3 ms·

In the UK, my provider has a thing called Intelligent Octopus that allows them to control when my car charges. They offer me discounted rates (41p KWH vs 7.5p

In the UK, my provider has a thing called Intelligent Octopus that allows them to control when my car charges. They offer me discounted rates (41p KWH vs 7.5p KWH) if I charge between 2330 and 530, but I can plug it in when I get home, and they control that charging block. It allows them to turn on charging anytime they like if the load on the grid is low, and they charge me that lower rate even if it's outside the off-peak time.

schiffern 3y ago
With a connected car, the "charging block" can just be software running on the car. More importantly, the direct payment plan with the utility company (which means waiting for 10,000 different utilities to switch pricing models!) can be replaced by an aggregation company (which only needs a handful of companies worldwide). On the grid side, the aggregation company behaves just like any other company that owns a big battery, bidding on the wholesale electricity market like a power plant would. But in reality they actually command a "fleet" of smart car chargers and stationary batteries. By splitting some of the profit with these car/battery owners, an aggregation company can magically align the pricing model for everyone, without waiting for 10,000 utilities to get their act together. If you follow JB Straubel's public talks[0] over the years, none of this should come as a surprise. [0] https://youtu.be/4hNdbGjZfFU?t=2401 https://youtu.be/4hNdbGjZfFU?t=2401
- LegitShady 3y ago
  I don't want a connected car where the manufacturer or whoever compromises them can remotely disable charging on my car. I don't understand why that sort of access would need to be included in the car instead of the charger. It seems an unnecessary compromise of autonomy.
  - schiffern 3y ago
    If you don't want any data connection, then—by definition—you must reject any sort of grid-interactive charging features of any kind. Baby, meet bathwater! Fortunately the vast majority of regular users (eg bengale with their Intelligent Octopus device) aren't bothered by it. They'll happily save money on EV charging and improve grid stability at the same time. > I don't understand why that sort of access would need to be included in the car instead of the charger I didn't say it needs to be included. However if you already have a fleet of connected EVs (eg Tesla), you could instantly roll out this feature overnight without any additional hardware investment.... (hint hint...)
    - LegitShady 3y ago
      >If you don't want any data connection Thats not what I said.
      - schiffern 3y ago
        If there's a data connection which is used to stop charging, then if the data is hacked or spoofed it can—by definition—stop charging. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
        LegitShady 3y ago
        I don't think you understand what I said, and are arguing something else entirely.
        schiffern 3y ago
        That's always possible! Can you clarify your position, so we might better understand each other? For a minute I did considered the possibility that you were leaning hard on the word manufacturer. However, I thought it was quite absurd that you would be fine with a situation where "[a third party] or whoever compromises them can remotely disable charging on my car." I intentionally avoided that less-than-charitable interpretation of your words, since IMO it would violate the HN guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

schiffern 3y ago

With a connected car, the "charging block" can just be software running on the car. More importantly, the direct payment plan with the utility company (which means waiting for 10,000 different utilities to switch pricing models!) can be replaced by an aggregation company (which only needs a handful of companies worldwide). On the grid side, the aggregation company behaves just like any other company that owns a big battery, bidding on the wholesale electricity market like a power plant would. But in reality they actually command a "fleet" of smart car chargers and stationary batteries. By splitting some of the profit with these car/battery owners, an aggregation company can magically align the pricing model for everyone, without waiting for 10,000 utilities to get their act together. If you follow JB Straubel's public talks[0] over the years, none of this should come as a surprise. [0] https://youtu.be/4hNdbGjZfFU?t=2401 https://youtu.be/4hNdbGjZfFU?t=2401

LegitShady 3y ago
I don't want a connected car where the manufacturer or whoever compromises them can remotely disable charging on my car. I don't understand why that sort of access would need to be included in the car instead of the charger. It seems an unnecessary compromise of autonomy.
- schiffern 3y ago
  If you don't want any data connection, then—by definition—you must reject any sort of grid-interactive charging features of any kind. Baby, meet bathwater! Fortunately the vast majority of regular users (eg bengale with their Intelligent Octopus device) aren't bothered by it. They'll happily save money on EV charging and improve grid stability at the same time. > I don't understand why that sort of access would need to be included in the car instead of the charger I didn't say it needs to be included. However if you already have a fleet of connected EVs (eg Tesla), you could instantly roll out this feature overnight without any additional hardware investment.... (hint hint...)
  - LegitShady 3y ago
    >If you don't want any data connection Thats not what I said.
    - schiffern 3y ago
      If there's a data connection which is used to stop charging, then if the data is hacked or spoofed it can—by definition—stop charging. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
      - LegitShady 3y ago
        I don't think you understand what I said, and are arguing something else entirely.
        schiffern 3y ago
        That's always possible! Can you clarify your position, so we might better understand each other? For a minute I did considered the possibility that you were leaning hard on the word manufacturer. However, I thought it was quite absurd that you would be fine with a situation where "[a third party] or whoever compromises them can remotely disable charging on my car." I intentionally avoided that less-than-charitable interpretation of your words, since IMO it would violate the HN guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.