'Smart' Home Chargers

[goRt]

TBH I'm out of this discussion. goRt is just overly hostile for no reason I can identify

People state opinion as fact, I stated fact in post 3 or 4 and got attacked repeatedly which I pointed out, I respond in kind.

 

[dan223]

Apparently, I'm quoting what you said, but don't let the facts get in the way.
You started with "there's no requirement for the DNO to control the smart point [you used charger" and we're now at "I've tested one with the requirement"...

I see you also edited your last reply now. I’m guessing you aren’t fully reading what I’ve been saying, which might suggest why we are crossing over each other.

There is no requirement for a DNO to control the only requirement is for a protocol. And that protocol is only suggested, could basically be anything.

It’s going round and round in circles now so I will summarise my thinking in this post and leave this discussion, take what you will.

Can this be used by the DNO to control, yes (although most likely via a third party) most likely not anytime soon.

Are they setup to communicate with a DNO right now?
Other than having a “protocol” From what I have tested and what publicly available information I can see no.
Unless you are specifically part of a trial.

How do/would they communicate with a DNO?
All evidence based on trials and the parts used in some chargers suggest over the WiFi or cellular the same communication method you communicate for end user control.

Can they be updated to speak to a DNO? I would assume yes, but the protocol requirement isn’t clear and there could be various protocols required to support various chargers and therefore not actually possible, and also that the devices will need some sort of update most likely by the manufacturer who may not be supporting the device or even around time this gets enforced. There’s no regulation that it needs to be able to get updated or how long it has to be supported.

TBH I'm out of this discussion. goRt is just overly hostile for no reason I can identify

Totally agree, I’ve already wasted too much of my time on replying to this. I’ve said what I have to say, I’m not going to keep repeating it. People can believe what they want, I was just trying to help. Unfortunately there is a lot of mis-information on this forum and others.

 

[goRt]

I see you also edited your last reply now. I’m guessing you aren’t fully reading what I’ve been saying, which might suggest why we are crossing over each other.

There is no requirement for a DNO to control the only requirement is for a protocol. And that protocol is only suggested, could basically be anything.

It’s going round and round in circles now so I will summarise my thinking in this post and leave this discussion, take what you will.

Can this be used by the DNO to control, yes (although most likely via a third party) most likely not anytime soon.

Are they setup to communicate with a DNO right now?
Other than having a “protocol” From what I have tested and what publicly available information I can see no.
Unless you are specifically part of a trial.

How do/would they communicate with a DNO?
All evidence based on trials and the parts used in some chargers suggest over the WiFi or cellular the same communication method you communicate for end user control.

Can they be updated to speak to a DNO? I would assume yes, but the protocol requirement isn’t clear and there could be various protocols required to support various chargers and therefore not actually possible, and also that the devices will need some sort of update most likely by the manufacturer who may not be supporting the device or even around time this gets enforced. There’s no regulation that it needs to be able to get updated or how long it has to be supported.

Totally agree, I’ve already wasted too much of my time on replying to this. I’ve said what I have to say, I’m not going to keep repeating it. People can believe what they want, I was just trying to help. Unfortunately there is a lot of mis-information on this forum and others.

At no point have I edited a reply - another false accusation by yourself.

For the record, 2 other posters have tried to point out the error in your position.
I ask again, why are you continually focusing your anger on me?

 

[dan223]

At no point have I edited a reply - another false accusation by yourself.

For the record, 2 other posters have tried to point out the error in your position.
I ask again, why are you continually focusing your anger on me?

I have agreed with what the other posters are saying.

I’m simply saying as it is, I’m not trying to focus any anger on anyone. As I’ve said, I’ve said what I want to say, there is no point going over and over. I don’t want to waste anymore time replying to this, it’s pointless and isn’t helping anyone.

One min your post says
“What you've actually said is that you haven't tested any since the facility became a requirement.”
I quoted it in a reply, next min it says “So you've tested 2 only one of which is required to have the facility...”

 

[goRt]

One min your post says
“What you've actually said is that you haven't tested any since the facility became a requirement.”
I quoted it in a reply, next min it says “So you've tested 2 only one of which is required to have the facility...”

Both posts remain there, go check your facts and withdraw your false accusation.

 

[dan223]

Both posts remain there, go check your facts and withdraw your false accusation.

Ok that is my bad there I didn’t know you posted two things that are in conflict of each other, I thought you edited, I’m only writing this on my phone and didn’t scroll up enough.

Either way, let’s draw a line here. I’m out, I have better things to do, enjoy your day.

 

[goRt]

Ok that is my bad there I didn’t know you posted two things that are in conflict of each other, I thought you edited, I’m only writing this on my phone and didn’t scroll up enough.

Either way, let’s draw a line here. I’m out, I have better things to do, enjoy your day.

Thank you, I didn't notice the answer to my question buried in your reply when I initially scanned it on my phone.

 

[TestPilot]

People state opinion as fact, I stated fact in post 3 or 4 and got attacked repeatedly which I pointed out, I respond in kind.

Nope, that isn't how things have gone down *at all*. But don't worry, there's a goRt in every community, including a prominent member of a UX Community, if you know anything about UX you'll appreciate the irony (UXers are supposed to be high empathisers).

 

[goRt]

Nope, that isn't how things have gone down *at all*. But don't worry, there's a goRt in every community, including a prominent member of a UX Community, if you know anything about UX you'll appreciate the irony (UXers are supposed to be high empathisers).

Post #3 in this thread.

The current purpose of smart is to allow the DNO to balance the draw as ev home charging becomes more prevalent - 7.4kw between 00:30 and 04:30 on octopus is ok while I'm the only one doing it, but once everyone in the street starts then balancing limits will be applied.

Per mile time of day road pricing is the correct approach, nothing to do with the cost of 'fuel'.

 

[MrBadger]

Just stumbled across this whilst perusing the Pod Point website. Here it is in black and white, what they are saying now.

Smart charging
Pod Point smart charging hardware is designed to operate in co-ordination with grid demands. In periods of peak local, regional and national electrical demand charging rate may be limited for brief periods to facilitate the need to manage the energy grid. This is typically done to maintain stability of the grid and ensure reliability of supply. Where the end user has signed up to Pod Point data services information about each specific event is provided. The interruptions and limits are managed such that there should be no significant effect on vehicle charging overall.

 

[goRt]

Just stumbled across this whilst perusing the Pod Point website. Here it is in black and white, what they are saying now.

And for those mumbling about a requirement to change the law or GDPR, fully covered in this secondary legislation:
Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018