Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

Who should be funding charge networks?

  • Government

    Votes: 15 68.2%
  • Vehicle manufacturers

    Votes: 7 31.8%
  • Private charging companies

    Votes: 6 27.3%
  • Other private companies (leisure, car park etc)

    Votes: 7 31.8%
  • It's complicated...

    Votes: 7 31.8%
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,939 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Forget the usual debate(s) we have about pricing and all that jazz... a more direct question really.

Who should be funding the charge networks in the UK, and how?

Should it be government (OLEV through taxation), should it be the manufacturers (Tesla-type model), private charging companies, private companies as a perk/side product...

Doesn't matter how much or little you know about the practicalities of these options, I'm just wondering now we've got Tesla rolling out Supercharging, Ecotricity well established, OLEV funds being spent all over the country... what makes you feel most comfortable both now and for the future?

Stuck in a poll with multiple choice available, just to get a quick insight. Not scientific, but hey. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,003 Posts
I would suggest that it doesn't matter. What matters is how you get to it. The government shouldn't be funding it directly, but should offer incentives in the for of tax breaks to encourage any willing party to roll out a network.
Then you might get a more thought out network from the car manufacturers, and electricity suppliers. Although they wouldn't be paid to roll out the network, they could have a notional amount of their profits excluded from taxation.
It would stop this £30k for a 7kw charging post nonsense to start with ;)

The car manufacturers have the most to gain in the first instance, as they will sell more EV's.
Then the electricity companies (through increased usage).
Finally the government through the reduced co2 emissions that we need to hit the latest international treaty !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,736 Posts
Big difference in funding approach between a £100,000 rapid charger installation and a £500 ZCW installation and everything in between. So I think a combination of all of the above depending on the application.

The key is to stop throwing money away to the likes of Chargemaster without suitable controls or conditions on funding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,817 Posts
Agreed - look at how Cotswold council are doing it (a different thread). They are actually trying to deliver a service, rather than take the grant money and run.

Tax breaks is the usual way government encourages innovation. It doesn't even have to be to car manufacturer/dealer. Simply offering a 100% allowance against charger installation (or if you want to be clever, a 200% allowance ...) could well encourage places like Starbucks, who are always keen to not pay tax. It could even be done as a nice gentleman's club agreement ("I say, we'll wink at the next HMRC sweetheart deal, provided you fit these rapid charger thingies at all your out of town locations").
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
I voted 'government' because it's in the public interest to reduce CO2 emissions and (especially) particulates to improve air quality. The investment in charging infrastructure will increase EV penetration and should deliver reductions in lung cancers, heart disease, etc. which will lead to less demand on the NHS in years to come.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
964 Posts
Government should be but I hesitated because of the way they "work". We have ample evidence to show that they are incapable. Yesterday's example shows how little the chair and her side kick knew in Whitehall, they struggled to work out what questions needed to be asked of OLEV's performance.

The panel of experts could have given a clearer position of UK adoption compared to the rest of the world when asked their opinion. "Were in the top ten" let them off the hook too easily and said nothing about Norway being 34 times better and the Netherlands 10 times better, proving that these results or better could have been achieved here too had they gone about it properly!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,035 Posts
I voted for Government. The problem with private sector supply is that it will never supply any need that does not make an immediate profit. You will never see a 'private' road sweeper, except under 'government ' contract. Rarely see Health care for those who cannot pay, legal aid for the under privileged, and so on. The provision of a National system of EV chargers will not pay a direct profit for many years, not until the whole life cost of electric vehicles is lower than petrol cars.

This quote from a China News agency site looks interesting:-

According to the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, nine of the city’s 10 suburban districts are now served by 1,600 electric taxis. By 2017, the total is projected to reach 5,000.

According to the commission, the Beijing government will complete construction of 1,000 fast-charging stations this year covering areas inside the Fifth Ring Road.

http://english.gov.cn/policy_watch/2014/10/13/content_281474996321573.htm


It just shows how having deadly levels of Air pollution can focus the official mind!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,348 Posts
I voted for government -- as above, but also for "other private companies". I think the latter in particular applies to destination slower (ie "fast") charging ie cinema, shopping centre etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,600 Posts
I voted for the manufacturers, so far only Nissan and Tesla seem to be doing this, where are the BMW, VW, Mitsubishi,Peugeot, toyota, Renault chargers. Why do those companies get an advantage with the tax payers funding infrastructure that helps them sell more cars. Maybe if it was a central funding poo, but paid for by the car manufacturers that every manufacturer was forced to contribute to, even if they did not make a EV car yet it may force them to take it seriously.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
I voted for the manufacturers, so far only Nissan and Tesla seem to be doing this, where are the BMW, VW, Mitsubishi,Peugeot, toyota, Renault chargers. Why do those companies get an advantage with the tax payers funding infrastructure that helps them sell more cars. Maybe if it was a central funding poo, but paid for by the car manufacturers that every manufacturer was forced to contribute to, even if they did not make a EV car yet it may force them to take it seriously.
According to the Rapid Charge Network site many of these manufacturers are contributing to these new rapids, with Nissan contributing the most
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,817 Posts
I think "We're in the top ten" for EV charging is doubly disingenuous, given that there are only 8-33 developed countries (depending on how you cut it - and going to 33 includes well known wealthy nations such as Thailand )

"We're just above the bottom 50%, slightly better than Chile" doesn't sound quite so good does it?

And yes, I know I am exaggerating. Sauce for the goose.

I also voted for the manufacturers. While there is mileage in destinations providing slow charging to entice customers (the "free wifi" model), the only way we will get en-route charging - and improvements to cars to make it viable - is to push that onto the manufacturers. Since the technology exists, it really would not be a problem to take a Californian approach. "You want to sell that V8 Premium pickup? Fine, but for each one you flog also have to sell 10 Electric cars with minimum 200 mile range and 30 minute recharge time plus fund one charger per electric car"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,706 Posts
Since the technology exists, it really would not be a problem to take a Californian approach. "You want to sell that V8 Premium pickup? Fine, but for each one you flog also have to sell 10 Electric cars with minimum 200 mile range and 30 minute recharge time plus fund one charger per electric car"
This is essentially Government being creative(!) and seems to work well for them.

I wonder if this approach would be legal here unless it was pan-EU.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top