I always wondered how fast chargers were allowed to sell by time, not units. Well in CA. at least that is now history: https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/24/c...lling-tesla-superchargers-will-need-displays/
Another predominant alternative proposed by stakeholders is to remove the requirement to have a primary indicating element on the EVSE, as defined in NIST Handbook 44. This alternative is contrary to California law regarding commercial weighing and measuring devices. BPC § 12510 (a)(6) requires the owner of the commercial device, not the purchaser, to position the indicating element in such a way that required indicating information is made available and can easily be read by the purchaser. Several EVSE manufacturers have designed their commercial EVSE without a primary indicating element incorporated in the device. This would require the purchaser to use a mobile device or their vehicle’s telemetrics and on-dash screen to view the required information. While this alternative lessens the financial impact of this proposed regulation on EVSE manufacturers and EVSE owners/operators, it transfers the responsibility to the purchaser of electricity as motor vehicle fuel. The Department does not have authority to propose a regulation in conflict with existing California law and regulation.
The state's new rules treat slower, alternating-current chargers, known as Level 2, differently than DCFCs. Under the latest DMS version, new Level 2 chargers won't need to comply with the rule until the start of 2021 and new DCFC until the start of 2023.
All chargers that exist now — and those that are built until the dates above — have a 10-year grace period. Since an EV charger usually lasts no longer than a decade, it essentially means that the expensive retrofits won't happen.
So if I hire Socko to kill my brother-in-law, and we agree on a price, it is none of the governments business? People elect governments to oversee many things, including business transactions. If they decide they don't like the way this administration is doing it, they can vote them out next time around.What right does the government have to dictate how something is sold, especially after the fact? There's a case to be made that consumers need to be fully informed, but once you get 2 informed parties (business and consumer) that agree on something, that's between the 2 parties and nobody else.
There's already laws protecting (some) human life. The rules are to be as few as necessary to facilitate orderly commerce. DCFC isn't some predatory paycheck loan company that is causing financial ruin to poor people; it's a highly unprofitable business whose customers tend to be much wealthier and informed than other markets.So if I hire Socko to kill my brother-in-law, and we agree on a price, it is none of the governments business? People elect governments to oversee many things, including business transactions. If they decide they don't like the way this administration is doing it, they can vote them out next time around.
Because the delivery time per gallon is the same for all ICE vehicles...not at all the case for EVs. I suppose you could have two meters, with two prices, one for kWh, and one for time. Your total bill is the combination of the two. This would actually be a fairer, and clearer, way to do it.Why can't it be the same for EVs- advertise the price per kWh with the delivered kWh and cost displayed in real time on the EVSE?
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.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.
Just stating the obvious, but are you charging your car with energy stored from your solar? If not, and you are charging at night, then you really have to see where your night time energy is coming from...For heavy use a BEV is superior, but people don't drive like me. I put 40,000 miles on my car every year. The longer you drive a BEV, the better it gets. In my situation a BEV is superior considering I drive in California, have solar panels, and have a 130 mile commute every day. For me a BEV is much better for the environment than a PHEV, please prove me wrong about my situation.
I think that the big benefit of these kinds of analyses is to remind us that it's not just driving efficiency that counts. But in terms of using them for comparison purposes - yeah, you've got to be very careful not to put more trust in them than they deserve.I don't really trust any of these "well-to-wheels" calculations because they are very complex with answers strongly dependent on the assumptions.
The size of the battery and how it is made is the biggest factor of CO2 emissions for a BEV. I am actually a huge fan of longer range PHEV's that can get 50 miles of range that can cover over 90% of an individuals driving. With the Volt being discontinued, what is the longest range PHEV? The Prius Prime/Hyundai Ioniq both get about 25 miles of all electric range. New cars like the Subaru Crosstrek PHEV get 17 miles of range. I am not liking this new type of PHEV. I think 50 miles of all electric range should be the number for a PHEV. These new PHEV's will be treated like hybrids and over 60% of driving will be on gas. The Volt with 53 miles was the best PHEV out there and it wasn't close!Another way of looking at this is that in the given scenario, an EV does worse for the first 6 years and then gains an edge over the PHEV.