Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

41 - 60 of 74 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,373 Posts
Wow! Are those PbA or NiMH? I picked up a PbA off of a fleet lease in the mid oughts. 2000 miles on the odo, for $6k. After driving it for two years, and putting 4000 more miles on it, the PbA pack died. I sold it as-is for $6k to an EV hobbyist, who was thrilled to get it at that price. His intent was to put lithium in it, but I didn't follow up.

Nice truck, but somewhat spartan, decent performance, 60-ish mile range, with a nifty bed cover and a full-size spare that was poorly positioned in it. It was my daily driver, with a commute of five miles each way. The utility of owning a small pickup cannot be overstated.

Enjoy the AVCON charger. Clunky, but effective.

For anybody interested:

Thanks!

I actually got one of each: A lead acid and a NiMH. Unfortunately, there are no drop-in battery replacements for either. The only 8 V PbA cells you can buy now are too large, and the large-factor NiMH cells are no longer available.

I'm going to try to make the videos a bit information/education/historical in addition to my work to modernize them. Luckily, they came with an AVCON to J1772 adapter, but I'm likely to just install a J1772/CCS socket.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
I'm incredibly impressed that there are Bolt owners who want to sit in the Bolt for more than two hours of driving at a time WITHOUT a 45 minute break in between. ;) If only my body liked my Bolt's seats as much as yours. As it stands, the slow charging time is for me is a compensating feature (not a bug) for the poor seats. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Having had to cross Wyoming using only L2 chargers, I'm happy for any DCFC (even those 24 kW guys). I definitely need a bathroom break more often than every 2 hours (I'm sucking on a Big Gulp continuously), so I don't mind stopping pretty often. If only the spacing was more conducive to stopping every hour instead of being 2 hours apart. I took a 1500-mile round trip in the winter across Colorado and Utah with my 2018 Bolt convoying with a Tesla Model X dual motor long-range. The Tesla had more stations and faster charging. But, it didn't make any significant difference because we stopped for meals whenever the Bolt was low <15% but the Tesla had more than 50% SOC, so our charging speeds weren't all that different. Ironically, charging the Tesla was more annoying because it would be done halfway through our meal and the owner had to rush out to move it, while the Bolt was just finishing 85+% when we were done and had leisurely made our way back. In some stretches, we had to keep it under 65 mph, but the Tesla owner didn't like driving fast anyway. We also had a lot more drag because we had 2 bikes on the back rack while the Tesla was aerodynamically clean. The only really annoying thing was having to pay $20 at an RV park in Green River, UT for an hour of charging just to make it to the next DCFC in Richfield, UT while the Tesla topped off at the adjacent supercharger. The upcoming EA DCFC in Green River and the one in Salina, UT should alleviate that problem in future.

When I bought my Bolt, the Model 3 was just coming out for people who had been waiting 2 years. I knew that better EVs would be available in the future, but it was the best thing available (and affordable) at the time. Moreover, I was installing solar at the time and the utility would not let me install the system I wanted unless I owned an EV. If I had waited for a Model Y, I'd still be waiting. Meanwhile, I would still be driving my 2001 Pontiac Aztek with 200,000 miles which had become unreliable for long distance trips.
 

·
Registered
2017 Bolt Premier
Joined
·
168 Posts
I agree. A highway range of 400 miles is a total gamechanger. My road trip habits are similar to yours in that I go long distances with minimal stops. I've been known to do Orlando-Birmingham (570 miles) in a single stop and New Orleans-Birmingham (365 miles) nonstop. I will likely take the Bolt on a roadtrip for the experience some time but I'm not terribly interested in a long charging stop every two hours or so.
This makes so much sense. I continue to think about upgrading to a Tesla, not so much for the extra 80 miles of range or so, but for the supercharger network for the occasional-long road trip. But you’re right, a 400 mile range for me and the family to hit Disneyland from the Bay Area with a short charging stop makes a lot of sense with that range, regardless of how slow charging times might be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,373 Posts
This makes so much sense. I continue to think about upgrading to a Tesla, not so much for the extra 80 miles of range or so, but for the supercharger network for the occasional-long road trip. But you’re right, a 400 mile range for me and the family to hit Disneyland from the Bay Area with a short charging stop makes a lot of sense with that range, regardless of how slow charging times might be.
The way I look at it, if the Bolt EV had double the range, but the exact same charging speed, I'd be satisfied. However, if it had the same range, but triple the charging speed, I wouldn't be satisfied.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,364 Posts
You'll always have trade-offs that long range e.g. >400 miles add to the equation. My predictions lean more the other way. Other than commercial trucking, rarely does a personal vehicle spend more time outside their 200 mile circle of comfort. Which means 400 miles is generally sufficient to avoid any away from home charging. But to drive 400 miles around town is a pretty long day so again, on a daily basis, for the most part, >400 miles is overkill.
The trade-offs to the bigger battery pack being primarily weight, reduce efficiency, performance, handling, space, etc. All for those 10% - 20% of miles requiring fast charging.
I expect eventually that the charging networks will be as ubiquitous as gas stations are now with expensive fast charging along with inexpensive or free level 2-2 1/2 at most urban locations. With charging speeds allowing 250kW for the first 200 miles, the inconvenience will be negligible and as most here will attest, welcome every 200 miles.
The way the networks are now, it makes sense to have tons of range but eventually that will be as impractical as 20 gallon gas tanks on a civic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,314 Posts
impractical as 20 gallon gas tanks on a civic
Really like my 42 gallon tank on my Suburban, but don't get behind me in a line at Sam's gas station because you'll be waiting more than five minutes for me to fill it. Also, don't get in line behind someone's motor home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
I used a ChargePoint DCFC charger (50kw) for the first time this past weekend. Mostly because I was not sure if I would make it back to my home destination after driving on a short road trip. Probably would have made it with very, very little left but I had not used the dcfc system, not had I checked to see if it actually worked on my car. All went fine. Had 1/4 battery left and put 80 miles in 30 minutes with 2 tapers.. 170 miles in 45 minutes is impressive, I got no where near that, but again it’s a lot about how much you already have in the battery. Mine is a 2019.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
I expect eventually that the charging networks will be as ubiquitous as gas stations are now with expensive fast charging along with inexpensive or free level 2-2 1/2 at most urban locations.
Level 2 should not be the standard for shared public charging. Since the circumstances of why someone is using such a charger is unknowable, to cover the most use cases the charger should be as fast as reasonably affordable. A 25-30 kW DCFC station isn't level 2.5. It's level 10. It would facilitate faster charges in shorter timeframes and more people being able to use the charger.

ga2500ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,373 Posts
You'll always have trade-offs that long range e.g. >400 miles add to the equation. My predictions lean more the other way. Other than commercial trucking, rarely does a personal vehicle spend more time outside their 200 mile circle of comfort. Which means 400 miles is generally sufficient to avoid any away from home charging. But to drive 400 miles around town is a pretty long day so again, on a daily basis, for the most part, >400 miles is overkill.
The trade-offs to the bigger battery pack being primarily weight, reduce efficiency, performance, handling, space, etc. All for those 10% - 20% of miles requiring fast charging.
I expect eventually that the charging networks will be as ubiquitous as gas stations are now with expensive fast charging along with inexpensive or free level 2-2 1/2 at most urban locations. With charging speeds allowing 250kW for the first 200 miles, the inconvenience will be negligible and as most here will attest, welcome every 200 miles.
The way the networks are now, it makes sense to have tons of range but eventually that will be as impractical as 20 gallon gas tanks on a civic.
I think you're understating the value of the additional range and overstating costs and trade offs of having a larger battery. Just with the battery technology that GM has for the immediate future, they could double the Bolt EV's energy capacity while possibly reducing the overall weight from what it currently is. Double the range without any of the trade-offs you mentioned. Essentially, you're working from the assumption that battery technology will stay stagnant, and that's simply not the case.

I saw quite a lot of that same sentiment early on when the Bolt EV was released, and EV "experts" were proclaiming the Bolt EV's 60 kWh pack as a huge waste. Some went so far as to predict that the Bolt EV with a 60 kWh pack would only have marginal advantages over the 2016 Nissan LEAF with a 30 kWh pack, and, they claimed, the additional weight from the larger battery would make the Bolt EV slower and less efficient, offsetting most of the gains from the additional capacity.

As you mentioned early on, a 400-mile range would all but eliminate any need for charging around town and in normal driving. I agree. And that's really the point. The goal should be getting as close as possible to zero reliance on the public charging infrastructure.

The 200-mile EV with fast charging that you mentioned makes for an ideal city/suburban car. It's probably why Tesla is selling gobs of the SR+. However, that car is less than ideal for two demographics that represent a sizable percentage of the population: rural owners and owners without access to home or work charging.

In the case of rural owners, it's not unusual to drive 200 miles in a typical daily routine. When I take my family out to a nice dinner (maybe not right now) in Northern California, the round trip is often 160 to 170 miles. That's a mix of 75 mph driving and hills and mountains. During summer, it's not really worth mentioning. During even mild winter, I'm often arriving home with my Range Estimator in the orange. For in harsher winter conditions, I couldn't even complete the journey without stopping to charge up a bit along the way. That's not a huge deal for me (being in California), but it is an inconvenience and not even an option for many rural owners.

For those without access to home or work charging, the additional range might be even more important for adoption. I've illustrated how I use grocery store stops and meals out as an opportunity to charge up when I don't have access to home or work charging. For those with 50 to 100 mile daily commutes (not that uncommon), a 200-mile EV would leave them visiting these local chargers (if they even have them) multiple times a week. Maybe even every other day. A 400+ mile EV would enable them to mostly replicate their current lifestyle with an ICE vehicle.

Yesterday, I stopped by a shared Tesla "Urban" Supercharger site, and I noted how many people (who appeared to be locals) were sitting in their cars while charging up for 30+ minutes. Given the number of nearby apartment buildings, it made sense. If that is their standard routine, imagine how much more convenient it would be for them if their EV had double the range?

And it's those reasons that I also disagree about ubiquitous public charging (at least DC fast charging). I really don't think that's going to be the trend. I hear varying counts of 150,000 to 170,000 gas stations in the United States. I'd be surprised if we ever reach 1/10th of that. It probably will happen as a natural tendency to overbuild, but 15,000 public fast charging sites would be enough to support a 100% transition to EVs if the average EV range was ~400 miles. The more important build out will occur with L2 AC charging at hotels, motels, parking garages, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,551 Posts
And it's those reasons that I also disagree about ubiquitous public charging (at least DC fast charging). I really don't think that's going to be the trend. I hear varying counts of 150,000 to 170,000 gas stations in the United States. I'd be surprised if we ever reach 1/10th of that.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of that number are urban gas stations - I'm sure it would be more than half of them. The urban stations are the ones least needed by EV drivers. There's still a question about how renters will be able access charging infrastructure, but I think the trend will be to deploy it at the residences because it's just so much more convenient to have it there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
The more important build out will occur with L2 AC charging at hotels, motels, parking garages, etc.
Even with 400 miles of range, this buildout will need to be a mix of L2 and medium speed DCFC. It's simply not possible to know the circumstance a driver pulling up to a public charging station is under. For every driver pulling up to a hotel ready to turn in and charge overnight, there is another driver that is coming in dry, needs to check in and drop their bags, and head back out in an hour. L2 really isn't that helpful for the second driver.

There will be folks who only have access to shared charging. Limiting charge time and increasing throughput is going to be essential to service such customers.

Telsa probably has it right at 72 kW. But electrical demand charges are going to make it difficult for anyone else to support that speed. One of the reasons I suggest deploying 25-30 kW stations is that commercial circuits at that rate have no or minimal demand charges. Also they can be supported by existing electrical infrastructure. So no new transformers. Cheaper to install. Cheaper to run.

A dual L2 station is already occupying 15 kW. Why not double the power and facilitate directing all of it to a single car?

It'll end up being a system that facilitates faster oportunity charges. A 400 mile vehicle won't "have to" charge often in public. But a faster charging system will faciliate folks doing so when they get the chance.

Of course L2 should be mixed in for a couple of reasons. First is that some drivers have more time. Second is that some will be willing to pay less and wait longer. Third is that most commercial establishments have shift workers who will in fact be onsite for hours at a time.

But the public charging infrastructure should not be exclusively L2 and highway fast charging. There needs to be effective support for local charging that isn't going to break the bank when used regularly.

ga2500ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
The way I look at it, if the Bolt EV had double the range, but the exact same charging speed, I'd be satisfied. However, if it had the same range, but triple the charging speed, I wouldn't be satisfied.
And I am the opposite. My wifes bladder range is about 2 hours, so I am going to have to stop anyway after 150 miles... on the first leg of a trip from a full charge we can stretch that to 180 miles without her being too uncomfortable... so for me, 200 miles at highway speed (give a bit of buffer) and 150 KW charging speed would be much better than 400 miles of range and 55 KW charging speed.

Now, 400 miles of range (130 kWh battery) with 55 KW up to 80% charge would be acceptable because then I could do 180 mile trip legs (60 kWh consumed per leg) while going from 80% (104 kWh) down to 33% (44 kWh) all while maintaining myself in the fastest charging region of the battery and at the same time leaving me with a 33% buffer (range well over 100 miles) in case a charging station is out of service. No more arriving at 5% and hoping the station isn't out of service!

Best of all would be 400 miles of range with 200 KW charging that tapers down to 50 KW by 75%.... oh wait, that already exists if you can afford it... it is called a model S long range :D

Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,373 Posts
It would be interesting to know what percentage of that number are urban gas stations - I'm sure it would be more than half of them. The urban stations are the ones least needed by EV drivers. There's still a question about how renters will be able access charging infrastructure, but I think the trend will be to deploy it at the residences because it's just so much more convenient to have it there.
Over time, I think you'll see a trend toward requirements to provide a metered plug to off-street parking in multi-unit dwellings; however, there's also the issue of those who only have access to street parking. Being able to add 300+ miles of range in ~15 minutes at a local fast charging site (replacing many of those urban gas stations you're referring to) would make the transition to EV seamless even for those who only have street parking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,373 Posts
Even with 400 miles of range, this buildout will need to be a mix of L2 and medium speed DCFC. It's simply not possible to know the circumstance a driver pulling up to a public charging station is under. For every driver pulling up to a hotel ready to turn in and charge overnight, there is another driver that is coming in dry, needs to check in and drop their bags, and head back out in an hour. L2 really isn't that helpful for the second driver.

There will be folks who only have access to shared charging. Limiting charge time and increasing throughput is going to be essential to service such customers.

Telsa probably has it right at 72 kW. But electrical demand charges are going to make it difficult for anyone else to support that speed. One of the reasons I suggest deploying 25-30 kW stations is that commercial circuits at that rate have no or minimal demand charges. Also they can be supported by existing electrical infrastructure. So no new transformers. Cheaper to install. Cheaper to run.

A dual L2 station is already occupying 15 kW. Why not double the power and facilitate directing all of it to a single car?

It'll end up being a system that facilitates faster oportunity charges. A 400 mile vehicle won't "have to" charge often in public. But a faster charging system will faciliate folks doing so when they get the chance.

Of course L2 should be mixed in for a couple of reasons. First is that some drivers have more time. Second is that some will be willing to pay less and wait longer. Third is that most commercial establishments have shift workers who will in fact be onsite for hours at a time.

But the public charging infrastructure should not be exclusively L2 and highway fast charging. There needs to be effective support for local charging that isn't going to break the bank when used regularly.

ga2500ev
Oh, I agree, but there's a huge delta between our current charging infrastructure (maybe 3,500 sites including all of Tesla's Supercharger sites in the United States) and the ~15,000 DC fast charging sites that I was saying would be necessary. Plus, more than half of those 3,500 sites are two or fewer DC fast chargers per site, which would clearly need to be expanded. Again, I've heard different numbers, but I believe the average number of gas pumps per station is around six, and that would likely need to be the same in order to get away with only 15,000 total DC fast charging sites.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
For those without access to home or work charging, the additional range might be even more important for adoption. I've illustrated how I use grocery store stops and meals out as an opportunity to charge up when I don't have access to home or work charging. For those with 50 to 100 mile daily commutes (not that uncommon), a 200-mile EV would leave them visiting these local chargers (if they even have them) multiple times a week. Maybe even every other day. A 400+ mile EV would enable them to mostly replicate their current lifestyle with an ICE vehicle.

Yesterday, I stopped by a shared Tesla "Urban" Supercharger site, and I noted how many people (who appeared to be locals) were sitting in their cars while charging up for 30+ minutes. Given the number of nearby apartment buildings, it made sense. If that is their standard routine, imagine how much more convenient it would be for them if their EV had double the range?
You have lost the plot! If you don't have work or home charging your only option is public charging, so no mater how long the range of your car, you will be sitting in it at a public charger while it fills up. In your example of the Tesla's sitting around in an urban setting, if you double the range of the Tesla, instead of sitting around charging for 30 min twice a week, they would be sitting around for an hour once a week... the exact same amount of time wasted. If you double the charging speed with the same size battery they sit around for 15 min twice a week instead of 30 min twice a week, cutting their wasted time in half.

Keith

PS: Don't get me wrong, a larger battery is welcome... but faster charging is essential.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,373 Posts
And I am the opposite. My wifes bladder range is about 2 hours, so I am going to have to stop anyway after 150 miles... on the first leg of a trip from a full charge we can stretch that to 180 miles without her being too uncomfortable... so for me, 200 miles at highway speed (give a bit of buffer) and 150 KW charging speed would be much better than 400 miles of range and 55 KW charging speed.

Now, 400 miles of range (130 kWh battery) with 55 KW up to 80% charge would be acceptable because then I could do 180 mile trip legs (60 kWh consumed per leg) while going from 80% (104 kWh) down to 33% (44 kWh) all while maintaining myself in the fastest charging region of the battery and at the same time leaving me with a 33% buffer (range well over 100 miles) in case a charging station is out of service. No more arriving at 5% and hoping the station isn't out of service!

Best of all would be 400 miles of range with 200 KW charging that tapers down to 50 KW by 75%.... oh wait, that already exists if you can afford it... it is called a model S long range :D

Keith
Yes, but it's not just about the stopping; it's about feeling compelled to plug in every time you stop. There are still a number of places where I would like to stop on a trip (for any number of reasons) that don't have EV charging infrastructure. Right now, an hour stop at Old Station coming back from Lassen National Park or an hour stop at Plaskett Meadows while crossing the Mendocino Range adds an hour to the trip. That's a real cost for EV owners who are already adding an hour or more to their long trips by building that trip around charging stops.

I've caught flak from Tesla owners in particular for calling out the fact that they, too, are still tethered to the Supercharger Network on long trips. If charging stops happen to align with your plans for the trip, great. But if not, that is a real cost that must be paid. For ICE owners, that cost is ten to fifteen minutes over a 500 to 600 mile trip. For an EV owner that was building their trip around charging stops, it has a much bigger impact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,373 Posts
You have lost the plot! If you don't have work or home charging your only option is public charging, so no mater how long the range of your car, you will be sitting in it at a public charger while it fills up. In your example of the Tesla's sitting around in an urban setting, if you double the range of the Tesla, instead of sitting around charging for 30 min twice a week, they would be sitting around for an hour once a week... the exact same amount of time wasted. If you double the charging speed with the same size battery they sit around for 15 min twice a week instead of 30 min twice a week, cutting their wasted time in half.

Keith

PS: Don't get me wrong, a larger battery is welcome... but faster charging is essential.
That only works to a point, and you're assuming that the charging speed itself is the limiting factor. It's not. The limiting factor is how much range the EV will hold. Sure, in the case of the "Urban" Superchargers, they will take an hour or more to recharge the larger battery Teslas, but a single one-hour stop per week is still more convenient than two 30-minute stops per week. The latter is actually more time consuming because there's sunk cost in getting to the chargers beyond whatever time you spend while there. And in the case I was referring to, part of the problem is that 30 minutes isn't really enough time to enjoy the location, so owners are compelled to sit in their cars. If they knew they were going to be there for an hour, they might walk down to Ghirardelli's for a hot chocolate instead of playing on their phone the whole time.

And when charging speed isn't the bottle neck, things turn out differently. For instance, if we have access to V3 Supercharging at a grocery story. A Tesla Model 3 SR with a 200-mile range might be able to 160 miles of range in a 30-minute stop at a grocery store; however, if your weekly commute is 300+ miles, you'll need to stop by twice. A 400-mile Tesla might add 320 miles in that same amount of time. So you end up with one stop to manage your weekly commute verses two. That's a huge difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
That only works to a point, and you're assuming that the charging speed itself is the limiting factor. It's not. The limiting factor is how much range the EV will hold. Sure, in the case of the "Urban" Superchargers, they will take an hour or more to recharge the larger battery Teslas, but a single one-hour stop per week is still more convenient than two 30-minute stops per week. The latter is actually more time consuming because there's sunk cost in getting to the chargers beyond whatever time you spend while there. And in the case I was referring to, part of the problem is that 30 minutes isn't really enough time to enjoy the location, so owners are compelled to sit in their cars. If they knew they were going to be there for an hour, they might walk down to Ghirardelli's for a hot chocolate instead of playing on their phone the whole time.

And when charging speed isn't the bottle neck, things turn out differently. For instance, if we have access to V3 Supercharging at a grocery story. A Tesla Model 3 SR with a 200-mile range might be able to 160 miles of range in a 30-minute stop at a grocery store; however, if your weekly commute is 300+ miles, you'll need to stop by twice. A 400-mile Tesla might add 320 miles in that same amount of time. So you end up with one stop to manage your weekly commute verses two. That's a huge difference.
You seem to think 350 KW is the permanent charging speed cap. I can see multiple MW charging in the not too distant future. At that point when on a 1 MW charger you can add 50 miles of range per min of charging, a 5 min splash and dash will net you 250 miles of range. That is more than I get in a 5 min stop at a gas station in my Miata. At that point battery size is irrelevant just like gas tank size is today. Larger vehicles will have larger batteries to give them enough range to be useful... smaller more efficient EV's will have smaller batteries. Now the charging curve may necessitate a large battery in order to take advantage of the ultra rapid charging speed... but that is a side effect, not a requirement for the vehicle to be useful for the driver. The current multi megawatt charging proposals are aimed at commercial vehicles, but that tech will trickle down to passenger vehicles over time. Nobody today but a few strange people talk about how big their gas tank is in their ICE car... and in the future when we have multiple MW charging speeds nobody will talk about their battery size in their EV.

So, one or two 5 min stops per week vs 1 or 2 30 min stops per week... which would you chose? It depends on price vs convenience. If it cost $5.00 to get 250 miles of range in 30 min and $50 to get the same range in 5 min you will likely choose the slower charging rate. If it is $5.00 for 30 min or $10 for 5 min you would likely pick the faster charging rate. Future charging providers will figure out the most profitable way to do this balancing act.

Keith

PS: Before you discount the idea of megawatt charging, if you told and EV enthusiast in the 90's that we would have 350 KW charging they would have thought you were nuts... or they would have expected it by the magical "year 2000" :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,373 Posts
You seem to think 350 KW is the permanent charging speed cap. I can see multiple MW charging in the not too distant future. At that point when on a 1 MW charger you can add 50 miles of range per min of charging, a 5 min splash and dash will net you 250 miles of range. That is more than I get in a 5 min stop at a gas station in my Miata. At that point battery size is irrelevant just like gas tank size is today. Larger vehicles will have larger batteries to give them enough range to be useful... smaller more efficient EV's will have smaller batteries. Now the charging curve may necessitate a large battery in order to take advantage of the ultra rapid charging speed... but that is a side effect, not a requirement for the vehicle to be useful for the driver. The current multi megawatt charging proposals are aimed at commercial vehicles, but that tech will trickle down to passenger vehicles over time. Nobody today but a few strange people talk about how big their gas tank is in their ICE car... and in the future when we have multiple MW charging speeds nobody will talk about their battery size in their EV.

So, one or two 5 min stops per week vs 1 or 2 30 min stops per week... which would you chose? It depends on price vs convenience. If it cost $5.00 to get 250 miles of range in 30 min and $50 to get the same range in 5 min you will likely choose the slower charging rate. If it is $5.00 for 30 min or $10 for 5 min you would likely pick the faster charging rate. Future charging providers will figure out the most profitable way to do this balancing act.

Keith

PS: Before you discount the idea of megawatt charging, if you told and EV enthusiast in the 90's that we would have 350 KW charging they would have thought you were nuts... or they would have expected it by the magical "year 2000" :)
I'm not assuming that 350 kW is the cap. In fact, we already know of 500+ kW systems that are being tested. My point is, the less often you have to go out of your way to refuel, the better, regardless of how long that stop takes. Ultimately, it's probably not going to be a choice. We're likely less than five years away from a 500+ mile, 500+ kW charging EV, and we're likely less than 10 years away from an affordable version of that EV.

My point, though, is that range is more important than charging speed, so if it was a choice, I'd rather have a 500-mile Bolt EV with 1 C charging rate than a 250-mile Bolt EV with a 3 C charging rate.
 
41 - 60 of 74 Posts
Top