Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
  • Hey Guest, welcome to ChevyBolt.org. We encourage you to register to engage in conversations about your Bolt.
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

Registered
Joined
584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Despite its reputation for being electric vehicle (EV) friendly, California lags behind other North American states and provinces in the density of non-Tesla EV fast-charging stations relative to population. California ranks fifth behind Oregon, Quebec, British Columbia, and Ontario, but ahead of Washington State. Oregon has 1.7 times more stations relative to its population than the muc
h more populous Golden State.

Most EVs, including Teslas, charge at home. However, DC fast-charging stations are needed by EVs for intercity and regional trips. Tesla operates its own extensive network of fast charging stations designed for intercity travel. Non-Tesla EVs use a patchwork of fast-charging stations that are often concentrated in large urban areas unless policy directed the stations elsewhere.

British Columbia, Washington State, Oregon, and California are partners in the West Coast Electric Highway that would allow an EV to drive from Mexico to Canada along the Interstate 5 corridor. However, California never completed its portion of the network until recently. California instead focused on urban areas, leaving much of the state devoid of fast-charging stations needed for intercity trips.


The absence of a robust non-Tesla DC fast-charging network for intercity travel may have inhibited the growth of EVs for more than just urban commuting in California. Tesla early on identified the need for a comprehensive network of fast-charging stations along major travel corridors as a prerequisite for EV adoption. See A Canadian Take on Tesla's Supercharger Network for an insightful analysis of this question.

Parts of California are still not served by DC fast-charging stations. After a much later start than other regions, the California Energy Commission (CEC) now expects to complete its network of fast-charging stations along major highways by 2020. The CEC's program--two large awards currently underway--would still leave areas of the state underserved, such as the East Side of the Sierra Nevada. There's a dearth of public, non-Tesla chargers of any kind along US 395 from Mojave to Bridgeport on the East Side. There are neither DC fast-charging stations nor any public Level 2 stations.


However, two separate programs could add stations to more remote areas. As part of its diesel-gate settlement, VW's Electrify America network is installing 160 stations across California and some of those are in more remote locations. Electrify America's vague maps don't provide much detail, but it appears they plan stations somewhere between Bakersfield and Mojave. They also have stations planned for somewhere between Inyokern and Olancha and a third station somewhere around Bishop. These three stations would serve the East Side of the Sierra Nevada.

In addition, CalTrans, the state's department of transportation, had planned for the installation of 37 stations to be operational by November 2018. Three of these planned stations are east of the Sierra Nevada: Coso Junction, Independence, and Bishop, California. Unfortunately, CalTrans will miss its deadline. CalTrans' stations are on hold, according to the Electric Auto Association's Raejean Fellows, pending the outcome of Proposition 6 in the November mid-term election. If passed, Proposition 6 repeals an increase in the road tax that CalTrans planned to use in part for the DC fast-charging stations.

Port Density

California does have the highest density of ports for non-Tesla EVs relative to population among the regions examined. But, the number of ports, called outlets by the Alternative Fuels Data Center, doesn't tell you how many vehicles can charge.


Each port serves one vehicle, but not all ports are active at one time. Most new DCFC stations in California have at least two charging kiosks. Each kiosk, or dispenser in Electrify America's vernacular, has two ports. In the typical installation, only one port is active at a time.

For example, EVgo operates one station at a Walmart in Bakersfield. This one station has two kiosks. Each kiosk has two ports. Thus, the station has four ports--but only two can be active at one time. As a result, the number of ports listed by the Alternative Fuels Data Center does not reflect how many vehicles can actually charge.

Stations in Tesla's supercharger network have dozens of ports. The Kettleman City and the Baker, California stations have 40 kiosks each, all with a single port. All ports are active all the time, although the level of charging may be reduced by the number of vehicles charging at one time.

Tesla operates 82 supercharger stations strategically placed along major as well as minor corridors in California. Notably, there are 1,088 Tesla DC fast-charging ports in the state and all are designed to be operational all the time. Tesla operates eight ports in remote Mammoth Lakes, another four ports in Lone Pine, and four ports in Inyokern, all on the East Side of the Sierra Nevada.

VW's Electrify America is installing multiple kiosks per station. Each kiosk has two ports, but like kiosks from other companies only one port is active on a kiosk at a time. At its station in Colby, Kansas, Electrify America has installed four kiosks for EVs using the American-German CCS standard, and one kiosk for the Japanese CHAdeMO standard. It's not clear if this mix of kiosks is in full compliance with VW's settlement agreement to be brand neutral. VW builds EVs using the CCS standard.

To summarize, California lags behind its peers in number of non-Tesla DC fast-charging stations relative to its population. The state has more ports than any other state relative to population, but not all of these ports can be used simultaneously to charge an EV. Currently, gaps remain along several major corridors. However, both the state and VW's Electrify America is installing hundreds of new stations that will be completed within the next 18 months.
 

Registered
Joined
771 Posts
The absence of a robust non-Tesla DC fast-charging network for intercity travel may have inhibited the growth of EVs for more than just urban commuting in California. Tesla early on identified the need for a comprehensive network of fast-charging stations along major travel corridors as a prerequisite for EV adoption.
IMO, the far less than anticipated growth for EV's has more to do with culture and informed education than the self-destructive, strawman, public charging argument. This is a circular argument logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with; that in some bazaar alternate Universe - Public charging is impeding EV adoption. Public charging availability is not only meaningless in reality for 97% of all potential consumers, the endless discussions by BEV owners regarding public charging is the primary reason for unfounded fear and ignorance consumers have with respect to Modern BEV's.

Electrified vehicles continue to see slow growth and less use than conventional vehicles


There are almost 5X as many public EV charging stations in the U.S. today, than 6 years ago:



Yet EV growth has been near stagnate:
Despite a continuous and impressive increase in the electric car stock, electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) deployment and electric car sales in the past five years, annual growth rates have been declining. In 2016, the electric car stock growth was 60%, down from 77% in 2015 and 85% in 2014.


~ EV Growth rate as of 2017

If there are 6X more non-Tesla public charging stations, why hasn't the EV (BEV/PHEV) sales rate grown concurrently, or even in a trailing fashion?

Harping about Public charging station availability is the best way to dissuade a consumer from EVER entertaining the thought of a BEV. It signals that public charging is somehow extremely necessary and important if one intends to purchase a BEV. This is a holdover truth from 10 years ago when BEV's had sub 100 mile range and were slow to charge. This is now a highly inaccurate ghost concept/Urban Myth that is haunting the adoption of EV's in general, and BEV's in particular. When we continue to perpetuate this gross misinformation, we only stifle EV growth.

I personally make two treks/Month down to a EVgo DCFC, just to help keep them in business. I simply have never needed public charging. It's just not me, Most of the BEV owners I have spoken with, use Public Charging at best .005% of the time. Tesla knows their customers intimately. As I understand it, They know that less than 3% of Tesla owners use the SC network beyond their geographic home locations on a recurring basis. And that the vast majority of Tesla owners use the SC ports just for Free charging locally. This is why they changed their "Free Charging" policy.

There is a very large group of Potential BEV consumers who are indeed charging-challenged; Renters. Public charging doesn't help them. Only the dedicated few would ever alter their schedules to charge their BEV's at some public location for their daily use. A better use of our collective energies would be to push for charging solutions at work and multi-tenant residences (apartments/condos):



Evercharge (system pictured above), has a Common Sense multi-tenant "Smart Charging" system that allows as many BEVs/PHEVs as needed the ability to come home to their apartments, conveniently plug-in just like their homeowner brethren and Sisteren, and wake up with a full tank of energy the following morning.
 

Registered
Joined
585 Posts
Personally, I don't use DCFC stations. Use of DCFC charging on Teslas (Superchargers) is linked to shortened battery life.

https://insideevs.com/excessive-dc-charging-tesla-model-s-x-leads-permanently-reduced-charge-rate/

My state is a big state. A lot of it is desert and mountains, including the lowest and highest points in the 48 contiguous states. The huge uninhabited land area skews these numbers.

Perhaps the bill going through the state legislature to have the state running on 100% renewable energy by 2045 will help get the ball rolling a little faster.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...-requiring-100-percent-renewable-13189841.php

In 2006, we set a goal of reducing our greenhouse gas emission levels to those of 1990 by 2020. This was accomplished last year, four years ahead of schedule.

https://www.inverse.com/article/47028-california-2020-2030-renewable-energy-goals-and-targets-dude

The next goal: 50 percent renewable energy by 2030. Again, we are way ahead of the curve: it looks like we will get there in two years, not twelve.

https://futurism.com/california-reach-renewable-energy-goal-10-years-early/
 

Registered
Joined
1,989 Posts

Registered
Joined
233 Posts
Despite its reputation for being electric vehicle (EV) friendly, California lags behind other North American states and provinces in the density of non-Tesla EV fast-charging stations relative to population.

Well, you might want to start by making sure you vote accordingly on Proposition 6. We may all want to send a note to businesses that would be affected by incomplete charging networks. My daughter is in Los Angeles and would love to go to Mammoth in an EV. She has written to hotels in Bishop telling them they would be her destination if they only had a simple Level 2 charger available to guests--adding a note on Proposition 6 would not hurt.


It does not hurt to show businesses and policy makers how helping the non-Tesla EV driver helps the public good or their interests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul Gipe

Registered
Joined
380 Posts
Public charging shouldn't be confused with inter-city and inter-state DCFC commercial pay charging. If you never leave your village the Bolt has plenty of range. But if you really want to have only one car the issue needs to be addressed. The biggest issue in my opinion is the need for one and two stall DCFC locations to expand to three or four.
 

Registered
Joined
5,054 Posts
To summarize, California lags behind its peers in number of non-Tesla DC fast-charging stations relative to its population. The state has more ports than any other state relative to population, but not all of these ports can be used simultaneously to charge an EV. Currently, gaps remain along several major corridors. However, both the state and VW's Electrify America is installing hundreds of new stations that will be completed within the next 18 months.
Thank you for collecting and analyzing this data, but I don't think the results match your conclusion. Ports are most definitely a valid metric, and though they can't be used simultaneously, they can allow queuing. And they indicate a wider range of vehicles supported.

Oregon's having fewer ports per million relative to stations per million actually indicates that they have a number of single-use chargers. Because we know that the current population of (non-Tesla) EVs uses one of two DCFC formats, the effective number of chargers per million should actually be reduced.

Another metric that we will want to consider in the future is total output capacity per site and average output capacity per charger. Many of Oregon's chargers are lower power units, so you might also what to consider how many kW of output capacity is available per million residents.

And yes, Tesla Superchargers allow power splitting, but the total output per two stalls is 120 kW to 145 kW. For example, Tesla's Kettleman City Supercharger has a peak capacity of 2.9 MW. Electrify America's proposed ultra-fast DC charging locations along the core I-5 corridor with ten to fifteen 350 kW (not during this phase, I believe) would have peak capacities of 3.5 to 5.2 MW respectively. Far greater total output capacity than Tesla's flagship facility.

And why does that matter? It means that, as long as the vehicles themselves support the faster charging standard, a 10-charger (20-port) Electrify America site can support more vehicles than a 40-stall Tesla Supercharger site.
 

Registered
Joined
1,797 Posts
Thank you for collecting and analyzing this data, but I don't think the results match your conclusion. Ports are most definitely a valid metric, and though they can't be used simultaneously, they can allow queuing. And they indicate a wider range of vehicles supported.

Oregon's having fewer ports per million relative to stations per million actually indicates that they have a number of single-use chargers. Because we know that the current population of (non-Tesla) EVs uses one of two DCFC formats, the effective number of chargers per million should actually be reduced.

Another metric that we will want to consider in the future is total output capacity per site and average output capacity per charger. Many of Oregon's chargers are lower power units, so you might also what to consider how many kW of output capacity is available per million residents.

And yes, Tesla Superchargers allow power splitting, but the total output per two stalls is 120 kW to 145 kW. For example, Tesla's Kettleman City Supercharger has a peak capacity of 2.9 MW. Electrify America's proposed ultra-fast DC charging locations along the core I-5 corridor with ten to fifteen 350 kW (not during this phase, I believe) would have peak capacities of 3.5 to 5.2 MW respectively. Far greater total output capacity than Tesla's flagship facility.

And why does that matter? It means that, as long as the vehicles themselves support the faster charging standard, a 10-charger (20-port) Electrify America site can support more vehicles than a 40-stall Tesla Supercharger site.
By the time the EA build out starts the phase you refer to, the Tesla V3 Superchargers will already be on line.
https://electrek.co/2018/06/06/tesla-pushes-supercharger-v3-expansion-batteries-solar/
As noted in the article, Tesla has reduced their initial target of 350kW using off-grid solar and powerpacks to 200-250 kW. As the technology for passenger EV's and batteries improves, they will eventually get to 360-480kW, but that would likely be V4 Superchargers. The evacuation issues we see when these storms hit, highlight the need for zombie apocalypse-proof refueling stations which is requiring the reduced specs for now.
Also, how does a 20 port station of mixed protocols support more than a 40 port proprietary station? Are you implying they will turn over more cars per hour? It's not really fair or logical to compare vaporware to a real charging infrastructure that's not standing still.
 

Registered
Joined
5,054 Posts
By the time the EA build out starts the phase you refer to, the Tesla V3 Superchargers will already be on line.
https://electrek.co/2018/06/06/tesla-pushes-supercharger-v3-expansion-batteries-solar/
As noted in the article, Tesla has reduced their initial target of 350kW using off-grid solar and powerpacks to 200-250 kW. As the technology for passenger EV's and batteries improves, they will eventually get to 360-480kW, but that would likely be V4 Superchargers. The evacuation issues we see when these storms hit, highlight the need for zombie apocalypse-proof refueling stations which is requiring the reduced specs for now.
Also, how does a 20 port station of mixed protocols support more than a 40 port proprietary station? Are you implying they will turn over more cars per hour? It's not really fair or logical to compare vaporware to a real charging infrastructure that's not standing still.
Electrify America is primarily supporting the CCS format. The only real holdout at this point is Nissan (well, and Tesla). Also, I wouldn't call the 350 kW dual-head CCS chargers "vaporware." Over a dozen sites are already live, and dozens more are in various stages of development. Electrify America is moving very quickly (and they aren't alone). But, if you want to throw the term "vaporware" around, it's just as appropriately directed at Tesla's V3 Supercharging, which has been in the works for several years now, as I recall.

Anyway, I just swung by this thread to let people know about EVgo's accepting suggestions for new charging locations:

https://youtu.be/MmRURYMYb5I

https://www.evgo.com/fast-charger-location/
 

Registered
Joined
584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
Oregon's having fewer ports per million relative to stations per million actually indicates that they have a number of single-use chargers. Because we know that the current population of (non-Tesla) EVs uses one of two DCFC formats, the effective number of chargers per million should actually be reduced.

Jeff,


This is one of the problems using the AFDC's data. We could break it out by CHAdeMO and CCS. That's doable.


Paul
 

Registered
Joined
5,054 Posts
Jeff,


This is one of the problems using the AFDC's data. We could break it out by CHAdeMO and CCS. That's doable.


Paul
Just FYI, I might not be who you think I am. I'm Eric, not Jeff... though Jeff and I have broken bread... well, maybe not literally. 0:)

I've been trying to use OCM (Open Charge Map) for my efforts coordinating with A Better Route Planner; however, its interface is also problematic.

While PlugShare charges a hefty price for their aggregated data, they seem to be the easiest source for me. I actually think that one of the reasons they don't allow filtering by power is because it could affect their ability to sell that data. I'm not complaining (they are running a business and providing a service), but it explains why the other sources are less user friendly. Essentially, you get what you pay for.
 

Registered
Joined
400 Posts
I noticed today that the Chargeway app is now out for Android. I guess it may have been release late last week. It has a trip planner as well. I'm trying it out for the first time. There are some interesting novelties based on the color and numbering system. If this could be integrated into Freeway road signage eventually this might be something.
 

Registered
Joined
1,989 Posts
So the Bolt is a green '4' or '5' (more than 50, less than 60), and any Tesla is probably a red '6', while a LEAF would have a blue '4'.

The iPace, eTron and EQC will probably be a green '6'.
 

Registered
Joined
1,989 Posts
chargeway app not yet available for iOS (at least not for my 2018 iPad).

Also, I am rather (very) disappointed in the app :

1- only runs data over cell network? (won't work on my 'no cell service avail' Nexus. stupid - why can't I use WiFi??)
2- no way to set / winnow charge stations by provider/network
3- map re-fresh is just buggy (when I re-sided the map (zoom out) many stations disappeared)

I won't be using it - great idea, very poor implementation.
 

Registered
Joined
5,054 Posts
Hmm... not a fan of the way ChargeWay is being implemented. It makes people think that they have to add all of that range in a single sitting? It's a waste of time and will clog networks. Keep the miles at 200, but split between two sessions (100 miles each), and the Bolt EV is the top end of a Green 4, and the Model 3 LR is the bottom end of a Red 6.

Also, they've chosen the three colors people are most likely to be colorblind to. It should be represented by symbols rather than (just) colors. In addition, the charging rates on both the chargers and the vehicles should be represented in max, median, and min mi/hr of range, not kW + time to some undefined mi/kWh (which will vary a lot based both on the individual vehicle's efficiency and current driving conditions).

Sometimes, it's possible to oversimplify things to the point that the concepts become harder to understand. Tesla models taper their charge rates. Most other EVs step down. In both cases, the longer you stay, the slower you charge, both in terms of maximum and average charge rates.
 

Registered
Joined
676 Posts
Oregon may have a high ratio of charger head / population, but the vast majority of them (and almost all of them along the I-5 corridor) are obsolete 25kW models, which operate at less than half of the Bolt's maximum charge rate.
Sigh. The penalty of being early adopters鈥
 

Registered
Joined
400 Posts
Hmm... not a fan of the way ChargeWay is being implemented. It makes people think that they have to add all of that range in a single sitting? It's a waste of time and will clog networks. Keep the miles at 200, but split between two sessions (100 miles each), and the Bolt EV is the top end of a Green 4, and the Model 3 LR is the bottom end of a Red 6.




Also, they've chosen the three colors people are most likely to be colorblind to. It should be represented by symbols rather than (just) colors. In addition, the charging rates on both the chargers and the vehicles should be represented in max, median, and min mi/hr of range, not kW + time to some undefined mi/kWh (which will vary a lot based both on the individual vehicle's efficiency and current driving conditions).

Sometimes, it's possible to oversimplify things to the point that the concepts become harder to understand. Tesla models taper their charge rates. Most other EVs step down. In both cases, the longer you stay, the slower you charge, both in terms of maximum and average charge rates.

You should talk to Matt Teske about this ... obviously someone like you with your channel could influence how ChargeWay could improve. You're obviously not even close to someone who would be in the "target audience". You're sort of a "super expert" when it comes to charging. You should tone down your comments, however, because I don't think anyone wants to have their hard work called a "waste of time". I'm sure you'd feel pretty bad if someone called your you tube videos a "waste of time". In other words, it's nice to be important but it's more important to be nice.



Also on the app, The Bolt's scale on the released app is 1 to 5. I tried the trip planner, I know from my research that it's suggestion would work for a 500 mile trip but there is still at least one better charger to pick along that route; but heck it's the first couple of days that the app's been out so it will improve over time. The target audience is the average person that one day will realize what we've realized already ... that EVs are simply better. To make it easier for them, if they see a road sign with an EV Green 3 then they've got a place to go to charge ... that's what he's aiming for. Hopefully, Green 5's sooner rather than later. ;)
 

Registered
Joined
5,054 Posts
You should talk to Matt Teske about this ... obviously someone like you with your channel could influence how ChargeWay could improve. You're obviously not even close to someone who would be in the "target audience". You're sort of a "super expert" when it comes to charging. You should tone down your comments, however, because I don't think anyone wants to have their hard work called a "waste of time". I'm sure you'd feel pretty bad if someone called your you tube videos a "waste of time". In other words, it's nice to be important but it's more important to be nice.

Also on the app, The Bolt's scale on the released app is 1 to 5. I tried the trip planner, I know from my research that it's suggestion would work for a 500 mile trip but there is still at least one better charger to pick along that route; but heck it's the first couple of days that the app's been out so it will improve over time. The target audience is the average person that one day will realize what we've realized already ... that EVs are simply better. To make it easier for them, if they see a road sign with an EV Green 3 then they've got a place to go to charge ... that's what he's aiming for. Hopefully, Green 5's sooner rather than later. ;)
The "waste of time" is a reference to the time spent charging, not the app or the effort. Trying to charge to 200 miles in a single sitting requires more than twice the time it would take to charge 100 miles in two separate stops. A better implementation would be to (on the back end) identify the fastest charging windows for the vehicle (e.g., about 120 miles in the Bolt EV and about 130 miles in the Model 3 LR), then recommend the appropriate number of stops. Again, though, things get complicated because of varying levels of efficiency due to driving speeds and conditions.

My comments were meant to be constructive, but yes, tone is important. Unfortunately, tone is often lost on the internet, so I simply try to be matter-of-fact. In this case, I'm simply giving my feedback on how to arrive at a solution that is most helpful to the end user.

My hope is for most consumer level vehicles to be 7s with 350 to 450 miles of range. Essentially, anyone who is providing educational tools for EVs at this point should be trying to work themselves out of a job.
 
1 - 20 of 39 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