Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
2020
Joined
·
199 Posts
From the article:

"An unanticipated surprise benefit of having to shelter in place over the past few months is the reduced air pollution since we’re driving much less. This is the tangible preview of the clean air that could come from an electrified transportation network."

Yes, batteries themselves have bad stuff in them too...I know.
 

·
Registered
2020 Bolt
Joined
·
63 Posts
I'd call this more of a two-base hit. We need DCFC's in more areas, not just more in metro areas. I'm in Oregon and there is only one station along the entire Oregon and Washington coastline, we need more.
 

·
Registered
2018 Bolt EV Premier Nightfall Gray
Joined
·
392 Posts
I'd call this more of a two-base hit. We need DCFC's in more areas, not just more in metro areas. I'm in Oregon and there is only one station along the entire Oregon and Washington coastline, we need more.
In my opinion, aside from EA whose charter is a Mia Culpa for the bone-headed Diesel-gate mess, most of the highway charging seems to be state funding backing private investments. In CO, we pay $50/yr on our registration, which is added to VW settlement funds, and dispersed via grants paying up to 80% of the install cost for L2 and L3 infrastructure. The program recently funded ChargePoint to install something like 18 62+ kW DC chargers along scenic routes in the state, some are already open. This is added to the Interstates which are primarily EA sites, and we are now at least 400% better coverage on state highways than just 2 years ago.

If your state is spending settlement money and registration fees for non-EV infrastructure related purposes, maybe you need to vote differently?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
In my opinion, aside from EA whose charter is a Mia Culpa for the bone-headed Diesel-gate mess, most of the highway charging seems to be state funding backing private investments. In CO, we pay $50/yr on our registration, which is added to VW settlement funds, and dispersed via grants paying up to 80% of the install cost for L2 and L3 infrastructure. The program recently funded ChargePoint to install something like 18 62+ kW DC chargers along scenic routes in the state, some are already open. This is added to the Interstates which are primarily EA sites, and we are now at least 400% better coverage on state highways than just 2 years ago.

If your state is spending settlement money and registration fees for non-EV infrastructure related purposes, maybe you need to vote differently?
Oregon was years ahead in creating the Electric Highway. But at the time, CHAdeMO was the only charging standard, so the Electric Highway was built out with that. There are quite a few CHAdeMO fast charging stations in Oregon, including on the coast. Unfortunately, that doesn't help CCS cars, except that there is usually also L2 at those sites. So, Oregon wasn't a slacker when it came to supporting EVs. More CCS will be built with EA funding in the next round, but state money is tight, especially with the pandemic. Local utilities have gotten involved with building fast charging sites in a number of areas. The frustrating things is that just 6 more CCS sites strategically sprinkled around the state would open up all of Oregon to EVs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
What's with these 62 kw chargers? Superchargers are mostly 120 now with the next generation v3 being 250.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
What's with these 62 kw chargers? Superchargers are mostly 120 now with the next generation v3 being 250.
Just a guess, but a 62 kW charger would be considerably less expensive than 150-350 kW chargers. If the priority is doing the most to open up routes to EVs for the available money, smaller charges are the way to go. Would you rather have access to 62 kW chargers now, or have nothing for the next 5 years until they could put in 250 kW chargers? I'd be happy with 24 kW chargers in areas where there is nothing now and where I really can't go with my Bolt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
Just a guess, but a 62 kW charger would be considerably less expensive than 150-350 kW chargers. If the priority is doing the most to open up routes to EVs for the available money, smaller charges are the way to go. Would you rather have access to 62 kW chargers now, or have nothing for the next 5 years until they could put in 250 kW chargers? I'd be happy with 24 kW chargers in areas where there is nothing now and where I really can't go with my Bolt.
Or put another way, for the same cost would you rather have a cluster of 4-12 150-350kW chargers (ala EA) every 70-100 miles, or a cluster of 4-12 62.5kW chargers off every exit of every interstate? I'm guessing the total cost would be similar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,281 Posts

Color me impressed. Well done Elon, you’re getting companies like Chevy off their ass and dedicating a clean, green future. This is huge, considering they were/are one of the leading CO2 producers.
Elon didn't have anything to do with this. In fact, he was the butt (and deservedly so) of Mark Reuss's joke at their Cadillac Lyriq unveiling. When describing the expansion to EVgo's network, Reuss emphasized that, "These chargers will be available to all EV owners, not just owners of GM EVs."

What's with these 62 kw chargers? Superchargers are mostly 120 now with the next generation v3 being 250.
These chargers will have power ratings of 100 kW to 350 kW, and the speeds will be matched to their locations. For instance, a grocery store is likely to get 100 kW chargers installed, while a fast-food restaurant is likely to get 150 kW chargers, and a convenience store is likely to get 350 kW chargers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,766 Posts
Or put another way, for the same cost would you rather have a cluster of 4-12 150-350kW chargers (ala EA) every 70-100 miles, or a cluster of 4-12 62.5kW chargers off every exit of every interstate? I'm guessing the total cost would be similar.
I doubt the cost would be similar. Now if you changed that to "4-8 62.5kW chargers at interstate exits every 10-15 miles" I'd say the total cost would be similar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,281 Posts
Just a guess, but a 62 kW charger would be considerably less expensive than 150-350 kW chargers. If the priority is doing the most to open up routes to EVs for the available money, smaller charges are the way to go. Would you rather have access to 62 kW chargers now, or have nothing for the next 5 years until they could put in 250 kW chargers? I'd be happy with 24 kW chargers in areas where there is nothing now and where I really can't go with my Bolt.
Personally, I feel that if you're stretching your pennies, the better approach would be to do what Tesla did during their initial Supercharger build out. Rather than installing 4 to 8 chargers per site, install 2 to 4 chargers and enable them to split power. ChargePoint already offers this as an option, and I've even reviewed a site where this has gone live. Essentially, they installed two 62.5 kW chargers; however, because those chargers are linked, one charger can provide 125 kW of power when the other is not in use.

When you're no longer counting your pennies, though, transition to higher-power units that don't split power, such as Tesla's 250 kW V3 Superchargers and Electrify America's 350 kW CCS chargers.
 

·
Registered
2020 Bolt Ev Premier
Joined
·
53 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Elon didn't have anything to do with this. In fact, he was the butt (and deservedly so) of Mark Reuss's joke at their Cadillac Lyriq unveiling. When describing the expansion to EVgo's network, Reuss emphasized that, "These chargers will be available to all EV owners, not just owners of GM EVs."



These chargers will have power ratings of 100 kW to 350 kW, and the speeds will be matched to their locations. For instance, a grocery store is likely to get 100 kW chargers installed, while a fast-food restaurant is likely to get 150 kW chargers, and a convenience store is likely to get 350 kW chargers.
I was referring to Elon’s success and proving that electric vehicles are the future. Thus making companies like GM get off their ass and do something. Elon is almost completely to blame for this EV movement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,281 Posts
I was referring to Elon’s success and proving that electric vehicles are the future. Thus making companies like GM get off their ass and do something. Elon is almost completely to blame for this EV movement.
Actually, he's not. People seem to think that Elon and Tesla have a huge sway on the traditional automakers, but they are less influential than actual profit margins. If GM couldn't sell EVs profitably, they wouldn't (Elon or no Elon). GM was building EVs before Tesla was even a company, and in fact, Tesla's first EVs were based on GM EV technology. Over and over and over again, GM has reiterated that the reason they haven't pursued EVs more aggressively is because they couldn't make a profit while providing their customers with the functionality they expect for a price that's competitive.

Unless you can prove that Elon and Tesla provided GM and LG Chem their improved battery technology at lower costs, your assertion is baseless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
I think Tesla does deserve credit for creating far more buzz about EVs than any other company. Just the determination of Tesla to succeed and introduce new models has brought far more awareness to EVs than anything that GM has done. I do agree that GM has been moving in that direction and GM's transition to EVs would have occurred anyway, but I'm not so sure they would have been thinking about offerings like the Hummer or the Lyriq at this point. Tesla and Musk do deserve credit and their success likely encouraged GM to become more focused and aggressive than otherwise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
I doubt the cost would be similar. Now if you changed that to "4-8 62.5kW chargers at interstate exits every 10-15 miles" I'd say the total cost would be similar.
Most stretches of the interstate system have 30+ miles between exits. It is only in dense and urban areas where exits are more than every 10-15 miles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,281 Posts
I think Tesla does deserve credit for creating far more buzz about EVs than any other company. Just the determination of Tesla to succeed and introduce new models has brought far more awareness to EVs than anything that GM has done. I do agree that GM has been moving in that direction and GM's transition to EVs would have occurred anyway, but I'm not so sure they would have been thinking about offerings like the Hummer or the Lyriq at this point. Tesla and Musk do deserve credit and their success likely encouraged GM to become more focused and aggressive than otherwise.
Again, I disagree. Tesla (and Elon) deserve credit for what Tesla (and Elon) have done. They don't get credit for what others do. Period. That's like saying GM gets credit for Tesla because they made the earliest, biggest buzz with the EV1, which actually set the groundwork for CARB and many of the EVs that were built as a result.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
Again, I disagree. Tesla (and Elon) deserve credit for what Tesla (and Elon) have done. They don't get credit for what others do. Period. That's like saying GM gets credit for Tesla because they made the earliest, biggest buzz with the EV1, which actually set the groundwork for CARB and many of the EVs that were built as a result.
GM does deserve credit for the EV1 and how that facilitated the emergence of Tesla. Tesla either wouldn't have happened at all, wouldn't have happened as soon, or would have had a very different trajectory if not for the pioneering work of GM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
GM does deserve credit for the EV1 and how that facilitated the emergence of Tesla. Tesla either wouldn't have happened at all, wouldn't have happened as soon, or would have had a very different trajectory if not for the pioneering work of GM.
It could be argued that if the EV1 program was not killed, there would be no Tesla. But since it was a compliance car, once they successfully rolled back the CARB mandate it's fate was sealed. GM wasn't the only major manufacturer though to kill their EV programs.

"In the early ’90s, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) mandated that automakers selling cars in the state produce a certain number of zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs). Each of the largest companies produced an EV: "
"As soon as the government requirement was eliminated, all of the majors killed their EV programs, and most of them rounded up and destroyed the actual cars. Of the EVs produced during that time, only Toyota’s RAV4 EV remains on the road — a few are still in service (years later, the company launched a second generation, this time with battery packs from Tesla, but this also proved short-lived)."



"We bring this up because EV1 is both the first modern electric car and the seed that grew into Tesla. Disgusted by GM’s crushing directive, Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning founded Tesla Motors in July 2003. "





"However, GM’s greatest influence on the young Tesla was, in a sense, a negative one. When they ended their EV programs, GM and the other automakers made it clear that they regarded electricity as a closed chapter — they wouldn’t be producing electric cars any time in the foreseeable future. The Tesla team saw this fact as an opportunity, and they used it as a selling point when they pitched their startup company to venture capitalists. “One of the questions we were asked in our pitches was, ‘How could you possibly think that you could have a competitive advantage against GM?’” Marc Tarpenning told me. “The auto companies had all said that there was no future in electric cars and they had no interest in it. It wasn’t like we were out there doing battle with Ford on a daily basis because they weren’t in the game. They had specifically said they were never going to be in the game. And that was one of the things that we would pitch in our business plan. We have some number of years where we have the field to ourselves.”

"Few people know that we started Tesla when GM forcibly recalled all electric cars from customers in 2003 & then crushed them in a junkyard.
Since big car companies were killing their EV programs, the only chance was to create an EV company, even tho it was almost certain to fail."
Elon Musk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
From our current perspective, we all wish that GM had done things differently. GM still says that ending the EV1 was absolutely the right thing to do but that it was a public relations disaster. Still, GM has been involved with EVs for some time: the EV1 from 1996 to 1999, the Spark EV from 2013 to 2016, the Volt 2010-2019 and the Bolt 2017 - current. Compliance requirements certainly was a driving force, but each new model shows a clear advancement in EV technology, lumbering perhaps, but still steadily advancing. Could GM have gone faster? Likely. But for a typical business, it has made steady, prudent investments. Only recently has all the technology come together to justify the economic case for greater EV investments, and they have done that. Without Tesla, the next GM EV might be have been something like a Trailblazer EV or a Malibu EV. Tesla probably showed GM that the high-end was where to go first. Though all we can do is speculate, I would say that the conversion from ICE to EVs would have happened without Tesla, just not quite the same way and probably not quite as quickly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,281 Posts
From our current perspective, we all wish that GM had done things differently. GM still says that ending the EV1 was absolutely the right thing to do but that it was a public relations disaster. Still, GM has been involved with EVs for some time: the EV1 from 1996 to 1999, the Spark EV from 2013 to 2016, the Volt 2010-2019 and the Bolt 2017 - current. Compliance requirements certainly was a driving force, but each new model shows a clear advancement in EV technology, lumbering perhaps, but still steadily advancing. Could GM have gone faster? Likely. But for a typical business, it has made steady, prudent investments. Only recently has all the technology come together to justify the economic case for greater EV investments, and they have done that. Without Tesla, the next GM EV might be have been something like a Trailblazer EV or a Malibu EV. Tesla probably showed GM that the high-end was where to go first. Though all we can do is speculate, I would say that the conversion from ICE to EVs would have happened without Tesla, just not quite the same way and probably not quite as quickly.
A few things that, while nitpicking, demonstrate how little consideration GM is given on the EV front. First, the EV1 program lasted until 2002, not 1999. The Volt program was started as early as 2003 and no later than 2006, not 2010. GM was also heavily investing in and researching hydrogen fuel cells starting in 2002, with the fuel cell Equinox on the road testing in 2007. In addition, GM pursued a number of hybrid powertrains using REMY motors and focusing on their heaviest polluters. We might disagree with those efforts and how they were pursued, but GM has been working on ways to electrify their fleet continuously for more than 20 years.

Either way, criticisms of GM's EV efforts at this point are most definitely hindsight bias. For GM, especially the powers that be (were), it took a lot of convincing that pure battery electrics were worth the investment, and when automotive grade batteries were still several hundred to $1,000 per kWh, it was nearly impossible to justify an EV that would cost as much to build as GM could sell it for, especially when GM could simply sell a different, more profitable car instead.

If you want to thank anyone for GM's massive shift toward EVs and funding public charging, thank Josh Tavel, not Elon Musk.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top