Pace of build-out of US DCQC network, some frustration

[Slow1]

1) Profitable for each individual station? Not a chance. We are attempting to promote EV travel, and while most people won't drive from Mexico to Canada, they might want to drive from Crescent City to Ukiah. Or San Diego to Yuma. Or Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Of Medford, Oregon, to Redding.

2) Profitable as a network? Maybe, in ten years, if there is sufficient electrcity cost mitigation (battery storage / solar). Demand fees alone can kill it. We also need a million EVs. We get to a million EVs by, in part, giving future EV owners the peace of mind that they aren't going to be stuck in one spot.

Fair points - but the "we are attempting to promote.." statement. Who is willing to invest the $'s to promote this? You acknowledge that it may be 10 years before it is profitable so who is going to pay for it? IF you are suggesting tax dollars then it could be done more quickly - but you have to convince more of the public that it is the best way to spend their money and I predict increased resistance as the costs go up.

The Catch-22 you suggest is certainly there - and likely is the best argument for investment of public funds. IF you can convince the public that it is in their best interest to support this solution.

3) Long distances - you don't have to travel long distances, as discussed above.

Well - "Long distances" is somewhat of a vague term. I'd say that "long distance" in terms of an EV is anything that requires a re-charge in order to complete the trip. As the range of EV's increases, the definition of "long distance" will increase. So, when we get to your suggested "million EVs" on the road what percentage of those will actually need to recharge away from their base station on a regular basis? I submit that as range increases the demand for 'away from base' charging will decrease dramatically. I further suggest that the BEV market is moving quickly (relatively speaking) toward a 200-300 mile functional range. I expect this will likely end up being the optimal price/range breakpoint based on my understanding of the requirements for the vast majority (90+%) of all drivers, and likely will suffice for an even higher percentage of EV drivers.

Consider that gas stations have an advantage here - there is local demand just about everywhere. Thus the stations that service the longer distance travelers can achieve profitability meeting that local demand. Electric charging stations will have to manage only on those who have to charge. As long as folks can charge at home, I submit that the local demand for electric charging will in fact decrease from where it is now due to continued BEV range increases. IF one can charge more conveniently and at a lower cost at home each night, why go to a charging station? This is the quandary that hurts the build-out of charging networks.

 

[Slow1]

... there is sufficient demand that consumers would be willing and able to cover the cost. My own estimate of the cost to build out and support such a network is very high - especially one that meets the rigors of Tony's outline.

The cost will be supported with tax money and auto manufacturer contributions. I suspect that Nissan will continue to donate / subsidize the build out. BMW and VW have entered the arena, too.

I applaud your confidence. At least around my area I'm seeing less political support for increased spending on anything that appears to benefit a small (and generally more wealthy) portion of our population. Private (corporate) investment surely will have to continue, but even the BMW/VW entry appears to be of somewhat limited commitment - i.e. not exactly saying "We're going to deliver a network to reliably service the EV community of the future."

California should be LEADING, not following Oregon and Washington in this endeavor.

And I have to admit I'm very happy that the good folks in CA and other states have invested their money and political will to push for increased EV adoption and better efficiency in general. Cleaner air for all of us - standards for wood stove improvements as well. I don't live in that area and have not followed these decisions and how they are financed (i.e. who is paying and how).

Tax dollars already subsidize EVERY electric vehicle... and gasoline ones, too.

Very well true - but does that make it right, or even likely that MORE tax dollars will be invested? Eventually someone notices and the public (or some competing special interest) asks the questions about why, then politicians do their little dances and whatever happens happens.

Car manufacturers indeed may well have the financial resources and 'clout' to be able to makes such a thing happen. IF they were to work together (at least choose and stick to a standard interface) it could speed up deployment/adoption significantly.

They aren't going to work together. They are competitors, and further, EVs are competitors to their profits with cheaper to produce oil burning cars. Hence, the CARB-ZEV program.

That is rather my point so I'm glad you agree. When individual companies compete for building infrastructure they tend towards protecting their investments; thus the economy of scale is harder to achieve. IF we end up with 2 or 3 different networks (each from different company) then the total cost goes up making it just that much more expensive and difficult to implement well.

Perhaps this discussion is moving toward the idea that "tax dollars are going to support this anyway" and "we need a single well designed network" which then leads to "the Federal (or state) government should just go into the business of building and supporting the EV charging infrastructure." Make it a public resource just like the highway system....

 

[TonyWilliams]

I'm intimately familiar with all your arguements. It goes like this:

1) Just charge at home, and if you need to go farther, Just-Drive-The-Prius(TM). No infrastructure required.

2) Longer range cars "eliminate" the need for infrastructure. However, apparently, Tesla didn't get the memo with the longest range cars and most dependable, widespread, quickest and logical recharge infrastructure, and growing fast.

3) If I had to pay for charging and it cost one penny more per mile for ANY segment, Just-Drive-The-Prius(TM)

4) The person who promotes these views is generally is a Prius (or other gasoline car owner), usually with multiple cars, a homeowner with readily available access to overnight charging, has a "commute" type job, has a median to above median income, and lives in a large urban area.


It seems that apartment living, unemployed (including students), rural, and below median income really shouldn't have access to EVs.

 

[TonyWilliams]

That is rather my point so I'm glad you agree. When individual companies compete for building infrastructure they tend towards protecting their investments; thus the economy of scale is harder to achieve. IF we end up with 2 or 3 different networks (each from different company) then the total cost goes up making it just that much more expensive and difficult to implement well.

Perhaps this discussion is moving toward the idea that "tax dollars are going to support this anyway" and "we need a single well designed network" which then leads to "the Federal (or state) government should just go into the business of building and supporting the EV charging infrastructure." Make it a public resource just like the highway system....

I'm not suggesting a "one-size-fits-all" government charging infrastructure. I'm suggesting the government must lead, as they do now with CARB-ZEV, EPA, crash testing, air bag mandates, etc.

Today, leading means funding and building a BASIC, yet comprehensive, EV charging infrastructure. When there are a million or more EVs in California, and with the electricity expenses mitigated, private industry will flourish providing infrastructure.

 

[Slow1]

I'm not suggesting a "one-size-fits-all" government charging infrastructure. I'm suggesting the government must lead, as they do now with CARB-ZEV, EPA, crash testing, air bag mandates, etc.

Keeping in line with those examples - perhaps the solution would be to have the government endorse/impose the standards necessary to ensure all vehicles can share a common infrastructure. I.e. a regulation that all EV's must have a port with xyz design that supports abc protocol as a minimum requirement? Get this interface pushed as a requirement to register the EV perhaps. Then at least all vehicles will share a common port and any infrastructure built to that standard should have 'staying' power? Take it a step farther and mandate that all public charging stations must support this standard as well and have the DOT verify compliance.

 

[Slow1]

I'm intimately familiar with all your arguements. It goes like this:

I'm uncertain if this was directed at me, but I certainly disagree with the arguments you have posted...

1) Just charge at home, and if you need to go farther, Just-Drive-The-Prius(TM). No infrastructure required.

I do see a future for high speed charging stations placed along major travel routes. I envision these as being very high speed and perhaps some sort of battery swap option.

2) Longer range cars "eliminate" the need for infrastructure. However, apparently, Tesla didn't get the memo with the longest range cars and most dependable, widespread, quickest and logical recharge infrastructure, and growing fast.

I don't believe longer range eliminates the need for infrastructure; rather (much as Tesla apparently understands) the infrastructure is there for long-range driving, not daily local fill-ups. I do, however, believe longer range will eliminate the need for LOCAL infrastructure in most if not all areas. I hesitate to say "all" as clearly there will always be exceptions.

3) If I had to pay for charging and it cost one penny more per mile for ANY segment, Just-Drive-The-Prius(TM)

No, I'm sure that there is a place to pay a premium. However, IF there exists a better alternative (meets needs/desires, lower cost, more convenient or all of the above) the majority of consumers will gravitate toward that solution. I do not see someone with home charging available that fully meets their needs choosing to spend their time (and perhaps pay a premium) charging elsewhere. The days of making a stop during the day to refuel a vehicle on a routine basis may well be going away. This is, IMO, one of the practical advantages to driving a BEV.

4) The person who promotes these views is generally is a Prius (or other gasoline car owner), usually with multiple cars, a homeowner with readily available access to overnight charging, has a "commute" type job, has a median to above median income, and lives in a large urban area.

Hmm.. I meet most of those criteria. Never desired to own a Prius, but do still own an ICE van (can't fit whole family in our Leaf and clearly not practical for longer trips). I'm not sure that the implied bias of these factors is material to the discussions though.

It seems that apartment living, unemployed (including students), rural, and below median income really shouldn't have access to EVs.

Well, certainly many/most of the people in those groups owning an EV today is not optional from financial or other reasons. Then again, there are a lot of other things that they cannot access. If you are suggesting that somehow access to EVs should be a fundamental right, I strongly disagree.

I'm quite certain that as the EV technology evolves and improves the costs will go down. Think about cell phones - I can recall when 'mobile' phones were mounted in cars and cost $'s per minute to use. Now most, if not all, of the groups you have cited have easy access to cell phones. I'm not suggesting that EVs will ever evolve quite that much, but I can easily envision EVs competing effectively against ICE vehicles in many markets. And I don't see a need for 'local use' DCQCs in order to reach this point.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I'm not suggesting a "one-size-fits-all" government charging infrastructure. I'm suggesting the government must lead, as they do now with CARB-ZEV, EPA, crash testing, air bag mandates, etc.

Keeping in line with those examples - perhaps the solution would be to have the government endorse/impose the standards necessary to ensure all vehicles can share a common infrastructure. I.e. a regulation that all EV's must have a port with xyz design that supports abc protocol as a minimum requirement? Get this interface pushed as a requirement to register the EV perhaps. Then at least all vehicles will share a common port and any infrastructure built to that standard should have 'staying' power? Take it a step farther and mandate that all public charging stations must support this standard as well and have the DOT verify compliance.

Government imposing a standard would be a huge failure.

Companies like Tesla couldn't thrive, and "Frankenplug" would be the government mandate.

 

[walterbays]

I do see a future for high speed charging stations placed along major travel routes. I envision these as being very high speed and perhaps some sort of battery swap option.

The 20-30 minutes it takes with CHAdeMO is about the same time it takes to visit the restroom and have a cup of coffee, or to walk around a bit and stretch your legs, or to check your email. Faster charging of a single car wouldn't necessarily be better. Dependably fast charging of all cars is a necessity. The problems come if you're third or fourth car in line for that 20-30 minute charge, or a fully charged car is parked with the owner absent, or a gas car is parked blocking the charger, or the charger is broken, or the card reader is broken. We don't need a single charger 5 times faster; we need 5 chargers of the same speed.

I do, however, believe longer range will eliminate the need for LOCAL infrastructure in most if not all areas. I hesitate to say "all" as clearly there will always be exceptions.

A tiny exception today could be the majority of drivers eventually if the infrastructure is built - people who live in apartments, condos, and townhomes.

I do not see someone with home charging available that fully meets their needs choosing to spend their time (and perhaps pay a premium) charging elsewhere.

I have home charging that meets 90%+ of my needs at a cost equivalent to $1.50/gal gasoline, and a home coffee maker that meets 90%+ of my needs at a cost of $0.20/cup. Yet sometimes I'll stop and quick charge at a cost equivalent to $2.00-4.00/gal gasoline, and while I wait go next door and pay Starbucks $2.00 for a cup of coffee. Those exceptions are the cost of an EV meeting that last 10% of needs. The alternative to avoid the exceptions would be to drive a PHEV though the overall annual cost might be higher, or to drive an ICE though the overall annual cost would surely be higher.

3) If I had to pay for charging and it cost one penny more per mile for ANY segment, Just-Drive-The-Prius(TM)

I'm quite certain that as the EV technology evolves and improves the costs will go down. Think about cell phones - I can recall when 'mobile' phones were mounted in cars and cost $'s per minute to use. Now most, if not all, of the groups you have cited have easy access to cell phones.

I think mobile phones' subscription model is one answer. Now you pay one monthly fee and talk whenever wherever you like. Imagine if every time you moved from the coverage of one cell tower to another you had to re-authenticate your cell phone with a different RFID card, here paying $0.10/minute, there paying $2.50/minute, and over there paying $10.00 for up to 100 minutes for the month. Cell phones wouldn't be ubiquitous.

I'm content (not happy) paying eVgo $15/month subscription for occasional use, even though my total monthly cost would be lower if I instead paid their very high a la carte prices. Reason one is I support a company that seems serious about operating a charging network and a business model that has a chance to succeed. Reason two is I can consider $15/month a cost of keeping a car with degraded battery, and then any time I need to charge my marginal cost is equivalent to $2/gallon gasoline: never something to choose in lieu of charging at home, but not high enough that I hesitate to do it any time it's more convenient.

But if there were four viable charging networks here I'd want access to them all but I wouldn't want to pay each of them a subscription fee, any more than I'd want to pay subscription fees to T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon. We need inter-operable and much more reliable billing systems with reasonable and transparent roaming agreements so that whichever "home region" charging network you subscribe to you know you can charge at any station.

 

[TonyWilliams]

[longer range EVs]... will eliminate the need for LOCAL infrastructure in most if not all areas. I hesitate to say "all" as clearly there will always be exceptions.

What happens when I drive to your town (that has no infrastructure because everybody in your town has "long range" EVs)?

How about people without overnight at home charging. That is the demographic that needs local FAST charging AND longer range cars.

 

[Slow1]

[longer range EVs]... will eliminate the need for LOCAL infrastructure in most if not all areas. I hesitate to say "all" as clearly there will always be exceptions.

What happens when I drive to your town (that has no infrastructure because everybody in your town has "long range" EVs)?

Hard to say in the hypothetical scenario. I suggest that if you cannot make the round trip without charging, charge at my house, or find a station in between then you may need to find alternate transportation. Not really different than we are today is it? IF BEVs become common enough with the 'charge at home for local use' that I have suggested then I expect a lot of homes will have the necessary infrastructure to charge guests too. IF the market moves toward "short" and "long" range BEVs I would expect consumers will have to accept the trade-offs of whichever they purchase.

How about people without overnight at home charging. That is the demographic that needs local FAST charging AND longer range cars.

If BEVs take off and are price/performance competitive with ICE vehicles and enough people drive them, then the apartment/condo complexes that do provide charging infrastructure will have an advantage over those that do not. I believe that market forces would encourage these apartments to add this feature; perhaps adding cost into rent or otherwise covering their costs. I agree, this is an impediment to the EV adoption - but frankly I suspect that it is the rare/determined individual who would be willing to commit to making a special trip somewhere to charge every couple days.

Sure, as you suggest, you could rely on longer range and faster charging to make the periodic 'refueling' trip palatable to a significant part of the potential market. I'm sure I cannot accurately estimate what the minimum frequency/maximum charge time is that would have to be provided in order to get to this point as it may well be largely personal preferences and variables too disparate to estimate.

While most early adopters (such as myself) are quite willing to put up with some inconveniences, I don't believe that the vast majority of potential market is willing to do so. Folks are very used to the gas station model - stop once a week or so for 5-10 minutes and move on. It will be quite some time before a BEV can compete on those parameters. However for those with the ability to charge at home or work, BEVs can offer a higher level of convenience - plug in once a day (or less) and never have to make a special trip/stop anywhere during your day.

 

[Slow1]

The 20-30 minutes it takes with CHAdeMO is about the same time it takes to visit the restroom and have a cup of coffee, or to walk around a bit and stretch your legs, or to check your email. Faster charging of a single car wouldn't necessarily be better. Dependably fast charging of all cars is a necessity. The problems come if you're third or fourth car in line for that 20-30 minute charge, or a fully charged car is parked with the owner absent, or a gas car is parked blocking the charger, or the charger is broken, or the card reader is broken. We don't need a single charger 5 times faster; we need 5 chargers of the same speed.

Ok, two issues - the 20-30 minutes is a good time to stop and rest; however in my Leaf that gets me to about 80% which at best is about 60 miles of driving distance at highway speeds so I would have to stop every hour for 30 minutes on an extended journey. Not practical to have my time increased by 50% if going somewhere. Now, if I'm traveling to get somewhere, I prefer to go 2-3 hours minimum between stops so that would either mean I need to charge 3x as long (60-90 minutes) or charge faster. That's why I envision the 'chargers of the future EV infrastructure' to be much higher rate - hmm... Tesla seems to have this right too eh?

A tiny exception today could be the majority of drivers eventually if the infrastructure is built - people who live in apartments, condos, and townhomes.

True if you don't believe that charging stations can be built in these locations. I on the other hand believe that apartments, condos, and town homes can, and will, have charging stations as well. Why not? These can be lower L2 stations just like home charging stations. Why not?

I have home charging that meets 90%+ of my needs at a cost equivalent to $1.50/gal gasoline, and a home coffee maker that meets 90%+ of my needs at a cost of $0.20/cup. Yet sometimes I'll stop and quick charge at a cost equivalent to $2.00-4.00/gal gasoline, and while I wait go next door and pay Starbucks $2.00 for a cup of coffee. Those exceptions are the cost of an EV meeting that last 10% of needs. The alternative to avoid the exceptions would be to drive a PHEV though the overall annual cost might be higher, or to drive an ICE though the overall annual cost would surely be higher.

I don't disagree, but if you had 2x the range then what percentage of your driving would be covered without need to charge? I'm confident that there is a point where you would be looking at once or less per year where it would not meet your needs. Then the question is what is that trip? A whole lot of local driving or longer distance that may be covered by a highway rest stop situated DCQC?

I think mobile phones' subscription model is one answer.

Certainly a reasonable model. I do wonder, however, just what it would cost to create and support the comprehensive network of chargers that folks would like to see. There clearly is a limit to how much you (or anyone) would be willing to pay for this subscription.

I'm content (not happy) paying eVgo $15/month subscription for occasional use, even though my total monthly cost would be lower

Sounds like you are close to your limit

However one decides to bill for the network, there are costs to be covered. IF a company is going to make money at it (i.e. if it is a privately funded/supported business), the amount collected will have to be more than the cost. I suspect your current subscription is possible due to some public funding of the infrastructure build-out. Not saying that is a bad thing, but just not a sustainable long-term model. I highly doubt that $15/year/user is sufficient to cover power and maintenance of existing stations unless it is "rarely" used.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Quote:
[longer range EVs]... will eliminate the need for LOCAL infrastructure in most if not all areas. I hesitate to say "all" as clearly there will always be exceptions.

What happens when I drive to your town (that has no infrastructure because everybody in your town has "long range" EVs)?

Hard to say in the hypothetical scenario. I suggest that if you cannot make the round trip without charging, charge at my house, or find a station in between then you may need to find alternate transportation. Not really different than we are today is it?

I think you and I are a world apart on vision for the future.

My scenario isn't hypotheitcal... it's something that happens THOUSANDS of times per day... heck, per hour. Driving to the "next town" is normal, not an exception.

Anyhoo, I think I've said my peace.

 

[eloder]

Quote:
[longer range EVs]... will eliminate the need for LOCAL infrastructure in most if not all areas. I hesitate to say "all" as clearly there will always be exceptions.

What happens when I drive to your town (that has no infrastructure because everybody in your town has "long range" EVs)?

Hard to say in the hypothetical scenario. I suggest that if you cannot make the round trip without charging, charge at my house, or find a station in between then you may need to find alternate transportation. Not really different than we are today is it?

I think you and I are a world apart on vision for the future.

My scenario isn't hypotheitcal... it's something that happens THOUSANDS of times per day... heck, per hour. Driving to the "next town" is normal, not an exception.

Anyhoo, I think I've said my peace.

Perhaps where you come from, but in my world and my friends/coworkers world, driving "the next town over" is a pretty rare occurrence unless you're talking about the next suburb 5 miles down the highway.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Perhaps where you come from, but in my world and my friends/coworkers world, driving "the next town over" is a pretty rare occurrence unless you're talking about the next suburb 5 miles down the highway.

BINGO !!!

We can only see the world through our own eyes, and not others. You do recognize that a comprehensive vehicle refueling network must cater to ALL people, not just people that drive 5 miles?

That means the delivery van, the traveling salesman, the unemployed oil worker searching for a job, the woman with three screaming kids driving to grandma's house, the newly weds traveling to the beach / mountains / desert / resort, the retired couple traveling "just because", etc.

Or, the guy like me that just drove over 100 miles to see an electric vehicle race.

 

[Slow1]

Perhaps where you come from, but in my world and my friends/coworkers world, driving "the next town over" is a pretty rare occurrence unless you're talking about the next suburb 5 miles down the highway.

Agree completely. When one says "drive to the next town over" it really is meaningless. It doesn't matter how many political/town lines you cross; it is the distance traveled. If you consume more than 50% of your available fuel to get somewhere then you will almost certainly require refueling to get back - whether in the same town or 15 towns over. This should be self-evident so I fail to understand why the "5 miles away" even came up.

Note that I have suggested a buildout of quick chargers placed such that the majority of vehicles traveling outside their 'normal daily range' will be able to charge. That doesn't mean that they are spaced 200 miles apart; there could well be one every 10 miles on major roadway - if you are traveling a significant distance are are more likely to be near a major roadway.

We can only see the world through our own eyes, and not others. You do recognize that a comprehensive vehicle refueling network must cater to ALL people, not just people that drive 5 miles?

All? So you are suggesting that it is worth while to build out a refueling network for someone who only has a 5 mile maximum range? I don't really believe this is what you are suggesting.

What I am suggesting is that it is a reasonable and more economically viable to build a network that relies on the vast majority of charging required to support daily driving (that day to day commuting, errands, etc) is planned to be done wherever the vehicles are parked at night and/or day (i.e. place of work). Then the network that is built out for public use can be limited to higher rate chargers placed along routes used by folks on those occasions when they have need/desire to travel further.

That means the delivery van, the traveling salesman, the unemployed oil worker searching for a job, the woman with three screaming kids driving to grandma's house, the newly weds traveling to the beach / mountains / desert / resort, the retired couple traveling "just because", etc.

Or, the guy like me that just drove over 100 miles to see an electric vehicle race.

With the exception of the delivery van and possible the salesman, which are rather special cases of local travel, these groups would be well served in the model I'm trying to convey here. I'm not entirely sure the other two are outside of the model either the more I think about it.

The key thing perhaps to keep in mind is that I'm proposing that the vast majority of folks would charge at home - a few exceptions will always exist. We don't need a large number of 'local' stations and frankly I believe it to be a waste to build any public L2 chargers. Each of the groups you cited would be poorly served by L2 chargers (well, maybe the newlyweds and retired folks if they like hanging out at the charger's location).

I do not believe that a 60-80 mile range vehicle is sufficient to achieve this vision; thus some additional local charging is required. I do, however, believe that the 'sweet spot' for this likely is in the 200-300 mile range. [Edit to add] - I see these longer range vehicles being the next generation; those of us who purchased the lower range vehicles will simply have to accept the limit if it doesn't happen to work out or upgrade. To design a network to serve 60-80 mile range vehicles is likely at least 2x as much as the 200-300 mile range.

 

[desiv]

We can only see the world through our own eyes, and not others. You do recognize that a comprehensive vehicle refueling network must cater to ALL people, not just people that drive 5 miles?

All? So you are suggesting that it is worth while to build out a refueling network for someone who only has a 5 mile maximum range? I don't really believe this is what you are suggesting.

Glad you don't believe that's what he was suggesting, because I don't see that in any way.
Looked to me like he was suggesting a comprehensive solution that includes "ALL people".
Which "includes" the 5 mile drivers, but also many others.
Unless you are suggesting he thinks "ALL peole" would be people who just drive for 5 miles? I don't really believe this is what you are suggesting.
(See what I did there?? ;-) )

desiv
(Sorry, Saturday morning and feeling silly)

 

[Slow1]

We can only see the world through our own eyes, and not others. You do recognize that a comprehensive vehicle refueling network must cater to ALL people, not just people that drive 5 miles?

All? So you are suggesting that it is worth while to build out a refueling network for someone who only has a 5 mile maximum range? I don't really believe this is what you are suggesting.

Glad you don't believe that's what he was suggesting, because I don't see that in any way.
Looked to me like he was suggesting a comprehensive solution that includes "ALL people".
Which "includes" the 5 mile drivers, but also many others.
Unless you are suggesting he thinks "ALL peole" would be people who just drive for 5 miles? I don't really believe this is what you are suggesting.
(See what I did there?? ;-) )

desiv
(Sorry, Saturday morning and feeling silly)

Fair statements, no need to apologize. One thing I like about this forum is that we can have a discussion with differing viewpoints and keep it civil.

The issue here is that fundamentally I do NOT believe it is economically viable to build out a network that services ALL people. Those with short range are just too expensive to support. In fact I highly suspect that in order to build out any sort of comprehensive network there has to be a minimum expected range. Perhaps the issue is whether that minimum range should be 60 miles or 250 miles. I put this closer to the 250 miles.

The longer that range, the farther apart you can place charging stations (so areas like North Dakota may have very few, but spaced farther apart). The shorter the range, the closer the stations have to be and thus we have to build out more of them (which clearly is more expensive/resource intensive). Secondary aspect of longer minimum range is that the "need" to charge away from home is decreased. Keep in mind that this is not addressing the NUMBER of stations required - if an area has high demand then more stations are required and I'd suggest spreading them out within the required region rather than pile dozens into one site.

I don't believe that it is in the best interest of society as a whole to build out enough charging stations for 'everyone' to use them daily to the exclusion or minimization of home charging. This would be much more expensive both in initial capital investment and long term maintenance. Given that we live in a world of limited resources it seems natural to find a balance between the extremes of not having any public charging and providing sufficient public charging to meet all needs. Where exactly this optimum point is perhaps is the matter of debate, but trying to build out to support today's 60 mile range vehicles seems rather short sighted.

I'd rather see the resources go toward the high speed chargers located along major routes. I honestly do believe that in 5-10 years chargers placed primarily for local use (i.e. at my local 99 restaurant) will be considered obsolete and unnecessary to the point of being removed rather than maintained. That money may be better spent in supporting BEVs with greater range (i.e. perhaps a greater rebate if your BEV can travel over 200 miles).

 

[TonyWilliams]

I don't believe that it is in the best interest of society as a whole to build out enough charging stations for 'everyone' to use them daily to the exclusion or minimization of home charging

I having a bit of difficulty following the direction of this thread, but this jumped out.

I'm not suggesting to replace at-home charging with a gasoline model, however, the multitude of folks who don't have access to at-home charging will appreciate longer range cars that have the fastest DC charging, like the gasoline model. Currently, nearly half of the population lives in other than urban and suburban detached single family homes with garages.

I'm suggesting that 80 to 270 mile range cars are here today. There will be far more manufacturers and models in the future.

Those cars will be charged at home, at work and on the road. On the road needs to be comprehensive, as the gasoline model is now.

I don't know what the "5 miles" refers to. Is somebody making a 5 mile range car?

 

[essaunders]

Is somebody making a 5 mile range car?

isn't that the PiP?

 

[Slow1]

I'm not suggesting to replace at-home charging with a gasoline model, however, the multitude of folks who don't have access to at-home charging will appreciate longer range cars that have the fastest DC charging, like the gasoline model. Currently, nearly half of the population lives in other than urban and suburban detached single family homes with garages.

I believe this perhaps one of the key questions in my mind. What is the best solution long term - encouraging the location of L2 chargers in these 'other than' locations? Apartments and condos could provide L2 (or similar) charging - no garage required. Alternatively this population can be served by DCQC stations located 'in other places' that then requires the 'nearly half' of the population to make a special trip every few days (depending on use/range/etc) to charge for what likely is a minimum of 30 minutes.

My opinion (back of napkin estimates) is that the cost of sufficient DCQC as well as increased cost on the vehicles themselves to support this would be greater to than getting apartments and condos to provide sufficient lower-rate charging for overnight use. In addition, I tend to believe that the convenience factor of not having to go elsewhere to charge for 'routine' driving would benefit both those without and with 'detached single family' homes. I expect that this inconvenience likely will remain a barrier to EV adoption until it is resolved. I'm pretty sure we all agree that it will be quite some time before "the everyman BEV" will be capable of adding range at the rate of an ICE.

Those cars will be charged at home, at work and on the road. On the road needs to be comprehensive, as the gasoline model is now.

Can't disagree with this point in principle, however "on the road" may mean different things. The key here (in my mind) is the time required to refuel. IF I'm driving long distances and have been 'on the road' for 3 hours, stopping to refuel and spending 30-45 minutes is less of an issue as likely I need to stop anyway for a break/bathroom/meal. However, as I live and work around town, having to go somewhere to spend 30-45 minutes to refuel every few days is a much greater inconvenience. I really don't think that I'm alone in not particularly caring to stop and refuel my ICE vehicle as it is.

I just don't share the vision where people are happily spending time (an hour a week or more?) going somewhere specifically to refuel their vehicles. The currently available solution is to move this 'routine' charging to the place the vehicle is parked for long periods of time - i.e. homes/apartments/places of work.

Ask around to non-EV drivers and I expect you will find that they are not willing to consider having to spend 30 minutes a week visiting a charging station - and that would likely be a rather optimistic/low estimate of time.