Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

41 - 60 of 81 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,786 Posts
10 years is a nice, conveniently round number...

Transportation is 28% of energy use. EVs aren't going to solve the CO2 problem even if authoritarian measures are deemed necessary.

Wealth and fossil fuel consumption are inextricably linked for the time being. The way to reduce consumption is for a population to be poorer or less numerous. Which one of those options would you like to run your political platform on?

Covid is an example of what it takes to significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption, and even then, it's reduced it by what, 20%?
We may disagree on the balance of personal freedom/responsibility, but you have described our predicament pretty well. I would only change one word...to poorer AND less numerous. Since you have mentioned you want to have five children, I guess that one is off the table for you. So are you planning to live in your car again?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
You've misunderstood the interpretation and legal definitions of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. I assume you are referring to Rich Rebuilds issues with being locked out of superchargers after he worked on the HV components on salvaged vehicles. It don't believe it's the parts he uses that are in violation of Tesla's warranty.

.

"Although Tesla does not require you to perform all maintenance, service or repairs at a Tesla Service Center or Tesla authorized repair facility, this Tesla Parts, Body and Paint Limited Warranty may be voided, or coverage may be excluded, due to lack of or improper maintenance, installation, service or repairs. Tesla Service Centers and Tesla authorized repair facilities have special training, expertise, tools and supplies with respect to Tesla Parts, Body and Paint repairs, and, in certain cases, may employ the only persons, or be the only facilities authorized or certified to work on Tesla Parts, Body and Paint. Tesla strongly recommends that you have all maintenance, service and repairs done at a Tesla Service Center or Tesla authorized repair facility in order to avoid voiding, or having coverage excluded under, this Tesla Parts, Body and Paint Limited Warranty "


"Third, the Act does not apply to warranties on services. Only warranties on goods are covered. However, if your warranty covers both the parts provided for a repair and the workmanship in making that repair, the Act does apply to you."

"In addition, it is permissible to disclaim warranty coverage for defects or damage caused by the use of parts or service you didn’t provide. Here is an example of a permissible provision in that circumstance:

Necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company. Damage caused to the AudioMundo Stereo System by you or any non-authorized third party, however, may void this warranty."


What supports the issue in Tesla's favor is the "Right to Repair Act", which wouldn't be a "thing" if what Tesla is doing to Rich and others like him was illegal.


Tesla spells out in their warranty what is and is not permissible and is entirely legal under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

This topic has been discussed elsewhere and it surprises me with the understanding this forum has of the potential danger of the HV system that some of you feel it's okay to have any non-qualified and trained repairs to such systems on salvaged vehicles that could result in catastrophic failures including loss of life and property, accessibility to the private property of Tesla.

Unless you're talking about some other case, please clarify if so.

All this being said however, I do think that Tesla needs to come up with a better solution to third parties, bringing back salvaged or damaged Tesla's maintaining full features. It's just not a priority yet with all they have going on.
Nothing to do with Rich Rebuilds, for example with Chevy Bolt if you reprogram you battery pack to better fit you personal need (no different than retune or a perfomance chip for ICE vehicle). Chevrolet will only cancel your warranty on the battery if they find that your modification has damaged the battery. If damage was found to because by your retune you would lose the battery warranty, but the other vehicle warranties would still be there. Tesla will void all the warranties on the car as a whole, locking you out completely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,239 Posts
With a 500 mile range EV, there would be literally no need to stop and charge at all for nearly all of the road trips I've taken in the last 10 years. Yet each and every one of those trips have had multiple stops along the way.

ga2500ev
Yes, and I think that is the point.

One of the biggest problems with recharging an EV away from home is that it is done so infrequently that it is actually difficult. For most people, there is no heuristic or past experiences of growing up watching parents and family members fill up gas tanks. Tesla's biggest advantage in long-distance travel isn't charging speeds or that their chargers have plug-and-charge capabilities; it's that the customer's account and payment is already set up and handled. Even if every public DC fast charger is >250 kW with plug-and-charge capabilities, unless those chargers are under a network where the customer already has a billing account set up, recharging on the road will be a hassle.

But that is an issue that will be sorted out with longer range. For the most part, the only people who will have to deal with it are those owners who frequently take long trips, which provides them a chance (like me) to become very familiar with the nuances of charging away from home. And it's at that point that EVs will win even against ICE cars with longer range and faster refueling because it's at that point that the compromises an ICE vehicle requires will become less tolerable than the compromises an EV requires. In particular, the requirement to fuel away from home and the constant maintenance that simply isn't required for EVs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,239 Posts
Wouldn't range (larger capacity) come with higher voltages, and higher charge rates? Regardless, that seems to be the trend technology is leaning towards like with the Ultium announcements. Or maybe I am expecting a cake and eat it too result?

If this is true, and if a typical driver tends to stop every 2 hours for 10-15 minutes to stretch, relieve the bladder, and grab a bite, then faster and ubiquitous charging makes these frequent quick stops trivial and productive. Basically, charging for 15 minutes would come close to replacing 2 hours of energy and one could essentially go forever at this pace without having to kill time waiting to recover kWh. Even if the 10-15 minute stops only recover 80-90% of what was used in the past 2 hours, there is a practical limit to a day, so an 8+ hour overnight stay with charging would reset the meter for the next day.

That is why I say, fast charging being available everywhere that gas is sold, and at rest stops would be the key. Range is not the critical need if charging speed and availability are the norm.

I know from your videos, your MO is to run fast and long and minimize stops, and it works for you obviously given the current state of things. But I typically travel with others, and 2 hours seems to be the longest I can go without stopping for myself, or the others in the car. If these stops could also recover enough miles to go 2 more hours, then the longer charge stops are never really necessary.
I think the big issue here is, what do you mean by "ubiquitous"? And how do we, as a society, justify the infrastructure costs to build hundreds of thousands of monoliths that will sit idle a vast majority of the time and provide no use or value when they are idle?

On the other hand, we can shift a vast majority of the burden onto individual owners who will take financial responsibility for requiring more range. Those of us willing to pay for larger battery EVs can then reap the additional benefits of longer service life, faster charging speeds (as you noted, a natural consequence of a larger battery), more capacity available to absorb renewable energy, longer ranges to compensate for winter weather, etc. For those who choose to buy shorter range EVs, they must accept the constraints and inconveniences that result from having less battery capacity available, and they must accept the infrastructure for what it is or help to pay for expanding it.

Even in the Tesla community, I'm hearing more and more complaints from SR/SR+ owners who regret their choice of getting a smaller battery EV. Even the 170 kW charging rate doesn't help when you're barely able to make it from Supercharger to Supercharger on a road trip, and you're forced into charging to 100% each time. I realize, part of your argument is working from the assumption that chargers will be everywhere, but even in the case of the best funded charging network in the world, Tesla is barely able to keep up with the needs of their shorter range EV owners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
Yes, and I think that is the point.

One of the biggest problems with recharging an EV away from home is that it is done so infrequently that it is actually difficult. For most people, there is no heuristic or past experiences of growing up watching parents and family members fill up gas tanks. Tesla's biggest advantage in long-distance travel isn't charging speeds or that their chargers have plug-and-charge capabilities; it's that the customer's account and payment is already set up and handled. Even if every public DC fast charger is >250 kW with plug-and-charge capabilities, unless those chargers are under a network where the customer already has a billing account set up, recharging on the road will be a hassle.

But that is an issue that will be sorted out with longer range. For the most part, the only people who will have to deal with it are those owners who frequently take long trips, which provides them a chance (like me) to become very familiar with the nuances of charging away from home. And it's at that point that EVs will win even against ICE cars with longer range and faster refueling because it's at that point that the compromises an ICE vehicle requires will become less tolerable than the compromises an EV requires. In particular, the requirement to fuel away from home and the constant maintenance that simply isn't required for EVs.
But there's a cost associated with that functionality. And it's a cost that has to be paid up front at the purchase of the car. If everyone could afford a Model S,X, or Y, then the problem would generally be solved. But the prices for that 300-400 miles of range in segments that people generally want to drive are so out there, that the need will never be filled.

Humans are adaptable. While folks will get annoyed with the process on road trips, if you show them the 10's of thousands of dollars of savings for that nuisance, they'll accept some of the annoyance of the process.

BTW EV charging really should not be any more difficult than using a gas pump. While I understand why charging providers are offering accounts and apps and the like, it really shouldn't be rocket science to pull up to a charging station, insert a card for payment, grab the handle, plug in, and start charging. The fact that it isn't that simple is an indictment on the charging providers. With enough reliable stations, the need for 500 mile range would be significantly reduced.

ga2500ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,239 Posts
But there's a cost associated with that functionality. And it's a cost that has to be paid up front at the purchase of the car. If everyone could afford a Model S,X, or Y, then the problem would generally be solved. But the prices for that 300-400 miles of range in segments that people generally want to drive are so out there, that the need will never be filled.

Humans are adaptable. While folks will get annoyed with the process on road trips, if you show them the 10's of thousands of dollars of savings for that nuisance, they'll accept some of the annoyance of the process.

BTW EV charging really should not be any more difficult than using a gas pump. While I understand why charging providers are offering accounts and apps and the like, it really shouldn't be rocket science to pull up to a charging station, insert a card for payment, grab the handle, plug in, and start charging. The fact that it isn't that simple is an indictment on the charging providers. With enough reliable stations, the need for 500 mile range would be significantly reduced.

ga2500ev
Yes, but while EVs are still such a small percentage of the market, we should be catering to those who are willing to pay a bit more. Also, keep in mind that battery prices are a moving target. While DC fast chargers still cost roughly they same as they did 10 years ago, batteries now cost a fraction of what they used to. Both GM and Tesla are targeting sub $100 per kWh price points for batteries, and others aren't far behind. That means that the battery for a 400 to 500 mile, reasonably sized EV will only cost about $12,000 out of the total vehicle price. Basically, 20% less than the Bolt EV's finished battery cost from 4 years ago for double the range.

And I agree that humans are adaptable, to a point, but personal vehicle purchases are not always a rational decision. Even something that is a minor inconvenience in the greater scheme of things can be perceived as a deal breaker. Especially when it's new.

I also agree that recharging a car shouldn't be difficult, but I know that I'm working from the bias position of someone who's charged hundreds (maybe thousands) of times using dozens of different charger types hosted by a number of different providers in several different EV platforms. For me, it's as simple as lifting a gas nozzle and filling up a tank. That hasn't been the common experience communicated to me from other EV owners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,602 Posts
We may disagree on the balance of personal freedom/responsibility, but you have described our predicament pretty well. I would only change one word...to poorer AND less numerous. Since you have mentioned you want to have five children, I guess that one is off the table for you. So are you planning to live in your car again?
Quite right. Typically population growth and wealth are inversely related such that a reduction in one means an increase in the other. Population growth is slowing, and the world is getting wealthier.

The most likely solution I can imagine is that VR or AR technologies will need to be more compelling than owning lots of physical things. Experiences can be had without vast consumption of resources, and it's reasonable to think compelling experiences can be had that are frugal on resources.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
ICE cars may have different ranges, but that ignores a crucial difference. It takes just a couple of minutes to refuel an ICE vehicle. So ICE drivers are much less sensitive to range variability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
Yes, but while EVs are still such a small percentage of the market, we should be catering to those who are willing to pay a bit more. Also, keep in mind that battery prices are a moving target. While DC fast chargers still cost roughly they same as they did 10 years ago, batteries now cost a fraction of what they used to. Both GM and Tesla are targeting sub $100 per kWh price points for batteries, and others aren't far behind. That means that the battery for a 400 to 500 mile, reasonably sized EV will only cost about $12,000 out of the total vehicle price. Basically, 20% less than the Bolt EV's finished battery cost from 4 years ago for double the range.
Those changes in battery prices can just as easily be applied to smaller batteries. Instead of 500 mile EVs, have 250 mile ones with $6000 batteries and make it $6000 cheaper. Or add the batteries and have larger more popular platforms to carry them.

The dealbreaker for a lot of people, me included, is the price. A 5 year loan on a $30k car is $500/month on a zero interest loan. Yet folks continue to talk about $30,$35, or $40K cars as if they are an ordinary purchase.

Take my electric car entry as an example. I drive a FIAT 500e. I accept all of its limitations of extremely low range and no DCFC precisely because the out the door price on a 3 year off lease vehicle was under $9000. But it's unlikely I'd buy one at MSRP, like the 2020 supposedly going to be, at 3 times the range and fast charging.

We need more EVs and they need to be cheaper. Smaller, cheaper batteries and a bit less range is the way to accomplish that.

ga2500ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,239 Posts
Those changes in battery prices can just as easily be applied to smaller batteries. Instead of 500 mile EVs, have 250 mile ones with $6000 batteries and make it $6000 cheaper. Or add the batteries and have larger more popular platforms to carry them.

The dealbreaker for a lot of people, me included, is the price. A 5 year loan on a $30k car is $500/month on a zero interest loan. Yet folks continue to talk about $30,$35, or $40K cars as if they are an ordinary purchase.

Take my electric car entry as an example. I drive a FIAT 500e. I accept all of its limitations of extremely low range and no DCFC precisely because the out the door price on a 3 year off lease vehicle was under $9000. But it's unlikely I'd buy one at MSRP, like the 2020 supposedly going to be, at 3 times the range and fast charging.

We need more EVs and they need to be cheaper. Smaller, cheaper batteries and a bit less range is the way to accomplish that.

ga2500ev
Yes, and that's a fair counterpoint. And it's also why I don't think that automakers should only offer longer range EVs. Again, I feel it's important to offer a longer range version to those who need the range and are willing to pay for it. For those who don't need the range and are unable or unwilling to pay for it, there should be offerings that are $5,000 to $10,000 cheaper. But that's where the old adage of "You get what you pay for." comes in. After all, the Bolt EV is a perfect example of that: You can have a long-range, fast-charging, average-priced EV -- pick two. That concept also extends to the public charging infrastructure.

In less than five years, there should be enough DC fast charging infrastructure in place for a 200-mile EV to drive anywhere in the continental United States using only DC fast charging; however, by buying a shorter range EV, you'll need to accept that you'll be more heavily reliant on those chargers to travel, and your experience (pricing, locations, reliability, speed, etc.) is likely to vary on any given trip. You might be forced to deal with unreliable or expensive chargers, and you might be forced to charge for much longer and to a much higher level just to make it to the next charger.

Again, we're now seeing this with the new, lower-cost Teslas. People forget that the reason Tesla owners have the Supercharger Network in the first place is because early Model S and X owners paid thousands extra to help fund it. The network was designed to support Tesla's 250+ mile EVs, and the owners who paid into it got what they paid for. Now, Tesla is offering a sub $40,000 Model 3 with a very small battery. Under ideal conditions, the coverage of the Supercharger Network is no problem; however, any of a number of factors outside of ideal conditions can make the gaps in the network difficult for a ~50 kWh battery vehicle to bridge. And that makes sense. The Supercharger Network wasn't built for those owners, and they didn't pay into it the same way as those who spent far more to fund the network.

And that's the main point I'm making. I'm all for offering shorter range EVs, but if those shorter range EV owners want to be able to make longer trips in a reasonable way, they need to help pay for the network. Basically, there's no free lunch. I'd love to see the exact math on this, but it seems to me that for every additional 100 miles of average EV range, the infrastructure required to support long-distance travel would be reduced by a factor of ten (i.e., an average EV fleet range of 200 miles would require 100 times more charging sites and chargers than an average EV fleet range of 400 miles). That would mean that shorter range EV owners who demand that a charging network be built to support their needs are shifting a huge financial burden onto others, and the likely outcomes are poorly executed, overpriced, and unsupported public charging options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
And that's the main point I'm making. I'm all for offering shorter range EVs, but if those shorter range EV owners want to be able to make longer trips in a reasonable way, they need to help pay for the network. Basically, there's no free lunch. I'd love to see the exact math on this, but it seems to me that for every additional 100 miles of average EV range, the infrastructure required to support long-distance travel would be reduced by a factor of ten (i.e., an average EV fleet range of 200 miles would require 100 times more charging sites and chargers than an average EV fleet range of 400 miles). That would mean that shorter range EV owners who demand that a charging network be built to support their needs are shifting a huge financial burden onto others, and the likely outcomes are poorly executed, overpriced, and unsupported public charging options.
Now this is an interesting point. Actually I'm all for paying premium prices for ultra fast charging precisely because it is likely to be a necessary, but minimally used convenience for the average driver. But the counterpoint to that is heavily traveled corridors should have enough traffic to support that expanding charging network.

Each charging network has its own genesis, so pushing the narritive that longer range drivers built those networks really only works for Tesla. We need to be grateful that DieselGate created the ability to break out of the chicken/egg conditions that exists for the public charging infrastructure because I severly doubt that the federal government would have made the investment otherwise. But folks do need to recognize that there isn't an underlaying subsidy behind network systems like EVGo (well anymore), ChargePoint, and EA. So that will result in much higher prices.

Even worse is that most folks do not understand electrical demand charges at all. They call fast charging highway robbery because the cost isn't within a few cents of what they pay at home. Demand charges are astronomical. And unless every other business, where the cost is hidden in the goods and services offered by those businesses, DCFC charging has nowhere to hide the cost. We're going to have to educate new EV folks in the mass public that the faster you charge, the more expensive it's going to be. That's why I continually push medium speed DCFC in non road trip charging situations. It offers flexibility of charging speed while reducing installation and operational costs to the point it's useful on a daily basis.

But the short of it is that the US has over 150,000 gas stations. Even with the EV community having to pay the cost, it's not unreasonable to think that eventually the DCFC charging network will need to approach that number to be functional for millions of EVs.

ga2500ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,602 Posts
... and I simply want a ~40 kWh EV for local driving with no intention of making longer trips with it. I'll pay nothing for the DCFC infrastructure because it has no value for me at the moment.

It's a shame Hyundai is selling their shorter range Ioniq for so close to the same price as the Bolt and long range Leaf. It should have been the bargain EV but sadly it's not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,239 Posts
Now this is an interesting point. Actually I'm all for paying premium prices for ultra fast charging precisely because it is likely to be a necessary, but minimally used convenience for the average driver. But the counterpoint to that is heavily traveled corridors should have enough traffic to support that expanding charging network.

Each charging network has its own genesis, so pushing the narritive that longer range drivers built those networks really only works for Tesla. We need to be grateful that DieselGate created the ability to break out of the chicken/egg conditions that exists for the public charging infrastructure because I severly doubt that the federal government would have made the investment otherwise. But folks do need to recognize that there isn't an underlaying subsidy behind network systems like EVGo (well anymore), ChargePoint, and EA. So that will result in much higher prices.

Even worse is that most folks do not understand electrical demand charges at all. They call fast charging highway robbery because the cost isn't within a few cents of what they pay at home. Demand charges are astronomical. And unless every other business, where the cost is hidden in the goods and services offered by those businesses, DCFC charging has nowhere to hide the cost. We're going to have to educate new EV folks in the mass public that the faster you charge, the more expensive it's going to be. That's why I continually push medium speed DCFC in non road trip charging situations. It offers flexibility of charging speed while reducing installation and operational costs to the point it's useful on a daily basis.

But the short of it is that the US has over 150,000 gas stations. Even with the EV community having to pay the cost, it's not unreasonable to think that eventually the DCFC charging network will need to approach that number to be functional for millions of EVs.

ga2500ev
I never claimed that longer range EVs paid for the other charging networks. My assertion is that longer range EVs will be less reliant on public fast charging, so their owners will be more likely be able to make do with whatever happens to be available. And, by purchasing additional battery capacity, those longer range EVs are offsetting the costs of additional infrastructure that would only be needed to support travel in shorter range EVs.

Basically, the question for for me breaks down to: Who is going to help pay for the required infrastructure and how are they going to pay? For my part, I'm willing to pay more for my EV so that even the currently installed (yes, heavily subsidized) public fast charging infrastructure would enable me to drive to 99% of the continental United States using only DC fast chargers (Level 2 AC destination chargers easily cover the difference). Essentially, by buying a 500-mile EV, I'm saying, "Buy/pay for additional DC fast charging infrastructure if you want to, but those additional options aren't necessary for me."

Where we disagree is on the 150,000+ gas station model for EV chargers in the United States. Even with 100% EV adoption and an average EV fleet range of 200 miles, that would be overkill. Maybe a tenth of that would do. And before someone chimes in with how inadequate 15,000+ DC fast charging locations with an average of six chargers per location (about the same as the average of six pumps per gas station) would be, we need to acknowledge how far we currently are from that. Tesla has less than 800 Supercharger sites in the United States. EVgo has about 850 sites. ChargePoint has about 750 sites. Electrify America is just short of 450 sites. And of those, only Tesla averages more than six chargers per site, though those numbers are a bit off because a number of their "chargers" are actually shared charger stalls.

So the major charging providers combine represent less than a fifth of what I think would be the requirement for 100% transition to EV ownership just at the site level, and because only Electrify America and Tesla approach the six charger per site average, we are maybe, at best, a tenth of the way there.

To be fair, though, my model is also assuming a continued expansion of home, workplace, and destination AC charging. Every multi-unit dwelling will need to be metered to each assigned parking space. Work places and public parking garages will need to be equipped with L2 chargers. And hotels and motels will need to significantly expand their destination charging that is available to guests.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
... and I simply want a ~40 kWh EV for local driving with no intention of making longer trips with it. I'll pay nothing for the DCFC infrastructure because it has no value for me at the moment.

It's a shame Hyundai is selling their shorter range Ioniq for so close to the same price as the Bolt and long range Leaf. It should have been the bargain EV but sadly it's not.
I still think that's shortsighted thinking. As I posted elsewhere recently to quote Mike Tyson "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

DCFC isn't strictly for road trips. DCFC is an access point for a flexible charging infrastructure that service a variety of needs. Personally I think it's criminal to have any EV on the road without it.

Let me tell you a story of mine from a few years ago. My youngest daughter and I started off on a trip to pick up my brother-in-law. Happened to be in a old Toyota Tercel. That day a tanker overturned on I-285 in Atlanta essentially cutting the city in half, with us on the wrong half. To get back home we ended up taking a 70 mile loop up and around the wreck because every artery anywhere near the blocked section was completely packed.

Now imagine this exact same scenario with an EV that had enough juice to make the inital trip, or even enough to cover 30-40 miles extra, all of a sudden getting thrust into this situation. It wasn't a road trip. It was local travel. But because of a completely unexpected event, many more miles than originally needed are on the table without enough juice to cover them. Without DCFC, one is forced to stop and recharge for 60,90, or 120 minutes just to get enough charge to complete the trip. The flexibility of getting a faster charge is completely lost. With DCFC, it would be possible to get more than enough charge to compensate for that unexpected event in 15-20 minutes. DCFC is in fact the range extension tool that can mitigate when an EV needs more miles than its daily range whether or not the travel is local or on a road trip.

Now I admit that in that situation the cost to get that charge will be way more than at home or on a public L2 charger. But that's the tradeoff of the convenience and flexibility to get a decent charge when needed as opposed to always being stuck with slow L2 charging.

We should demand that all EVs have DCFC standard. It's up to the individual driver to decide if or when they want to use it. But it's a crime when it's simply unavailable. Same for DCFC charging stations. We need more, even it they are expensive to use.

ga2500ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
I never claimed that longer range EVs paid for the other charging networks. My assertion is that longer range EVs will be less reliant on public fast charging, so their owners will be more likely be able to make do with whatever happens to be available. And, by purchasing additional battery capacity, those longer range EVs are offsetting the costs of additional infrastructure that would only be needed to support travel in shorter range EVs.
But if the charging infrastructure is balanced for only long range EVs, then by definition the market will be skewed to long range EVs, right? This creates two problems: insufficient charging infrastructure and higher priced EVs.

The better approach is to define the appropriate price ranges for the EVs, then build sufficient charging infrastructure around that fleet. Even long range EVs will benefit as there will be stations available when they are needed.
Basically, the question for for me breaks down to: Who is going to help pay for the required infrastructure and how are they going to pay? For my part, I'm willing to pay more for my EV so that even the currently installed (yes, heavily subsidized) public fast charging infrastructure would enable me to drive to 99% of the continental United States using only DC fast chargers (Level 2 AC destination chargers easily cover the difference). Essentially, by buying a 500-mile EV, I'm saying, "Buy/pay for additional DC fast charging infrastructure if you want to, but those additional options aren't necessary for me."
But again, is that purchase model going to be at the expense of the charging infrastructure required for those who do not want to invest in 500 mile EVs?

I feel that the charging infrastructure simply needs to charge whatever is necessary for it to be profitable in the location it is placed. A rarely used, out of the way charging station should be expensive to use. That's the cost of the convenience of having it there.
Where we disagree is on the 150,000+ gas station model for EV chargers in the United States. Even with 100% EV adoption and an average EV fleet range of 200 miles, that would be overkill. Maybe a tenth of that would do. And before someone chimes in with how inadequate 15,000+ DC fast charging locations with an average of six chargers per location (about the same as the average of six pumps per gas station) would be, we need to acknowledge how far we currently are from that. Tesla has less than 800 Supercharger sites in the United States. EVgo has about 850 sites. ChargePoint has about 750 sites. Electrify America is just short of 450 sites. And of those, only Tesla averages more than six chargers per site, though those numbers are a bit off because a number of their "chargers" are actually shared charger stalls.

So the major charging providers combine represent less than a fifth of what I think would be the requirement for 100% transition to EV ownership just at the site level, and because only Electrify America and Tesla approach the six charger per site average, we are maybe, at best, a tenth of the way there.
I don't believe this takes into account the surge usage charging stations will get around holiday times. There's going to need to be thousands of extra charging stations to support the eventual extra millions of EVs that will be traveling all at the same time.

Now to be fair, I believe those extra stations will end up in a different collection of places. Lots of restaurants, coffee shops, gyms, and the like will end up with a couple of stations in their parking lots. They may not get a lot of usage during the year, but become valuable capacity at holiday times.

To be fair, though, my model is also assuming a continued expansion of home, workplace, and destination AC charging. Every multi-unit dwelling will need to be metered to each assigned parking space. Work places and public parking garages will need to be equipped with L2 chargers. And hotels and motels will need to significantly expand their destination charging that is available to guests.
The L2 approach for public charging isn't going to work. I know I sound like a broken record on this, but it's getting to the point where banning the idea of public L2 is appropriate.

To repeat, I guess for me for about the 100th time, it's impossible to know the requirements of someone pulling up to a public charging station. It's impossible to know how much time they have, or how much charge they need. Enforcing limitations, and L2 is a limitation, instantly decreases the possible use cases that station can service. It get further complicated by the allocation problem as usage of an L2 station is essentially dedicated once someone starts using it. So as you point out, virtually the entire lot would need to be electrified to service all the potential customers.

Medium speed DCFC is better on all accounts. It charges faster. It isn't exhobitantly more expensive than L2. It can service multiple vehicles. It can deliver decent charges in much shorter timeframes.
It should be the backbone of any shared public charging infrastructure. It leverages the longer range EV that everyone seems to be requiring. Someone with 300 miles of range doesn't need to charge every night. If that 300 miles of range can be recovered in a two or three hours, and then that driver can drive locally for a few days, then there's no need charge every night. Or if someone needs 50 miles of range and has 20 minutes, medium speed DCFC can service that need. L2 cannot.

Medium speed DCFC will be part of that much larger EV charging infrastructure. It will facilitate flexible charging options deployed across the landscape.

ga2500ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,890 Posts
Every multi-unit dwelling will need to be metered to each assigned parking space.
Well, not if the industry just implement "plug and charge"...
 

·
Registered
2018 Bolt EV Premier Nightfall Gray
Joined
·
77 Posts
Even worse is that most folks do not understand electrical demand charges at all. They call fast charging highway robbery because the cost isn't within a few cents of what they pay at home. Demand charges are astronomical.
Amen, so much so that a few EV Charging providers are moving towards DCFC that sources power from batteries fed by lower voltage grid and\or solar.

Travel often occurs in large peaks and valleys, around weekends and holidays, and is seasonal. Even though much of the travel and thus charging occurs in non-peak times during the day, surges in demand during the off-peak periods trigger demand charges.

From a McKinsey study two years ago: How battery storage can help charge the electric-vehicle market

Demand charges can be as little as $2 per kilowatt all the way to $90 per kilowatt; paradoxically, they tend to be higher in states where BEVs are more popular, such as California, Massachusetts, and New York. In a high-charge state, with no cars charging at the same time, the monthly demand charge could be $3,000 to $4,500. For the BEV owner, that could translate into $30 to $50 per session, plus the cost of the actual energy. Customers just will not pay that. Clearly, if there were more customers, the cost per session would fall. But because current costs are so high, investors have been slow to build stations, and because there are not enough charging stations, consumers have been slow to buy BEVs.

There is a way to resolve this conundrum: stationary battery storage. On-site batteries can charge and discharge using direct current (DC) and connect to the grid through a large inverter. They can then charge from the grid at times when costs are lower, store the power, and release it when demand is higher (a practice known as peak shaving). When a car arrives, the battery can deliver electricity at 150 kilowatts without drawing power from the grid. If two vehicles arrive, one can get power from the battery and the other from the grid. In either case, the economics improve because the cost of both the electricity itself and the demand charges are greatly reduced.

In addition, the costs of batteries are decreasing, from $1,000 per kWh in 2010 to $230 per kWh in 2016, according to McKinsey research. So are the costs of the rest of the system, such as the inverter, container, software and controls, site design, construction, and connection to the grid.

Here is how it could work. A station owner installs a battery system capable of charging and discharging at a power of 150 kilowatts and builds in 300 kWh of battery cells to hold the energy. When no vehicles are present, the battery system charges up to ensure that energy is available and does not trigger a higher demand charge. When a car arrives, the stationary battery delivers the needed juice without calling on the grid. When two vehicles come in, the battery could provide power to one and the grid could provide power to the other.

A battery with a 300-kWh capacity can manage the peak demand through several two-vehicle charges and recharge in between, thus keeping peak demand below 150 kilowatts. A system configured this way could reduce demand charges to a minimum; that would be $3,000 a month that would not need to be passed on to consumers, which would substantially cut costs. Tesla has already said it is going in this direction, and others may “follow suit.”


By using a relative trickle (240V) and solar to feed the batteries in off-peak periods and between charging sessions, and by serving demand primarily from storage, these solutions are apparently more cost effective than "traditional" grid fed DCFC. I would guess using this strategy for each 150kW plug, demand charges could be nearly completely avoided.

I recall VW is partnering with someone in Germany to do just this, and I think there is a CA startup promoting this approach as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,239 Posts
But if the charging infrastructure is balanced for only long range EVs, then by definition the market will be skewed to long range EVs, right? This creates two problems: insufficient charging infrastructure and higher priced EVs.
Not necessarily. If you're right, and a majority of EVs sold are the cheaper, shorter-range models, businesses will have incentive to install more chargers, and the infrastructure will grow organically.

The better approach is to define the appropriate price ranges for the EVs, then build sufficient charging infrastructure around that fleet. Even long range EVs will benefit as there will be stations available when they are needed.

But again, is that purchase model going to be at the expense of the charging infrastructure required for those who do not want to invest in 500 mile EVs?
I don't think low-cost and long-range are mutually exclusive. Again, battery prices are a moving target. While this next generation of EVs will be built and priced around $100 per kWh batteries, the trend is that battery costs might eventually reach $50 or less per kWh.

So if you set your price target at $25,000 (the median new car purchase price), that might be a 200 mile EV by 2021 standards; however, it could be a 300 to 400 mile EV by 2025 standards. It could eventually be a 500+ mile EV by 2030 standards.

But that starts a slippery slope. In 2025 (per the above example), are you then going to ask for a $20,000 EV option with 200 miles of range? Or maybe a $12,000 EV with 150 miles of range? It's possible. And maybe those should also be options.

I feel that the charging infrastructure simply needs to charge whatever is necessary for it to be profitable in the location it is placed. A rarely used, out of the way charging station should be expensive to use. That's the cost of the convenience of having it there.
I agree, as long as you aren't only counting on the profitability of the chargers alone. Even charging double the electricity rates, it would take a DC fast charging station over 10 years to break even with the installation costs, not to mention upkeep and demand charges (if no grid-tie battery is used). The better model is to have the host business subsidize the installation and electricity, knowing that the chargers are tailored to that business's needs (i.e., the charging speed and time aligns with the typical customer use case for that venue). Businesses with >10% margins, such as restaurants, could easily justify the addition expense as a means of increasing customer traffic.

I don't believe this takes into account the surge usage charging stations will get around holiday times. There's going to need to be thousands of extra charging stations to support the eventual extra millions of EVs that will be traveling all at the same time.

Now to be fair, I believe those extra stations will end up in a different collection of places. Lots of restaurants, coffee shops, gyms, and the like will end up with a couple of stations in their parking lots. They may not get a lot of usage during the year, but become valuable capacity at holiday times.
Personally, I think the holiday backups are overblown. The reason we see problems with the Tesla Supercharger network during the holidays is because Tesla's coverage on certain routes is lacking, they refuse to support or encourage their owners to participate in the public charging infrastructure, and they build charging sites with significant disparities in perceived quality (e.g., Kettleman City versus every other Supercharger on I-5).

Simply increasing the dispersal of charging sites would have alleviated most of Tesla's holiday backlog issues. Having more than one charging site (Fresno Supercharger) on a 300-mile stretch of Highway 99 would also go a long way.

But above all, having a larger portion of their fleet capable of making the trip without stopping at a Supercharger would provide the most relief. As you noted early on, most people would be able to do all of their driving on 500 miles of range, including typical holiday travel to see family and friends.

The L2 approach for public charging isn't going to work. I know I sound like a broken record on this, but it's getting to the point where banning the idea of public L2 is appropriate.

To repeat, I guess for me for about the 100th time, it's impossible to know the requirements of someone pulling up to a public charging station. It's impossible to know how much time they have, or how much charge they need. Enforcing limitations, and L2 is a limitation, instantly decreases the possible use cases that station can service. It get further complicated by the allocation problem as usage of an L2 station is essentially dedicated once someone starts using it. So as you point out, virtually the entire lot would need to be electrified to service all the potential customers.

Medium speed DCFC is better on all accounts. It charges faster. It isn't exhobitantly more expensive than L2. It can service multiple vehicles. It can deliver decent charges in much shorter timeframes.
It should be the backbone of any shared public charging infrastructure. It leverages the longer range EV that everyone seems to be requiring. Someone with 300 miles of range doesn't need to charge every night. If that 300 miles of range can be recovered in a two or three hours, and then that driver can drive locally for a few days, then there's no need charge every night. Or if someone needs 50 miles of range and has 20 minutes, medium speed DCFC can service that need. L2 cannot.

Medium speed DCFC will be part of that much larger EV charging infrastructure. It will facilitate flexible charging options deployed across the landscape.

ga2500ev
This is where we are in 100% disagreement. There is nothing, and I mean nothing more convenient on an EV road trip than having a L2 AC charger at your destination where you will be spending the night. It's like having a 100 lb weight lifted off your back. Suddenly, you can relax in your room, do a quick run around town, go grab something to eat, etc. It's like having the same freedom you have at home with a charger in your garage. The convenience is immeasurable, especially when that cost is baked into the price of your room.

Likewise, as someone who spent three and a half years of my Bolt EV ownership without a place to plug in at home, L2 workplace charging made EV ownership possible. Requiring multi-unit dwellings to provide access to power in assigned parking stalls would likewise increase the potential for EV ownership. If a majority of the chargers installed in the next five years are not L2 AC, I will be thoroughly disappointed.

And as for cost, it's not even close. Yes, there are low-power DC fast chargers that can run off of split-phase 240 V AC; however, they are only marginally more effective than L2 AC (with power output up to 20 kW), and those low-power DC units cost five to ten times more just for the unit. Further, that price typically only includes one head, which is not universally compatible. It's the cost of a second L2 AC unit just to install a second cord and head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,239 Posts
Well, not if the industry just implement "plug and charge"...
I'm not sure what plug-and-charge capability has to do with it. When I say "metered plugs," I'm referring to giving renters the option to plug in their own charger to their own metered parking spot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,890 Posts
I'm not sure what plug-and-charge capability has to do with it. When I say "metered plugs," I'm referring to giving renters the option to plug in their own charger to their own metered parking spot.
You mean just a remote outlet? Yes, looks like some condo dwellers have that set up at their reserved parking spot with approval from management.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewsCoulomb
41 - 60 of 81 Posts
Top