Warning-watch out for radical anti-electric thinkers

[CWO4Mann]

Some folks here need to take a hard look in the mirror and really think about your own attitudes and your respect for others.

Now that I review my "arch" comments, I agree with you. I apologize if my comments have offended anyone. After all, offending people is a terrible thing to do and will always come back to haunt you during your lowest, darkest moments of self-examination, as you cringingly beat your breast, rending your clothes and begging forgiveness -- knowing full well that you can never take back what you said or did or thought.

 

[padamson1]

1) For the cost of a single QC station, you can probably install 3 or 4 L2 stations.

2) Any vehicle ('cept Tesla, for now) can use an L2 station. There is no standard for QC, meaning your vehicle might not work with the QC station installed. Neither the Chevrolet Volt nor the Ford Focus EV nor the BYD e6 will be able to use a CHAdeMO unit, and there's no guarantee any other manufacturers will jump on board either. (BMW and Volkswagen are pushing for the modified J1772 connector proposed by SAE last I heard...)

So which is a better use of public funds: A large number of units that are usable by everyone but a bit slower, or a smaller number of units that benefit only a subset of drivers?

Excellent point Smidge.

I think people are forget that only the LEAF or iMEV can use CHAdeMO. While the all newer LEAFs have a CHAdeMO port, it was optional for a year on a LEAF and is still optional on an iMEV, so many LEAF/iMEV's don't even have the QC capability. Depending on how stupid SAE is with the communication protocol, when other cars add support for the SAE L3 connecter there may not be a converter. Hopefully the cheaper CHAdeMO chargers will work and be put into use, but there are still infrastructure costs/limitations on QC compared to L2.

So in summary L2 chargers are cheaper, can be located in more places without additional infrastructure investment and serve almost every type of EV/PHEV. Whether its more convenient to end users or not, from business perspective CHAdeMO certainly doesn't look like a better allocation of limited funds.

[sarc]But maybe the government doesn't care about whether it uses its money wisely [/sarc]....

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

... With QC, you get from 0 to 80% very quickly, but charge rate is slow for the remainder if it even tries to top off. This is the hare, quick at first but falls asleep before reaching the finish line! I you're already over 80% charge, all the advantages of QC are lost. =Smidge=

People won't be using QC's for 100% charging so much, IMHO, mostly they'll 80% hop from one to the next, that is why they are being placed so close together. In fact, the pattern may be to charge more frequently but for shorter amounts of time. Most of the time I need extra miles, even 5-10 minutes of QC would do the trick.

I predict that this experiment that is the EV project is going to show something surprising, that aside from home/work charging, folks will tend to supplement with L3 as needed.

This is practically a given, but I still think the emphasis on QC is a bit too strong for a successful EV infrastructure rollout. If you sip a little juice at every stop, you might not need to gulp it all in one stop. =Smidge=

precisely, and even more true with QCing.

You expressed concern over "waste of precious public funds." Consider two points:

1) For the cost of a single QC station, you can probably install 3 or 4 L2 stations.

2) Any vehicle ('cept Tesla, for now) can use an L2 station. There is no standard for QC, meaning your vehicle might not work with the QC station installed. Neither the Chevrolet Volt nor the Ford Focus EV nor the BYD e6 will be able to use a CHAdeMO unit, and there's no guarantee any other manufacturers will jump on board either. (BMW and Volkswagen are pushing for the modified J1772 connector proposed by SAE last I heard...)

So which is a better use of public funds: A large number of units that are usable by everyone but a bit slower, or a smaller number of units that benefit only a subset of drivers?
=Smidge=

What will make CHAdeMO the standard, is declaring it so through adoption, all we need now is to adopt it fast enough and everyone else will suddenly be planning to include a quick charger in their next model. QCing is so integral to the spread of EV's out of the niche and into the main stream that I believe it's time to bite the bullet and simply start pushing it ... it's already being used for the electric highway and all major available QC charging station installations. Once a QC backbone is in place, then it should be an easy sell to add more L2's. If we put a bunch of L2's in first, it's going to be harder to argue to ignorant officials that DC L3 is needed. If we put QC's in first, get a ground swell of interest in EV's, then adding lots of L2 is going to make more sense to the public and be less off putting.

From a PR perspective, Quick Charging is a crowd pleaser and will help in marketing EV's even to people who will never quick charge... powerful, in a society that worships power.

taking up fewer parking spaces for now is going to reduce the animosity toward EV's and fast charging is going to be much more likely to win over the naysayers... or at least shut them up.

 

[edatoakrun]

So in summary L2 chargers are cheaper, can be located in more places without additional infrastructure investment and serve almost every type of EV/PHEV. Whether its more convenient to end users or not, from business perspective CHAdeMO certainly doesn't look like a better allocation of limited funds. ...

Sorry, but IMO, you are arguing That government funds should be invested, to a support the relatively small number of individuals, who made a poor decision, to purchase QC-incapable BEVs.

There is already a large L2 legacy network, for those BEV vehicles.

And, IMO, L2 limited PHEVs themselves, may be largely obsolescent, once the QC network is established.

The charger itself is a small part to of the total investment including a suitable QC location, and the connection to existing infrastructure.

It looks like it will be many years, before any manufacturers put any large number of SAE, or other alternate standard, fast-charging BEVs, on US roads, and if there are any manufactures who are willing to "put their money where their mouths are", in the future, Charge stations can simply be redesigned to accommodate future demand.

At his time, CHAdeMO is the only practical standard, for the required BEV fast charge network, and the de facto standard, worldwide. EVERY QC capable car on the road in CA today is CHAdeMO .

The QC standard has been set, by the market, already. We should build the QC stations required, now.

 

[davewill]

... While the all newer LEAFs have a CHAdeMO port, it was optional for a year on a LEAF and is still optional on an iMEV, so many LEAF/iMEV's don't even have the QC capability. ...

Actually it's still optional on the LEAF. Only the SLs have the QC port. This argument is so tiring...We need ALL forms of charging. They each have their place. QC makes no sense at the workplace or at the mall. L2 isn't very useful if you're traveling the interstate. A mix is what they're building and a mix is what we need.

 

[smkettner]

If the oil company can provide three grades of gasoline, diesel, and propane I see no reason an EV stop could not have four different connectors.

 

[Stewy13]

If the oil company can provide three grades of gasoline, diesel, and propane I see no reason an EV stop could not have four different connectors.

:!:
Certainly hope this is the case:
-J1772 L1/L2
-CHAdeEMO
-Inductive L2
-Inductive QC

Also who knows what will happen with Tesla's new cord..

 

[Smidge204]

If the oil company can provide three grades of gasoline, diesel, and propane I see no reason an EV stop could not have four different connectors.

One of these things is not like the others~ One of these things is not the same~ :lol:

But yeah, I'm not intending to argue that QC has no place, but L2/J1772 compliant EVSEs are a better bang-for-the-buck in terms of expanding infrastructure. Hoping that installing a bunch of CHAdeMO compliant QC stations will force the market to adopt it is a very risky gamble... otherwise they'd have stuck with the J1773 Magne-Charge paddles which were already installed in a bunch of places! I don't much care for gambling with public money either... Competition can be good, but it necessarily means there will be losers. Considering CHAdeMO is only supported by two manufacturers (and only as an added cost option) and there are at least six or seven brands out there specifically NOT wanting to use it, I can't say CHAdeMO is in a good position in the long run.

There is already a large L2 legacy network, for those BEV vehicles.

Where can I find a J1772 charge point installed prior to, say, 2008? And exactly how vast is this legacy network?

The charger itself is a small part to of the total investment including a suitable QC location, and the connection to existing infrastructure.

Just for hardware, an L2 EVSE bollard will set you back maybe $2,000. Meanwhile Nissan made a big deal about getting the cost of their QC unit down to $10,000. Not sure what constitutes "small" here... it's not like installing a charge bollard costs $50,000.

It looks like it will be many years, before any manufacturers put any large number of SAE, or other alternate standard, fast-charging BEVs, on US roads, and if there are any manufactures who are willing to "put their money where their mouths are", in the future, Charge stations can simply be redesigned to accommodate future demand.

But it won't be up to manufacturers to retrofit equipment that's already installed. It'll be up to the owners. Maybe the phrase should be "put your money where their mouth is" ? And what if the charge standard is significantly different? We're not simply talking different connector style, I mean different (and proprietary) communication protocols, different wiring, different current/voltage tolerances, etc... a retrofit could end up such a big deal that replacing the whole thing could be cheaper. See: Magne-charge stations, which can't be converted to J1772.

At his time, CHAdeMO is the only practical standard, for the required BEV fast charge network, and the de facto standard, worldwide. EVERY QC capable car on the road in CA today is CHAdeMO. The QC standard has been set, by the market, already. We should build the QC stations required, now.

Again; just two manufacturers support it, and it's not standard equipment. Half a dozen manufacturers are actively opposing it. It is FAR from a done deal. Might get lucky, might not.
=Smidge=

 

[AndyH]

Well, if the arms end up not connected to the body, it will be a waste. I think we will end up with a more functional organism if we start with the backbone of DC QC's and add appendages as needed. With each new model year will come advancements in the car's chargers and periodic increases in battery capacity. As soon as the batteries are big enough, L2 charging may become totally obsolete other than longish term parking, it practically already is. With much larger batteries, people will be able to do long distance travel and DC QC's will become even more essential.

I think that as a group, we should focus our requests for additional public charging on DC QC's and not get to distracted on pushing for more random L2 placement. Let's not let regulators of the public network get confused in thinking L2 is adequate, they need to hear from us that QC's are sorely needed. the private sector is going to keep adding more L2 because it makes them look green and it's relatively easy and cheep to put them in. Public funding is needed for the QC's because they are expensive and take a big push to get installed.

The more logical this is, the less animosity there will be from naysayers.

...
I may be off the mark here, but it seems like we have the opportunity to witness evolution in progress. The "L2 Organism" is young yet and maybe has too many arms for its own good. Those will balance as the process continues.

Ignore the naysayers - there will always be the 20% trying to make is hard for the 80%, Mr. Pareto!

Logic is good - and working toward a strong network is good - but it may take a few 'generations' that don't quite hit perfection. After all, this process is not only run by humans, it's run by many humans and has politics mixed in. It might be good to not hang on too tightly to 'logic and reason' at this stage of the game unless you keep lithium and a huggy-coat in the trunk.

edit...sentences aren't us...

 

[smkettner]

If the oil company can provide three grades of gasoline, diesel, and propane I see no reason an EV stop could not have four different connectors.

One of these things is not like the others~ One of these things is not the same~ :lol:

You are right. It would seem the QC even with four cables would cost a whole lot less to install and maintain.

 

[Volt3939]

[...
Where can I find a J1772 charge point installed prior to, say, 2008? And exactly how vast is this legacy network?...
=Smidge=

In certain areas, the legacy charge stations are quite extensive, and only now being upgraded. I agree that there were no J1772-2010 stations installed in 2008. :roll:
You forget that AVCON stations, which were all installed prior to 2008, were in fact J1772-2001. Changing the connector is all that is required to use them today, sadly most of them are being completely replaced.

 

[edatoakrun]

... Half a dozen manufacturers are actively opposing (ChaDEmo)...
=Smidge=

Precisely the problem.

Half a dozen manufacturers are opposing CHAdeMO, not producing an alternative.

We should not allow those manufactures who build no QC vehicles, to block the QC infrastructure roll-out, in an effort to reduce the competitive disadvantage they have created for themselves, by failing to produce QC capable vehicles.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

Not just two manufacturers but the leading two manufacturers, and the only two actually giving us QC ability now, today, with a fairly vast network already up and running as a functional example. There are CHAdeMO's all over Japan, I don't hear of any issues coming up. apposing a perfectly good standard and not coming up with an alternative is absolute stonewalling and nothing more, stonewalling by a bunch of wait and see manufacturers.

I do reserve a special level of frustration for Tesla, they have failed us by going off on their own to create something exclusive, missing the opportunity to be perhaps the final catalyst to put CHAdeMO over the hump as the single QC standard.

...
Again; just two manufacturers support it, and it's not standard equipment. Half a dozen manufacturers are actively opposing it. It is FAR from a done deal. Might get lucky, might not.
=Smidge=

 

[TonyWilliams]

there should be some changes in the law to allow sales by the actual KWh consumed. If another car had not opened the gate behind him I'm sure we would have shot the breeze for a while more... :roll:

It is legal in California since 2010.

 

[etrans]

Maybe a sign saying "Free charging with purchase" would help fend off the know nothings, grinches and grouches? Kind of like "restrooms for customers only". (Are you using that restroom for free?).

 

[coqui]

+1
I definitely plan to patronize a business providing free charging.

Maybe a sign saying "Free charging with purchase" would help fend off the know nothings, grinches and grouches? Kind of like "restrooms for customers only". (Are you using that restroom for free?).

 

[Rokeby]

Time to take a breather.

Not making fun here, just a reminder that at the beginning of the
auto-mobile ICE age, dispensing fuel was a catch as catch can business.
Apparently it took 50 years (1880-1930) for there to be a gas pump
even remotely like the convenient almost foolproof pumps that we are
familiar with today.

So, lets say in our contemporary, hurry-up-quick, I-want-it-NOW
world standardization of chargers is reached 10 times faster...
that's only 5 years... if we're lucky.

The rest of the story:

In the 1880s, the Bowser Company in Fort Wayne, Indiana built the first gas
pumps which included pumps that could pull fuel from an underground tank
. The earliest pumps were not located at gas stations, as we know them today,
since back then, there were few. They sat at dealerships, along sidewalks or
at curbs.  

These gas pumps sprung up everywhere in the 1920s as  automobile ownership
grew in popularity. The first gas pumps were called visible gas pumps, which
contained a clear glass cylinder allowing the vehicle owner the ability to see if
the gas was clean. Dirty gas contaminated with foreign matter or water was an
issue in that era.

How did the electric gas pump work? Gravity & a human hand would pull back
and forth a long handle which pumped the fuel from an underground storage
tank into the cylinder. Gasoline then flowed from the 8-to-10 feet tall cylinder
down the hose into the vehicle.

After the visible gas pump, emerged the electric one known for housing a clock
face in the 1930s & globe top with the name of the gas supplier. Like the visible
pump, the electric gas pump was made to show the buyer what the fuel looked
like using what’s called a sight glass. Electric Gas Pumps were made with a fan
inside of it. The early ones calculated the gallons of fuel that went from pump to
car. The seller would then compute the price in his head. In the 1930s, 40s & 50s,
oil & gas manufacturers made self-computing gas pumps, which stated the price
by themselves.  
http://webersnostalgiasupermarket.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Funny thing is, in the 50s my family frequented a gas station in rural Maine
that was still using the 8 ft tall, crystal cylinder, "visible" gas pump. At the time,
gas stations were far and few between and a welcomed sight out in the
puckerbrush.

 

[GREENEV]

You might want to edit "thinkers" out of your thread title. It is confusing and misleading. Thank You.

Well, TRONZ, what do you suggest I change it to? Believers? Types?

 

[ttweed]

You might want to edit "thinkers" out of your thread title. It is confusing and misleading. Thank You.

Well, TRONZ, what do you suggest I change it to? Believers? Types?

I suggest "morons" or "Luddites."

TT

 

[EricH]

Maybe a sign saying "Free charging with purchase" would help fend off the know nothings, grinches and grouches? Kind of like "restrooms for customers only". (Are you using that restroom for free?).

I like it... we could reverse the "free car wash with fill up" - I'd certainly pay to get my Leaf washed if they hooked it up to L2 or even QC while they dried it. Any other recurring visit as well -- it would influence my choice of movie theaters, grocery stores, drugstores, or shopping malls.

The trick is enforcing the 'with purchase' caveat - I haven't yet seen an EVSE that is code-activated, which you'd need to ensure only 'purchasers' used it (either that, or the tokens some gas stations use to grant water/air use to paying customers). The station could probably get a special ChargePoint or Blink token, where the EVSE would only activate by specific token(s), but they'd have to make sure to get it back from the Leaf driver afterward :lol: