Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
  • Hey Guest, welcome to ChevyBolt.org. We encourage you to register to engage in conversations about your Bolt.

Is this the charging future we want?

7529 Views 48 Replies 22 Participants Last post by  GJETSON
4
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.

Attachments

See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 3
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
I think most new houses will have EV chargers installed. It's basically just another 240 volt outlet {...}
Thinking about it just now, I am actually very surprised that Calif hasn't already required that all new home construction must have a 14-50 plug with a 50A circuit in the garage or carport. The state has been very pro-active in the past requiring certain things in new home construction that are "green" (enviro-friendly). And being "EVSE-ready" seems to fit the bill. The cost of placing X feet of 6 gauge wire and a 50A breaker should be less than $100 during the construction phase of a new house, when a builder will likely have a 500 ft (or longer) roll of any type of wiring that he is expecting to use, that was bought in LARGE quantities at a large discount compared to retail sales.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
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.
To borrow a note out of Elon's book, the number you are looking for is 420 miles.
  • Assume 40% range loss in worst-case-scenario driving: 250 miles on a full charge.
  • Assume the fastest charging speeds are to 80%: 200 miles between refueling stops.
  • Assume you want to stop to recharge with around 20% battery left: 160 miles between refueling stops.

And while the EV pragmatist in me completely agrees that no one will really need more than 200 to 250 miles of range under ideal conditions, the realist in me already sees numerous companies advertising their 400, 500, 600 miles between fill ups gas cars. While yes, that's partly to reduce the number of times one has to go to the gas station, the way it is being advertised is in relation to taking long trips.

So really, the reason for offering 500 to 600 mile EVs is because they can. Americans love contingencies, so if you tell them that they can drive their car 1/3 of the way across the country without relying on anyone or anything else, people will gravitate to your product.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 2
The setup we have here in the province of Quebec is like this: we get a direct cash subsidy paid by the government on the purchase of an EV. This is paid directly to the dealer, no waiting by the owner. There is also a cheque sent to the owner upon presentation of invoices from an electrician and an EVSE. In many cities, towns and villages level 2 EVSEs are being installed by our electricity producer (government owned Hydro-Quebec).

DCFC's are available on most highways (more are being installed) and there are quite a few in many tier 1 and 2 cities. There is a restaurant chain and a food distributor that have installed level 2 EVSE in all their locations. Rate: 1,00$ an hour. (0.76 cents US)

Maximum subsidy vehicle purchase: 8000$
Subsidy for level 2 EVSE: 600$

There is more to this, you can find the details here http://vehiculeselectriques.gouv.qc.ca/english/particuliers/rabais.asp

These incentives are there to help the province gain independence from petroleum products that we don't produce and promote hydro-electricity that we have here. (Nearly 100% of our electricity is hydro, no nuclear, no coal, no gaz, some wind generation) Also, to lower our carbon footprint. (Quebec is a partner with California in the carbon tax scheme)
See less See more
To borrow a note out of Elon's book, the number you are looking for is 420 miles.
About right if you don't expect to charge more than once in a 450-500 mile day of driving. With my Bolt EV, I have done 450 miles in a day with three charging stops. Just adding a 100 miles of range, would remove one or two of those charging stops, so I feel that 340 miles of range would be a great improvement. In the end its down to the cost of battery technology, and how much battery you can afford. For me, its the Bolt EV, but in the future that is going to change, and for Tesla people with bigger batteries, its already pretty close.
With my Bolt EV, I have done 450 miles in a day with three charging stops. Just adding a 100 miles of range, would remove one or two of those charging stops, so I feel that 340 miles of range would be a great improvement.
Just 100 miles of range is an additional 25 kWh of battery capacity, or adding about half again of the Bolt's capacity and accompanying cost ($5,000) and weight (450 lbs), for a trip that is presumably infrequent.

I'm not saying nobody would need it or want it, but it's no trivial thing to add that sort of range.

If improved battery tech primarily comes in the form of cheaper batteries, then I would predict battery capacities to increase.

However, if improved battery tech primarily comes in the form of faster rates of charge/discharge, then I expect battery capacity to remain relatively stable, or perhaps even shrink.
Just 100 miles of range is an additional 25 kWh of battery capacity, or adding about half again of the Bolt's capacity and accompanying cost ($5,000) and weight (450 lbs), for a trip that is presumably infrequent.

I'm not saying nobody would need it or want it, but it's no trivial thing to add that sort of range.

If improved battery tech primarily comes in the form of cheaper batteries, then I would predict battery capacities to increase.

However, if improved battery tech primarily comes in the form of faster rates of charge/discharge, then I expect battery capacity to remain relatively stable, or perhaps even shrink.
Yes, with current technology, the costs (monetary, size, and weight) are not necessarily justifiable. My assumption is based on improved battery technology (i.e., the ideal).

Right now, Tesla already has the ability to make a 500-mile EV using their existing technology; however, they aren't offering it. Why not? Given what people would pay, would be a lower margin car, and more importantly, no one else is pushing Tesla enough for them to build it.

One of the key repercussions of the low energy density of EV fuel sources is GVWR. It's the reason you don't see any EVs as police cruisers, and it's a big concern for the Tesla semi in regards to its tare or unladen weight. At this point, the Bolt EV might have one of the best GVWR to curb weight ratios of any EV, with just under 900 lbs of total load capacity (only a couple hundred pounds off the standard Sonic).

So first, battery mass needs to come down about 50%, and then we can start adding capacity again.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
The setup we have here in the province of Quebec is like this: we get a direct cash subsidy paid by the government on the purchase of an EV. This is paid directly to the dealer, no waiting by the owner. There is also a cheque sent to the owner upon presentation of invoices from an electrician and an EVSE. In many cities, towns and villages level 2 EVSEs are being installed by our electricity producer (government owned Hydro-Quebec).

DCFC's are available on most highways (more are being installed) and there are quite a few in many tier 1 and 2 cities. There is a restaurant chain and a food distributor that have installed level 2 EVSE in all their locations. Rate: 1,00$ an hour. (0.76 cents US)

Maximum subsidy vehicle purchase: 8000$
Subsidy for level 2 EVSE: 600$

There is more to this, you can find the details here http://vehiculeselectriques.gouv.qc.ca/english/particuliers/rabais.asp

These incentives are there to help the province gain independence from petroleum products that we don't produce and promote hydro-electricity that we have here. (Nearly 100% of our electricity is hydro, no nuclear, no coal, no gaz, some wind generation) Also, to lower our carbon footprint. (Quebec is a partner with California in the carbon tax scheme)

Belmo, I have been very pleased with Le Circuit Electrique during drives from Maine to Quebec. Quebec's overall vision, legal framework, and incentive schemes mean I find DCFC chargers well spaced along major roads and destination chargers at hotels (Usually operated by FLO).


I think it is an example of how government, working for the common good, and the market, efficiently allocating resources, should work together.


Beginning in 2012, the provincial government, Hydro-Quebec, and industrial partners came together with the goals you mentioned: Strategically reduce need for oil, use abundant hydroelectric resources, reduce carbon footprint, foster local technology procurement, and take a leadership position in future sustainable mobility.



The result is that I, as a visiting EV driver, feel no range anxiety in the province. This was accomplished with about 140 DCFC stations(!) and a good destination charging network at an estimated public expense of C$10 million. Fantastic. (I have a goal of driving my Bolt EV to Manic-5 and charging at the Daniel Johnson dam--there is a good DCFC at Baie-Comeau...)


It also means that Quebec has registered 40% more BEVs and PEVs on a per capita basis as my home state of New Jersey, which still does not have a good DCFC charging system for many of the major interstate highways.


Looking through the plans offered by Circuit Electrique, I found this good example of an incentive that leaves allocating resources up to the market:



  • If you are a business, you assume all costs of installing an L2. However, Circuit Electrique will provide free administration and billing services and give you all the revenue from your charging station.
  • or...You can apply for a DCFC charger. If accepted, Circuit Electrique, will assume all installation costs. You agree to donate parking spots. You receive all customer 'carry-on' revenue and Circuit Electrique receives charging revenue, with a commitment to reinvest all profit in new DCFC locations. (Very much a TESLA supercharger model.)


Notice the government was not bureaucratically controlling everything. It just said, "here is the offer, you guys figure it out." If you are a city council or a restaurant and estimate a DCFC will bring you more business, you apply for a DCFC charger. If you own a hotel or apartment, you will very quickly come up with an optimum number of L2 chargers based on your expected demand. The incentives are designed to use the intelligence and creativity of the market to accomplish a goal.


My observations seem to say this has been extremely economical and efficient. Again, its a personal opinion, but with only 1,000 destination L2 and ~140 DCFC chargers a Bolt driver can feel very comfortable anywhere in the province of Quebec.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 2
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.

The main issue for a significant portion of the population is that they live in rental housing, much of which does not have EV charging as conveniently available as a homeowner can install in his/her own garage.
One of the key repercussions of the low energy density of EV fuel sources is GVWR. It's the reason you don't see any EVs as police cruisers,

Some police departments are using electric motorcycles.


https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2...olice-go-electric-with-new-patrol-motorcycle/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/10/30/police-electric-motorcycles/3311899/


See less See more
The main issue for a significant portion of the population is that they live in rental housing, much of which does not have EV charging as conveniently available as a homeowner can install in his/her own garage.
If it is a multi-unit apartment complex, then installing communal L2 or L3 charger shouldn't be complicated.
Yes, there are some police vehicles, but they don't necessarily have load requirements. They're mostly parking enforcement type police vehicles.

Police cruisers are a different story. They have load requirements that EVs simply can't meet at this point.
Crazy how expensive the Zero electric motorcycles are.



$11K for the naked street bike :(
Crazy how expensive the Zero electric motorcycles are.



$11K for the naked street bike :(
Kind of like how crazy expensive the Bolt is compared to an equivalent ICE car. Same phenomenon.
  • Like
Reactions: 2
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.
It is quite interesting to me how very different our charge model can be for the same vehicle. I have charged my Bolt exactly one time at home and that was the weekend that I brought it home. I use it as my daily commuter 25-30miles/day depending on kids after school running around. We have two other ICE/hybrid vehicles that we use for carpooling (up to 6 kids) a couple of days a week so I do not drive the Bolt everyday. Because the battery capacity will generally last me a week, I charge 1 day a week at work (free L2) and opportunity charge at other free public L2s at businesses that we frequent.

Here in CO, there is a fund that all EV owners pay into on their annual registration ($50 --> $30 goes to road tax normally paid on petroleum fuels and $20 goes to public charging infrastructure fund). Businesses (and I think gov't entities like schools) can apply and have 80% of the cost of the EVSE installation covered by a grant from the fund. So generally those businesses (but not government installs because they have to charge) do not charge a fee or only charge market electricity rates (~$.09/kWh) for use. I don't see this expanding to DCFC as the initial cost is significantly higher than L2 which limits the number of installations.

I also don't see using the Bolt for long trips simply due to size/cargo capacity. I previously had a VW Passat TDI that was built for road trips (600+mile range per tank), but we never took it because it would not hold all of the stuff we wanted to bring (camping gear, coolers, 3weeks of clothes, etc.) plus no DVD like our other vehicle has. I hate to think what a 300mile range Suburban EV would cost or weigh. Yikes.
See less See more
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?

I would say that in my case the larger battery capacity enables me to utilize public/private free L2 chargers exclusively, similar to Model S with free SC. At the 100mile range I would likely have to charge at home (which I never do now.) Even with free juice I don't drive more miles in total, I do however drive more miles in my EV rather than one of our ICE vehicles. Unless there is a reason (seating/cargo capacity) that we have to take the ICE vehicle, we always drive the free/clean powered car.

Additionally, the 100mile range puts places like the airport out of range. My brother and I flew on the same flight a few weeks ago. We carpooled, but he parked his (24kWh?) LEAF at my place and we took the Bolt which was only at 60% SOC, but still made the round trip + parked at DIA for a few days with margin.
I would say that in my case the larger battery capacity enables me to utilize public/private free L2 chargers exclusively, similar to Model S with free SC. At the 100mile range I would likely have to charge at home (which I never do now.) Even with free juice I don't drive more miles in total, I do however drive more miles in my EV rather than one of our ICE vehicles. Unless there is a reason (seating/cargo capacity) that we have to take the ICE vehicle, we always drive the free/clean powered car.

Additionally, the 100mile range puts places like the airport out of range. My brother and I flew on the same flight a few weeks ago. We carpooled, but he parked his (24kWh?) LEAF at my place and we took the Bolt which was only at 60% SOC, but still made the round trip + parked at DIA for a few days with margin.
It takes a lot of free charging to make up for the battery capacity that isn't necessary. It sounds like something in the 150 mile range would be adequate for your commute/airport trips. That would be a 25 kWh smaller battery than the Bolt's 60 kWh. Bolt's battery is estimated at $205/kWh, so that represents $5,125 for that extra 100 miles of range.

Perhaps with the cold CO winters, the battery is just the right size for you, or nearly so. Not trying to say you've wasted your money, only putting into perspective how quickly adding range adds cost. After all, we're essentially paying for the size of a "fuel tank". That's why getting a vehicle with the smallest acceptable range is important, not to mention resources such as cobalt are finite, and have skyrocketed in price due to demand.
It takes a lot of free charging to make up for the battery capacity that isn't necessary. It sounds like something in the 150 mile range would be adequate for your commute/airport trips. That would be a 25 kWh smaller battery than the Bolt's 60 kWh. Bolt's battery is estimated at $205/kWh, so that represents $5,125 for that extra 100 miles of range.
One of my regular drives with my family is very close to 150 miles round trip, with a fairly even mixture of 70 mph freeway and back country roads (55 mph). In typical weather, my Bolt EV consistently uses about 39 kWh of energy to complete the trip.

I think to be a 150 mile vehicle, the Bolt EV would need to have around 40 kWh usable capacity.

Perhaps with the cold CO winters, the battery is just the right size for you, or nearly so. Not trying to say you've wasted your money, only putting into perspective how quickly adding range adds cost. After all, we're essentially paying for the size of a "fuel tank". That's why getting a vehicle with the smallest acceptable range is important, not to mention resources such as cobalt are finite, and have skyrocketed in price due to demand.
My understanding is that the Bolt EV's "nickel rich" battery is 6:2:2 (Ni:Mn:Co). If so, simply transitioning to 8:1:1 chemistry, which is already the goal, would cut cobalt consumption in half (or maintain consumption while doubling production).

Either way, it's become abundantly clear that we cannot maintain our standard of living without paying significant costs one way or another. If we can find new and improve existing oil fields and operations in order to keep ICE vehicles on the road, we can find new cobalt deposits and improve current cobalt extraction operations in order to put more EVs on the road.
  • Like
Reactions: 3
Perhaps with the cold CO winters, the battery is just the right size for you, or nearly so. Not trying to say you've wasted your money, only putting into perspective how quickly adding range adds cost. After all, we're essentially paying for the size of a "fuel tank". That's why getting a vehicle with the smallest acceptable range is important, not to mention resources such as cobalt are finite, and have skyrocketed in price due to demand.
Multiple factors temperature/snow tires, elevation gain, 75mph freeway speed limits, etc will quickly make the Bolts useable range closer to that 150mile mark that you referenced for a good portion of the year (Hill Top Reserve mode). Part of the decision on picking the Bolt with it's longer range was to alleviate concerns that my better half had in going fully electric. Keep in mind that the Bolt replaced a vehicle with a legit 600+mile range. Going to something that was closer to 1/2 vs 1/6 is a big difference. Even given that the Nissans are now approaching the 40kWh range, I would still choose the Bolt.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
If it is a multi-unit apartment complex, then installing communal L2 or L3 charger shouldn't be complicated.
Actually both would be helpful. The L2's work for overnight charging, while the DCFC (L3) would facilitate flexible charging for variable timed situations. I always point out that cost effectiveness is crucial. So a 20-40 kW DCFC that uses an existing 100-200A 240V circuit would be a great fit at a multi-unit apartment.

ga2500ev
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Actually both would be helpful. The L2's work for overnight charging, while the DCFC (L3) would facilitate flexible charging for variable timed situations. I always point out that cost effectiveness is crucial. So a 20-40 kW DCFC that uses an existing 100-200A 240V circuit would be a great fit at a multi-unit apartment.

ga2500ev
I'm no lineman, but it would probably be best to dedicate a transformer from the high voltage line to specifically supply the ~500v AC to the DCFC, that way voltage doesn't have to be stepped up. No sense using a transformer to step down the voltage to 240v only to use another transformer to step it back up to 400+.
21 - 40 of 49 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