we need charging infrastructure vision

[tcherniaev]

I've been thinking how current limited (and slowly growing) EV charge infrastructure has no vision for the future. Assuming that in 10 years from now battery capacities will average 50-150 kwh, installing L2 that charges at 3.8 KW per hour will only really do any good at home or at work. If I have, say, 100 kwh battery I am not going to care if businesses that I frequent have L2 charging. What we really need is fast charging infrastructure that would allow me to drive 200 miles, stop for a meal and then drive another 200 miles.

Tesla has the right idea: their cars have plenty of power to handle daily running around, but when owners want to take a longer trip their superchargers will allow long distance travel.

I guess what I am saying is that 10 years from now no one is going to care if their hair dresser has an L2 at their business. This does matter today because I can get an extra 10 miles of range while getting a hair cut. And 10 extra miles in my LEAF is like 15% of total range. On the other hand, if my car has range of 200 miles, then the only thing that matters is how fast I can charge it up on the day when I drive more than 200 miles. For me that kind of day would be very unusual, perhaps occurring only 3-5 times per year.

So, to sum it up, 10 years from now if things work out the way I envision they will, I will be able to pull into a charge station, pay $50 and get 100 kwh charge. And the whole thing will take like 45 minutes while I eat lunch.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

not sure i can see your vision here.

for anyone to need more than 8 hours of charging say during work, they would have to live a long way from work which i dont see happening. public charging should be made to boost the range, not be the range.

for anyone taking longer trips, then quick charge is the only way and i still see 10 years from now; the great majority of EVs having modest battery packs in the 30-40 Kwh range AT THE MOST

 

[tcherniaev]

not sure i can see your vision here.

for anyone to need more than 8 hours of charging say during work, they would have to live a long way from work which i dont see happening. public charging should be made to boost the range, not be the range.

for anyone taking longer trips, then quick charge is the only way and i still see 10 years from now; the great majority of EVs having modest battery packs in the 30-40 Kwh range AT THE MOST

The reason why charging at work will still be needed 10 years from now is because some people will not have access to L2 at home and will have to charge at work and at quick charge outlets.

As for battery capacity in 10 years, I do believe we will be seeing at least 75 kwh average with nicer cars in $50+ range hitting 100 kwh+. If Tesla can build a car for around $80k with 85 kwh battery today, hitting $50k / 100 kwh mark in 10 years should be feasible.

On a separate note, I don't see EVs really catching on until we start seeing ranges of 150-200 miles as a norm. And I am speaking from experience as a LEAF owner. Where I live (Salt Lake City) most people I know need to have this range to make the viable.

 

[adric22]

installing L2 that charges at 3.8 KW per hour will only really do any good at home or at work..

Keep in mind that limitation is not the EVSE, but the charger in the car. many EVs coming to market will be able to charge faster than that even on today's EVSE.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

not sure i can see your vision here.

for anyone to need more than 8 hours of charging say during work, they would have to live a long way from work which i dont see happening. public charging should be made to boost the range, not be the range.

for anyone taking longer trips, then quick charge is the only way and i still see 10 years from now; the great majority of EVs having modest battery packs in the 30-40 Kwh range AT THE MOST

The reason why charging at work will still be needed 10 years from now is because some people will not have access to L2 at home and will have to charge at work and at quick charge outlets.

As for battery capacity in 10 years, I do believe we will be seeing at least 75 kwh average with nicer cars in $50+ range hitting 100 kwh+. If Tesla can build a car for around $80k with 85 kwh battery today, hitting $50k / 100 kwh mark in 10 years should be feasible.

On a separate note, I don't see EVs really catching on until we start seeing ranges of 150-200 miles as a norm. And I am speaking from experience as a LEAF owner. Where I live (Salt Lake City) most people I know need to have this range to make the viable.

oh i am not disputing the need for chargers at work, in fact i am pushing for that now. chargers EVERYWHERE!

but do you see that having a plug everywhere means that when you do plug in, it does not have to be for 10 hours. we think it might because now there is really not a plug anywhere. what good are the 300 plugs in my area if i dont have a reason to go to any of the places that have one?

the other thing we need to look at is cost/weight/need

batteries will never get dirt cheap and the reason is that transportation is expensive so as gasoline prices go up, their alternatives will too. that is how market forces work. sure, EVs will still be much cheaper to operate but saying that batteries will be $100 a KWh? probably will never happen.

the ability for the average Joe to buy a vehicle with a 75 Kwh battery? not going to happen. as battery technology gets better, the standard range will go up as i mentioned from 24 kwh to 30-40 kwh. no higher. sure there will be 150 kwh vehicles out there just like there is a 85 kwh vehicle out there now. but that is out of my reach just like that 150 kwh car will be.

weight; sure batteries will get lighter, more powerful, etc. but not that much. efficiency will still be the #1 concern and downsizing will be the easiest way to do that. we have been working the weight issue for a long time so the progress curve on that is gonna be pretty flat. batteries will improve a lot, but the rest of the car will only improve a little

need; we simply dont need to drive these massive distances enough to justify paying $10-20,000 more for an EV. i look at other options; gas rentals, car haulers, etc.

as far as 40 Kwh. that is a "real" 125 mile range which is 70 mph on the freeway busting balls. many will get 175-180.

to really quick charge a much bigger battery, we need to stop using batteries or at least stop using the kind as they are now

 

[tcherniaev]

installing L2 that charges at 3.8 KW per hour will only really do any good at home or at work..

Keep in mind that limitation is not the EVSE, but the charger in the car. many EVs coming to market will be able to charge faster than that even on today's EVSE.

Good point. Most chargers can do around 7 KW, but still, getting an extra 20 miles of range while getting a hair cut will probably not matter to me if my car has 200 mile range (if I have any hair left by then :lol: ) What WILL matter to me is the ability to replenish 200 miles of range in 45 min or less on the days when I really need it.

When I got my LEAF I was charging every time I had a chance (e.g. when I run into Walgreens for 10 minutes). Now if I have the range to make it home and I stop at Walgreens I don't even bother plugging in (it is still free in my area). So if I have a car with 200 mile range I will not care much about L2 infrastructure around town. I will never use it, especially if I have to pay to use it.

My point is that in 10 years when my EV will have 200 mile range about the only time I will use public charge infrastructure is when I am on a long trip and need either (a) to replenish the battery quickly while eating, or (b) to charge up overnight at a hotel.

 

[TomT]

Most current EVSEs are limited to 30 amps which is not that much faster...

Keep in mind that limitation is not the EVSE, but the charger in the car. many EVs coming to market will be able to charge faster than that even on today's EVSE.

 

[tcherniaev]

the ability for the average Joe to buy a vehicle with a 75 Kwh battery? not going to happen. as battery technology gets better, the standard range will go up as i mentioned from 24 kwh to 30-40 kwh. no higher. sure there will be 150 kwh vehicles out there just like there is a 85 kwh vehicle out there now. but that is out of my reach just like that 150 kwh car will be.

to really quick charge a much bigger battery, we need to stop using batteries or at least stop using the kind as they are now

I consider myself an average Joe (well, average Ivan since I am Russian). I live in what could be considered an average neighborhood. Most of my neighbors drive cars costing $30-70k new (I am sure some of these cars were purchased used, but that should not matter for the purpose of this discussion). One of my cars is E350, which sells for $60+ new (I got mine used). I can see myself buying used Tesla model S in a couple of years. By then I should be able to get it for around $40k, give or take (I am thinking mid-range model that goes for $60k today).

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

the ability for the average Joe to buy a vehicle with a 75 Kwh battery? not going to happen. as battery technology gets better, the standard range will go up as i mentioned from 24 kwh to 30-40 kwh. no higher. sure there will be 150 kwh vehicles out there just like there is a 85 kwh vehicle out there now. but that is out of my reach just like that 150 kwh car will be.

to really quick charge a much bigger battery, we need to stop using batteries or at least stop using the kind as they are now

I consider myself an average Joe (well, average Ivan since I am Russian). I live in what could be considered an average neighborhood. Most of my neighbors drive cars costing $30-70k new (I am sure some of these cars were purchased used, but that should not matter for the purpose of this discussion). One of my cars is E350, which sells for $60+ new (I got mine used). I can see myself buying used Tesla model S in a couple of years. By then I should be able to get it for around $40k, give or take (I am thinking mid-range model that goes for $60k today).

guess we will find out in about 10 year then

 

[planet4ever]

If you are trying to create a vision, ten years is too short a time frame. In ten years I doubt if more than 5% of the cars in the US will be electric. In 50 years I predict that 90% will. There are two ways that can happen: either most people will have been forced to switch to electric by the price, availability, and/or regulation of gasoline; or cars will have become mostly obsolete. Either way, ten years is only the beginning of the revolution, and infrastructure should not be planned for that.

Unfortunately, those two scenarios lead us in opposite directions for infrastructure planning.

• The first says we should plan on far more charging stations than there now are gasoline pumps. "Far more" because the best we can do now (DCQC) is transfer electrical energy at a rate of about 3 miles travel per minute. Even if we increase that by an order of magnitude that is still nearly another order of magnitude slower than gasoline transfer rates.
• Actually, there is another possible solution for the first scenario, with an orthogonal infrastructure requirement. That is to abandon current EV architecture and charging stations and switch to battery replacement, as Better Place has been pushing.
• The second scenario says we should stop wasting money on charging stations, and pour everything possible into public transportation. Either that, or give up on transportation altogether and do everything with holographic images. (No, I don't believe in teleportation. I do, however, think that science fiction visions such as Heinlein's "The Roads Must Roll" are possible.)

Personally I think the second scenario is the more probable one, and that while it could cost more initially it would ultimately result in less transportation energy expenditure per person.

Ray

 

[tcherniaev]

If you are trying to create a vision, ten years is too short a time frame. In ten years I doubt if more than 5% of the cars in the US will be electric. In 50 years I predict that 90% will. There are two ways that can happen: either most people will have been forced to switch to electric by the price, availability, and/or regulation of gasoline; or cars will have become mostly obsolete. Either way, ten years is only the beginning of the revolution, and infrastructure should not be planned for that.

Unfortunately, those two scenarios lead us in opposite directions for infrastructure planning.

• The first says we should plan on far more charging stations than there now are gasoline pumps. "Far more" because the best we can do now (DCQC) is transfer electrical energy at a rate of about 3 miles travel per minute. Even if we increase that by an order of magnitude that is still nearly another order of magnitude slower than gasoline transfer rates.
• Actually, there is another possible solution for the first scenario, with an orthogonal infrastructure requirement. That is to abandon charging stations and switch to battery replacement, as Better Place has been pushing.
• The second scenario says we should stop wasting money on charging stations, and pour everything possible into public transportation. Either that, or give up on transportation altogether and do everything with holographic images. (No, I don't believe in teleportation. I do, however, think that science fiction visions such as Heinlein's "The Roads Must Roll" are possible.)

Personally I think the second direction is the more probable one, and that while it could cost more initially it would ultimately result in less transportation energy expenditure per person.

Ray

Couple of comments regarding your comments

Tesla supercharger is about twice as fast as regular 50 kw QC. Considering how often one would need to use QC, it is a very reasonable rate of 'range replenishment'. If I have a car with 200 miles of range and have to use QC a few times per year it would be acceptable to me (and most drivers out there).

Creating a network of reliable fast chargers AND increasing range to around 200 miles would make electric cars very viable competition to ICE cars. And you would not need to a lot of quick chargers, at least when compared with gas stations. Most drivers on an average day would just charge at home. Only few would need to use QC on any given day. Assuming significant cost premium of QC, most would only QC when they absolutely have to.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

ok, there is a HUGE difference between 200 mile range and 150 Kwh. 200 mile range i agree will open a lot of doors but most people will decline the extra cost because they wont need it. when the LEAF SE comes out (or S, or C for "cheap") that will tell a lot about people's willingness to adopt the technology when the price is lowered.

so the question really is what is the balancing point between cost and range? i think the range would be enough with 120 miles on the freeway with light climate controls at 65 mph. beyond that; the percentage of drivers out there willing to pay more will drop off fast and dont let Tesla's 85 Kwh signups throw ya thinking there is a lot of people out there willing to pony up that $90k because there aint...trust me. Tesla S will be just like any other high end car. look a volumes under 10,000 units a year after the initial orders are filled

 

[tcherniaev]

ok, there is a HUGE difference between 200 mile range and 150 Kwh. 200 mile range i agree will open a lot of doors but most people will decline the extra cost because they wont need it. when the LEAF SE comes out (or S, or C for "cheap") that will tell a lot about people's willingness to adopt the technology when the price is lowered.

so the question really is what is the balancing point between cost and range? i think the range would be enough with 120 miles on the freeway with light climate controls at 65 mph. beyond that; the percentage of drivers out there willing to pay more will drop off fast and dont let Tesla's 85 Kwh signups throw ya thinking there is a lot of people out there willing to pony up that $90k because there aint...trust me. Tesla S will be just like any other high end car. look a volumes under 10,000 units a year after the initial orders are filled

I never thought of 200 miles as being equal to 150 kwh (someone else mentioned 150 kwh in different context). I was thinking more like 75 kwh = 200 miles. And if the cost difference between 50 kwh and 75 kwh is $5k (and I think it is very feasible number in year 2022), I can see many paying extra to get longer range.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

ya, like i said 80-100 Kwh cars will be around but they will be like Lexuses and Mercedes are now. I see battery swapping as one option for the family making a longer trip (although i see very long car trips fading away) or something like

http://www.facebook.com/ebuggy.com?ref=stream" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[tcherniaev]

ya, like i said 80-100 Kwh cars will be around but they will be like Lexuses and Mercedes are now. I see battery swapping as one option for the family making a longer trip (although i see very long car trips fading away) or something like

http://www.facebook.com/ebuggy.com?ref=stream" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's funny. How far can you go with this 'extended range' option?

Just adding few numbers together, if batteries cost $200 per kwh in 2022, that's only $15,000 for 75 kwh battery. That would work for a lot of mid-range cars in $35-50k range. Most Lexuses and Mercedeses are in the $60+ range. Although you could buy a Mercedes C class for just under $40k, it's not much of a luxury car. E class runs around $60k, S class starts at over $90k. So, based on $200 per kwh in 2022, I can see C class with 75 kwh battery, E class around 100 kwh, and S class at 150 kwh. Battery energy densities will have to improve, but even a 1,500 LB battery in S class would work OK, as it is a very heavy car to begin with. We we are looking for at least twice the energy density in 2022 to make this whole thing work. I don't think it's unreasonable based on prior years progress.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

ya, like i said 80-100 Kwh cars will be around but they will be like Lexuses and Mercedes are now. I see battery swapping as one option for the family making a longer trip (although i see very long car trips fading away) or something like

http://www.facebook.com/ebuggy.com?ref=stream" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's funny. How far can you go with this 'extended range' option?

Just adding few numbers together, if batteries cost $200 per kwh in 2022, that's only $15,000 for 75 kwh battery. That would work for a lot of mid-range cars in $35-50k range. Most Lexuses and Mercedeses are in the $60+ range. Although you could buy a Mercedes C class for just under $40k, it's not much of a luxury car. E class runs around $60k, S class starts at over $90k. So, based on $200 per kwh in 2022, I can see C class with 75 kwh battery, E class around 100 kwh, and S class at 150 kwh. Battery energy densities will have to improve, but even a 1,500 LB battery in S class would work OK, as it is a very heavy car to begin with. We we are looking for at least twice the energy density in 2022 to make this whole thing work. I don't think it's unreasonable based on prior years progress.

i am guessing just about the distance between the drop off stations. they way those charge trailers work is that as long as they are hooked to the car, the car's pack is untouched. so you hook up to a charged trailer with a full battery pack. go to the drop off station in the town of your destination, drop the trailer and take off on your still full battery pack in the car.

 

[planet4ever]

Tesla supercharger is about twice as fast as regular 50 kw QC. Considering how often one would need to use QC, it is a very reasonable rate of 'range replenishment'. If I have a car with 200 miles of range and have to use QC a few times per year it would be acceptable to me (and most drivers out there).

Creating a network of reliable fast chargers AND increasing range to around 200 miles would make electric cars very viable competition to ICE cars. And you would not need to a lot of quick chargers, at least when compared with gas stations. Most drivers on an average day would just charge at home. Only few would need to use QC on any given day. Assuming significant cost premium of QC, most would only QC when they absolutely have to.

If you are going to replace 90% of all gasoline cars with electrics, as I hypothesized, then most people will ONLY have electric cars. And a rather sizable fraction of those will not be able to charge at all at home. Between that group and long trips there will still be a large requirement for public charging. Just to pull a number out of the air, let's say that 80% of all charging will be at home. I really doubt if it will be much higher than that. Population is increasing and urban centers are becoming more dense. Apartment living is not going to decrease and private garages are not going to increase.

I suspect a significant fraction of the population will not accept 100kW charging as "reasonable", but if they did, they would need about 30-40 minutes to replenish for 200 miles. A gas pump will give you 300 miles in about 2 minutes. That's a 20x to 30x time load on the electricity pump until you factor in the home charging, which drops it to a 4x to 6x time load. Tell me again why you won't need more fast charge stations than we have pumps today. (Waving your arms and citing "few" or "most" is not very persuasive.)

Ray

 

[tcherniaev]

Tesla supercharger is about twice as fast as regular 50 kw QC. Considering how often one would need to use QC, it is a very reasonable rate of 'range replenishment'. If I have a car with 200 miles of range and have to use QC a few times per year it would be acceptable to me (and most drivers out there).

Creating a network of reliable fast chargers AND increasing range to around 200 miles would make electric cars very viable competition to ICE cars. And you would not need to a lot of quick chargers, at least when compared with gas stations. Most drivers on an average day would just charge at home. Only few would need to use QC on any given day. Assuming significant cost premium of QC, most would only QC when they absolutely have to.

If you are going to replace 90% of all gasoline cars with electrics, as I hypothesized, then most people will ONLY have electric cars. And a rather sizable fraction of those will not be able to charge at all at home. Between that group and long trips there will still be a large requirement for public charging. Just to pull a number out of the air, let's say that 80% of all charging will be at home. I really doubt if it will be much higher than that. Population is increasing and urban centers are becoming more dense. Apartment living is not going to decrease and private garages are not going to increase.

I suspect a significant fraction of the population will not accept 100kW charging as "reasonable", but if they did, they would need about 30-40 minutes to replenish for 200 miles. A gas pump will give you 300 miles in about 2 minutes. That's a 20x to 30x time load on the electricity pump until you factor in the home charging, which drops it to a 4x to 6x time load. Tell me again why you won't need more fast charge stations than we have pumps today. (Waving your arms and citing "few" or "most" is not very persuasive.)

Ray

90% of all cars being electric? I did not suggest this at all... We are talking 10 years from now, 2022, right? Maybe 3-5% max will be electric. We will not see 90% for a very very long time. By then a lot of things will change, including battery technology, charging technology, etc. We can't even begin to guess, but by then we can easily be looking at charge rates allowing adding 500 miles in 5 minutes, or who knows what. Thinking optimistically, the earliest we will see 90% market penetration is 2040.

 

[ztanos]

A gas pump will give you 300 miles in about 2 minutes.
Ray

I have never been to a gas pump that filled my 10 gallon tank in 2 minutes... let alone the 25 gallon tank on my F150. Please enlighten me as to where you are going as this will save me about 10 minutes every 3 days.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

this thread has gone beyond the realm of ridiculous. there is not been one fully credible statement here for several posts now. its all what people think/hope/predict should happen and very little of it is based in realistic terms.

now, obviously when talking about the future a bit of speculation is required but it should be backed up a bit with basic explanation of the steps on how to get there.

all we are getting is random statements on "this wont work because i can do this with gas" well, hate to burst your bubble but EV's and gas vehicles have nothing really to do with each other.

it will be pay $150 for gas and a 400 mile range in 5 minutes or pay $40 dollars for that range with an EV in 4 different 15 minute charging sessions.

trust me; there will not be as many 400 mile trips to begin with and the gas car will not be used if it can be avoided. i have an 80 mile EV now and the gas car sits parked 90% of the time. (it would be 99% of the time if there was only one driver)

now there are several things that WILL HAPPEN to insure EVs are successful and most of that is well on its way. Solar, wind, etc will play a much larger role along with the critical component to success of power production in general and that is off line storage. this is the real golden goose egg technology.

right now, it would appear that used EV traction batteries will be a good option for now until we can get something better. this allows the vital contribution from solar to by more fully utilized. look at the basic design Elon has with his stations, they collect power slowly thru the solar panels, sell what is not used right away, store a bit and then dump charge rapidly when charging a car. this is an ideal situation to put a dozen partially depleted packs.