Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

1 - 20 of 117 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Was going to respond to this from another thread:
Now they are adding a second charger about 100 miles up the road, ...
And from that I found a research analysis (cited below) that seems to confirm my belief that commercial public charging is DOA.

raitchison was referring to the 4x 350kW/each CCS/Chademo DCFS station in Baker, CA EvGo said they broke ground on Dec 15, 2016? It is still under construction 14 Months later. Here is a picture of it taken...today:



My position is that too many EV owners seem to have an entitlement mentality with respect to Public charging facilities. The stakeholders of Public charging companies are in business to earn a profit (at some point theoretically), they are not charities or some free-to-register social media site. It's really expensive to stand up and maintain a L2 charging station, much less a L3 DCFC station. I can't think of a business with more downside risk other than a non-chain restaurant.

I have read that Level-3+ commercial public charging facilities costing between $40,000 and $100,000 per plug. And the one above is a Ultra-Fast station sporting 1.4MW. Only the $120K Porsche Mission-E could take full advantage of it (200 miles of charge in 15 min)...if Porsche isn't touting more EV industry vaporware. And of course, why would a Misson-E owner, sitting on over 300 mile range on a 270 mile trip need to stop if they didn't have the Alien Jerkey munchies? >:)

Tesla owners have their our Supercharging network. Not many owners of a sub 120-mile range EV would dare that drive. The only viable customer for such a station today (and for the foreseeable future) are Bolt owners. Assuming there are 3,000 Bolt owners in SoCal and 30 in Las Vegas, how many of them travel between L.A. and Vegas? It would have to be a heckuva lotta' them, every weekend, for the next 10 years just to break even!

OK, I am exaggerating a bit here. But the business model paradox for public charging seems to be a taboo subject. Far too many risk factors; Demand cost of electricity, Volatility of EV adoption rate, increase in range, consumer travel habits, etc. 85% of all driving is within 60-mile range. Only 0.02% or less of trips exceed 100 miles or so. It's a chicken-and-egg story. What comes first? The DCFS charging infrastructure, or the DCFS equipped cars? Then when a company risk investor capital, consumers complain it cost too much and bad mouths the company. If it cost less to rent an ICEv + gas for a out of range trip, than the cost of DCFC charging and the expense of wasting one hour of every 2 hours of travel time (how many lunches can one eat on a 6 hour drive?) - what is the better value?

Some real data can be found here (PDF): EvGo fleet analysis This project analyzed data from every charging session in 2016 from all 230 of EVgo’s DC fast charging stations in the state of California.

If one digs into it, it would seem that even under the best scenarios, the stand-alone Public EV charging business is an unsustainable enterprise doomed to failure. However, when subsidized, like a charging station at a Mall, Hotel, Big Box store, etc., it is at best a loss-leader. This stands out:

Number of public DCFC available today in California: 700 (more than 500 are Tesla owned and proprietary because I don't think EvGo has 700 DCFC stations)

Average utilization per DCFC: 8%
"It is clear from our analysis that demand charges, more than other rate components, are the primary reason why it is
economically challenging to operate public DCFC profitably in California."
~ the analysis PDF above

And if the commercial public charging business is a loser in California, where half of all domestic EV's live, how can such a business survive anyplace else?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
So you believe that the only EV owners “for the foreseeable future” that will utilize commercial DCFC charging are Bolt owners?

What is your definition of “foreseeable future”, six months?

Charging stations built today will stil be operational years from now, when most industry analysts predict EVs will be a significant portion of vehicles on the road. Those EVs are also likely to have a range at least equal to the 200+ mile range of the Bolt.

As you’ve outlined, the business model for commercial high speed charging is challenging. That’s true for almost any emerging technology, and as the EV charging infrastructure builds out there will undoubtedly be many business failures and false starts. But the bottom line is that vehicles traveling longer distances need refueling, and it’s logical to assume that there’s money to be made providing that service.

Now, there may be a battery storage breakthrough that gives EVs a range of 1,000 miles per charge, or revitalized fuel cell development, or even flux capacitors. It may turn out that commercial charging simply won’t be needed. The future is uncertain and business involves risk. My take is that there will be demand for on-road commercial charging, which can generate profits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,106 Posts
I get what you are saying but IMO it's a chicken and the egg thing. Until the charging infrastructure is there it's going to slow the adoption rate of EVs which is going to keep the utilization low.

I think one of the keys to Tesla's sales success is that they have invested early and heavily in their charging infrastructure to give Tesla owners viable options for taking their cars on longer trips (and I suspect the L.A. to Vegas route was one of their first projects). Now I don't doubt that this did and continues to cost them a whole lot of money but it definitely helps them sell cars and their utilization will only increase. Most Model S owners won't end up paying much if anything for their Supercharger use but the Model 3 owners will (once Tesla figures out how to produce them in significant quantities.) so hopefully for them their charging infrastructure will start paying for itself rather than just being a sales expense.

FWIW I don't believe that the EvGo model is what the EV charging infrastructure is going to look like in 5, certainly 10 years. I believe that it's the gas stations, truck stops and at least when talking about Interstate highways the large chain fast food restaurants (McDonald's and the like) that will operate their own chargers (even if they let someone else handle the billing). It makes little sense to lease a plot of land and pay to have a lot of power installed for something that won't be used all the time. And enough with putting Level 3 chargers in shopping malls I have 4 malls within 10 miles of my house that offer more than what the Victor Valley Mall does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
the ROI just isn't there. haveing built datacenters for a living dropping the power needed for a single DC station is ridiculously expensive. 480v AC is needed, and especially in the middle of nowhere that's a small house in pricing sometimes.

ways around it in some areas would be to drop a solar farm + feed it, but that needs solar energy and still the AC infrastructure backup would still be ridiculously expensive.

The only thing I know of that drives down cost is increase volume...hence..chicken...eggs. This is where governments are supposed to step in and help, but well, look at our dysfunction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
645 Posts
Oh BTW, those charging stations being installed now will be obsolete in five years anyway, just like the 25kW charging stations along Oregon's interstate highways. Not a good investment for anyone.

The best approach at this time would be to pay Tesla to use their supercharger network.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
Oh BTW, those charging stations being installed now will be obsolete in five years anyway, just like the 25kW charging stations along Oregon's interstate highways. Not a good investment for anyone.

The best approach at this time would be to pay Tesla to use their supercharger network.
I don’t think that Tesla is interested in sharing the supercharger network. It’s an important part of the brand identity, and I can imagine the very negative feedback if a Tesla owner pulled into a charging station only to find it busy charging Bolts and Leafs and I3s. Imagine having to wait for THOSE people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,376 Posts
I don’t think that Tesla is interested in sharing the supercharger network. It’s an important part of the brand identity, and I can imagine the very negative feedback if a Tesla owner pulled into a charging station only to find it busy charging Bolts and Leafs and I3s. Imagine having to wait for THOSE people.
Yup. At the moment, the Supercharger network is the only thing that is going according to schedule. He is not going to let the rest of us anywhere near it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Although it might be a nice, steady income stream for Tesla. They could license their supercharging system to the other EV makers plus earn money from us when we hooked up to their chargers. This would help them earn back a little of their enormous costs of building the system and perhaps encourage them to expand it more. It just makes sense for the industry to coalesce behind a single system, the sooner the better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
What is your definition of “foreseeable future”, six months?
Fair enough. Let's look at the EV horizon for 200-Mile range cars:

  • Hyundai Kona Electric SUV - 238 Mile Range - Base price: $40,000 (late 2018 delivery European only for now, late 2019 or 2020 for US)
  • Jaguar I-Pace - 310 mile range - price estimate: $90,000 (late 2018/early 2019 delivery)
  • Audi e-tron quattro/sportback - 310 Mile Range - price estimate: $100,000+ (no idea when this will become available, perhaps 2020)
  • Faraday Future FF91 - 378 Mile Range - price estimate: $250,000 (availability odds are slim and none)
  • Nissan Leaf Gen2 E-Plus - 200 Mile Range - price estimate: $40,000 (likely mid 2019 early 2020)
  • Tesla Model 3 - ...we all know this story
  • Porsch Mission-E - 310 mile range - price estimate: $100,000+ (likely late 2019, or 2020)
  • VW ID family - 249 mile range - price estimate: $35,000+ (early 2019 delivery European only for now)
  • Lucid Air - 250 Mile range - price target: $55,000 (unless their tech is acquired by a firm that can actually produce it, fuggedaboudit)
These are all I am aware of. The Leaf E-Plus is probably more than a year out. The Hyundai Kona is probably 2+ years out. TM3 has it's own charging stations. The VW's may not get here for another 4 years. All of the others are un-affordable by the masses and thus very, very limited in production. I suspect the Hyunda/Kia EV's will be European/Korean markets only, and the VW ID European only until 2022.

I think the Bolt and the The Leaf E-Plus (rumored DC charging of 100kW) will be the only reasonably priced 200+ Mile range cars on the domestic market for the next 4-5 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,553 Posts
Although it might be a nice, steady income stream for Tesla. They could license their supercharging system to the other EV makers plus earn money from us when we hooked up to their chargers. This would help them earn back a little of their enormous costs of building the system and perhaps encourage them to expand it more. It just makes sense for the industry to coalesce behind a single system, the sooner the better.
You guys need to get off the "Tesla won't allow other manufacturers supercharger access" bandwagon. This has been mentioned in many threads and the truth of the matter is that it's always been available for other manufacturers to get on board.
https://electrek.co/2017/06/19/tesla-supercharger-sharing-automakers/
and this from 2012 I think
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=tesla+supercharger+open+to+other+manufacturers&view=detail&mid=3ADB54C5BF002B74D08F3ADB54C5BF002B74D08F&FORM=VIRE

You need to focus your frustration with the likes of Mary Barra who has publicly stated GM is not going to contribute a nickel towards the fast charging. "From CEO Mary Barra: "We are not actively working on providing infrastructure [for the Bolt EV]."
infrastructure.https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1101774_gm-wont-fund-ccs-fast-charging-sites-for-2017-chevy-bolt-ev

This may also provide a glimmer of hope for those of you that are attempted to make your EV a long distance vehicle. Something the Bolt was not intended to be.
"Tesla has also joined the CCS charging standard association, which means that they plan to take steps to promote the system, which could, in turn, mean broader compatibility at their Superchargers than their current proprietary connector."

You need to stop making Tesla out to be the bad guy in this. Tesla has taken the risk and cost associated with providing the network to travel in an EV basically anywhere in the continental US and for that you slam them for not making it compatible with your Bolt. Unbelievable
GM has shown that they don't see EV's as a replacement for ICEV's and for good reason they would like that to always be the case. If it were up to them, the CAFE standards would be abolished so that they can continue to sell the uber profitable trucks and SUV's.
http://www.businessinsider.com/auto-industry-trump-cafe-standards-2017-2
The Bolt is the red headed stepchild in the GM family, (not that there's anything wrong with redheads or stepchildren) and the longer they can put off building EV's the better. Nobody is more grateful to Tesla's production woes than the big 3. But at some point, they're going to have to acknowledge the reality that EV's will eventually be the only game in town, either by public demand or government mandate. Let's hope Tesla gets their act together before then. We know the demand is there for the right product. Just the reservations alone for the Model 3 exceeds 2 years of ALL EV's sold currently. The Model Y will be even more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
I get what you are saying but IMO it's a chicken and the egg thing. Until the charging infrastructure is there it's going to slow the adoption rate of EVs which is going to keep the utilization low.

I think one of the keys to Tesla's sales success is that they have invested early and heavily in their charging infrastructure to give Tesla owners viable options for taking their cars on longer trips (and I suspect the L.A. to Vegas route was one of their first projects). Now I don't doubt that this did and continues to cost them a whole lot of money but it definitely helps them sell cars and their utilization will only increase. Most Model S owners won't end up paying much if anything for their Supercharger use but the Model 3 owners will (once Tesla figures out how to produce them in significant quantities.) so hopefully for them their charging infrastructure will start paying for itself rather than just being a sales expense.

FWIW I don't believe that the EvGo model is what the EV charging infrastructure is going to look like in 5, certainly 10 years. I believe that it's the gas stations, truck stops and at least when talking about Interstate highways the large chain fast food restaurants (McDonald's and the like) that will operate their own chargers (even if they let someone else handle the billing). It makes little sense to lease a plot of land and pay to have a lot of power installed for something that won't be used all the time. And enough with putting Level 3 chargers in shopping malls I have 4 malls within 10 miles of my house that offer more than what the Victor Valley Mall does.
I think you hit the nail squarely. GM need to get off its duff and start supporting a charging network. They could at least supply financing to third parties with guaranteed minimum usage. As much as I love the Bolt I could never recommend it to a one car family with any intention of taking trips in it. I took part in the survey GM did last week and expressed that opinion pretty clearly. To my surprise I got called back to do a second interview. Now they have started a thread about road trips in the Bolt. They apparently are starting to understand the issue. Let's hope they do something about it.

Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
Fair enough. Let's look at the EV horizon for 200-Mile range cars:

  • Hyundai Kona Electric SUV - 238 Mile Range - Base price: $40,000 (late 2018 delivery European only for now, late 2019 or 2020 for US)
  • Jaguar I-Pace - 310 mile range - price estimate: $90,000 (late 2018/early 2019 delivery)
  • Audi e-tron quattro/sportback - 310 Mile Range - price estimate: $100,000+ (no idea when this will become available, perhaps 2020)
  • Faraday Future FF91 - 378 Mile Range - price estimate: $250,000 (availability odds are slim and none)
  • Nissan Leaf Gen2 E-Plus - 200 Mile Range - price estimate: $40,000 (likely mid 2019 early 2020)
  • Tesla Model 3 - ...we all know this story
  • Porsch Mission-E - 310 mile range - price estimate: $100,000+ (likely late 2019, or 2020)
  • VW ID family - 249 mile range - price estimate: $35,000+ (early 2019 delivery European only for now)
  • Lucid Air - 250 Mile range - price target: $55,000 (unless their tech is acquired by a firm that can actually produce it, fuggedaboudit)
These are all I am aware of. The Leaf E-Plus is probably more than a year out. The Hyundai Kona is probably 2+ years out. TM3 has it's own charging stations. The VW's may not get here for another 4 years. All of the others are un-affordable by the masses and thus very, very limited in production. I suspect the Hyunda/Kia EV's will be European/Korean markets only, and the VW ID European only until 2022.

I think the Bolt and the The Leaf E-Plus (rumored DC charging of 100kW) will be the only reasonably priced 200+ Mile range cars on the domestic market for the next 4-5 years.
I guess, except for the Hyundai Kona and the Kia Niro. Hyundai-Kia could really disrupt the market as they’re very good at making affordable cars, and they’re in South Korea, which has a robust battery manufacturing capacity. I would bet we’ll see long range EV models under both nameplates by 2019-2020 the latest. That’s two years from now. There will be a lot more company in four or five years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
You guys need to get off the "Tesla won't allow other manufacturers supercharger access" bandwagon. This has been mentioned in many threads and the truth of the matter is that it's always been available for other manufacturers to get on board.
https://electrek.co/2017/06/19/tesla-supercharger-sharing-automakers/
and this from 2012 I think
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=tesla+supercharger+open+to+other+manufacturers&view=detail&mid=3ADB54C5BF002B74D08F3ADB54C5BF002B74D08F&FORM=VIRE

You need to focus your frustration with the likes of Mary Barra who has publicly stated GM is not going to contribute a nickel towards the fast charging. "From CEO Mary Barra: "We are not actively working on providing infrastructure [for the Bolt EV]."
infrastructure.https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1101774_gm-wont-fund-ccs-fast-charging-sites-for-2017-chevy-bolt-ev

This may also provide a glimmer of hope for those of you that are attempted to make your EV a long distance vehicle. Something the Bolt was not intended to be.
"Tesla has also joined the CCS charging standard association, which means that they plan to take steps to promote the system, which could, in turn, mean broader compatibility at their Superchargers than their current proprietary connector."

You need to stop making Tesla out to be the bad guy in this. Tesla has taken the risk and cost associated with providing the network to travel in an EV basically anywhere in the continental US and for that you slam them for not making it compatible with your Bolt. Unbelievable
GM has shown that they don't see EV's as a replacement for ICEV's and for good reason they would like that to always be the case. If it were up to them, the CAFE standards would be abolished so that they can continue to sell the uber profitable trucks and SUV's.
http://www.businessinsider.com/auto-industry-trump-cafe-standards-2017-2
The Bolt is the red headed stepchild in the GM family, (not that there's anything wrong with redheads or stepchildren) and the longer they can put off building EV's the better. Nobody is more grateful to Tesla's production woes than the big 3. But at some point, they're going to have to acknowledge the reality that EV's will eventually be the only game in town, either by public demand or government mandate. Let's hope Tesla gets their act together before then. We know the demand is there for the right product. Just the reservations alone for the Model 3 exceeds 2 years of ALL EV's sold currently. The Model Y will be even more.
Saying you’re willing to share your charging network and actually doing it are two different things. I would imagine that Tesla isn’t about to give away a network it spent a fortune to build, and I question how serious Tesla is about sharing. Why would Tesla help competitors at the expense of its own customers, that doesn’t make any business sense. Musk seems like a nice guy, but he’s nobody’s fool. Unless Wall Street cuts off the cash flow to Tesla I wouldn’t expect to see any agreements anytime soon.

I certainly don’t think that Tesla is the “bad guy”,whatever that means. Companies are in business to make money, not prop up competitors who are less committed to an EV future.

I do believe that Barra and GM are serious about EVs, but there’s still a big question mark around demand, especially outside of California and the west coast. However, GM’s refusal to support charging infrastructure is inexcusable, if they really believe that the future is electric.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,106 Posts
I think you hit the nail squarely. GM need to get off its duff and start supporting a charging network. They could at least supply financing to third parties with guaranteed minimum usage.
I really don't think that's realistic, I think the best we can hope for is for GM to guarantee any GM EV owner access the DC fast chargers that are already installed at EV certified dealers and make that a formal program similar to what already exists in Canada.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,766 Posts
GM need to get off its duff and start supporting a charging network.

And Boeing should support the building of airport runways?

And Del Monte should support the building of restaurants or supermarkets?

The building of the fast-charge EVgo station that was mentioned earlier in this thread was slowed due to unstable ground issues - significant additional work was needed after construction began (or so EVgo reported).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,553 Posts
Saying you’re willing to share your charging network and actually doing it are two different things. I would imagine that Tesla isn’t about to give away a network it spent a fortune to build, and I question how serious Tesla is about sharing. Why would Tesla help competitors at the expense of its own customers, that doesn’t make any business sense. Musk seems like a nice guy, but he’s nobody’s fool. Unless Wall Street cuts off the cash flow to Tesla I wouldn’t expect to see any agreements anytime soon.

I certainly don’t think that Tesla is the “bad guy”,whatever that means. Companies are in business to make money, not prop up competitors who are less committed to an EV future.

I do believe that Barra and GM are serious about EVs, but there’s still a big question mark around demand, especially outside of California and the west coast. However, GM’s refusal to support charging infrastructure is inexcusable, if they really believe that the future is electric.
Tesla is not going to give away the network. Why would you think that? Did you even read the links? Here's the key takeaway in case you missed it. "Musk said Tesla would still own and operate all of its Supercharger locations and would only ask of other manufacturers to contribute to maintenance and electricity costs based on the usage of their vehicles on the network, but it never happened. Here's another link explaining Tesla's attempt to open up the supercharger network
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-share-supercharger-design-131554048.html

As to the issue of overcrowding if all the i3's, Bolts and Leafs started using them, first of all, there aren't that many of those and second, if they are contributing the capital, the infrastructure will follow based on how many have signed up. Some of their American Superchargers have 20 stalls. And when they upgrade them to 400Kw, they will be in and out in 15 minutes, not much longer than a gas station.

It doesn't sound like you know much about the history of Musk and the whole Tesla business model. It starts with the Mission Statement. “to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable transport.”
To that end they have opened up their patents.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
I suggest you read up on this and maybe you will realize that Tesla is serious about advancing the adoption of EV's regardless of how much money he could make. He doesn't need the money. Why do you think he started SpaceX? It's not always about money. He's publicly stated Wall Street does not steer his ship. Every penny of profit they earn from their cars goes back into the infrastructure for the next model, the next supercharger, the next gigafactory, the next alien dreadnought, the next big idea. There's a bigger goal and it's obviously not about showing a net profit EOY.
Tesla did not set out to monopolize the EV market. It's just that the rest of the manufacturers are letting them.
And what question mark about demand? There's half a million pissed off Tesla reservation holders having a fart hemorrhage that would sell their own mother for a model 3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,553 Posts
"I think the Bolt and the The Leaf E-Plus (rumored DC charging of 100kW) will be the only reasonably priced 200+ Mile range cars on the domestic market for the next 4-5 years. "
So you believe there will never be a standard model 3? Seriously? Or are you just trying to be obtuse? You do realize they are delivering more model 3's currently that GM sells bolts don't you. They are admittedly not the SR battery and require the purchase of the PUP, but do you think they won't offer the SR battery and standard interior for the next 4-5 years?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Tesla business model. It starts with the Mission Statement. “to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable transport.”
To that end they have opened up their patents.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
I suggest you read up on this and maybe you will realize that Tesla is serious about advancing the adoption of EV's regardless of how much money he could make. He doesn't need the money.
Right you are. Without Tesla there would likely be no Bolt and all the others supposedly in the pipeline. Elon has the vision and the wherewithal to make it reality. It's not as easy as he predicts, but eventually it happens. My hat's off to him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
As the RE agent said: location, location, location. Where the EVSE are plentiful, profits are less. Where they are scarce, profit is there for the making. Where I live, 1 mile from I-64 which has no DCFC for hundreds of miles, is a prime location for a profitable Level 3. It would not be just for WV EV owners, but owners and future owners in the 5 surrounding states who want to travel through. Everyone would eat while Level 3 charging and sleep while Level 2 charging. L-2 can be added to room rate. We will pay $5 more for a $130 room. Charge for the L-3 electricity AND the food. The major cost is installation (including trenching) and the juice, not “the box”. Put in an upgradeable “box”. We, as EV owners, need to support the installer. Even those without an EV, but who support “greener, cleaner, smarter” should patronize the installers. We CAN make this work!
 
1 - 20 of 117 Posts
Top