[Pike Bishop]

Casually glancing through the automotive press and websites, I am delighted to see more coverage of non-Tesla BEVs yet exasperated at the number of bloggers and journalists that pair the new crop of BEVs with a grim picture of the ‘public charging infrastructure’. Their simple solution: Let (Electrify America, EVgo, Tesla, the government, or some other company) solve the problem with (150kW/350kW/a gazillion kW) stations that can charge our ($90,000/$100,000/non-existent) vehicles in (5/10/20) minutes under certain* conditions. (* never explained in the articles.)


The buzz has reached the non-EV public. I used to be asked range questions. Now I am asked how I can drive out of my local area without a (150kW/350kW/a gazillion kW) station? People honestly ask to see one of these fantastic stations. I feel most of the well-intentioned inquirers are surprised when I tell them that except for longer drives, I charge the BOLT at home. I am sure they think I am crazy; they are perfectly convinced from the Internet they need the (150kW/350kW/a gazillion kW) stations before they could consider a BEV.



Even though I think it would be cool to have a (150kW/350kW/a gazillion kW) station in every existing gas station, I also wonder if we know what we are getting into. If we want it and will pay for it at the charger, I assure you investment money will come in. With money will come marketing and lobbying to make the investment pay off. That marketing and lobbying will affect our choices and future infrastructure.


Have we thought about what we are getting into?


Why don’t we walk through some simple math and finance to see what a full high-speed charging infrastructure could look like? At the least, we can start a good discussion.



To get the thinking going, let’s be very aggressive and build a high-speed charging infrastructure for 2 million non-Tesla vehicles. Two million vehicles are 10-20 times more BEVs than we have now. These vehicles will charge on a ‘gas station’ like basis, with no or minimal L2 charging while parked. This answers the common plaint by the press pundits: “We are not all rich and cannot afford to install personal parking chargers, street chargers would be extremely expensive, L2 chargers will be vandalized, these would require new taxes, landlords would face bankruptcy, etc., etc. We need a full network of high-speed chargers before EVs can be considered practical”


It’s also a good a good assumption most owners will generally replace a petroleum mile with an electric mile. We would expect the same 18,000 miles per year or a total demand of about 5,300 kWh per vehicle per year. Over 2 million vehicles, this is about 10.5 Terawatt Hours (TWh = 10^12WH), or under 3% of the 2016 total electricity sales. This should not crash the grid… (See figures for calculations).


How many fast-charging points would be needed to be convenient and not strand the new BEV owners? We can make an educated guess that the new BEVs will have at least a 160-mile range. A good battery range means the new owners would only need to charge every 3 days if they want to replicate a petroleum, run-to-near empty, ‘fueling’ strategy. Charging every three days means 1/3 of the 2 million show up at their local fast-charging point in any one day. Let’s imagine they can spread themselves out over a 12-hour day (I know this is unlikely, but it’s nice to let people sleep). That means we need at least 56,000 charge ports, and more like 100,000 ports to avoid long queues. (Ports are not locations; a location will have more than one available charging port.) We are near to having the same number of charge ports as gas stations. Mission accomplished!


Yet we must pay for this. Whether it comes from subsidies or private investment, the drivers will pay for it in taxes or charging fees.



Let’s put in a bit under 100,000 non-Tesla charging ports. The (150kW/350kW/a gazillion kW) stations are probably not cheap due to load-balancing, water cooled cables, peak-load local storage, trenching, and other capital costs. Making 100,000 of them will drive costs down. For the sake of analysis, the total installed cost may be between the cost of a Tesla supercharger and a 50kW CHAdeMO, or $125,000. Our new infrastructure will cost $12 billion. I know this is a big number, but it is about half of what GM paid out in stock buybacks to satisfy their hedge-fund partners (HBR, 2015). The money is there if the public will pay for it and it goes to someone’s benefit.


Capital needs to be accounted for. There is no getting away from this. Any entity that owns the chargers will need to account for depreciation. Similarly, maintenance and administration need to be funded so that customers are not frustrated by out of service charging ports, and payments are recorded. Public financial information from companies such as BLINK, EFACEC, and ABB, as well as press releases from EVgo advise setting depreciation, maintenance and administration costs at about 25% of capital value per year. The annual base-costs are then $3 billion per year just to keep investors happy and the charging stations working.



(There may be some tax credits that make it easier. However, the tax shortfall needs to be filled, as do potholes that are normally ignored in state budget crunches caused by tax credits.) (See the attached figure)


Each driver or our 2 million new vehicles needs to spend at least $1,500 per year to cover that $3 billion in annual costs. Because the ‘gasoline model’ driver will be at a charger every three days, they may see a hook-up fee, or pay a monthly membership fee to offset the company’s costs. Maybe that’s acceptable for the speed or convenience; perhaps it's much cheaper than gas.



But $1,500 per year? Isn’t that getting close to the cost of a good L2, parking area charger?




But, all those parking area L2 chargers would be expensive, right? OK. Let’s provide one L2 charger for each new owner. I assume that a box that’s mainly a cable, a chip, and a relay would be less expensive in quantity. Let’s be generous and assume $1,500 all-in with installs. Over 2 million cars mean a cost of $3 billion, or about $9 billion less than the (150kW/350kW/a gazillion kW) station solution. (See figure)


Count me in as one who would like to see next-generation generation solutions speed the move from ICE to an EV future. We would have a lot more fun driving! However, technologies create social and systems changes that we should be aware of.



We should just think a little deeper about what we are wishing for.

 

[NewsCoulomb]

I hate to say it, but this is one of the costs of Tesla using the Supercharger network as a product differentiation. Essentially, without a Supercharger Network, other EVs are only "city cars." No one wants to be stuck with a "city car."

But the hard truth is, DCFC are simply a crutch for the shortcomings of current electric vehicle technology. They are, essentially, range extenders. I get a lot of push back from EV owners who feel that they shouldn't have to buy a "big battery" EV in order to take a long trip. They should be able to buy a fast-charging, small-battery EV and have a comprehensive charging network that supports all of their travel needs. As a consequence, it begs the question, "Who is going to pay for that network?" In my opinion, it should be the short-range EV owners who demand that one is available to them. Also, it should be noted in all of this, I consider all current EVs (including the Bolt EV and the various Tesla models) "short-range."

This is part of the reason I don't really get after GM for not building their own Supercharger Network, as many EV people claim they should do. If GM is working on solid-state batteries that will increase the energy density of current lithium batteries by two to three times, I'm perfectly fine with their skipping the whole public DCFC build out. Why? Because 500 to 600 mile EVs will rarely need public DCFC. You'll occasionally use DCFC as a destination charge. But most often, you'll be charging at home or at a hotel/motel.

We are already at a point where 90% to 95% of charging is done at home or work. With 500 to 600 mile EVs, that might increase to 96% or 97%. The other 2% to 3% of the time, we would likely be charging at destinations. The remaining 1% of the time, we might need travel chargers. Essentially, one percent of the current 150,000 gas stations we have in this country would mean we'd need about 1,500 (maybe round up to 2,000) travel charger locations. But make no mistake, those locations would be considered emergency stops. Drivers would use them about as often as they use the air compressor at a gas station.

People also forget that gas stations themselves were built as a crutch to overcome the shortcomings of internal combustion vehicles. Back when cars were primarily owned by the wealthy, people used to keep gas cans in their garages for guests who stopped by because there were no gas stations along the route. You were wholly dependent on a refinery to provide you with finished gas. Heck, farms still do this today, receiving gas shipments to their storage tanks.

But now, we already have that fuel delivery built out to almost every garage for EVs in the form of wall outlets and dryer plugs. The question is, when will EVs have sufficient range to make it from one of those over-night locations to the next without stopping to refuel in between?

 

[redpoint5]

If I understand correctly, you're saying much of the public is unaware that EVs can be charged at home, or otherwise aren't able to due to lack of access to necessary infrastructure. You're proposing every EV buyer get $1,500 presumably to install 240v charging infrastructure? That, in addition to the $7,500 federal credit, and some state and local incentives.

There's no money in DCFC infrastructure in itself, similar to how there is very little money to be made at a petrol station by itself. The money is made in snack sales and lottery scratch-offs.

I'm a huge fan of EVs, but as I'm constantly saying, it's not the government's job to decide which technologies shall win, and which shall lose. That's up to the market to decide. Instead, it's the governments job to protect the health of citizens by preventing the tragedy of the commons. If the environment has unacceptable levels of pollutants, the government needs to determine the acceptable limits and create disincentives (taxes) to those pollutants sufficient to reach their target levels.

 

[Mark Chapmon]

We have two vehicles in the personal fleet besides the Bolt, a low mileage pickup that gets 16 mpg, and an old, high mileage Buick that gets 24 mpg. IF the trip is more than 60 miles one way and there is no EVSE at my destination, we take the pickup and "enjoy" 16 mpg on a road trip.

Our Bolt has over 10k miles since March of this year and I've charged it exactly one time away from my garage. That was at the Jack Daniels Distillery, ~ 86 miles from home. Wasn't guaranteed a spot at the charger, so I range charged my car the night before the trip. Per the estimator, I had just over 150 miles of range remaining when I plugged in, so I could've made it both ways, but charged there because I'd never charged away from home before.

I don't know how EVSE infrastructure can be built out and the operators make a profit if the majority of owners charge similar to me. There is comfort knowing it's out there, but it's like a spare tire, I hope to rarely ever / never use it.

 

[Raymondjram]

Stop worrying about charging infrastructure. In the past century, few car owners worried that much about gasoline refueling yet they managed. The secret to live better with a BEV is to change your lifestyle. Move closer to your main destinations (shops, medical, school, work, etc) and plan fewer trips. Doing this with gasoline cars actually saves money and time now, so the same will save on an EV.

I did this movement 41 years ago, and my cars last over twenty years each. I travel less than 300 miles a month, and my trips never exceed 15 miles any day. Once a month I do travel more, but I can do it even in an EV if I had one, because I live on an island and any point is fifty miles or less.

If you do travel more than the EV range, use a hybrid, or let someone else drive (taxi, bus, train, or plane). It is never a justified reason to invest money in a bigger EV or "charging infrastructure" just for long distance traveling. My gasoline station is less than two hundred feet away! Yet I use less than the average driver and visit it once a month. So buy the Bolt EV for all your daily travels, and charge at home overnight. Rent an hybrid, or let someone else drive for over the range trips.

 

[neutrondrip]

I received an email the other day from GM asking me to take a survey on public charging, and of course I completed the survey. I expected to see a thread about it on here, but maybe they haven't rolled it out to too many people or I missed the thread.

It asked questions like "What percentage of your charging is public charging?", "Would you find it more convenient to pay GM as a single service when using public chargers, instead of having separate memberships for each charging provider?", or "Which of these plans would best suit your charging needs: unlimited charging for a monthly fee, charging limited to some amount of minutes then pay-by-the-minute after that, completely pay-by-the-minute?"

It seems like they're at least "taking the temperature" of what people who use public charging might want. What they're going to do with that info is what I'd like to know.

I'm glad that they asked me because 99% of my charging is done at "public" chargers (primarily at my workplace). I think I've only charged at home two or three times in a year. I would jump at the "unlimited charging" monthly plan if it made sense financially.

 

[Pike Bishop]

I hate to say it, but this is one of the costs of Tesla using the Supercharger network as a product differentiation.



But now, we already have that fuel delivery built out to almost every garage for EVs in the form of wall outlets and dryer plugs. The question is, when will EVs have sufficient range to make it from one of those over-night locations to the next without stopping to refuel in between?

Quite true. Hidden in the TESLA 10-K SEC form is their goal of maintaining a 22-25% gross margin on cars manufactured. The remainder goes to their internal dealer network, warranty and supercharging infrastructure of about 1,200 US stations. As a comparison, GM or Ford work on 3-5% gross margin, leaving the rest of the profit to independent dealers. There is no room for an investment without a visionary case.


If GM were to price the BOLT at $50,000 and allocate $5,000 of each sale to a fast charger network, that would give them a $100 million capital budget to play with to set up charging networks. But again GM does not have the cachet or the board of a TESLA.


The last question is interesting. An ICE driver in the continental USA is no more that 3 air-miles from a gasoline station (2012 American Petroelum Institute and US Census). That 3 miles is a market response to not being able to pump oil at home.



If you wanted to cover the US with charging stations no more than 50 miles apart, which is a safe drive distance for a mid-range BEV, we would need about 400 stations (with one or more charging points per station). EVgo has 1000, ChargePoint similar, and Tesla has 1,200-1300. We are nearly there!


The problem is allocation. Private firms are incentivized to drive higher use, which means you can find 3-4 locations in a city and none on the interstates.

 

[Tarrngtn]

Charging at home and abroad

The USGov already pays each EV owner to put an L2 charger at home. The $1,000 tax credit for doing so is enough to pay for the charger and installation, or at least it was for us here in NM. Perhaps the costs for an electrician might be higher elsewhere. Of course, you have to make enough money to pay income taxes in order to get the credit. So the libertarians on this thread who want the “market” to do it have already lost that argument.

If we had a political system that looked out for the long term interests of the public — well, one can dream — we would have a nice carbon tax and some of that money would be used for the buildout of the charging stations. As noted, most will charge at home for almost all their needs (as we do), so the extent of the charging network needed is a lot less than needed for the comparable ICE network that currently exists.

I don’t understand why the electric utility industry is not helping us campaign for EVs. Electricity usage, at least per capita, has been declining for decades. EVs are a great additional market for power, most of which will be supplied through the existing network to homes and businesses. As noted, even an enormous increase in EVs would be only a slight % of total electrical usage. But eventually ...

Right now the main thing that is needed is to remove the cap on the Federal $7,500 rebate so that Tesla and GM can compete equally with the foreign manufacturers who will reach the cap later.

 

[DaV8or]

It's mostly Tesla and Tesla fans making all the noise about a charging network. It has worked well to help sell their cars, but GM and others don't need to pursue their own competing network for several reasons.

1. Most, but not all of us, can charge at home, or at work. This will always be preferable.
2. Batteries are getting better. They will in the near future either be more power dense, or cheaper, or both. This will go a long way towards obsoleting a charging network.
3. This is speculation on my part, but I believe there eventually will be enough pressure on Tesla to make a profit that they will eventually open ther network to everyone. While it will no doubt be very expensive, it will eliminate competitive disadvantage.
4. Public charging will get better on it's own. Better equipment and more strategic placement. No need to jump in the frey.

What GM and others should be doing right now in the mean time is leveraging the rest of their product line to be the "Supercharger Network" for them. By that I mean, advertise and play up the idea of a two car household where one car is Bolt and the other a CUV, or SUV, or even a Volt. I'm not suggesting that people will run out and buy two cars, but rather most already have two cars. In addition, they could get into the car rental business, or partner with some rental company to provide non BEV cars at a discounted rate.

Here's another idea- GM "rental" agencies along side the major interstates like charging stations. Here you would drive your car say 150 miles from home, pull off the highway and then swap to a rental car, either BEV, PHEV, or ICE to drive the rest of the way. While you're gone they charge your car and you reverse the order going home. There are solutions to counter the "city car" stigma that I think would be more flexible than sinking a bunch of money into a rapidly obsoleting asset.

 

[redpoint5]

My hunch is that improved battery tech will tend to decrease overall range, not increase it (in the long run). There will probably be 400 mile range EVs offered at some point, but they won't be very popular. I think the ~250 range might be around the sweet spot.

If battery technology improves so that they can charge more quickly, and the charging infrastructure is both commonplace and high output, then it reduces the necessity of a long range battery. 200 real world miles would be fine, as it's no problem to stop every 3hrs to charge for 10 minutes, for instance. No sense lugging around the weight and expense of a larger battery if a smaller one can be recharged quickly.

It's dumb to have an EV sitting around doing nothing while the owner has an additional expense of renting an ICE for long trips. There should be an app where people can swap cars. I've always thought it was crazy that I drive a car to the airport, pay a ton of money to allow it to occupy a few square feet of asphalt, pay a ton of money to rent a vehicle at my destination, all while people in my departure city are doing the same thing. Why aren't they using my vehicle while they are in my city while I use their vehicle while I'm in theirs?

For that matter, I have quite a few vehicles that mostly sit doing nothing. Might as well rent those out to produce a modest passive income.

 

[XJ12]

The USGov already pays each EV owner to put an L2 charger at home. The $1,000 tax credit for doing so is enough to pay for the charger and installation, or at least it was for us here in NM.

But, I couldn't get both the EV credit and the charging equipment credit claimed in the same tax year. Logical that both would happen in the same tax year, but can't be claimed in the same year. Once you claim the EV credit you trigger the alternate minimum tax for claiming the other credit.

But that federal credit was only for 30% of the cost. Maybe not the same credit you're referring to.

 

[Tarrngtn]

I got both the $7,500 for the Bolt and the $1,000 for the L2. $1,000 was enough to buy and install the L2 in the garage, but maybe electricians are cheaper here or my wiring easier to use. Perhaps I am in a different tax situation because I am retired. Or perhaps a better CPA doing my taxes. Just goes to show that every family’s situation is different. There was a previous thread that specified the tax credit for the L2, and I copied that out and gave it to my CPA. I don’t remember where it was, but it was on the “News on Chevy Bolt Forum.”

 

[Pike Bishop]

My hunch is that improved battery tech will tend to decrease overall range, not increase it (in the long run). There will probably be 400 mile range EVs offered at some point, but they won't be very popular. I think the ~250 range might be around the sweet spot.

Good note. However, it's not clear why a larger battery is worth the cost other than to provide some personal security for the owner.


It does not appear that replacing an ICE car with a BEV creates the desire to drive more. You may think that low-cost fuel would provide an incentive. However, when I sample Tesla's used inventory for their Model S I see:

• Average miles per year 12,300
• Standard deviation of sample: 4,700 miles. (~88% of vehicles driven less than 17,000 miles/year)
• N=29 offers analyzed

The Model S is a 'biased' example. The vehicle comes with free supercharging, so it has strong owner incentives to drive with abandon. In reality, Teslas (which have a accessible mileage based data set) are driven like the US average car.



So, if a 'biased' example does not drive more usage, what is the value of a larger battery?



From US DOT and its GM On-star data for VOLT, you can argue that any BEV with 4 times the average daily driving range and a way to charge overnight is in the sweet spot. (16,000 miles/year = 43 mi/day or a 172mi battery range).



4x daily range comes from studies of daily driving patterns. At four times the average daily commute, there is approximately a 2% chance that the BEV owner will need to charge away from their overnight charger (about 1 day a month).



[Side note: The Japanese average annual mileage is on the order of 5,780 miles/year (9,300 km/year) or 16 mi/day. Even a 100 mile range Leaf is a great car for Japan! Then you add over 6,000 CHAdeMO stations and you are set.]




I agree, a combination of sweet spot battery capacity and better DCFC charging will satisfy the needs of drivers, but any capacity over the sweet spot of 230-250 miles will be more costly. Of course, some will pay it for 'security', but there is no urgent need.

 

[redpoint5]

Good note. However, it's not clear why a larger battery is worth the cost other than to provide some personal security for the owner.

I was thinking more along the lines of 150 miles being the sweet spot, but considering cold weather effects and other range limiting scenarios, I figured 250 miles built in a good buffer. You'd want a car capable of 150 miles in worst case conditions, which is probably 250 mile range under ideal conditions, but perhaps even that is too conservative.

People will want a range that allows them to travel how long they would normally travel uninterrupted, which I would guess is about 3 hrs or less, or about 200 freeway miles. If they could charge in nearly the same amount of time as it takes to stretch the legs, and the chargers are located conveniently, then people generally won't feel they need more range.

As I've said elsewhere, I'd be fine with about 100 miles of range, as I don't intend to use an EV outside of a local area.

 

[Annalog]

"... it's not the government's job to decide which technologies shall win, and which shall lose. That's up to the market to decide."

Maybe it's not their job but it's a job they do. Through subsidies, supports, bailouts, tax breaks, tax policies, rebates, research and development at DoD, NSF, etc. (where Musk got some of his best ideas/technology) and dozens of other mechanisms. Autonomous vehicles and smart cities are getting a lot of attention now, with our tax dollars. There is no public demand from any market (or even much public discussion). Google only exists because of the Digital Libraries Initiative, etc. etc.

By the time the "market" gets hold of something (especially the more complex technologies that need R&D), we get to choose from the buffet but we don't have a say in the menu. If the food ends up making us sick, there's nothing else to eat. OK, I better stop with the analogies...

As one example, we don't have good solar options despite the fact that we've had the technology since the 1970s. It's still expensive, a huge capital outlay, a hobbyist thing. Why didn't the government give the subsidies, etc. to the people back when and we could have avoided a heaps of pollution, promoted energy self-sufficiency (at individual and national levels), and derived many other benefits. One answer is that oil and automotive companies are skilled at getting the subsidies, bailouts, and so on through sophisticated lobbying, campaign contributions, and the rest.

Maybe a pure market would be better (and that's probably what redpoint5 meant), but we don't have one.

 

[GregBrew]

I received an email the other day from GM asking me to take a survey on public charging, and of course I completed the survey. I expected to see a thread about it on here, but maybe they haven't rolled it out to too many people or I missed the thread.

It asked questions like "What percentage of your charging is public charging?", "Would you find it more convenient to pay GM as a single service when using public chargers, instead of having separate memberships for each charging provider?", or "Which of these plans would best suit your charging needs: unlimited charging for a monthly fee, charging limited to some amount of minutes then pay-by-the-minute after that, completely pay-by-the-minute?"

It seems like they're at least "taking the temperature" of what people who use public charging might want. What they're going to do with that info is what I'd like to know.

I'm glad that they asked me because 99% of my charging is done at "public" chargers (primarily at my workplace). I think I've only charged at home two or three times in a year. I would jump at the "unlimited charging" monthly plan if it made sense financially.

I got this particular survey as well. I took it to mean that GM is considering becoming a DCFC network billing aggregator.

 

[demart]

We should just think a little deeper about what we are wishing for.

I think most new houses will have EV chargers installed. It's basically just another 240 volt outlet, shouldn't be more than a couple of hundred dollars of labor and materials. Plus the cost of the EVSE itself at about 200 (should come down when sold in volume). Once installed, it should serve for decades with minimal upkeep. If we spend $30K on a car, I think spending $500 on EVSE once a decade is not a big deal.

If we have ample L2 chargers at home, work, hotels, and retail stores, than the need for L3 charging is significantly diminished. We need a few urban chargers for those who do not have access to L2. And we need a couple of chargers at every highway exit.

 

[Tarrngtn]

For $1,000 tax rebate for installing home charger see: IRS Form 8911, HR 1892, 2018, public law 114-113 26 US Code 30C and 38 and IRS notice 2007-43. I don’t know whether this expired after 2017. Nor is it clear whether all or part of the expense can be carried over to later years, the earlier thread seemed contradictory on that point.

 

[Sean Nelson]

This is speculation on my part, but I believe there eventually will be enough pressure on Tesla to make a profit that they will eventually open ther network to everyone. While it will no doubt be very expensive, it will eliminate competitive disadvantage.

I keep wondering if at some point Tesla and everyone else will finally agree to use a common charging standard. I don't much care which one it is, as long as adapters are available for cars that use the deprecated standard.

 

[redpoint5]

Maybe it's not their job but it's a job they do. Through subsidies, supports, bailouts, tax breaks, tax policies, rebates, research and development at DoD, NSF, etc.

... Maybe a pure market would be better (and that's probably what redpoint5 meant), but we don't have one.

I'm saying that the room for corruption is far to vast, and the benefits to the people far to minimal, for government to select which products receive subsidies, especially when those subsidies come in the form of regressive tax breaks. Some senator in Arkansas isn't up on the latest advances in energy and transportation. If the senator makes any decision on what to subsidize, it's entirely based on political motivation, and objectivity has nothing to do with it.

The proper role of government is to defend her people, enforce laws that promote fair business and trade, and protect the commons. You protect the commons by taxing those things that pose negative externalities. If certain levels of CO2 production are unacceptable, then the proper response is to tax those things that produce CO2 in proportion to how much they emit until emissions are within acceptable limits. How we reduce CO2 is none of the government's business because a few politicians can't outsmart the collective intelligence of the market.

Put another way, if government knows best on what should be subsidized to achieve certain results, then they also know best what should be produced, in which case we might as well have a communist market rather than a free(ish) market. Bureaucracy would be the most efficient way to determine what should be produced, how much, and what the price should be.

I'm not for a purely and entirely free market, because that doesn't sufficiently protect the commons, but in a mostly free market, the best way to achieve desired results is to create economic disincentives for behavior that is harmful, and let industry figure out how to adjust.