Marktm wrote: ↑
Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:10 am
It's obvious you are a knowledgeable, concerned individual that believes "transportation" vehicles of all types need to get off the hydrocarbon teat. Disappointing to me that this article has really no impact on progressing commercial truck delivery issues in any way. Any type of conventional thinking about "fast charging" and in particular the highest charge levels of J-1772 based systems will be completely inadequate for commercial truck charge systems. It sure seems that when massive storage systems (to levelize grid support requirements), much higher VDC battery/charging systems, and local microgrids (where applicable) are being recognized as basic requirements, then actual progress can be seen. The required grid support requirements to reduce the local storage requirements can then be designed/and installed on a realistic schedule (years??).
As you are constantly looking for such "innovation" type articles, please continue to keep us informed - and thanks for your diligence.
IIUY correctly, you're saying that BEVs are currently a poor fit for long-haul trucking, given not just the infrastructure requirements but also battery tech. I agree, barring a major tech improvement to batteries. To me, at the moment BEV trucks make the most sense for P&D and some regional distribution, with FCEVs/PHFCEVs taking over the long-haul routes.
For LeftieBiker, it's the potential availability of more charging for cars
that led me to post this in this sub-forum, otherwise I would have put it in the "AFV Truck/Commercial Vehicle" topic. Depending on the definition of QCs as to whether they mean 'sites' or 'charging' stations, 4,000 QC sites
in ten years equals or exceeds the rate at which EA has been deploying QCs. If charging stations
is correct, it's still a significant addition to the total given the current low numbers.
Since we already have a 'charging networks' sub-forum, it seems redundant to make a 'charging networks' topic as well.