ABG:EV charging is not cost competitive at retail stations, says Phillips 66

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.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
https://www.autoblog.com/2021/03/07/ev-charging-not-cost-competetive-phillips-66/


Electric vehicle charging in retail stations is “not a runaway bestseller” for Phillips 66 because charging is slower and “awfully expensive” compared with the cost of charging at home, the U.S. refiner’s chief economist Horace Hobbs said at an energy conference this week.

Less than 2% of the refiner’s 7,000 retail locations in the United States and Europe have electric vehicle charging capability. . . .

Phillips has to ask consumers to pay a higher price for electricity at their public stations than what customers would pay charging their cars at home, Hobbs said on a downstream energy panel at IHS Markit’s CERAWeek virtually-held conference.

“There’s not a fleet out there today to keep the chargers running at a rate that would support economically putting it in more of the facilities,” Hobbs said.

The refiner has had the most success with electric charging in European urban areas where parking is more expensive, and customers use charging stations as parking.

While Phillips 66 expects electric vehicle penetration to grow in the United States in the near future, most users will likely charge their cars at their homes, Hobbs said. . . .
 
Translation:

We've been making obscene profits selling gasoline for decades, thanks to collusion and oligopoly.

So, unless we gouge consumers when providing DC fast charging, our stock holders won't be happy. It's also really crappy that consumers will have the choice to charge at home - it's unfair that our industry should have to face competition of any kind.

So, instead we'll pretend to accept green initiatives and meanwhile we'll lobby politicians and litigate like crazy to try to stop the proliferation of EV public charging and EVs in general.


Seeking opinions from oil executives about EVs is like asking an executioner what his stance is on capital punishment.
 
As the late Jack Rickard liked to point out, gas stations don't make their money selling gasoline, but on "Big Gulps, Slim Jims and Funyuns".

Those sales are to people who are only onsite for maybe 10 minutes. With an EV customer you've got a captive audience for maybe 30 minutes or more. If you can't capitalize on that maybe it's due to lack of imagination.
 
LOL, that made my morning! :lol: :lol: :lol:

alozzy said:
Translation:

We've been making obscene profits selling gasoline for decades, thanks to collusion and oligopoly.

So, unless we gouge consumers when providing DC fast charging, our stock holders won't be happy. It's also really crappy that consumers will have the choice to charge at home - it's unfair that our industry should have to face competition of any kind.

So, instead we'll pretend to accept green initiatives and meanwhile we'll lobby politicians and litigate like crazy to try to stop the proliferation of EV public charging and EVs in general.


Seeking opinions from oil executives about EVs is like asking an executioner what his stance is on capital punishment.
 
On one of the YouTube channels I follow they raised an interesting point, (so did Nubo above) which is the fact that most gas stations do NOT make their money on gas. It is on snacks and drinks and hot dogs and prostitution (Nevada only).

So why does everyone seem to expect a charging network to be able to make money on charging?

While having these charging stations at rest stops and such is great for the driver, it does make it an issue for the charging company to try and make money. Because what else can they sell there?

On the other hand, if a store like sprouts (Amazon?) installs chargers at their stores, they can recoup some of that cost by you spending money in their store.
 
It does seem that Nevada has an advantage here: EVs charging and taking 45 minutes or so..... Hard to nurse a coffee that long!
 
The gas station business model doesn't work for BEVs due to their long dwell time in a space-constrained business which requires rapid turnover. Should SSBs or some other battery tech allow charging times of <=10 minutes, that will no longer be the case.

Charging times of 20 minutes or so could justify QCs at fast food restaurants. At the moment, you require a sit-down restaurant length stop to justify QC, but putting in enough chargers to handle the potential demand during surge periods would be very expensive.

On top of that, we also need cheap storage to eliminate or at least reduce demand charges, or QCing will remain more expensive than gas.
 
First off, Quick Charging is a convenience not a necessity. It's always going to cost more than charging at home. Your typical 7-11 has enough parking for 3-4 charging stations plus plus space for non-ev customers. The bigger problem is demand charges from the local electric company. To solve that you need battery storage on site. Phillips may be complaining about those costs and you have to remember that they don't make money from the food sales, that's the franchisee's cut. A better fit would be at fast food joints. Plenty of parking, captive audience for 20-30 minutes, and a slight profit from the charging stations. Just imagine a couple of charging stations at every McDonald's, Wendy's and Taco Bell. Stand alone gas stations are already obsolete and sales of gasoline could end up more like sales of LP gas to people with rv's and barbeque grills.
 
It's easy for Phillips 66 to complain but not long ago in the previous century, you didn't have gas stations everywhere either. The very first ones were just "filling stations" with nothing but a small shed and some pumps. Over the years it has morphed of course into food, restaurants, vehicle service, etc. because that was a business model that worked for people that ran them. I don't see the Phillips 66 complaints as an apples to apples comparison since the business model of "what do you put with a QC station" is still evolving today. Maybe someone should build a VR gaming business next to a QC station or perhaps put a hotdog stands around all QC stations, you never know what people will stick with. I think trying to peg the gas station business model to a QC station model is trying to recycle something familiar into something different all together. :?
 
knightmb said:
It's easy for Phillips 66 to complain but not long ago in the previous century, you didn't have gas stations everywhere either. The very first ones were just "filling stations" with nothing but a small shed and some pumps. Over the years it has morphed of course into food, restaurants, vehicle service, etc. because that was a business model that worked for people that ran them. I don't see the Phillips 66 complaints as an apples to apples comparison since the business model of "what do you put with a QC station" is still evolving today. Maybe someone should build a VR gaming business next to a QC station or perhaps put a hotdog stands around all QC stations, you never know what people will stick with. I think trying to peg the gas station business model to a QC station model is trying to recycle something familiar into something different all together. :?


The problem is that the operational demand for rapid 'refueling,' i.e. energy replenishment, hasn't changed. The time, convenience and flexibility advantages remain a huge advantage, so while John Locke's statement that QC is "a convenience not a necessity" is true in the abstract, it's critical in the real world, especially when you're trying to replace a technology that has rapid replenishment with one that only offers much slower replenishment, when customers are used to and will demand the former.

I want the fastest charging I can get on trips. On a typical 'weekend' trip last November in a Bolt, what would normally have taken about 4 hours one-way including a stop for gas instead took 6.5, owing mostly to the Bolt's slow QC. Part of the issue was the lack of QC sites where they'd do the most good given the Bolt's limited range compared to a typical ICE, and a little bit to driving slower than normal just to reach the next charging site, but the rest was the 50kW max. and steadily reducing charge rate. That these charging stops forced me to spend extended time in places I had no desire to spend even a minute was adding insult to injury.

As QC stations proliferate some of these issues will be reduced, but the fastest possible charging will always be considered an advantage in convenience and flexibility, which is why we've seen a steady increase in charge rates. If such charging remains more expensive than the alternative, there's little incentive for non-ideological customers to switch to BEVs.
 
GRA said:
If such charging remains more expensive than the alternative, there's little incentive for non-ideological customers to switch to BEVs.

Other than for the many people really wouldn't use public DCQC charging that much.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
If such charging remains more expensive than the alternative, there's little incentive for non-ideological customers to switch to BEVs.

Other than for the many people really wouldn't use public DCQC charging that much.


That assumes that most customers buy cars primarily for their typical rather than thir occasional use cases. The evidence is the opposite. Then there are the customers who don't have guaranteed access to home or work charging, or who may move or change jobs where they may lose that charging.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
If such charging remains more expensive than the alternative, there's little incentive for non-ideological customers to switch to BEVs.

Other than for the many people really wouldn't use public DCQC charging that much.


That assumes that most customers buy cars primarily for their typical rather than thir occasional use cases. The evidence is the opposite. Then there are the customers who don't have guaranteed access to home or work charging, or who may move or change jobs where they may lose that charging.
Declare EVs a failure because the infrastructure needed in 2060 isn't in place yet? Amusing.

The expense of public charging is a tiny fraction of ownership costs, except for two corner cases. Those few that will not have home, work or apartment charging in about three more decades when needed. And the very few that drive mostly long distances.
 
I find it amusing that you two often end up in this same argument, arguing the two extremes. I think reality falls in between.

There is certainly "sticker shock" of DCFC costs that affects many people, who don't realize how little they will need to use it. The trouble is getting them to actually try living with an EV. Buying (or even leasing) an EV is a huge commitment for an experiment. And renting, even for a week, doesn't give you the full experience. In a week of commuting, they may have gone to the gas station once (if at all). It's the cumulative savings of home charging that you only realize when you live with an EV.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Other than for the many people really wouldn't use public DCQC charging that much.


That assumes that most customers buy cars primarily for their typical rather than thir occasional use cases. The evidence is the opposite. Then there are the customers who don't have guaranteed access to home or work charging, or who may move or change jobs where they may lose that charging.

Declare EVs a failure because the infrastructure needed in 2060 isn't in place yet? Amusing.


It would be amusing, if I'd ever done so. As it is, you make a straw man argument.


WetEV said:
The expense of public charging is a tiny fraction of ownership costs, except for two corner cases. Those few that will not have home, work or apartment charging in about three more decades when needed. And the very few that drive mostly long distances.

You think we can afford to wait three decades? I don't, which is why I consider PHEVs the mainstream option for now, as you don't put all your eggs in what is currently an inadequate basket, while eliminating the vast majority (dare I say 80%?) of emissions ASAP in the areas that need it the most. Those who have stable home or work charging and who rarely if ever take even weekend trips can go BEV now if they can afford it, and everyone else could switch to a PHEV and charge it an increasing % of the time as infrastructure increases, while still being able to do their weekend getaways and road trips as quickly and conveniently as they do now, i.e. an essentially painless transition.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
I find it amusing that you two often end up in this same argument, arguing the two extremes. I think reality falls in between.

There is certainly "sticker shock" of DCFC costs that affects many people, who don't realize how little they will need to use it. The trouble is getting them to actually try living with an EV. Buying (or even leasing) an EV is a huge commitment for an experiment. And renting, even for a week, doesn't give you the full experience. In a week of commuting, they may have gone to the gas station once (if at all). It's the cumulative savings of home charging that you only realize when you live with an EV.


Of course, you first have to get over the higher upfront cost (barring subsidies) of buying a BEV, plus any costs to install charging at home, and the hassle if switching to ToU metering if offered, etc. etc. As you mention, there's a big commitment involved for the average driver who just wants their car to get them where they want to go, with the least amount of fuss.

BTW, I disagree that I'm arguing from an extreme, as I've consistently advocated for as many options as possible that give the biggest bang for the buck with the least hassle for the average consumer in their particular situation, as my sig specifically implies. As I've said, I believe we need 80% soonest rather than 100% later.

I freely acknowledge that my own driving needs are currently at one extreme and likely to stay that way, but they weren't always so. I have plenty of experience as a typical daily driver to fall back on.
 
I encourage people to try PHEV if they don't want to commit to the full EV, but a common "excuse" I hear from those people tend to be the same of "well, if everything is going to electric, I don't want to be stuck hauling around a gas engine when I will almost never need it". Or the ever clever "but it has a smaller battery so I'll just be using gas anyway". People always want to make excuses for why they can't drive anything with the world "electric" in the acronym somewhere because they are afraid of the unknown and want stick to the familiar.

I don't know if anyone goes to the annual National Drive Electric week where we all pile in tons of Leaf, Bolts & Volts, Tesla, Zero EV into a location to show them off and let everyone else come and look at them, play with the vehicles, even do test drives in them to help spread the word. We all give them honest advice of what you can and can't do with them, how we use them, what we think of them, etc. So many people have the look of wanting to do it but scared to get away from the gas. The last one in 2020, so many people were surprised to hear that EV have been for sale since 2008 (EV1 from GM not withstanding since that was lease only) most only seem to think they came out in 2018, so when I was showing off my 2013 SV and someone else still had a 2012 Model S still in good working order, it blows their minds that they have existed that long. :lol: :lol:

Mine is the Silver Leaf behind the Red Tesla during the event.
LqUYzqe.jpg


GRA said:
You think we can afford to wait three decades? I don't, which is why I consider PHEVs the mainstream option for now, as you don't put all your eggs in what is currently an inadequate basket, while eliminating the vast majority (dare I say 80%?) of emissions ASAP in the areas that need it the most. Those who have stable home or work charging and who rarely if ever take even weekend trips can go BEV now if they can afford it, and everyone else could switch to a PHEV and charge it an increasing % of the time as infrastructure increases, while still being able to do their weekend getaways and road trips as quickly and conveniently as they do now, i.e. an essentially painless transition.
 
knightmb said:
I encourage people to try PHEV if they don't want to commit to the full EV, but a common "excuse" I hear from those people tend to be the same of "well, if everything is going to electric, I don't want to be stuck hauling around a gas engine when I will almost never need it".


To which I'd reply that it makes even less sense to pay a great deal more for and haul around the even greater weight of the just as rarely-used extra battery that will provide only a fraction of the range of the ICE and its available anywhere fuel, especially at a time when batteries are limited by production (eventually they may be limited by raw materials). Example: Kia Niro BEV base MSRP $39,090, range 239 miles combined, 0-60 6.7 sec., curb wgt. 3,854 lb., Fed tax credit $7590; Niro PHEV base MSRP $24,590, 26 miles AER combined & 560 total combined, 0-60 7.6 sec., curb wgt. 3,161 Ib., [Correction] Kia's website seems to be a bit buggy, and it gave me the MSRP and curb wgt. for the HEV rather than the PHEV. Here's the PHEV numbers: $29,590, Fed tax credit $4,543., 3,384 to 3,443 lb.,


knightmb said:
Or the ever clever "but it has a smaller battery so I'll just be using gas anyway". People always want to make excuses for why they can't drive anything with the world "electric" in the acronym somewhere because they are afraid of the unknown and want stick to the familiar.

Sure, which is why we need to make the transition as painless as possible. I went through the 'introducing a new tech' phase to the public about 30 years ago when I was selling off-grid systems, mainly PV-battery. The one thing I became convinced of then is that you can't argue anyone into adopting a new tech, they have to convince themselves. All you can do is provide them with as much info as they want to absorb, pro and con, and let them decide what's right for them and their situation. The early adopters are willing to take risks, but for the general public you have to make the transition easy. See last paragraph below.


knightmb said:
I don't know if anyone goes to the annual National Drive Electric week where we all pile in tons of Leaf, Bolts & Volts, Tesla, Zero EV into a location to show them off and let everyone else come and look at them, play with the vehicles, even do test drives in them to help spread the word. We all give them honest advice of what you can and can't do with them, how we use them, what we think of them, etc. So many people have the look of wanting to do it but scared to get away from the gas. The last one in 2020, so many people were surprised to hear that EV have been for sale since 2008 (EV1 from GM not withstanding since that was lease only) most only seem to think they came out in 2018, so when I was showing off my 2013 SV and someone else still had a 2012 Model S still in good working order, it blows their minds that they have existed that long. :lol: :lol:


I've been to events like those, and I've also provided a great deal of ad hoc instruction and information. To take one example, the 15-20 minutes I spent explaining to the 3-month Model Y owner at the L2 chargers in Lee Vining last October why the J1772 adapter supplied with his car wouldn't work on the EA QCs in Bridgeport he'd tried to charge at; that he needed to buy a CHAdeMO adapter if he wanted to use non-Tesla QCs; the difference between CCS and CHAdeMO; paying procedures; how much the adapters cost; and that he could probably save himself a couple of hundred by seeing if anyone had a used one for sale on TMC, a forum he was unaware of. He had his wife and two daughters with him, and was a bit stressed out.

Compare that to a PHEV on the same trip. Don't understand the differences between QC charging protocols or the different providers? No worries, just go buy gas like you always have, because you know that will work, and you can figure out this other stuff if and when you want to (assuming your PHEV can QC, which IMO is unnecessary given refueling gas is far faster).
 
Quotes are messed up.
GRA said:
WetEV said:
The expense of public charging is a tiny fraction of ownership costs, except for two corner cases. Those few that will not have home, work or apartment charging in about three more decades when needed. And the very few that drive mostly long distances.

You think we can afford to wait three decades? I don't, which is why I consider PHEVs the mainstream option for now, as you don't put all your eggs in what is currently an inadequate basket, while eliminating the vast majority (dare I say 80%?) of emissions ASAP in the areas that need it the most. Those who have stable home or work charging and who rarely if ever take even weekend trips can go BEV now if they can afford it, and everyone else could switch to a PHEV and charge it an increasing % of the time as infrastructure increases, while still being able to do their weekend getaways and road trips as quickly and conveniently as they do now, i.e. an essentially painless transition.

We have no choice about waiting. If sales double every two or three years, which is about as fast as is likely, from a manufacturing prospective and from a social prospective, then it and from an infrastructure prospective, then in about 5 doubling times or 10 to 15 years, the majority of cars sold will be electrics. As the average life of a car on the road is over a decade, then in 20 to 25 years will be starting to be worrying about the infrastructure of the remaining. PHEVs don't change the infrastructure used daily that much.
 
Back
Top