Californians: Please sign the petition for DC Fast Charging

[Valdemar]

Are you sure that Chademo is the future? All I'm saying that until we start seeing 60kWh+ packs in mainstream EVs we can't seriously think that people will be widely using EVs for 200+ mile road trips. And even then 50kW will be too slow. 100kW is better, but futureproofing may turn out to be a very expensive mistake. Expanding city QC infrastructure on the other hand makes a lot of sense for the current and next generation of EVs.

 

[hill]

I'm often struck by the irony - how we pay big salaries (and benefits) to legislators. Then, we have to build petitions, because the legislators won't do what they're paid to do.
.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Are you sure that Chademo is the future? All I'm saying that until we start seeing 60kWh+ packs in mainstream EVs we can't seriously think that people will be widely using EVs for 200+ mile road trips. And even then 50kW will be too slow. 100kW is better, but futureproofing may turn out to be a very expensive mistake. Expanding city QC infrastructure on the other hand makes a lot of sense for the current and next generation of EVs.

CHAdeMO is designed (and now available) at 200 amps (up to 100kW). The current Nissan LEAF will only take 120 amps (47kW at 395 volts)

 

[tgreene]

Are you sure that Chademo is the future? All I'm saying that until we start seeing 60kWh+ packs in mainstream EVs we can't seriously think that people will be widely using EVs for 200+ mile road trips. And even then 50kW will be too slow. 100kW is better, but futureproofing may turn out to be a very expensive mistake. Expanding city QC infrastructure on the other hand makes a lot of sense for the current and next generation of EVs.

CHAdeMO is the present, and it will still be popular in 2020. The fact that it is a standard with a big installed base helps. There will be CHAdeMO adapters for future cars with nextgen charging, like there already exists for Teslas.

We do need DCFCs in cities and on long distance corridors. The CEC has already funded 113 DCFCs, and all but about 10 are in metropolitan areas. Nearly all of the NRG chargers arein metropolitan areas too; see slide 13 of http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014-ALT-01/documents/2015-02-12_workshop/presentations/Program_Status_Update.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Yes, we will need cars with 200+ mi range and 100 kw+charging before frequent long distance travel is convenient in CA. However, there is a significant population of people (like me) who drive 200+ miles infrequently. A network of DCFCs on long-distance corridors would enable those people to use EVs as their only cars now. It will take at least 2 years between the next CEC solicitation and the selected DCFCs becoming operational, so the time to fund more is now!

Popular pressure (i.e., the petition) could sway the CEC to allocate funding from other programs (like ethanol) to EV charging infrastructure.

 

[GRA]

I'm going to pass. With VW/BMW/Nissan now going to build them plus the major CA utilities all trying to get in on the act, I see no reason to throw more tax money at this.

Your tax money is being spent anyway by the CEC: the legislature has mandated that certain amounts of $ be spent every year.
Would you rather see your money go into natural gas or hydrogen fueling stations instead of DCFCs?

At the moment, hydrogen, as it's much less far along the development path. There's nothing new or technically difficult about a DCQC, and we've already had 4 years to get the bugs out. It's time for them to get away from the government-subsidized model, which has failed and been subject to scams. In two to four years I'll say the same about H2.

It is going to take a LOT of DCFCs to enable long-distance travel over numerous highways in CA: much more than what VW/BMW/Nissan are installing.

Actually, it wouldn't take all that many. A car with Tesla S60 range can provide reasonably convenient cover for at least 90% of the state with about 50 SC locations, as long as they are installed in multiples at each location. I see no justification to enable long-distance travel for cars with local-only range as is the case with currently affordable BEVs, as they're too time-inefficient. For next-metro-area over travel, QCs every 50 miles will be fine. eVgo already has L.A./S.D. and the Bay Area fairly well covered for that (albeit mostly single QCs per site) and is starting to fill in the San Joaquin Valley (along 99). Sacramento is as yet lightly covered, so some useful work can be done there. if the utilities want to get in on the fun I'm all for letting them, because eVgo and now Chargepoint's QC pricing is, IMO, unsustainable.

 

[tgreene]

At the moment, hydrogen, as it's much less far along the development path.

The state is already fulfilling your wishes to spend your tax dollars on H2 (hydrogen) fueling. The CEC has spent $40 M in the past 2 fiscal years, and another $20M planned for the next fiscal year starting in July. That is $60M total for the current fleet of about 200 H2 cars in the state (per the CEC at their Feb 12 meeting). Toyota has said that they may be able to deliver about 200 H2 cars to CA this calendar year because of greater than expected demand in Japan.

So lets see... $60M spent on fueling stations for fewer than 500 cars, or over $100,000 per car. Now THAT sounds like a sustainable business model! I love seeing my tax $$ go to that, especially since each H2 vehicle has the well to wheel GHG impact of a ~50 mpg car like the Toyota Prius.

For next-metro-area over travel, QCs every 50 miles will be fine

FYI the CEC is planning on spacing the corridor charging DCFCs every ~40 mi, critically sampling the ~80-85 mi range of today's cheapest BEVs.

 

[palmermd]

Every time I see this thread title I think of the SNL Californians.

https://screen.yahoo.com/californians-drama-off-405-000000032.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

At the moment, hydrogen, as it's much less far along the development path.

The state is already fulfilling your wishes to spend your tax dollars on H2 (hydrogen) fueling. The CEC has spent $40 M in the past 2 fiscal years, and another $20M planned for the next fiscal year starting in July. That is $60M total for the current fleet of about 200 H2 cars in the state (per the CEC at their Feb 12 meeting). Toyota has said that they may be able to deliver about 200 H2 cars to CA this calendar year because of greater than expected demand in Japan.

Yes, I'm well aware of how much the state has/is spending (see the H2 thread for that: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14744" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false, and I'm fine with it, for the next few years.

So lets see... $60M spent on fueling stations for fewer than 500 cars, or over $100,000 per car. Now THAT sounds like a sustainable business model! I love seeing my tax $$ go to that, especially since each H2 vehicle has the well to wheel GHG impact of a ~50 mpg car like the Toyota Prius.

I have no wish to re-hash all the arguments we've had on the H2 thread over the past 18 months or so, so will pass.

For next-metro-area over travel, QCs every 50 miles will be fine

FYI the CEC is planning on spacing the corridor charging DCFCs every ~40 mi, critically sampling the ~80-85 mi range of today's cheapest BEVs.

50, 40, the question for me isn't the spacing, it's whether or not the state should still be involved in subsidizing DCQC at this point. For me, the answer is no. Helping, along with the utilities, on workplace/apartment retrofits for L1/L2 strikes me as a better use of the money at this point. YMMV.

 

[tgreene]

Interest in long-distance EV travel in California is increasing but we need to keep up the pressure on the state to ensure action.

There has been discussion of California needing to do its part to complete the West Coast Electric Highway in the press recently (greencarreports.com), and we have followed that up here. We have also discussed the locations of planned CA DCFCs in this forum (thanks to Tony W, Paul Gipe, and others). Another encouraging sign is that the California Energy Commission (CEC) reached out to EV activists and the Electric Auto Society responded with recommendations (led by GH in Sacramento).

Please sign the petition to the CEC to increase its investment of existing funds (no new taxes!) in DCFCs to enable long-distance travel in California:
https://www.change.org/p/california-energy-commission-install-a-network-of-dc-fast-chargers-to-enable-long-distance-ev-travel-in-california-this-year" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are now 318 signatures and we need to hit at least 500. I'd like to wrap this up and deliver it to the CEC in about 2 weeks so that it can have some impact on the next EV infrastructure solicitation which they are now preparing. Please pass on the link to neighbors, friends, colleagues and anybody else who may be interested - whether they currently drive EVs or not.

 

[GRA]

Or, we could just let the auto companies do it: http://insideevs.com/northern-california-will-get-chademo-chargers-along-specific-inter-city-routes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nissan and Japan-based trading company, Kanematsu Corporation, announced that together with Japan’s largest public R&D management organization New Energy Industrial Technology and Development Organization (NEDO), will work on a new EV project in Northern California.

The project is focused on longer-distance driving, which means DC CHAdeMO fast chargers. An undisclosed number of chargers will be installed along inter-city freeways.

“The NEDO project will seek to encourage the use of electric vehicles for longer-distance, inter-city driving by installing and maintaining multiple rapid chargers along specific inter-city routes. Nissan and Kanematsu will collect, analyze, and research data on EV driving patterns in California, and create a suitable model to help promote more extensive use of electric vehicles in the state and beyond.

Project Overview
With the help of the California state government, Nissan and Kanematsu plan to place additional quick chargers at suitable locations along inter-city freeways in Northern California, and use project-specific information services to guide EV users to the most efficient quick chargers along the route. They will then assess whether the combined hardware/software model can successfully encourage users to drive longer distances in their EVs.

 

[Valdemar]

Assuming the state funds this, can we expect the chargers will be properly and timely serviced and repaired? I can think of one company that used taxpayer's money for implementing a public charging infrastructure that is now known as the most unreliable. And getting stranded on an interstate is not quite the same experience as in the city.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Assuming the state funds this, can we expect the chargers will be properly and timely serviced and repaired? I can think of one company that used taxpayer's money for implementing a public charging infrastructure that is now known as the most unreliable. And getting stranded on an interstate is not quite the same experience as in the city.

I think we are all infinitely aware of Blink.

Yes, some due diligence on behalf of the state needs to be employed, with metrics to be met, and regular checkups.