On 09/04/2016 06:59, harry wrote:
On Friday, 8 April 2016 20:40:45 UTC+1, 3899jk wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 08/04/16 11:07, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 7 April 2016 16:51:18 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/04/16 16:05, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 7 April 2016 14:09:40 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/04/16 11:20, Andrew wrote:
On 01/04/2016 15:10, Another Dave wrote:

No. The point is that if this took off in a big way (and I hope it
does)
the government would have to tax electricity used to charge cars to
maintain its revenue. I don't know how this would work but I'm
certain
that it would happen.

Another Dave

And that is precisely what smart meters will be able to do. It knows
what is using power, so one day could simply slap the 'missing' fuel
duty and VAT onto your leccy bill.

How is it able to know?

I would assume by inbuilt chips in the products, simialer to how USB
devices talk to the computer and tell it what it is and what it needs
curretn wise and speed althogh speed wouldn't be needed.



Not too much danger of that happening anytime soon -

depends what you mean by anytime soon.

and you can always
cut the plug off .

then how will you plug it in ?

And put a non smart plug on it.



(or run it through a signal blocking filter) - as the
mains, unlike USB, does not need anything to declare its intent before
supplying power.

which makes it easier to do.
Like they do with those TP link ethernet extenders.


USB works the way it does, because it was designed to and the host is
always in control of the power delievered, unless the "host" is a dumb USB
charger.

Mains was not designed to have smart delivery and regulation of power,

But the car chargers have to be.

Why do you drivel on about topics when you don't even have an electric car?
Charger fall into two types.
AC (small) chargers use the car's onboard rectifier with a current limiting device. Mine limits to Kw 2.2

DC (fast) chargers that just have a current limiting device.
These are around 60Kw & there are not many around.
I don't use them anyway.


Funny all the electric cars I looked at recently need a 32A charging
point and they actually fit them free if you buy a new car.

the DC charger is an optional extra on some of them costing a few
hundred more.

Most don't even come with a 13A plug unless you pay extra.

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 01/04/2016 17:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I'm willing to bet no electric could do the average 200 mile commute on
one battery charge. Every day of the year.

'Average 200 mile commute' ??. What, daily ?.

You snipped the bit the 200 mile commute was referring to.

--
*For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 April 2016 14:18:35 UTC+1, Mike Barnes wrote:
JoeJoe wrote:
Just saw the launch of the new Tesla car, and at a claimed 215m to
a charge, I can see myself perhaps being persuaded to consider the
technology at some stage in the not near or medium future.

I have seen quite a few charging points (or whatever they are
called) - in most large European cities. I assume that the cost of
a charge is set so that it would be marginally lower to run such
cars compared to petrol/diesel cars.

AIUI those charging points are free to use. The true costs are in
the car's purchase and battery life. So you can't directly compare
costs without taking into account mileage and a host of other
factors.

I took a test drive in a Tesla and was quite impressed. I recommend
the (free, no pressure) test drive to anyone with half an interest
in the topic and a couple of hours to spare. But the car makes no
sense economically for a low-mileage driver such as me.

So what sort of driver is it aimed at long distance ? but can only do
215 miles.....

yesterday, I drove just over 400 miles.


what is the relevance of that to the point in hand?

It means an electric car is no bloody use for the sort of driving I tend
to
do.

No, it means that it is no bloody use for that journey

But you didn't say how often you do that journey and if it is a one off
hiring a car for the day (or 2) makes sense

Note that I am not making any point about the usefulness or otherwise about
ECs, just picking you up on your incomplete point.

Then.....

I drive 55 miles round trip to work, so I could use an EC for that, and hire
a car to go on holiday with.

That would leave me putting 11,000 per year on the EC.

As per a PP, is that enough use to justify the very high additional purchase
costs? I suspect not.

And I couldn't actually do it anyway as I live on an estate with communal
parking places and no means to install the kit to recharge the battery.

Councils are going to have to take a long look at this (what seems to be
preferred) model of new builds if we are all going to be encouraged to buy
ECs. Cos the two don't fit together

tim

In article , tim...
wrote:

But you didn't say how often you do that journey and if it is a one off
hiring a car for the day (or 2) makes sense

Not really. With my own vehicle, I can load up the night before and I can
start when I want. Otherwise, 8 miles to the nearest car hire depot which
means I will set off at least an hour later. At the other end of the
journey I use the car for storage, so I'd have to hang on to it for the
week I was away and have it overnight when I return home since it was
nearly 8pm when I got home. And hiring large estate cars isn't like
getting a Group A one.

Come to think of it, could I get my harp into an electric car anyway?
That's needed at least once week.


Note that I am not making any point about the usefulness or otherwise
about ECs, just picking you up on your incomplete point.

Then.....

I drive 55 miles round trip to work, so I could use an EC for that, and
hire a car to go on holiday with.

That would leave me putting 11,000 per year on the EC.

As per a PP, is that enough use to justify the very high additional
purchase costs? I suspect not.

And I couldn't actually do it anyway as I live on an estate with communal
parking places and no means to install the kit to recharge the battery.

Councils are going to have to take a long look at this (what seems to be
preferred) model of new builds if we are all going to be encouraged to
buy ECs. Cos the two don't fit together

tim



--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 April 2016 14:18:35 UTC+1, Mike Barnes wrote:
JoeJoe wrote:
Just saw the launch of the new Tesla car, and at a claimed 215m to
a charge, I can see myself perhaps being persuaded to consider the
technology at some stage in the not near or medium future.

I have seen quite a few charging points (or whatever they are
called) - in most large European cities. I assume that the cost of
a charge is set so that it would be marginally lower to run such
cars compared to petrol/diesel cars.

AIUI those charging points are free to use. The true costs are in
the car's purchase and battery life. So you can't directly compare
costs without taking into account mileage and a host of other
factors.

I took a test drive in a Tesla and was quite impressed. I recommend
the (free, no pressure) test drive to anyone with half an interest
in the topic and a couple of hours to spare. But the car makes no
sense economically for a low-mileage driver such as me.

So what sort of driver is it aimed at long distance ? but can only do
215 miles.....

yesterday, I drove just over 400 miles.

I've just been to beyond Morpeth and back. But did stop overnight, due to
having a given time to pick up what I was collecting. In the old Rover. ;-)

--
*When companies ship Styrofoam, what do they pack it in? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 08/04/2016 14:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/04/16 13:14, Tim Watts wrote:
Like I said, not happening anytime soon. Possibly ever. It's virtually
impossible to tax car electricity (the core point) specially compared to
"normal" electricity as you cannot mark it in any special way like fuel
and it's too easy to circumvent.

So they will tax batteries or something else, instead

If it doesn't move, tax it, if it moves, tax it.

I see Ofgem are proposing charging a higher rate of VAT on heavy users
of electricity (or a variable rate depending on usage). There is an
article in the 'i' about it.

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 08/04/2016 14:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/04/16 13:14, Tim Watts wrote:
Like I said, not happening anytime soon. Possibly ever. It's virtually
impossible to tax car electricity (the core point) specially compared to
"normal" electricity as you cannot mark it in any special way like fuel
and it's too easy to circumvent.

So they will tax batteries or something else, instead

If it doesn't move, tax it, if it moves, tax it.

I see Ofgem are proposing charging a higher rate of VAT on heavy users
of electricity (or a variable rate depending on usage). There is an
article in the 'i' about it.

The sensible way would be to tax on actual road usage. Quite easy to do
now, unlike a few years ago.

--
*Can atheists get insurance for acts of God? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
harry scribeth thus
On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 09:51:32 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus
On Friday, 1 April 2016 21:14:26 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:
On 01/04/2016 15:47, whisky-dave wrote:


So what sort of driver is it aimed at long distance ?
but can only do 215 miles.....


With a new battery! What mileage can it achieve on a single charge when
the battery is a 1 or 2 years old?


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Lots of people here rabbiting on with zero knowledge.



My car is 2012, any battery deterioration is undetectable.




Well well Harry, perhaps you've e found a way to reverse chemical ageing
you might get a Nobel prize for that!!....

--
Tony Sayer


Well ****-fer-brains, you don't suppose electric cars are not fitted with range
remaining and battery charge condition instruments?
If so you must be really brain dead.

All I have to go on is the instruments fitted to the car.
The battery "fullness" indicator hasn't changed much on the regular journeys I
make.
The "pips" disappear at the same places on a journey that they always have.

I always charge the battery at optimum time/conditions.

All of which says very clearly that you do not understand what you
originally wrote about battery deterioration!.

Nothing new there really...


--
Tony Sayer

On 09/04/16 17:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 08/04/2016 14:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/04/16 13:14, Tim Watts wrote:
Like I said, not happening anytime soon. Possibly ever. It's virtually
impossible to tax car electricity (the core point) specially compared to
"normal" electricity as you cannot mark it in any special way like fuel
and it's too easy to circumvent.

So they will tax batteries or something else, instead

If it doesn't move, tax it, if it moves, tax it.

I see Ofgem are proposing charging a higher rate of VAT on heavy users
of electricity (or a variable rate depending on usage). There is an
article in the 'i' about it.

The sensible way would be to tax on actual road usage. Quite easy to do
now, unlike a few years ago.


That's always been easy - get the MOT check to register your odometer (I
know, first 3 years would need a special case).

Uninvasive of privacy and simple. They'll never do it.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
The sensible way would be to tax on actual road usage. Quite easy to do
now, unlike a few years ago.


That's always been easy - get the MOT check to register your odometer (I
know, first 3 years would need a special case).

Far far too easy to fiddle the mileage reading on any car. The used car
trade has been doing it for ever.

--
*I get enough exercise just pushing my luck.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10/04/16 00:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
The sensible way would be to tax on actual road usage. Quite easy to do
now, unlike a few years ago.


That's always been easy - get the MOT check to register your odometer (I
know, first 3 years would need a special case).

Far far too easy to fiddle the mileage reading on any car. The used car
trade has been doing it for ever.


Including electronic odometers?

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/04/16 00:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
The sensible way would be to tax on actual road usage. Quite easy to
do now, unlike a few years ago.


That's always been easy - get the MOT check to register your odometer
(I know, first 3 years would need a special case).

Far far too easy to fiddle the mileage reading on any car. The used
car trade has been doing it for ever.


Including electronic odometers?

Even easier with the correct software.

--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10/04/16 11:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/04/16 00:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
The sensible way would be to tax on actual road usage. Quite easy to
do now, unlike a few years ago.


That's always been easy - get the MOT check to register your odometer
(I know, first 3 years would need a special case).

Far far too easy to fiddle the mileage reading on any car. The used
car trade has been doing it for ever.


Including electronic odometers?

Even easier with the correct software.


It doesn't look that easy:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Odometer-Reprogramming/

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/04/16 11:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/04/16 00:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
The sensible way would be to tax on actual road usage. Quite easy
to do now, unlike a few years ago.


That's always been easy - get the MOT check to register your
odometer (I know, first 3 years would need a special case).

Far far too easy to fiddle the mileage reading on any car. The used
car trade has been doing it for ever.


Including electronic odometers?

Even easier with the correct software.


It doesn't look that easy:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Odometer-Reprogramming/

Looks pretty simple to me - especially if lots of money is involved. And
most can be done without a soldering iron anyway.

For everything that claims to be hack proof, there is always a hacker.

--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/04/16 11:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/04/16 00:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
The sensible way would be to tax on actual road usage. Quite easy
to do now, unlike a few years ago.


That's always been easy - get the MOT check to register your
odometer (I know, first 3 years would need a special case).

Far far too easy to fiddle the mileage reading on any car. The used
car trade has been doing it for ever.


Including electronic odometers?

Even easier with the correct software.


It doesn't look that easy:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Odometer-Reprogramming/

Looks pretty simple to me - especially if lots of money is involved. And
most can be done without a soldering iron anyway.

For everything that claims to be hack proof, there is always a hacker.

Not a successful one with AES-256
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanc...ption_Standard

On 09/04/2016 16:45, Andrew wrote:
On 08/04/2016 14:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/04/16 13:14, Tim Watts wrote:
Like I said, not happening anytime soon. Possibly ever. It's virtually
impossible to tax car electricity (the core point) specially compared to
"normal" electricity as you cannot mark it in any special way like fuel
and it's too easy to circumvent.

So they will tax batteries or something else, instead

If it doesn't move, tax it, if it moves, tax it.

I see Ofgem are proposing charging a higher rate of VAT on heavy users
of electricity (or a variable rate depending on usage). There is an
article in the 'i' about it.

No - I haven't read the proposal. Immediately makes me ask what happens
if you want to recharge at a friend's house? What if your recharging
pushes them into some sort of extra cost as a heavy user?

--
Rod

On Sunday, 10 April 2016 20:58:14 UTC+1, polygonum wrote:
On 09/04/2016 16:45, Andrew wrote:
On 08/04/2016 14:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/04/16 13:14, Tim Watts wrote:
Like I said, not happening anytime soon. Possibly ever. It's virtually
impossible to tax car electricity (the core point) specially compared to
"normal" electricity as you cannot mark it in any special way like fuel
and it's too easy to circumvent.

So they will tax batteries or something else, instead

If it doesn't move, tax it, if it moves, tax it.

I see Ofgem are proposing charging a higher rate of VAT on heavy users
of electricity (or a variable rate depending on usage). There is an
article in the 'i' about it.

No - I haven't read the proposal. Immediately makes me ask what happens
if you want to recharge at a friend's house? What if your recharging
pushes them into some sort of extra cost as a heavy user?

--
Rod

You would only be able to recharge at the low rate unless they had a special charge point.
Probably you would only top up to the level needed to get you home,not a full recharge anyway.

No, it will have to be GPS and/or some sort of special mileage recorder on the car.
Then big brother will really be able to keep an eye on you.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 10 April 2016 20:58:14 UTC+1, polygonum wrote:
On 09/04/2016 16:45, Andrew wrote:
On 08/04/2016 14:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/04/16 13:14, Tim Watts wrote:
Like I said, not happening anytime soon. Possibly ever. It's
virtually
impossible to tax car electricity (the core point) specially compared
to
"normal" electricity as you cannot mark it in any special way like
fuel
and it's too easy to circumvent.

So they will tax batteries or something else, instead

If it doesn't move, tax it, if it moves, tax it.

I see Ofgem are proposing charging a higher rate of VAT on heavy users
of electricity (or a variable rate depending on usage). There is an
article in the 'i' about it.

No - I haven't read the proposal. Immediately makes me ask what happens
if you want to recharge at a friend's house? What if your recharging
pushes them into some sort of extra cost as a heavy user?

You would only be able to recharge at the low rate unless they had a
special charge point.
Probably you would only top up to the level needed to get you home,not a
full recharge anyway.

No, it will have to be GPS and/or some sort of special mileage recorder on
the car.

Nope, ANPR cameras will do it fine.

Then big brother will really be able to keep an eye on you.

They already do with the ANPR cameras.

On Friday, 8 April 2016 20:54:07 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/04/16 17:14, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 8 April 2016 16:46:11 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/04/16 14:23, whisky-dave wrote:

No it isn't and it's already been done with E7.

Nothing like the same problem. The E7 simply records the whole house's
consumption and switches the recording to a different meter for a
specified period (be it time based or radio-switched).

You can plug anything into the main but yuo won't get the E7 rate until
the meter in yuor house tells you you can.

How exactly is that related to your meter recording how much your car
takes to charge, separated out from all the other load?

The car charging system would know how much current it is taking and hence power, so would send the meter that value, and that's what it would use for evaluating how much to charge you.

And even if you mandate that the car line signals over the mains wiring
to the meter[1], how does that get around:

a) Blocking the signal with filters?

I'm not sure you could do that without being detected.


b) Putting a big UPS in the way and charging that, then using that to
charge the car (tedious perhaps, but nevertheless).

Might work if you can affod the UPS, I have one here beeping in teh lab at me, they aren't cheap. it'd cost £1000s.


The only sensible idea is mandating the meter is built into the car
itself.

It will need that anyway to regulate the charge.

All this talk of somehow making the main house meter record "car
taxable" and "non car" consumption is nonsense. It's non trivial, too
easy to get around and too costly to implement.

It really isn't that difficult.


Look, the bloody government can't even get "ordinary" smart meters right
with a single standard. How the hell are they going to pull off a stunt
like this?

I think it's you who hasn't thought this through!

it's already being worked on, and really isnt that difficult.
Even the simplest of systems would work, when the meter 'see's a sudden current surge in current as a car battery charging will have that effect, the rest is just simple calcluations.


It might not be "that hard" in a lab.

Well it doesnlt sound it to me other than the safety aspects in a teaching lab.


Neither is coming up with a universal smart meter that all suppliers can
plug forumlaic tariffs[1] into, provides user friendly in house readout
units with facilities for visually impaired users.

Well that;s down to costs and whthert they think it';s worth while.
Not sure they'll be a great demand for meter readers that can be read by teh blind.

This particular
scenario seems quite easy to me - but it hasn't happened and probably
won't for a long time, just because it's hard getting a dozen
stakeholders to agree on anything.

they managed it curently.


[1] Because no one is going to be happy with "simple time based" - they
are going to want their own special blend of ways to charge their
customers - possibly adapting in real time to system load. So you need a
fairly general solution.

No when it's country wide, and it'll be the govenment that sets the tax on it not individual households or companies.



Now you are talking about retrofitting smart metering that logs
particular specific loads as well as the grand total plus all the funky
tarrifs, which not only involves all of the above stakeholders but also
has another (by the time they do this) several dozen or more
stakeholders (car manufacturers)

No you don't your charging a car, it's the same electricity at the same price for everyone.


- and that's just for cars. Imagine
extending to the socialist's utopia of having remote switching and
charging of various load classes (eg water heating and storage heating
as lowest priority through to "life support" as highest priority).

why would you want to do that.


It's just not going to happen in the real world - not in my lifetime,

I recon it'll happenn in mine.


just due to the fact there are too many people involved, the government
are proven crap with defining IT standards .

wants IT standards have to do with it.

so they won't just do it
either plus the immense installation base.

what immense installation base ?


You then have to ask the question: Is there an easier way to solve the
problem (tax electric cars). Well, several have been proposed in this
thread that sound vaguely workable with varying degrees of tradeoffs, so
why would anyone proceed with the hardest solution?

Whatever makes the most money quickly and easily.

On Friday, 8 April 2016 21:45:41 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 08/04/2016 17:17, whisky-dave wrote:
What makes you think the tax on electicity for cars will be any diffent from taxing the rest of the house.
The govenrment have managed to tax electricity you use for years now, so why would taxing electricity for cars be any differnt ?

I pay a hell of a lot less for heating oil than the pump price for
Diesel. The taxing of that sort of stuff is already pretty different for
road use than domestic.

I'm sure they'd love to be able to tax electricity like that. Trouble is
you can't dye it red.

Andy

Not sure that's a problem.

On Saturday, 9 April 2016 08:18:01 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 8 April 2016 16:47:42 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/04/16 14:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/04/16 13:14, Tim Watts wrote:
Like I said, not happening anytime soon. Possibly ever. It's virtually
impossible to tax car electricity (the core point) specially compared
to
"normal" electricity as you cannot mark it in any special way like
fuel
and it's too easy to circumvent.

So they will tax batteries or something else, instead

That would be another angle.

All I'm saying is trying to split the charge at the house meter is
complete nonsense - especially as there are loads of easier ways, as you
just highlighted to add tax to an electric car

What makes you think the tax on electicity for cars will be any diffent
from taxing the rest of the house.
The govenrment have managed to tax electricity you use for years now, so
why would taxing electricity for cars be any differnt ?

The difference is that all the electricity used by the house is taxed.

So you'd do the same for the car.


It's a lot harder to tax the electricity used to charge the car.

why is it.
But why have differnt taxes anyway.


Makes a lot more sense to tax the actual use of the electric
cars by using ANPR cameras or with a GPS in the car.
same way it made more sense to put the road tax on petrol rather than having a special tax disc that peole had to remmeber to renew.

On 11/04/16 13:55, whisky-dave wrote:

This particular
scenario seems quite easy to me - but it hasn't happened and probably
won't for a long time, just because it's hard getting a dozen
stakeholders to agree on anything.

they managed it curently.

Since when? - they cannot even roll out a universal smart meter.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 9 April 2016 08:18:01 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 8 April 2016 16:47:42 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/04/16 14:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/04/16 13:14, Tim Watts wrote:
Like I said, not happening anytime soon. Possibly ever. It's
virtually
impossible to tax car electricity (the core point) specially
compared
to
"normal" electricity as you cannot mark it in any special way like
fuel
and it's too easy to circumvent.

So they will tax batteries or something else, instead

That would be another angle.

All I'm saying is trying to split the charge at the house meter is
complete nonsense - especially as there are loads of easier ways, as
you
just highlighted to add tax to an electric car

What makes you think the tax on electicity for cars will be any diffent
from taxing the rest of the house.
The govenrment have managed to tax electricity you use for years now,
so
why would taxing electricity for cars be any differnt ?

The difference is that all the electricity used by the house is taxed.

So you'd do the same for the car.

But you want to tax the electricity used to charge
the car more than you tax the other electricity.

It's a lot harder to tax the electricity used to charge the car.

why is it.
But why have differnt taxes anyway.


Makes a lot more sense to tax the actual use of the electric
cars by using ANPR cameras or with a GPS in the car.

same way it made more sense to put the road tax on petrol rather
than having a special tax disc that peole had to remmeber to renew.

They do both. And choose not to charge for the tax disc with electric cars.

On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:36:25 +0100, Andrew wrote:

On 05/04/2016 14:02, Mr Macaw wrote:


Only if we all started at once. What will really happen is it will take
decades for everyone to take them up, and the substations will be
gradually upgraded. And since the electric companies are making a lot
more money, they can spend that on the transformers.

ROFL. The RECS will be 'persuading' the government to force electric car
owners to have a smart meter and either charge them all the missing fuel
duty and car tax via their leccy bill, or simply tell the meter to
instruct the car to stop charging when a brownout situation occurs.

Far too easy to get around.

--
Shotgun wedding: A case of wife or death.

On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 16:07:47 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , Andrew
writes
On 05/04/2016 14:02, Mr Macaw wrote:


Only if we all started at once. What will really happen is it will take
decades for everyone to take them up, and the substations will be
gradually upgraded. And since the electric companies are making a lot
more money, they can spend that on the transformers.

ROFL. The RECS will be 'persuading' the government to force electric
car owners to have a smart meter and either charge them all the missing
fuel duty and car tax via their leccy bill, or simply tell the meter to
instruct the car to stop charging when a brownout situation occurs.
An interesting analysis from today's telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2...d---elon-musks
-electric-cars-arent-about-to-save-th/

The usual bull**** about the electricity being dirty, even though we're constantly adding solar and wind etc everywhere.

--
A waiter brings the customer the steak he ordered with his thumb over the meat.
"Are you crazy?" yelled the customer, "with your hand on my steak?"
"What" answers the waiter, "You want it to fall on the floor again?"

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:49:36 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 17:19:33 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 16:47:37 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 14:05:44 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 21:07:31 +0100, alan_m wrote:

On 01/04/2016 13:23, Tim Watts wrote:


Either way it's a good deal, but does not factor the massive capital
cost of a Tesla!

But how long will it be before the government decide that they have to
tax the electricity to charge a car at the equivalent rate as the tax or
petrol/diesel? Why do you think that they want smart meters fitted to
every household?

Can they tell the difference between green and red electrons or something?

No but the blue ones are easy to spot. That's when they use E7 'charging' ;-)

But I might be charging 1 million mp3 players! I don't want fuel tax on that!

Then don't plug in 1 million mp3 players at the same time then.
As this would be how a smartmeter could detect and know what you are plugging in.
I do know someone that was writing an app for use with smartmeters.

Easy enough to make your car charge unevenly to simulate other things.

--
During last night's high winds an African family was killed by a falling tree.
A spokesman for the Birmingham City council said, "We didn't even know they were living up there".

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:36:25 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 05/04/2016 14:02, Mr Macaw wrote:


Only if we all started at once. What will really happen is it will take
decades for everyone to take them up, and the substations will be
gradually upgraded. And since the electric companies are making a lot
more money, they can spend that on the transformers.

ROFL. The RECS will be 'persuading' the government to force electric car
owners to have a smart meter and either charge them all the missing fuel
duty and car tax via their leccy bill, or simply tell the meter to
instruct the car to stop charging when a brownout situation occurs.

Far too easy to get around.

In the same way you can get any ATM to give you anything you want cash wise
?

On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 23:58:36 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:36:25 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 05/04/2016 14:02, Mr Macaw wrote:


Only if we all started at once. What will really happen is it will take
decades for everyone to take them up, and the substations will be
gradually upgraded. And since the electric companies are making a lot
more money, they can spend that on the transformers.

ROFL. The RECS will be 'persuading' the government to force electric car
owners to have a smart meter and either charge them all the missing fuel
duty and car tax via their leccy bill, or simply tell the meter to
instruct the car to stop charging when a brownout situation occurs.

Far too easy to get around.

In the same way you can get any ATM to give you anything you want cash wise
?

The ATM is not on my property. With electricity, we are talking about routing power, much MUCH simpler than adjusting the data in a bank's computer.

--
My wife sat down on the couch next to me as I was changing channels. She asked, what's on TV?
I said, Dust.
And then the fight started...

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 23:58:36 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:36:25 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 05/04/2016 14:02, Mr Macaw wrote:


Only if we all started at once. What will really happen is it will
take
decades for everyone to take them up, and the substations will be
gradually upgraded. And since the electric companies are making a lot
more money, they can spend that on the transformers.

ROFL. The RECS will be 'persuading' the government to force electric
car
owners to have a smart meter and either charge them all the missing
fuel
duty and car tax via their leccy bill, or simply tell the meter to
instruct the car to stop charging when a brownout situation occurs.

Far too easy to get around.

In the same way you can get any ATM to give you anything you want cash
wise
?

The ATM is not on my property.

Irrelevant to the fact that you can't get around an ATM to give
you anything you want cash wise. Just as true of billing what
power you have used to charge the car, you can't get around
that either if it is properly done.

With electricity, we are talking about routing power,

No, we are talking about getting around the system used for billing.

That isnt easy to get around either.

much MUCH simpler than adjusting the data in a bank's computer.

Still can't adjust the data in the smart meter either.

On Monday, 11 April 2016 18:50:29 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 11/04/16 13:55, whisky-dave wrote:

This particular
scenario seems quite easy to me - but it hasn't happened and probably
won't for a long time, just because it's hard getting a dozen
stakeholders to agree on anything.

they managed it curently.

Since when? - they cannot even roll out a universal smart meter.

The smart meter is difernt technology to recoding how much current is being taken from a supply.
Te trouble with the smatmeters is the data rate they companies expect as I said a friend is writing an app with one company, who wants greater than hourly updates, even one street of 100 homes all transmitting at the same time can swap a system, too many data points too much in to to 'transmit' back to the billing company.

Two seperate problems working out how much current a battery takes to charge is **** easy.

On Monday, 11 April 2016 19:15:39 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message

same way it made more sense to put the road tax on petrol rather
than having a special tax disc that peole had to remmeber to renew.

They do both. And choose not to charge for the tax disc with electric cars.

Wake up we don't have discs in the UK anymore.

On Monday, 11 April 2016 22:23:02 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:49:36 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

Then don't plug in 1 million mp3 players at the same time then.
As this would be how a smartmeter could detect and know what you are plugging in.
I do know someone that was writing an app for use with smartmeters.

Easy enough to make your car charge unevenly to simulate other things.

No it would't be in reality.
Sure you could just charge your car at 100ma the same as a torch, for a few weeks, but no one would care would they.

On 12/04/16 12:18, whisky-dave wrote:

Two seperate problems working out how much current a battery takes to charge is **** easy.

And the rest of it? Communicating that back to the house's smart meter
for example.

My point was: they cannot even make a standard smart meter for flexible
tarrifs that is universal (can be used by any supplier).

How are they going to manage to make a smart meter that communicates
with one or more loads, given the suppliers are still stakeholders, and
now there are dozens to hundreds of stakeholders at the load end.

My point is not that it is technically infeasible (it could be done).

It is that it is commercially infeasible as there are way too many
stakeholders.

It will go the way of the NHS central records system - a lot of money,
won;t work right and will go on forever.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:23:54 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 11 April 2016 22:23:02 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:49:36 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

Then don't plug in 1 million mp3 players at the same time then.
As this would be how a smartmeter could detect and know what you are plugging in.
I do know someone that was writing an app for use with smartmeters.

Easy enough to make your car charge unevenly to simulate other things.

No it would't be in reality.
Sure you could just charge your car at 100ma the same as a torch, for a few weeks, but no one would care would they.

But we use things like kettles, tumble driers, etc. So you just make the car charge then stop then charge then stop, preferably at a different level each time.

--
A waiter brings the customer the steak he ordered with his thumb over the meat.
"Are you crazy?" yelled the customer, "with your hand on my steak?"
"What" answers the waiter, "You want it to fall on the floor again?"

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:31:26 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 23:58:36 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:36:25 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 05/04/2016 14:02, Mr Macaw wrote:


Only if we all started at once. What will really happen is it will
take
decades for everyone to take them up, and the substations will be
gradually upgraded. And since the electric companies are making a lot
more money, they can spend that on the transformers.

ROFL. The RECS will be 'persuading' the government to force electric
car
owners to have a smart meter and either charge them all the missing
fuel
duty and car tax via their leccy bill, or simply tell the meter to
instruct the car to stop charging when a brownout situation occurs.

Far too easy to get around.

In the same way you can get any ATM to give you anything you want cash
wise
?

The ATM is not on my property.

Irrelevant to the fact that you can't get around an ATM to give
you anything you want cash wise. Just as true of billing what
power you have used to charge the car, you can't get around
that either if it is properly done.

No, with an ATM it knows precisely how much is in your account and precisely how much cash it gives you. It doesn't know however, what you spend the cash on. The meter also doesn't know what you use the electricity for.

With electricity, we are talking about routing power,

No, we are talking about getting around the system used for billing.

That isnt easy to get around either.

We're not talking about getting free electricity, or even avoiding tax on electricity, just lying about what you are using that electricity for. The only way the meter could be sure what you use it for is if there were two seperate outputs from the meter, one to the car charging socket, and one to the rest of your house. And what's to stop you just connecting the car to the wrong outlet?

--
If debugging is the process of removing software bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in.

On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 13:07:48 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/04/16 12:18, whisky-dave wrote:

Two seperate problems working out how much current a battery takes to charge is **** easy.

And the rest of it? Communicating that back to the house's smart meter
for example.

we have a system where computers can talk to each other from all over the world.
We have transformers and adpaters that means you can take almost any product to anywhere in teh world. e have cars and bikes with all sorts of fittings and sizes, but whatever car you by you can be pretty sure someone will make a type for it.




My point was: they cannot even make a standard smart meter for flexible
tarrifs that is universal (can be used by any supplier).

thats what they say.
if ot was in their interest they'd do it just like everything else.


How are they going to manage to make a smart meter that communicates
with one or more loads, given the suppliers are still stakeholders, and
now there are dozens to hundreds of stakeholders at the load end.

How do they set an electricity prices at the moment.



My point is not that it is technically infeasible (it could be done).

It is that it is commercially infeasible as there are way too many
stakeholders.

What do you mean by too many stakeholders.
We have the same with electric, water, council tax, even pertol.


It will go the way of the NHS central records system - a lot of money,
won;t work right and will go on forever.

that's' why you don;t let the goverment in control it.

On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 13:25:42 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:23:54 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 11 April 2016 22:23:02 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:49:36 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

Then don't plug in 1 million mp3 players at the same time then.
As this would be how a smartmeter could detect and know what you are plugging in.
I do know someone that was writing an app for use with smartmeters.

Easy enough to make your car charge unevenly to simulate other things.

No it would't be in reality.
Sure you could just charge your car at 100ma the same as a torch, for a few weeks, but no one would care would they.

But we use things like kettles, tumble driers, etc. So you just make the car charge then stop then charge then stop, preferably at a different level each time.

That would depend on how you think the electicity will be paid for which you don't.
What you be the advantage of stopping and starting charging a car ?
The amount of electricity used will be pretty much the same.

On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 13:34:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:31:26 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 23:58:36 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:36:25 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 05/04/2016 14:02, Mr Macaw wrote:


Only if we all started at once. What will really happen is it will
take
decades for everyone to take them up, and the substations will be
gradually upgraded. And since the electric companies are making a lot
more money, they can spend that on the transformers.

ROFL. The RECS will be 'persuading' the government to force electric
car
owners to have a smart meter and either charge them all the missing
fuel
duty and car tax via their leccy bill, or simply tell the meter to
instruct the car to stop charging when a brownout situation occurs.

Far too easy to get around.

In the same way you can get any ATM to give you anything you want cash
wise
?

The ATM is not on my property.

Irrelevant to the fact that you can't get around an ATM to give
you anything you want cash wise. Just as true of billing what
power you have used to charge the car, you can't get around
that either if it is properly done.

No, with an ATM it knows precisely how much is in your account and precisely how much cash it gives you. It doesn't know however, what you spend the cash on. The meter also doesn't know what you use the electricity for.

and why would that matter. Are you assuming that the electricity to charge yuor car will be free, just like I was told that nuclear energy would be so cheap in teh furture they wouldn't bother billing us for it.

The electric companies will be charging for electricity for your car just like they do for your kettle. So I'm not sure what eadvantage it is to turn a kettle on and off on and off I doubt iut saves money any more than it would if charging a car.


With electricity, we are talking about routing power,

No, we are talking about getting around the system used for billing.

That isnt easy to get around either.

We're not talking about getting free electricity, or even avoiding tax on electricity, just lying about what you are using that electricity for.

who gives a ****.

The only way the meter could be sure what you use it for is if there were two seperate outputs from the meter, one to the car charging socket, and one to the rest of your house. And what's to stop you just connecting the car to the wrong outlet?

you have a ****ing meter just like you have a petrol guage in the car not in the house as then it will be used at garages and friends houses and anywhere else you charge from.
All yuo need in yuor home smartmeter is teh ability to communicate with the car, them everything else is controlled from the car.
If for any reason yuor smartmeter needs to know how much you charge the car up it interigest the car for the info.
These sort of communication have been around for years oon formuala one and the like transmitting info back to the pits about all sorts of car systems.





--
If debugging is the process of removing software bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:09:31 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 13:25:42 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:23:54 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 11 April 2016 22:23:02 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:49:36 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

Then don't plug in 1 million mp3 players at the same time then.
As this would be how a smartmeter could detect and know what you are plugging in.
I do know someone that was writing an app for use with smartmeters.

Easy enough to make your car charge unevenly to simulate other things.

No it would't be in reality.
Sure you could just charge your car at 100ma the same as a torch, for a few weeks, but no one would care would they.

But we use things like kettles, tumble driers, etc. So you just make the car charge then stop then charge then stop, preferably at a different level each time.

That would depend on how you think the electicity will be paid for which you don't.

What?

What you be the advantage of stopping and starting charging a car ?
The amount of electricity used will be pretty much the same.

But it would appear to the meter that it was on and off use like domestic appliances.

--
For men, the conversation happens in addition to driving
whereas for women the driving is something that happens in addition to the conversation.

On 12/04/16 14:04, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 13:07:48 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/04/16 12:18, whisky-dave wrote:

Two seperate problems working out how much current a battery takes to charge is **** easy.

And the rest of it? Communicating that back to the house's smart meter
for example.

we have a system where computers can talk to each other from all over the world.
We have transformers and adpaters that means you can take almost any product to anywhere in teh world. e have cars and bikes with all sorts of fittings and sizes, but whatever car you by you can be pretty sure someone will make a type for it.

Yes yes...




My point was: they cannot even make a standard smart meter for flexible
tarrifs that is universal (can be used by any supplier).

thats what they say.
if ot was in their interest they'd do it just like everything else.

Exactly - and taxing electricity at different rates by load type is not
really something they're going to be interested in.


How are they going to manage to make a smart meter that communicates
with one or more loads, given the suppliers are still stakeholders, and
now there are dozens to hundreds of stakeholders at the load end.

How do they set an electricity prices at the moment.


?


My point is not that it is technically infeasible (it could be done).

It is that it is commercially infeasible as there are way too many
stakeholders.

What do you mean by too many stakeholders.

Stakeholders = interested parties. There are too many. You'll get a
design-by-committee approach and we know how well that works.

We have the same with electric, water, council tax, even pertol.

No we don't - it's not at all related.


It will go the way of the NHS central records system - a lot of money,
won;t work right and will go on forever.

that's' why you don;t let the goverment in control it.


Which is what will have to happen to enforce electricty-by-load variable
taxation.

It will not work. Not because of the tech, but because no bugger will be
able to agree on the tech, there being dozens of "buggers" involved
(stakeholders) - and worse, the government will be involved, moving the
goalposts every 3 months.

If you think that's going to end well, have a look at the track record
on large IT State-connected projects.