasonably tossed into a landfill site, and often is, as the cost of collecting and recycling them outweighs the monetary value in recycling them. These batteries do contain various metals mind you (though surprisingly, not lithium metal) and thus it would not be wise to dump them near a water supply. Lithium-ion batteries are somewhat prone to igniting (for various reasons) and this is the reason that they can be sometimes described as hazardous.

That aside, the mining of lithium and other ingredients as well as the manufacture of the batteries themselves are not environmentally friendly practices. And since the demand for these batteries will jump astronomically over the next few years, safety considerations will drop or at least lag and environmental impact will jump sharply, more into the negative.

Ok, that's what I've got to say on hazards and environmental impacts of lithium-ion batteries. Now I want to explore the efficiency of these entities a bit more and the impacts that this has. Any battery is not really a power source. It is an intermediary - a power carrier. A copper wire is a power carrier too. The efficiency of these batteries has been described, but was described under optimal conditions. To get maximum efficiency out of one of these batteries, one should charge it once it has expended practically all of its charge. Otherwise the battery becomes much less efficient over time, holding less charge. To simplify - it's akin to the battery having a memory, if you teach it to perform at maximum efficiency, it will. On the other hand, if you teach it to only take a small charge (by often recharging whilst the battery has a lot of charge left in it) you teach it to only take a small charge and its efficiency will drop dramatically. This presents us with a real and difficult problem to overcome. And I don't think that it can be overcome. It would be very hard to rate the efficiency of a battery short of using it. The idea that new 'petrol' stations might offer a battery exchange, and save the waiting around for a charge, presents a major problem. What if the batteries I get in exchange for the ones I've lovingly maintained are crap? Hell, what if I have to drive a certain distance every day that we'll say, drains 70% of my battery's charge. Do I recharge every night and ruin the efficiency of my battery?

In short, I guarantee, that the rates of efficiency that are being described to us, regarding lithium-ion batteries, will not apply. Thus the mileage that's being promised, will not apply and this will be seen over a very short time period. In fact, the more of these cars on the road, the shorter that time scale.

As I've said already, I'm a big fan of electricity and its applications. But I'm very sure that we're being fed a set of positives without so much as a recognition that there are negatives. That's indicative of a major problem. And that's typical of the world we live in today.

It's definitely shocking the amount of loss on electricity grids as outlined by EVM above - in the process of charging a battery as you say Hermes rightly that it's a 'carrier' not a source. Now, we could be going around on roundabouts here with the ultimate efficiency of it - the infrastructure is already in existence to deliver electricity so there must be a saving in using it against using oil especially if local wind supplies the charge. There must be both a monetary and environmental offset there.

The petrol-burning engine loses heat energy big style and I'm positive the electric motor does not lose it so much (it would have to compete with over 70% energy inefficiency in petrol combustion and loss of energy through friction, cooling etc.) It's perhaps a matter of the better choice being the one which sources materials more locally. Again I'd say algae if we weren't talking about elecricity but as I consider the immediate future to be hybrids or transitional vehicles (because there's shitloads of vehicle stock sitting around getting unsold - see Iceland video and environmentally speaking this should be used first rather than throwing everything out and starting anew) BUT litium for this technology isn't at all local - it comes from South America I read in one of the articles above.

This debate might go on for the next ten years upto to 2020 and I'm sure we'll uncover lots of stuff. Meanwhile there are other technologies too - let's not forget the hydrogen fuel cell and ultra capacitors which is a 300 year-old technology...

I'd love to have an exact comparison of energy loss between ice engines and electricity from the oilrig to the pistons and the turbines to the lithium ions moving that motor. I'd say there's little doubt that there could be plenty done locally with our electricity grids if such a revolution is to have any effect ... Minister Ryan might do well to focus on whatever limitations and obsolescences are there but I don't think he's wrong about electric vehicles. We'll find out in time though.

Ultra-capacitors
http://bariumtitanate.blogspot.com/

The force is strong in you. Come to the Darkside

It would be worth reading up on how unsuitable our electrical grid is, to cope with this extra demand. I'll see if I can chase something down. In the meantime consider this: why is it do you think, that current electrical devices have energy saving features and that crowds like the ESB are asking us to save on energy - afterall, the more energy they sell us, the more money they make. And this was the practice, long before the environment offered an excuse. For example, dual-tariff meters have been around a lot longer than the knowledge of global warming.

Hell man, it won't be long until you'll be fined for washing that lovely new electric car with your garden hose. Our infrastructure is old and dying and is already driven well beyond capacity. Wind energy etc., are fine and noble ideas but they cannot fix this problem, it's too big.

Back in my day, it was often discussed, that a certain number of brown outs could trigger a nationwide brown out and that it would be virtually impossible to restart the whole system. How long could we last if the electrical grid went down?

Minister Ryan is looking only at the cars and doesn't see beyond his own nose. I wasn't being facetious when I described his announcement as a display of ignorance. Fair enough, the problem will be someone else's by the time it becomes critical. But this is not an example of forward thinking. The infrastructure is already critical and Minister Ryan aims to tap it further and indeed to put dealing with the issue itself on the long finger.

Hermes wrote:

The force is strong in you. Come to the Darkside

It would be worth reading up on how unsuitable our electrical grid is, to cope with this extra demand.

At night. (The cars will be charged at night)
You wonder can the grid cope with the extra usage at night. (for the cars)

And then........ you tell us that there reasons why the ESB promotes night saver.

So let me get this straight Hermes.. you are in favour of nightsaver electricity but against vehicles being charged at night?

eoinmn wrote:

Hermes wrote:

The force is strong in you. Come to the Darkside

It would be worth reading up on how unsuitable our electrical grid is, to cope with this extra demand.

At night. (The cars will be charged at night)
You wonder can the grid cope with the extra usage at night. (for the cars)

And then........ you tell us that there reasons why the ESB promotes night saver.

So let me get this straight Hermes.. you are in favour of nightsaver electricity but against vehicles being charged at night?

The maximum mileage that you'll get out of a charged battery will at most be a couple of hundred of miles. Also, a lot of people work at night and thus drive at night. Short of making a law that states that people may only recharge at night, you'd want to be a very strong adherent to the power of prayer if you think everyone'll be recharging at night.

This is an issue of demographics and statistics. Right now, neither the ESB nor the Government can convince enough people to switch over to dual tarrif meters, and they've been trying for more than a quarter of a century.

Hermes wrote:

The maximum mileage that you'll get out of a charged battery will at most be a couple of hundred of miles. Also, a lot of people work at night and thus drive at night. Short of making a law that states that people may only recharge at night, you'd want to be a very strong adherent to the power of prayer if you think everyone'll be recharging at night.

But most people drive during the day.
I believe there will a strong economic incentive for electric vehicle owners to charge at night. Not to mention the convience factor.

Hermes wrote:

This is an issue of demographics and statistics. Right now, neither the ESB nor the Government can convince enough people to switch over to dual tarrif meters, and they've been trying for more than a quarter of a century.

Well according to the minister we will all be getting smart meters over the next few years whether we want them or not.

Hermes wrote:

The word "hazardous" can be very misleading. Particularly so when one is having an environmental conversation. The problem is of course that the word should always be qualified. All in all, the lithium-ion battery is one of my favourites and is possibly the least environmentally hazardous batteries ever invented. It can even be reasonably tossed into a landfill site, and often is, as the cost of collecting and recycling them outweighs the monetary value in recycling them. These batteries do contain various metals mind you (though surprisingly, not lithium metal) and thus it would not be wise to dump them near a water supply. Lithium-ion batteries are somewhat prone to igniting (for various reasons) and this is the reason that they can be sometimes described as hazardous.

That aside, the mining of lithium and other ingredients as well as the manufacture of the batteries themselves are not environmentally friendly practices. And since the demand for these batteries will jump astronomically over the next few years, safety considerations will drop or at least lag and environmental impact will jump sharply, more into the negative.

Ok, that's what I've got to say on hazards and environmental impacts of lithium-ion batteries. Now I want to explore the efficiency of these entities a bit more and the impacts that this has. Any battery is not really a power source. It is an intermediary - a power carrier. A copper wire is a power carrier too. The efficiency of these batteries has been described, but was described under optimal conditions. To get maximum efficiency out of one of these batteries, one should charge it once it has expended practically all of its charge. Otherwise the battery becomes much less efficient over time, holding less charge. To simplify - it's akin to the battery having a memory, if you teach it to perform at maximum efficiency, it will. On the other hand, if you teach it to only take a small charge (by often recharging whilst the battery has a lot of charge left in it) you teach it to only take a small charge and its efficiency will drop dramatically. This presents us with a real and difficult problem to overcome. And I don't think that it can be overcome. It would be very hard to rate the efficiency of a battery short of using it. The idea that new 'petrol' stations might offer a battery exchange, and save the waiting around for a charge, presents a major problem. What if the batteries I get in exchange for the ones I've lovingly maintained are crap? Hell, what if I have to drive a certain distance every day that we'll say, drains 70% of my battery's charge. Do I recharge every night and ruin the efficiency of my battery?

In short, I guarantee, that the rates of efficiency that are being described to us, regarding lithium-ion batteries, will not apply. Thus the mileage that's being promised, will not apply and this will be seen over a very short time period. In fact, the more of these cars on the road, the shorter that time scale.

As I've said already, I'm a big fan of electricity and its applications. But I'm very sure that we're being fed a set of positives without so much as a recognition that there are negatives. That's indicative of a major problem. And that's typical of the world we live in today.

The electric car sounds impractical in the end. Not the same thing but we once had a battery powered bycycle. It was made in Belgium I think - and the recharging was a monumental p in the a. Don't think it can have been lithium though because it was so heavy.

Hermes I see this as confined to the cities - I don't really know if that's intended in the Bill or whatever it is but I'd see it as a kind of city tax. That's open for debate in itself and my line would be that yes we surrended liberties when we live in large agglomerations of people - I really do not want to have to breathe unclean air while cycling through the city hence I see the likes of congestion charges, tax incentives for bikes and the taxing of over-sized vehicles as being part of what should be an overall plan to get the likes of Dublin and other cities more livable. The air can be foul in cities thus taxing people is no problem for me as long as the tax contributes to funding an alternative plan entirely - better public transport, more and better cycle lanes and cycle infrastructure, more research into how we use energy for movement. It'd be an idea for ruling parties to show how levies are spent and their neutrality or lack of in most cases.

I've little doubt we'll find ways of making our stuff more energy efficient in future - the culture of oil is responsible for having dominated and eclipsed (and hampered ?) non-oil product research but that's going to have to change.

I'd see micro solutions in the medium term and the bicycle is still very much underrated and even lambasted as a mode of transport. This attitude could change dramatically with the nooses that people have put around their necks. Electric bikes could also be part of that solution but I notice the Minister hasn't extended the tax breaks to cover electric bikes

Dublin here is a problem in terms of living standards and travel within the city. Sorting it out would go some way to sorting out the same issues in the entire country. Throw Cork Galway and Limerick in there and we could then see what strains and tests could be made to the grid. I'd imagine that we could have wind, wave and tidal power here that are currently not being installed because of lack of storage capacity for the excess ... Couldn't this be achieved with electric vehicles plugged into the grid, powered by local turbines ?

I agree with you that it is not on that the ESB seem to be able to hike prices and no one seems to be asking if prices shouldn't fall because of technological developments if that's what you're saying here

Quote :

It would be worth reading up on how unsuitable our electrical grid is, to cope with this extra demand. I'll see if I can chase something down. In the meantime consider this: why is it do you think, that current electrical devices have energy saving features and that crowds like the ESB are asking us to save on energy - afterall, the more energy they sell us, the more money they make. And this was the practice, long before the environment offered an excuse. For example, dual-tariff meters have been around a lot longer than the knowledge of global warming.

Are you ?

eoinmn wrote:

Hermes wrote:

The maximum mileage that you'll get out of a charged battery will at most be a couple of hundred of miles. Also, a lot of people work at night and thus drive at night. Short of making a law that states that people may only recharge at night, you'd want to be a very strong adherent to the power of prayer if you think everyone'll be recharging at night.

But most people drive during the day.
I believe there will a strong economic incentive for electric vehicle owners to charge at night. Not to mention the convience factor.

Hermes wrote:

This is an issue of demographics and statistics. Right now, neither the ESB nor the Government can convince enough people to switch over to dual tarrif meters, and they've been trying for more than a quarter of a century.

Well according to the minister we will all be getting smart meters over the next few years whether we want them or not.

Yes, most people drive during the day, and a petrol engine will give better mileage than an electric engine. Yet there's been no move to have petrol stations only open at night.

Smart meters are cool. Making a smart meter is not akin to making a smart person. Neither does it ensure that it will be convenient for everyone to charge at night. Also, as I've said already, the way that one recharges one's batteries dictates the efficiency of the batteries. To limit the time periods whereby one may recharge one's batteries will result in a drop in efficiency, which will mean more power consumption and wastage. Of course everyone could be forced to buy an extra set of batteries to overcome this - add another five grand onto the cost of the car - double the amount of batteries that need to be manufactured - more wastage to be compensated for by extra power consumption and environmental degradation.

Hermes wrote:

Smart meters are cool. Making a smart meter is not akin to making a smart person. Neither does it ensure that it will be convenient for everyone to charge at night.

True about the smartness perhaps but isn't that what tax is for ? The night tariff would be cheaper and perhaps it would be even cheaper again in times of super-excess like we had in the wind a few days ago (810 MW out of 1160 !!) when the system would not need to shut down some turbines for over excess or something. People might take more notice of the fine windy weather we have around here and maybe not get as depressed looking at stuff getting blown horizontal

More feedback would help a lot of the issues and the SMART meter is part of that. I'm at a loss as to why we don't see more about it from the Greens or anyone else for that matter. Vested interests perhaps ?

Hermes wrote:

Yes, most people drive during the day, and a petrol engine will give better mileage than an electric engine. Yet there's been no move to have petrol stations only open at night.

Loads of petrol stations are open 24 hours.

There is a also a big difference between charging an electric car and filling up with petrol. Charging an electric car can be done at home.

I won't deny that electric cars have a long way to go before they entirely replace petrol/diesel. They are not ready for prime time yet.
But, we will never develop them unless we try. Modelling consumer behaviour on a computer screen in a university will not be much help. What is needed now is to encourage early adopters (ie nerds) to go out buy them and try them. This will give the companies involved good feedback and income for R&D.

The measures taken by Ireland, Israel etc, are only first steps. But they are very necessary first steps.
Hermes, you are being too pessimistic and negative about the whole thing, IMO.

Auditor #9 wrote:

I'm at a loss as to why we don't see more about it from the Greens or anyone else for that matter.

More about what? Smart meters?