How people use Leaf in Europe - QC as needed

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

EdmondLeaf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
1,500
Location
Edmond, OK
Ireland - only car so is used locally as well for longer trips - around 300 miles within a day - using 5 different QC. They are plenty of QC stations, and all of them free of charge for EV owner (Topaz is the largest fuel distributor and all QC stations are free, but one - charging 2.7c/min ( 2 eurocents) of fast charge. Nissan have QC there and all are free). Our L2 charging is considered slow charging, and people complaining that can't use full power of IEC 62196-2 Type 2 (Mennekes) that can deliver either 7kWh or 21kWh. Gas and electricity prices are 2x what we have here, so economics not much different than here.

Source and credit: http://www.samochodyelektryczne.org/

scaled.php

edit "Topaz is the largest fuel distributor and all QC stations are free but one - charging 2.7c/min ( 2 eurocents) of fast charge. Nissan have QC there and all are free"
 
correction
Topaz is the largest fuel distributor and all QC stations are free but one - charging 2.7c/min ( 2 eurocents) of fast charge. Nissan have QC there and all are free
 
EdmondLeaf said:
Ireland - only car so is used locally as well for longer trips - around 300 miles within a day - using 5 different QC.

I'd love to see the one year battery check report on this Leaf to see if the warnings from Nissan about multiple QC's a day warrant any concern.
 
LakeLeaf said:
I'd love to see the one year battery check report on this Leaf to see if the warnings from Nissan about multiple QC's a day warrant any concern.
I will report back but is not 1 year old yet, they also use QC as needed for local travel. Looks like warranty is shorter there, and no capacity on battery.
 
I'm gradually getting a sinking feeling that L2 is a waste of time other than at home and work and that L3 is going to turn out to have almost no negative effect on the battery... can't help but feel that the focus here needs to be on getting L3 in place first, then filling in with L2 on an as need basis!
 
GaslessInSeattle said:
I'm gradually getting a sinking feeling that L2 is a waste of time other than at home and work and that L3 is going to turn out to have almost no negative effect on the battery... can't help but feel that the focus here needs to be on getting L3 in place first, then filling in with L2 on an as need basis!

Lots of people have come to that conclusion, but there are locations such as malls and movie theaters that could give you a reasonable charge with L2.
 
Herm said:
GaslessInSeattle said:
I'm gradually getting a sinking feeling that L2 is a waste of time other than at home and work and that L3 is going to turn out to have almost no negative effect on the battery... can't help but feel that the focus here needs to be on getting L3 in place first, then filling in with L2 on an as need basis!

Lots of people have come to that conclusion, but there are locations such as malls and movie theaters that could give you a reasonable charge with L2.

yes, I agree, but what we are seeing is tax payer dollars being spent putting L2 all over the place here without, IMHO, a real sense of what is needed and it appears that there is now a bit of a rush to get more in before the funding dries up... I just hate to think it's going to become just one more political punching bag if the placement isn't done carefully and the majority of charging stations go unused.

I was going out of my way to use L2 because I want to show support for EV's, but the reality is that I almost never end up getting enough of a charge by the time I'm done shopping to make much of a difference. I'm actually starting to think I should stop using L2 out in the wild so as not to give an artificially inflated sense of their value to the researchers. When I have to pay for L2 it's exorbitant compared to what the electricity actually costs. Maybe when we have faster chargers in our cars this will all make more sense but for now, their is an undeniable brilliance in DC fast charging that is so much more convenient and wowing to the user that I feel like we need to shift course and get fully behind expanding L3 as much as possible. In fact, having a bunch of L2 charging around that isn't getting used may very well threaten future funding for even L3 as policy makers may mistake the lack of use of L2 as an example of the underwhelming need for more infrastructure overall... that worries me.
 
I went to only public L2 in OK, just to try it. After 20 min I was bored (how long you can browse things that you do not need?) and just few more miles that didn't matter that much. I want to go whatever I want - so does regular car buyer, I will have 80% in 20 min with QC.
 
TonyWilliams said:
Not "free".... Tax supported.
not Tax supported....

In Ireland the fast chargers are being paid for by ESB who are the owner/operator of the electricity distribution system;

http://www.esb.ie/electric-cars/ele...-Fast-Charge-Point-Rollout-Plan-Announced.jsp

In Europe as a whole Nissan are giving away 400 fast chargers;

http://newsroom.nissan-europe.com/EU/en-gb/Media/Media.aspx?mediaid=85551

In the UK we do have government (Tax) supported schemes ("Plugged-In Places") but they are very ineffective having installed ~10 fast chargers in total;

http://www.dft.gov.uk/topics/sustainable/olev/recharging-electric-vehicles/
 
Yes, a huge amount of money, much of it from taxpayers, is being wasted on AC L2 public charging infrastructure in the USA. DC public charging will essentially make most public L2 sites obsolete...if we ever get it.

California is the poster child for this dysfunctional EV infrastructure effort. Over a year after I posted the comment below, there is still no public DC in California, and still no statewide plans to place DC chargers, where most needed.

I Want my (fast) DC!

...EV drivers ...need to be able to get an occasional fast charge on the road BETWEEN destinations.

Until roadside charging becomes a reality, EV/ICE half-breeds like the Volt will be named "car of the year", and actual EVs will be considered fringe products.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2374" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am glad to see more rational BEV infrastructure efforts succeeding in other states and nations, just rather disappointed that California has screwed up so colossally.
 
edatoakrun said:
Yes, a huge amount of money, much of it from taxpayers, is being wasted on AC L2 public charging infrastructure in the USA. DC public charging will essentially make most public L2 sites obsolete...if we ever get it.

California is the poster child for this dysfunctional EV infrastructure effort. Over a year after I posted the comment below, there is still no public DC in California, and still no statewide plans to place DC chargers, where most needed.
No kidding. And the CEC just decided to put another $18M towards H2 infrastructure.
California Energy Commission soliciting proposals for $18.7M in awards to develop hydrogen fueling infrastructure

That same money would pay for 200-400 DC QC stations in California - more than enough to cover all the major metropolitan areas and major highways across the state.
 
GaslessInSeattle said:
Herm said:
GaslessInSeattle said:
I'm gradually getting a sinking feeling that L2 is a waste of time other than at home and work and that L3 is going to turn out to have almost no negative effect on the battery... can't help but feel that the focus here needs to be on getting L3 in place first, then filling in with L2 on an as need basis!

Lots of people have come to that conclusion, but there are locations such as malls and movie theaters that could give you a reasonable charge with L2.

yes, I agree, but what we are seeing is tax payer dollars being spent putting L2 all over the place here without, IMHO, a real sense of what is needed and it appears that there is now a bit of a rush to get more in before the funding dries up... I just hate to think it's going to become just one more political punching bag if the placement isn't done carefully and the majority of charging stations go unused.

I was going out of my way to use L2 because I want to show support for EV's, but the reality is that I almost never end up getting enough of a charge by the time I'm done shopping to make much of a difference. I'm actually starting to think I should stop using L2 out in the wild so as not to give an artificially inflated sense of their value to the researchers. When I have to pay for L2 it's exorbitant compared to what the electricity actually costs. Maybe when we have faster chargers in our cars this will all make more sense but for now, their is an undeniable brilliance in DC fast charging that is so much more convenient and wowing to the user that I feel like we need to shift course and get fully behind expanding L3 as much as possible. In fact, having a bunch of L2 charging around that isn't getting used may very well threaten future funding for even L3 as policy makers may mistake the lack of use of L2 as an example of the underwhelming need for more infrastructure overall... that worries me.
I'm coming to much the same conclusion. There are some destination areas where you're likely to be parked long enough for L2 to be useful, especially 30A L2. But L3 is what's needed for trips out of the local area. I think it's largely been a matter of being happy for whatever we could get, but it's time to think where each is really valuable.

For instance, I live in a City that has two Walgreen's with L2s, and there's a public garage serving a theater and several restaurants where they could be put in. It's great to have them lacking anything else, but unlike say San Francisco, no one is going to drive from another city to where I live as a recreational destination. There's nothing about the restaurants or theater that likely couldn't be found in the BEV owner's own city or at least closer, and no one is going to drive further to Walgreen's rather than their local drug store just because Walgreen's has an L2. They'll charge at home and shop locally.
 
I simply do not understand why we all accepted that Volt is an "extended range" and Leaf is kind of "local only". If we worry about battery longevity, Volt people have much more to worry about, because battery is smaller and all miles are electric propulsion (on board generator). I see no reason why Leaf should not do extended range with help of QC.
 
Some countries "get it" that EV should replace
much of their dependence on oil.

Here in the USA, there are major, strong, wealthy forces behind
the "workings" of this country that would prefer to see EVs fail,
or at least drastically slowed.

For example, trace back where the 18 M$ for H2 comes from,
and the influences behind the decision.

[soapbox]
Or, take L2 or CNG or the "L3 standard", or "demand charges", or ...
why we subsidize oil so much, or wage wars, or let 911 happen.
[/soapbox]
 
I don't know that I agree with you Gary - that there are forces in the US that want to see EV's fail.

If the US would see 10% to 20% of the all vehicles on the road be EV's, I think that would be a win win win for everyone. The price of oil would be stabilized and there would be forces pushing the price down because of the threat and the competition. I believe the oil companies would actually like this situation because they would be in a much more stable situation, and I think they would actually be selling more product. The cheaper gas is, the more people will buy it - regardless of the alternatives. With the price of oil stable, the oil companies don't have to constantly worry about buffering the price swings.

The car companies don't care - they will make whatever people will buy - gas, electric, hydrogen, steam. If you are going to drive it, they will (eventually) make it for you.

The power companies obviously would like to see a situation where they can sell more electricity at off-hour times. It just helps them run at a higher overall efficiency.

Yes, you can argue that the environmentalists may not be happy with the situation, but I don't think they have a major economic influence on transportation.

So by my reasoning, a fairly significant percentage of EV's would be good all around. EV's are the AMD of the transportation market.
 
IMO, there are multiple causes for the bungled DC charger roll-out in the USA.

All are related to what I think is the unaccepted reality today, that will be obvious, in retrospect.

A network of DC stations for fast charging BEVs will be the essential infrastructure that will allow America to replace the ICEV as the majority of the nations private vehicle fleet, and far sooner than is commonly expected.

I didn't believe this 5 years ago (I thought battery swap was the most likely BEV solution) and some on this forum a year ago were still saying DC, was not required, either because frequent DC use would “damage” the battery, or that one minute of DC charging for two to four miles of driving, was not fast enough.

The BEV/DC reality, that it’s here NOW, economically viable, and will soon be DEMANDED by all BEV drivers, has clearly not sunk in at most American EV manufactures, who are planning to try to sell less capable L2/AC only EVs.

DC superiority also has not seemed to have sunk in at the bureaucratic level in many States. If you look at where DC is being installed in the USA, it seems to either where a competent State bureaucracy “gets it”, such as Washington and Oregon, or where electricity retailers are allowed to pursue BEV customers in a largely free market, such as in Texas.

In California, we seem to be burdened by a PUC, CARB and regulated utilities, that are, by incompetence, blocking BEV adoption, by blocking DC charge infrastructure development, while expending huge amounts of public funding on less useful L2 public charging for EVs, and on what are far less likely, and clearly not presently viable (hydrogen, bio-fuel) energy alternatives.
 
what is wrong with tax supported? tax subsidies are used to encourage businesses to expand or allow them to survive. lets take HALF of the oil subsidies ( i am guessing they will survive without the $80 billion we give them annually) and use them to build and support a QC infrastructure. let them be free for now, then maybe institute a charging structure later down the road. doing it now with limited EVs on the road would probably cost more to implement and collect than its worth.

there is all kinds of levels of tax support and its obvious that EV support barely rates at the lowest level of pork barrel projects. it was something thrown in to get votes.

i cannot believe that people still think that EVs are not the way to go. sure they do not fit all our needs but they sure do fit a very large part of our needs and for multiple car households its a shame that people cant do it based on charging issues.

put L2 charging at EVERY shopping Mall, grocery store and strip mall. put L1 at EVERY employer. lets at least pretend we are behind EVs.

lets not have a consumer reject a 5 year loan on an EV based on the changing administrative stance on technology that may change every 4 years!
 
Back
Top