Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
  • Hey Guest, welcome to ChevyBolt.org. We encourage you to register to engage in conversations about your Bolt.
21 - 40 of 79 Posts
DC fast charging should be that much IMO. It should only be used for long trips and not an everyday occurrence. We need more level 2 charging for people in apartments, shopping plazas, and work places. The big issue to holding back EV adoption is for the majority of renter's it is inconvenient to have an EV.
L2 isn't going to solve a lot of public charging issues due to the design specification requiring hours of charging to get a decent charge. A better, more flexible solution is adding medium speed DCFC into the mix in some of the places described above. DCFC in the 25-50 kW range can deliver a decent, cost effective charge in time frames under an hour. Now it won't be a full 10-80% charge, but being able to recover 100 miles of recharge in an hour will be helpful to folks who supplement private or exclusively use public charging for their EVs.

ga2500ev
 
I recently charged at EVgo for a 100 mile return trip home at night, in the rain and in the upper 30s. Charging infrastructure in Oregon is poor and relying on getting a charge closer to home was a risk I didn't want. So, I sat at an EVgo for about 40 minutes. Charged without a hitch. There was absolutely no indication of what I was being charged or even how much I was charged until I got an email indicating total kWh and total cost. I calculated that it cost a bit over $0.58 / kWh. If there was an indication on the charger, I might have cut it a bit shorter, but there was nothing. At this stage, I'm just glad to get a charge. But next time, EVgo won't be my first choice. Even if the fee isn't based on kWh, there should be something that displays in real time the total cost, kWh received, and effective cost per kWh. I shouldn't have to wait for an email and a calculator to figure it out.
 
L2 isn't going to solve a lot of public charging issues due to the design specification requiring hours of charging to get a decent charge. A better, more flexible solution is adding medium speed DCFC into the mix in some of the places described above. DCFC in the 25-50 kW range can deliver a decent, cost effective charge in time frames under an hour. Now it won't be a full 10-80% charge, but being able to recover 100 miles of recharge in an hour will be helpful to folks who supplement private or exclusively use public charging for their EVs.

ga2500ev
If people can charge overnight or during their 8 hour work day, level 2 will meet 99% of most people's needs. Fast charging should not be used unless for longer trips or emergency situations. Accessible level 2 charging at home/work is enough for the majority of people.
 
If people can charge overnight or during their 8 hour work day, level 2 will meet 99% of most people's needs. Fast charging should not be used unless for longer trips or emergency situations. Accessible level 2 charging at home/work is enough for the majority of people.
This IS what Most EV drivers do. As a whole those of us that have been doing this for a while know that and have home chargers. Those that have hybrids usually say there are not enough chargers and that is why they don't do a BEV :rolleyes:. Shiit or get off the pot :LOL:
What holds back the long drives is that there are not enough chargers lined up in a row to accommodate this AND People don't PLAN. Honestly, if you know your car goes say 200miles then you need to charge (for about 1.5 hours ) and your trip is 600 miles..... rent a Gasser it really is that simple. Unless you WANT to sit around for most of the day twiddling around with (slow compared to gassing) chargers.

I only have a regular outside plug at my rental house, that is all I need right now. When I buy a house I will get a L2 installed and that will do just about all of my needs. It is called PLANNING your life.
If I had little money, I wouldn't go out and buy a Lamborghini that I wouldn't be able to afford the gas - not to mention the insurance hahahha

As the old saying goes when you are planning, KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid (Silly)
 
DC fast charging should be that much IMO. It should only be used for long trips and not an everyday occurrence. We need more level 2 charging for people in apartments, shopping plazas, and work places. The big issue to holding back EV adoption is for the majority of renter's it is inconvenient to have an EV.
Yes. I agree. The last thing we need is more artificially cheap energy. There are huge external costs to every form of energy. Those costs need to be reflected in our economy. Living in a fantasy is what has gotten us where we are now.
 
If people can charge overnight or during their 8 hour work day, level 2 will meet 99% of most people's needs. Fast charging should not be used unless for longer trips or emergency situations. Accessible level 2 charging at home/work is enough for the majority of people.
You can neither conceed that folks will be able to charge overnight or during work. While many of us spend 12 hours at home and 8 hours in one spot at work and have the ability to charge at both, that doesn't apply to the next wave of EV adopters who will have more varied requirements. They may not have home/work charging. Or they don't work in a single spot. Or may not have a dedicated charging spot. Given that more flexible charging options need to be available.

I think it's disingenuous to simply dismiss DCFC to longer trips or emergency situations. L2 operates on the presumption that the car and its driver has the ability to stay put for multiple hours to charge. There are folks who will need more flexibility than that. L2 is limited to 30 miles of recharge per hour. with DCFC's ability to deliver 100-200 miles of recharging per hour, folks can make flexible decisions on when and how long to charge. 100 miles of recharge for the hour in the grocery could mean that someone would only need to charge when they go to the grocery for example.

We have to start looking beyone twin towers of slow L2 at home/work or ultra-fast travel charging on the road. The first is too inflexible, while the latter is too expensive to do anytime outside of a road trip. filling in with medium speed options will facililtate the flexibility that many will be looking for as they start to purchase EVs.

ga2500ev
 
I am fine with more DC fast chargers, but you need to understand that electricity from these units are much more expensive and you have to pay $0.50 per kWh minimum for this convenience. People that depend on fast charging to do the majority of their driving should not own EVs at this point in adoption. Those people that have crazy jobs and are away from home a lot should own a hybrid right now. The 99% of us who live normal lives can charge at home or work. This makes level 2 charging more important and installing level 2 charging is a fraction of the cost.
 
I am fine with more DC fast chargers, but you need to understand that electricity from these units are much more expensive and you have to pay $0.50 per kWh minimum for this convenience. People that depend on fast charging to do the majority of their driving should not own EVs at this point in adoption. Those people that have crazy jobs and are away from home a lot should own a hybrid right now. The 99% of us who live normal lives can charge at home or work. This makes level 2 charging more important and installing level 2 charging is a fraction of the cost.
The specific reason to deploy lower powered DCFC chargers are to manage the cost. Ultra-high speed DCFC costs so much due to both installation capitalization of electrical infrastructure, where a high powered transformer has to be installed to power the circuit, and due to electrical demand charges, where the monthly base charge for the circuit is based upon its power capability. Those charges can be upwards of $10/kw each month and kick in if the circuit is used at full power for even a single 15 minute period during the entire month. So a 125 kW circuit can have a base usage charge of over $1000/month even if the station is used only once during that month.

But those demand charges only kick in after the first 25-30kW. For example here in Georgia, Georgia Power starts demand charges at 30kW. So a basic 30kW circuit cost the same $10/month that a residential circuit costs.

In addition these lower power DCFC run at standard voltages and phases. So it may not be necessary to deploy new electrical infrastructure to install them.

All of this is to say that medium speed DCFC will be cheaper to install and run, so the cost to use it will be comparable to L2.

As for hybrids, the fastest way to kill the EV revolution is to pronounce that unless someone fits within a rigid set of guidelines, that EVs don't work. I come on threads like this to point out that there are other charging models other than overnight dedicated L2 and ultra-high speed travel charging. Those other options are more flexible, more cost-effective, and more sharable, than the rigid charging lanes that are currently in use. It's critical to get folks to understand that EV charging should almost always be an activity that is ancillary to doing something else. One charges while one shops, or works out, or watches a movie. Most folks with ICE make a specific trip to refuel. We need to deploy a charging infrastructure such that no one ever has to make a specific trip to refuel. Refueling should only occur in conjunction with something the driver was going to go do anyway.

Now we certainly are not there yet. But the first order of business is breaking down these notions of "this is how I charged my EV, so everyone else has to charge their EV the same way."

ga2500ev
 
I am fine with more DC fast chargers, but you need to understand that electricity from these units are much more expensive and you have to pay $0.50 per kWh minimum for this convenience. People that depend on fast charging to do the majority of their driving should not own EVs at this point in adoption. Those people that have crazy jobs and are away from home a lot should own a hybrid right now. The 99% of us who live normal lives can charge at home or work. This makes level 2 charging more important and installing level 2 charging is a fraction of the cost.
I still have a bit more to add. Medium speed DCFC is also a missing link in the public charging infrastructure even for folks who have regular private charging. It adds a flexible charging option at a cost effective price in any shared charging situation. When someone needs a charge out, generally the more charge they can get faster make the situation better. L2 severely limits both the amount of the charge and lengthens the amount of time to get that charge delivered.

Another problem with L2 is that because of the length of time required to get a decent charge, that a lot more spaces with L2 chargers need to be available for that setup to be useful.

I always envisioned an ideal public charging station to be something along the lines of the Efacec QBATT45 with charging cables to service 4 parking spaces each. The QBATT45 is a 50 kW charger that takes a 20 kW input and charges a 30kW battery with it. It can deliver a maximum of 50 kW of power to a single car. Augmenting it with multiple cables would facilitate sharing the unit among multiple parking spaces.

ga2500ev
 
So I guess you're ok if they gave you a funnel and a gas can at a gas station and charged you by how much time it took to fill your car.? Or how about how much time the electricity is on at your house even if it is just a few night lights or LED bulbs? Did you read the article?

Electrek e-mailed Schnepp about operators’ ability to charge separate fees, who confirmed, “Electric vehicle service providers are allowed to charge ancillary fees such as: a connection fee; waiting fee for staying connected after reaching full state of charge; parking fee where such charges are normally applied; and a non-network access fee where applicable, provided that these fees are disclosed to the consumer prior to initiating a charging session (there may be other allowed fees not identified in this example).”

Or just a knee-jerk reaction.
Like all people, I had a knee-jerk reaction. Noticing my bias, I read the article as objectively as I could, then posted my comment.

Your analogy is bogus though, because nobody would accept a petrol station that required one to use a funnel, so the free market would put an end to that absurdity.

Allowing DCFC owners to bill for time post-charge, or parking fees, or connection fees... still doesn't recover the cost of slow charging vehicles that are occupying a spot that could otherwise be utilized more effectively. I can already envision manufacturers building in the option to set charging limits so that one could use a DCFC at a very low rate to maximize some benefit like free parking, or otherwise avoid "idle" fees that would kick in post-charging.

Perhaps politicians meant well, but as usual, didn't engage the neural activity required to actually implement a change for the better. The end result of all this will simply be higher cost to charge since the cost of slow charging cars can't be captured anymore.

As a registered voter in CA, I was never asked my official opinion on this matter.
I wonder why we don't have referendum legislation more often, but then the I know the answer to that. There's no personal political advantage by letting people represent themselves, and no way to sneak special interest legislation into omnibus bills.

But those demand charges only kick in after the first 25-30kW. For example here in Georgia, Georgia Power starts demand charges at 30kW. So a basic 30kW circuit cost the same $10/month that a residential circuit costs.

In addition these lower power DCFC run at standard voltages and phases. So it may not be necessary to deploy new electrical infrastructure to install them.

All of this is to say that medium speed DCFC will be cheaper to install and run, so the cost to use it will be comparable to L2.
I hadn't thought to find out at what kW rate the utility would change from billing a flat monthly rate, to demand pricing, so thanks for bringing this up. From what I researched, the most profitable, or at least the most likely to break-even DCFC are the slower ones, with the likelihood of breaking even less likely the faster the rate of charge it is capable of, and all of that due to demand pricing.

Perhaps the most profitable avenue at the moment is a medium speed DCFC at about 30 kW, especially in CA where they will bill by the energy delivered and not time spent. Minimize operating costs and maximize profits. I wonder how popular such a speed would be? Perhaps very popular if the parking spots were also preferred locations nearest entrances to places like malls.

It does represent 1 more layer of complexity to an already complex ecosystem. People might understand slow L1-2 charging, and understand DCFC, but adding a medium speed is yet another complication. With ICE, nobody has to wonder if they are getting a fast pump or a slow pump, or how to estimate the total cost for that matter.
 
There should be only two type of charging. 40 amp level 2 charging and DC fast chargers that can support up to 250 kW. Simplicity is what we need here. The general public is confused enough about charging, we don't need to have anymore variety of charging. Charge at work, charge near home, or pay a premium to charge your car as quickly as it allows. It should be that simple. BTW, it should also be mandated that any car over 150 mile range has fast charging. The Bolt still doesn't have this and probably upsets people when they find out all the can do is level 2 charge.
 
I think that 20-25 kW charging at places you will be for 30-120 minutes makes perfect sense in the urban environment.

Movie theaters, malls, restaurants, etc.

Also, Appt Complexes (or mobile home parks), where the price / kWh triples once the charge rate drops below 12 kW, and when it drops below 6 kW there's an additional $0.25/min parking fee that kicks off. So people will use it for an hour, maybe two, and get affordable electricity so long as they don't hog it. Especially if the charging platform has a "wait list" that is notified when the charging is stopped and the next person in line has 5 minutes to get there to start charging.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ga2500ev
People might understand slow L1-2 charging, and understand DCFC, but adding a medium speed is yet another complication. With ICE, nobody has to wonder if they are getting a fast pump or a slow pump, or how to estimate the total cost for that matter.
That's part of the challenge with the CA legislation. It discounts the fact that the cost of 1 kWh of power is based on how fast it can be delivered. What we need is a standard measure of charging speed to differentiate L2 and various levels of DCFC charging that accounts for both the amount of power delivered and the speed at which it is delivered. I tend to use recharge miles per hour which is the kWh delivered in one hour expended over an 4mi/kWh expected range. So 7.5 kW L2 would have 30 miles recharged per hour while a 50 kW DCFC would recharge somewhere in the range of 140-150 miles per hour. The problem of course is that the recharge rate isn't constance, but instead a summation of a changing power rate under the charge curve. But clearly the DCFC delivers more power in an hour than L2.

ga2500ev
 
There should be only two type of charging. 40 amp level 2 charging and DC fast chargers that can support up to 250 kW. Simplicity is what we need here. The general public is confused enough about charging, we don't need to have anymore variety of charging. Charge at work, charge near home, or pay a premium to charge your car as quickly as it allows. It should be that simple. BTW, it should also be mandated that any car over 150 mile range has fast charging. The Bolt still doesn't have this and probably upsets people when they find out all the can do is level 2 charge.
People will accept more complexity, as long as that complexity gives them more utility, or gives them a more cost effective option. Most anyone would understand charging $20 for an hour to charge to full is OK, but charging $6 for an hour to charge about halfway is a better deal, though it would take over 2 hours to charge to full.

You're proposing to only give the $20/hr option to folks who have to charge anywhere but home. Why not offer cheaper options?

ga2500ev
 
Living in a state where there truly is an insufficient distribution of chargers, meaning that there are huge areas that are difficult for EV travel, I am all for any type of DCFCs that expand the network. I would be delighted with 25 kW DCFCs sprinkled around the state and allowing travel anywhere, even if it means long charging times. I speak from experience that it would be far better than being stuck at an L2 charger while on a trip. One of the barriers to EV adoption is the honest problem of charging away from home, sometimes just perceived but often times very real. People know this and that uncertainty is not something they want to gamble with when purchasing a new car. So they go with the ICEV. It is only after a basic DCFC charging network is established that there is a proper focus on installing faster (and much more expensive) chargers.

As for PHEVs, I've recently been reading up on the life-cycle CO2 costs of different powertrains. It just so happens that PHEVs have a significantly lower life-cycle CO2 cost that BEVs. That probably doesn't hold for a subcompact BEV with a range of about 70 miles, but beyond that, BEVs are worse than PHEVs. When manufacturing has a lower carbon footprint, that won't be the case, but for now it is. I love my Bolt. I thought I was making the best environmental choice when I bought it, but that doesn't appear to be true. It's still a great car to drive, but I chose it for perceived environmental reasons, not for the driving experience.
 
As for PHEVs, I've recently been reading up on the life-cycle CO2 costs of different powertrains. It just so happens that PHEVs have a significantly lower life-cycle CO2 cost that BEVs. That probably doesn't hold for a subcompact BEV with a range of about 70 miles, but beyond that, BEVs are worse that PHEVs.
You are reading FUD material, this is absolutely not true unless you live in a state like Wyoming that gets 80% of its electricity from coal. Please link the article to show this data, because it is complete nonsense.
 
You are reading FUD material, this is absolutely not true unless you live in a state like Wyoming that gets 80% of its electricity from coal. Please link the article to show this data, because it is complete nonsense.
I don't know the abbreviation "FUD" … can you expand? As regards to the material, I have searched and read a number of sources. They all point to the same conclusion. I appreciate references, so if you have any that say otherwise, please share. One of the articles that I recently read was published by the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave". But it isn't the only one. Other sources gave the mpg of ICEVs needed for life-cycle CO2 costs to be lower than BEVs. The lowest states were in the Midwest where an ICEV with an mpg of > 35 was better than a BEV. In the PNW where I live, and ICEV would need an mpg > 95 to do better. But, considering that a properly-used PHEV drives > 90% of the time as an EV, one with reasonably-efficient hybrid operation would do far better than any BEV anywhere. If you have different sources or a different reasoned analysis, I am totally open to revising my position. However, just making a claim is not a reasoned analysis.
 
I don't know the abbreviation "FUD" … can you expand? As regards to the material, I have searched and read a number of sources. I appreciate references, so if you have any that say otherwise, please share. One of the articles that I recently read was published by the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave". But it isn't the only one. Other sources gave the mpg of ICEVs needed for life-cycle CO2 costs to be lower than BEVs. The lowest states were in the Midwest where an ICEV with an mpg of > 35 was better than a BEV. In the PNW where I live, and ICEV would need an mpg > 95 to do better. But, considering that a properly-used PHEV drives > 90% of the time as an EV, one with reasonably-efficient hybrid operation would do far better than any BEV anywhere. If you have different sources or a different reasoned analysis, I am totally open to revising my position. However, just making a claim is not a reasoned analysis.
FUD is "Fear, uncertainty, and doubt", which is used in the big oil industry to stop people from buying BEV's.

I would agree that if a PHEV is used over 90% of the time it basically is a BEV. It would have a smaller battery, which means less CO2 in the production of the car. However, that 90% "properly-used" PHEV depends on many factors. For your case, a PHEV with a range of 20 to 30 miles may be enough for you to drive completely on the battery. If so, great for you.

My story is completely different. I commute 130 miles per day. If I drove a Volt it would be almost the exact same thing as driving a typical hybrid. I have posted many times here in the past that if you have a short commute or don't drive much to either get a PHEV or a used Leaf. The smaller the battery the better for the environment, plain and simple.

Please check Voltstats, this gives real data about how much someone actually drives completely on the battery. The average is nowhere close to above 90%, which you said it should be. It is at 66.5% for 88,493,526.84 miles driven. Pretty good data there. The Volt also has one of the longest ranges of any EV out there. Probably for all PHEV's the average is closer to 50% battery and 50% gas. So yes, for your situation a PHEV is probably better environmentally. However, for most Americans this is not the case.

This could lead into a pretty good discussion though. What size battery would the perfect PHEV have? Is the BMW i3 with REX the perfect electric car? With 120 miles of range would that satisfy 98% of electric range and the other 2% be gas. The smaller battery would make cars cheaper, less CO2 emissions to produce, and avoid high output fast chargers. This is a discussion I would love to have because it might be a great solution.
 
Thanks for the reply. It will take a bit of time to completely digest it. Proper usage is indeed very important. Not doing so is like buying a heavy-duty reusable plastic shopping bag but never actually reusing it, making it significantly worse. But, a good question is: What is the effective mpg of a PHEV as typically driven? If the PWN efficiency requirement of > 95 mpg is accepted, which is the highest in the U.S. and likely anywhere, then how much must a Volt be driven as an EV to break even? A Volt gets ~42 mpg in hybrid mode. So, EV mode %0 + Hybrid mode 100% = 42 mpg. If 50% of the driving was in in EV mode, total mpg = 82 mpg. But, using your figures, if 66.5% of driving is in EV mode, then the total mpg = 125 mpg. With a little math, the breakeven point of 95 mpg is achieved with just 56% of EV-mode driving. This makes a Volt as typically driven much better than a BEV even in the PNW, and far better anywhere else in the country. Much of the country will require a far smaller percent of EV-mode driving. So by these calculations, a PHEV with similar characteristics as a Volt, typically driven, is the clear winner. I would say that for BEV owners who are good at plugging in, a PHEV would be even better as they would be driving even more in EV mode. But each person will do best to modify that for their particular situation. Those with long commutes, meaning a low percentage of EV-mode driving, will certainly do better with a BEV, as will those who use a PHEV as just a hybrid. As for your specific situation, if you leave home with a full battery and are able to recharge to full at work, then your EV-mode percentage would be 61.5%, which would make a PHEV better even if you lived in the PNW. If you live elsewhere, then the threshold would be even lower.
 
This could lead into a pretty good discussion though. What size battery would the perfect PHEV have? Is the BMW i3 with REX the perfect electric car? With 120 miles of range would that satisfy 98% of electric range and the other 2% be gas. The smaller battery would make cars cheaper, less CO2 emissions to produce, and avoid high output fast chargers. This is a discussion I would love to have because it might be a great solution.
Of course, perfect is subjective.

I've maintained that manufacturers would have been smart to max out the federal tax credit using PHEVs that have the minimum size battery to claim the full credit, which is 16 kWh. The battery would then be subsidized by taxpayers at $469 per kWh, which is far above the cost to manufacture. That's money on the table.

In a car like the Prius, that would be an EV range of about 65 miles, which would cover most daily commutes and errands. In the Chrysler Pacifica, that's a little over 30 miles of range.

Somewhere around 50 miles EV range probably makes the most sense for most people. That covers 80% of miles.
 
21 - 40 of 79 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top