2 out of 2 quick-chargers down, 75-mile tow home.

[Msquared]

Chiming in loud and clear on this subject!

The main provider of charging around here is Blink, and when they aren't being ICE'd (Here's looking at you, Walmart :evil: ) they seem to be down. I haven't broken down yet *knocks on extremely hard wood.*

BUT. My hubby wanted to go get some expensive gamer headphones at a Best Buy that wasn't the one near my house; apparently they were out of stock, and only this one other Best Buy had them. And my hubby NEVER wants to drive his Altima; my Leaf is the errand-runner. But, I had just gotten home from work and was low on juice. Just to spite him, I took my car anyway. It was hot, and my range was depleting faster than anticipated, in spite of moderate driving. Luckily, hope seemed to be in sight, as there was a charger near the Best Buy. But, when we got there, all hopes were dashed, as it was out of service! I was thankfully able to crawl to another QC, one side of which was up, with absolutely no range information left.

But, all over the area, Blink chargers have been kaput for weeks on end. I will admit I get a bit lazy in reporting it, because it's so common lately. Plus, I get sick of idiots blocking, so I've decreased my charging station use.

I will be completely open in saying that, while I love my Leaf's driving dynamics, green factor, and comfort, I am sick of being confined to the Portland area because I can't trust myself to go out of town with it. I'm seriously considering a hybrid or diesel for my next car, even though it makes me sad to think that would happen.

 

[mbender]

Thanks for reinforcing my message, Msquared. I think we need to keep raising our voices about this issue, as I am beginning to suspect that it (and the [other] problems with the No-charge-to-charge program) are more common and numerous than is "realized". No pandemic stays quiet for long!

 

[Msquared]

Another thing, mbender: With the exponential increase in popularity of the Leaf, the DCQCs that *are* operable are overrun. Example: went to a popular one at the Clackamas Town Center Mall, where I pulled up and both sides were in use. It is sometimes this way, as it is at a busy mall, but seems worse lately. Also, the same mall has two other sites with two and three L2 chargers respectively. I came out of the mall once after parking at the set with three chargers, and had neighbors plugging in on both sides of me. Another time recently, I was at my local Fred Meyer, and at that time, both of their two chargers were kaput. I left my car in the EV spot without plugging in, and when I came out later, I had neighboring Leafs to both sides of me, none of us able to charge.

Who knows how many other EVs there were who also wanted to charge, but couldn't because of the spots being full?

I have no problem with the Leaf's growing popularity, but I feel that Blink and other charging station providers need to maintain their stations better and also increase the infrastructure to handle the volume of cars. Don't turn me into one of those people who buys an EV with a gas back-up!

 

[Slow1]

Interesting thread and problem. I feel for the OP's situation as I could see it happening to me as well.

I took a trip to the airport this week - the distance is right on the line for me to go R/T without charging so I have a preference to charge there. Checking online before I left it looks like the garage I had planned to park in has 4 plugs, 2 in use, 1 "unknown" and one available... too much risk for me so I went to the other garage that has 4 banks (each corner) available. Was able to charge, but had to use one from a different terminal as all spots were taken in the closer one. However I did get to charge for the hour or so I was picking up my passenger.

The thing here that bothers me is that I view these free chargers as a nice benefit (have to pay regular parking rates) but certainly don't expect that others to provide them for me. IF they were not there then I may drive the ICE instead or plan otherwise. However, IF one cannot accurately determine the state then that is an issue.

So - if OP had checked ahead and the sites were reported as operational that is a problem with that reporting system and I think it is valid to raise it with the info providers. IF OP didn't check ahead I think that is poor planning - EV charging is simply not reliable enough to go un-planned and this will likely remain this way for a while - which brings me to the last point:

I agree that until public EVSEs are profitable these issues will linger. Basics of our economy here - free markets etc. I would be willing to pay a slight premium to have reliable/available DCQC stations where I want them. I'd be willing to pay up to a comparable to gas rate (i.e. if I get 50% increase in charge, I'd be willing to pay $3.50-4 for the charge as I'd rather 'burn' electricity than gas even at same $/mile cost). Perhaps there will soon be enough like minded folks out there to support such a business model. Until then, they are novelty items and I'll likely be limited quite a bit in my ability to get around outside of home charging range. I accept that as an early adopter. I know that many may disagree - some feel entitled to free power just for their "good for environment" stance and/or that other people should pay for this (i.e. government money). I tend to think that if more are willing to pay for charging we'll get a better network out there - better availability, reliability, etc. As long as the users are only willing to pay a minimum amount (or not at all) then we'll have a minimum network of chargers and the operators will not have any incentive to maintain them. Which way the market will blow will be interesting to see...

 

[DaveEV]

I agree that until public EVSEs are profitable these issues will linger. Basics of our economy here - free markets etc. I would be willing to pay a slight premium to have reliable/available DCQC stations where I want them. I'd be willing to pay up to a comparable to gas rate (i.e. if I get 50% increase in charge, I'd be willing to pay $3.50-4 for the charge as I'd rather 'burn' electricity than gas even at same $/mile cost).

Heck, I'm willing to pay significantly more than a slight premium.

The most I've willingly paid? Over $1 for 1 kWh. A bit of an extreme case, but for QC, I am quite happy to pay up to around $0.50 / kWh for occasional use (about 10 kWh for $5 - aka a typical QC on a Blink QC or a regular QC at $0.15 / minute. This comes out to around $0.12 / mile. Or about the same as a car that gets 32 mph on $4/gal gas. Hmm, maybe I should increase that threshold, after all, I used to drive a car about $0.15 / mile - so perhaps $0.60 / kWh.

For L2, I also don't disagree with paying that much (with a 16A OBC, about $1.50/hr) - if I have the time and if the billing is rounded to no more than 15 minute intervals.

That said, I don't use public charging all that often. I fully understand that someone who relies on public charging more, should also get discounts based on volume, especially when you get to the point where more people are completely reliant on public charging as they may not have charging at home or work.

 

[Slow1]

I think that what a lot of folks seem to forget is that there is a cost with installing/maintaining the chargers. I have seen a lot of folks who get upset at paying more $/kwh than they pay at home...

I'm in the "rare to use public chargers" category as well. But that is likely a cyclic argument too - I don't use them because there aren't any reliable DCQC stations where I need to drive. About the only long drives I have made in the Leaf is to the airport - those I use (L2) and it is nice.

My wife drives to a church that is about 42miles one way - right now she can do it in the Leaf but give battery a few months and I bet she won't be able to which will be sad. IF there was a charger there then the leaf would be a good choice but I just don't see that happening. She simply won't stop to charge en-route (certainly not at L2 speeds) so this is where having a DCQC MIGHT work, but really a bit more range is all she really needs.

I see long term viability of 'daily use' charging patterns needing to have chargers where one normally parks. Will be a while before that level of coverage exists.

 

[johnrhansen]

I think AVs subscription based model is the one that makes the most business sense. I hate it, but It addresses the fact that most of the costs of operating a charging network, such as maintenance and capital recovery are fixed expenses, the only variable is electricity, and the cost of that is trivial in comparison.

 

[peter]

Frankly, on a long trip where I don't want to mess around, I will usually target the pay QC chargers rather than the free ones since they are:
1). Used much less and much more likely to be available
2). Used much less and much less likely to be busted/abused.

Of course, "no charge to charge" could throw a wrench into that, but fortunately (for me) that program isn't working very well...

Much as I hate eVgo and their outrageous ~$10 fee to QC, their stations tend to be working & available.

How much does your time/anxiety cost?

And my kids recently learned about global warming and won't let me Just Drive the Pruis (& the Pruis is 14 years old w/ 145K mi)...

 

[alanlarson]

Heck, I'm willing to pay significantly more than a slight premium.

The most I've willingly paid? Over $1 for 1 kWh. A bit of an extreme case, but for QC, I am quite happy to pay up to around $0.50 / kWh for occasional use (about 10 kWh for $5 - aka a typical QC on a Blink QC or a regular QC at $0.15 / minute. This comes out to around $0.12 / mile. Or about the same as a car that gets 32 mph on $4/gal gas. Hmm, maybe I should increase that threshold, after all, I used to drive a car about $0.15 / mile - so perhaps $0.60 / kWh.

It makes no sense to charge that much for the power. The enlightened user will simply move back to the internal combustion vehicle if it costs substantially less. Mine costs 8.6 cents/mile for energy.

That said, I don't use public charging all that often. I fully understand that someone who relies on public charging more, should also get discounts based on volume, especially when you get to the point where more people are completely reliant on public charging as they may not have charging at home or work.

Why should someone who depends on public charging get a lower rate? It cannot be because they have contributed to the fixed cost of infrastructure.

If you are in California, home users get to pay a higher rate if they use more electric power, so why not the folks who don't use their home power?

But, 50 cents per kWh at a quick charger doesn't make sense. If you have trips that need that, get a diesel. You save on operating costs and time. It takes under 10 minutes to put up to 700 miles range in, so you don't need to spend any time charging on most trips. At those rates, the chargers sit empty almost all of the time, forcing the fixed cost onto fewer delivered kWh.

 

[johnrhansen]

It's like the story when I drove to spokane. At the Ritzville stop all there is to stop at is a motel rv park. No level 3, no level 2, not even a 14-50 rv plug. Just 2 tt30s I had to combine with my combiner box. He charged me 10 dollars. I hated it but I paid it. Why? Because that's all I had to pay the whole way. So what it amounts to in one sleazeball making big money off of the backs of everyone else. It will work if just one person overcharges, but if everyone did, I'd just have driven my ice car. Oh and before you all start calling me a freeloader, all the free spaces were published spots provided free. No way to pay if I wanted to and they all worked.

 

[DaveEV]

I think AVs subscription based model is the one that makes the most business sense. I hate it, but It addresses the fact that most of the costs of operating a charging network, such as maintenance and capital recovery are fixed expenses, the only variable is electricity, and the cost of that is trivial in comparison.

Actually, I think a subscription model is the worst model because of the way costs are distributed across users and how the typical subscription does nothing to maximize utilization of infrastructure. Companies love subscription models because inevitably they end up with users who pay the subscription, but never use it. Just look at AOL - they have a ton of people paying for it still even though they don't use it.

It makes no sense to charge that much for the power. The enlightened user will simply move back to the internal combustion vehicle if it costs substantially less. Mine costs 8.6 cents/mile for energy.

It makes plenty of sense to pay $0.40 / kWh or more.

Why should someone who depends on public charging get a lower rate? It cannot be because they have contributed to the fixed cost of infrastructure.

For the same reason why buying anything in larger quantities gets you a lower rate. They want to encourage people to use their products so they can make more money.

If you are in California, home users get to pay a higher rate if they use more electric power, so why not the folks who don't use their home power?

Huh? The tiered billing rate is fundamentally broken. Really TOU is the way to go.

But, 50 cents per kWh at a quick charger doesn't make sense. If you have trips that need that, get a diesel. You save on operating costs and time. It takes under 10 minutes to put up to 700 miles range in, so you don't need to spend any time charging on most trips.

So, because I might take one trip a month that requires a QC or other public charging, at rates up to 50c / kWh, I should trade my LEAF at $0.04 / mile which is driven 1000 miles a month in for a diesel at $0.09 / mile because the LEAF costs me $0.15 / mile for 50 miles a month? How does that save me on operating costs again? Because by my math tells me that an QC once or twice a month isn't going to get me anywhere close to $0.09 / mile. In fact, it barely moves the average. You'd have to be charging at $0.50 / kWh quite regularly to get to $0.09 / mile.

At those rates, the chargers sit empty almost all of the time, forcing the fixed cost onto fewer delivered kWh.

Actually, I think you'll find that QCs charging those rates today are doing quite well in terms of staying busy.

The biggest problem with these stations is not the cost.

The biggest problem is that they are not reliable enough (back on topic!). You need to have backup plans for charging, and that simply should not be necessary if you want to get the masses.

Once we're able to charge as reliably as one is able to pump gas in all my life the only time I can remember looking for a gas station by not actually getting gas was at Costco when the line was too long.

But the number of times I wanted to charge but couldn't - either because the station was out of order, or ICEd, or busy in just the last 3 years - enough that I don't head out on a trip that needs charging without first finding at least 1 backup charger that appears reliable and preferably 2 or 3.

 

[Slow1]

It makes no sense to charge that much for the power. The enlightened user will simply move back to the internal combustion vehicle if it costs substantially less. Mine costs 8.6 cents/mile for energy.

That rather was my point. The cost is not just for the power; rather it is fixed costs and maintenance you are paying.

IF we assume installation of the charger costs $30K (I"ve heard this number associated with public chargers somewhere) and it gets used say once a day on average, then the operator would need to net over $16/use to break even in 5 years. Toss some maintenance in there and it is worse. Divide this by the average uses of that charger per day you really think any given site is used and you get the idea. (2/day becomes about $8, 10/day about $1.6). I hate to know what the actual average use of a station is around here - some may only get used a couple times a week if that (so to break even in 5 years they would have to make quite a profit on each use...)

You want convenient, functioning stations? Somebody has to cover the cost, why not the drivers who use them?

 

[KJD]

How many times have you gone to a QC station and found this error message ?

The problem is the ABB QC stations around here are down more than they are up. It appears to me that companies like ABB need to build better machines. The 2nd thing is they need to fix the dang things when they break.

 

[Slow1]

I'm not in your area - what does it cost to use these ABB chargers?

 

[Deleted member 770]

I suspect that over time we're going to see the "gas station" model apply to public EVSEs as well, at least once we get a majority of them to be level 3 chargers (or better). At that point, they'll be too expensive to leave unguarded (stolen CHAdeMO cables for the copper gets expensive!), so a smart operator will site many of them in the same location, with one person on-site to provide customer service, stand guard and ensure that they stay functional (and are repaired when they break).

The big question is whether this can all be done profitably and keep costs low enough to encourage their use. Right now most people have the alternative to charge at home if they feel the public EVSE cost is too extreme (unless they're on a long road trip, of course). That's not the case with fossil fuels...

Much as I dislike the gas station model, I think it's the only one that will work in the long term. Other thoughts? Is there a better way?

 

[KJD]

I'm not in your area - what does it cost to use these ABB chargers?

The cost is 20 cents per kwh at the state street location, so more than charging at home but still less than buying gasoline for sure.

The ones on 500 south are free for now, but they have been offline since the middle of June. The city plans to also charge 20 cents per kwh if they ever get them to work long enough to add the billing system to the machines.

 

[Slow1]

Much as I dislike the gas station model, I think it's the only one that will work in the long term. Other thoughts? Is there a better way?

My thought is that the majority of charging will be done at home or workplaces. The only "need" for additional charging would be for long distances which then can be serviced by very high speed (DCQC) chargers strategically placed to allow coverage. Hmm... strangely this seems to be what Tesla is building out eh?

My reasoning is that for daily travel, any stopping is inconvenient and frankly most folks probably don't even want to be bothered with plugging in that often. As range isn't infinite long trips would require stops to re-fuel, these then need to be relatively fast - certainly not any longer than the stop would normally be for other things (i.e. highway rest ares with bathrooms and semi-quick food supplies).

To make all this work, range has to increase to more like 150-200 miles for "daily driving only" and in the 300+ mile range for long distance drivers (reasonable to travel 75mph for 4-5 hours between stops when pushing distance so that would be 300-375 miles).

Clearly the "distance driver" could service as a daily driver, but likely there could be a market for daily driver only range. Given the stats, one could have 150-200 mile range limit and satisfy 95%+ of drivers even with our natural desire for a buffer for the daily driver role (I don't know exact numbers, but I find it hard to imagine more than a small percentage of folks travel that far daily!)

So this layout would likely obsolete the 'randomly placed' chargers I've seen around here. No need for the one at the local restaurants, only larger banks of them on the highway rest stops (placed where they would get higher utilization in general and in existing rest areas). Easy to scale up these 'rest area' stations as needs grow too. Oh - and a cost per use/kwh would make the most sense in my opinion - enough to make it profitable for owners to desire to build out more.

 

[Slow1]

I'm not in your area - what does it cost to use these ABB chargers?

The cost is 20 cents per kwh at the state street location, so more than charging at home but still less than buying gasoline for sure.

The ones on 500 south are free for now, but they have been offline since the middle of June. The city plans to also charge 20 cents per kwh if they ever get them to work long enough to add the billing system to the machines.

Sounds like somebody has subsidized these quite a bit - that is barely over the cost of electricity I"m sure. I would not invest in that company expecting my money back, that's for sure!

See my prior post on how I envision the future - as long as folks are local and CAN charge at home (I.e. within their range) I don't see anyone being able to build out local use charging stations and make a profit. I don't think that there are enough folks willing to pay that premium unless they must in order to make the trip.

Folks who have to drive farther than the range of a BEV are not likely to be willing to do so daily. Sure, there are a few folks willing to do it for "green" reasons or whatnot, but really the majority of Americans at least aren't going to give up their time.

I could see a demand for "special case" stations - i.e. airports or other places a bit more remote than 'daily driving' but still not on the "road trip" category, but that's about it. Work sites may provide power as a benefit but I even see that as a limited trend simply due to the relative cost.

Once range/cost of BEVs hits the daily driving distance with comfortable margin for most Americans I can see the industry taking off - I do NOT see any level of local charging station roll-out making this happen.

 

[KJD]

Sounds like somebody has subsidized these quite a bit - that is barely over the cost of electricity I"m sure. I would not invest in that company expecting my money back, that's for sure!

Nissan donated the chargers to the state of Utah and the state gave the chargers to Salt Lake City. The city then paid for the installation on 500 south. Nissan did the right thing if they want to sell more EV's this is how you do it. SLC wants to see more EV's on the road to try and reduce air pollution in the city, also a good thing to do.

The problem is that ABB has not been good about fixing the hardware under the 1 year warranty that every machine is supposed to have. I would say try and avoid ABB equipment till they get the bugs worked out of these units.

 

[Slow1]

Sounds like somebody has subsidized these quite a bit - that is barely over the cost of electricity I"m sure. I would not invest in that company expecting my money back, that's for sure!

Nissan donated the chargers to the state of Utah and the state gave the chargers to Salt Lake City. The city then paid for the installation on 500 south. Nissan did the right thing if they want to sell more EV's this is how you do it. SLC wants to see more EV's on the road to try and reduce air pollution in the city, also a good thing to do.

The problem is that ABB has not been good about fixing the hardware under the 1 year warranty that every machine is supposed to have. I would say try and avoid ABB equipment till they get the bugs worked out of these units.

Oh joy - so the "owner" of these devices is either the State of Utah and/or the city of Salt Lake City. I can easily imagine how getting either "owner" in this case to push for the warranty would be very difficult. Not enough voters are likely to make an issue of this to get elected officials to push it eh? I can see how Nissan (who donated them) would say "it is out of our hands" and in fact legally it may well be beyond them to push for the warranty service.

After the 1 year warranty I wonder who is expected to pick up the tab on maintenance... Sorry for sounding jaded, but I really don't see any government entity stepping up to make it a priority.

About the best thing I can imagine that could happen in this case may be to get some media outlet to do a 'investigation' into it and embarrass whoever is responsible for them. Given that the cost was not taxpayer (or was perhaps part of it - install?) it may not sell well for the media either.