California to gain new EV charging stations under NRG settlement

I don't think that's the point. Even fast chargers take too much time to serve large numbers of travelers and you can rent for once-a-year trips.

It's not about 600 miles from A to B. It's about 35 miles from A to B in any weather conditions. It's about 50 miles from A to C.

Maybe in the future, it'll be a way of traveling longer distances, but the battery capacities aren't there yet.

 

I don't see QC as viable for 600 mile trips. Maybe for 150mile trips, where a single stop might get a leaf to its destination. What happens when you stop for a QC and its in use.. now the 30min is 60 or 90 (if there is a queue).

Rental was one of the things I considered when looking EV vs EREV. Unless I rented a 40mpg or better car, which is a good bit more difficult to find, I'm doing better in my Volt and with much less hassle. (A leaf would not even get me RT to/from the airport). At least in the mountain west density of these things is a decade away. I don't think there is a public charging station within 50miles, let alone a QC.

 

Does anyone know if this supports tesla fast charge for the tesla S. It seems those cars would be more likely to be able to actually make long trips versus the leaf.

Its interesting that NRG is investing $25 Million in charging stations in Texas, but the press release makes it sound as if the $100 Million for California was a law suit settlement. In my totally cynical POV, New Jersey based NRG probably wanted to install these chargers and get a potential lawsuit off the books. Its a good thing, but definitely not a $100M public works program.

The NRG QC here say they can charge 160 miles in about 1 hr. Long trips in a leaf aren't a plan, but maybe with infrastructure 50 mile each way commutes are with in range. Other further range bev and phevs need to make up those longer trips.

 

Like DrI said above, range is one issue, charging time is another.

We go to the gas station, and there's another car in front sometimes, no big deal, they fill up in a couple minutes. With 30 minutes charges, it becomes a big deal unless there are more chargers than EV's.

I see no mention of fast charging on the Model S page(s).

There is definitely a place for BEVs .... and EREV, PHEV, CNG, etc .... we need diversity

 

Tesla has its own Quick Charge protocol called Supercharger for the upcoming tesla S. It is supposed to be able to put 150 miles in a 300 mile pack in 30 minutes. It is quite different than the Japanese chademo used in the leaf. It would be a shame for california politics to put out a large number of chargers that can't be used on tomorrows cars. The ev1 padel chargers are now just about useless.

Other information

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/08/ev-charging-infrastructure/

 

Heard that.

 

QC does not really matter for a BEV commute of 50 miles each way.. charging at work is plenty fast enough. As I see it, QC is only needed for non-commute travel.

Your point about a Tesla charging is good. I could see using a model-S signature (300mile EV range), driving 250 miles, having a meal and then continuing to say my final 500 mile destination. (600 miles would cause too much range anxiety). So as BEVs become that good then it becomes interesting. Until then I carry a quick-charger with me

 

Personally, I look at this as more of laying down the very thing I think has been the hinderance of EV vehicles. That being the necessity for an Electrical Charging Infrastructure. The lack of it would make it difficult to really 'sell' EV vehicles and with it being established, the future of EV vehicles can be made to go further along with less uncertainty than before.

 

To be successful, BEVs don't need a charging infrastructure. As the link austingreen posted states, most potential BEV owners would prefer to charge at home. Most potential BEV owners and households are also already two vehicle ones. Replacing just one of those vehicles with a BEV will go a long ways to reducing the country's oil consumption.

The 'entry-level' BEVs now available already have a range to will work for most without needing supplemental charging during the day. The range does need to improve to allow for range loss during the winter, and also assuage range anxiety, before they can really catch on. Quick chargers can provide that as a stop gap until battery technology catches up. They won't allow BEVs to be used for long family vacations. At least the current the ones, the charge time will just be too long.

But we don't have all go EV for them to have an impact.

 

300 mile range is based on 55 MPH cruise. I-5 is 70 MPH speed limit. I guess 65 in slow lane would be reasonable, bringing the range down somewhat.

Tesla says 30 minutes for 50% charge with supercharge.

 

Ok, so the fast chargers along highways aren't so much for long distance travel, mostly to ease 'range anxiety' as in ....

just in case someone isn't going to make it home from the 50 mile one way trip (where they couldn't charge at grandma's house), can pop on the QC for xx minutes then head home.

That said, most seem very happy with their Leafs. So much that they drive it most of the time and the gas car collects more dust in the garage. Good.

 

You are missing the point, Trollbait.

While the BEVs are going to be short range, at the same time, people are not always going to be consistently 'home' ranged. In the long term, you want the car to not just be within a city, you want it to go from city to city. Some people actually drive further than the half way range where simply home charging is NOT the option. This is why some people who would WANT EV based vehicles can't jump at the option. Los Angeles is a prime example where it is not really a nice option for all people involved to have a car with a limited range.

A good example, let's take my cousin who lives in Laguna Nigel in Los Angeles. He works in Santa Monica. That is a 50+ mile commute. If he had a Leaf... He better damn well hope he has a means to charge his car AT WORK in order to get back home given that the max estimated range is about 100mi if you are lucky, but more likely around 75-80mi.

And before you say, "Why in the world would anyone commute that far?" Some places do not allow for reasonable rent, people do live with their relatives or just can't find reasonable places. Another obvious question would be "Why bother getting a Leaf?" And THAT is why I stated the EV vehicles are entering an immature market. The LACK of infrastructure is what will make it difficult to get into getting an EV based vehicle still unless there was a support for it.

The thing is, we need the infrastructure to be built up to support it and encourage people to purchase EV cars. This will also further invigorate development of better EV cars as there would be support for such cars that would encourage people to buy them and not seem like a 'novelty' to a degree, because that is where the car is sitting at, a novelty level and only useful for short range.

We (collectively) want transportation to take us where we want. Short range is not enough, but again, in order to fuel a leaning towards EV, there has to be infrastructure that can reassure people the current and future EV vehicles have something beyond the short range of a 35 to 40 mi round trip if you simply want to stick with 'just home charging' argument.

Our future should be not sticking with 'just home charging' and taking advantage of where one can charge and also, as Cycledrum bitterly complains, having to stop every 70 miles to recharge for 30 minutes.

 

IMHO it is doubtfull that those with long commutes and little disposable will be a large segment of initial adopters. I agree that charging will allow trips to be 1 way instead of round trip on a charge. The original zev mandate seemed to overestimate the technology and underestimate gasoline availability. Companies like NRG are going to closely track usage. They make more money selling electricity to homes and businesses, but want the infrastructure to allow more EVs. We won't know the answers of usage patterns until some of the infrastructure is built, but I go allong with the wired article, and believe only a small percentage will be on QC.

There is a ready but small market of initial adopters. Two things that have come out in surveys of the leaf, that is looks and range. Tesla S should not have these problems, but price becomes an issue there. As battery technology matures I hope all these objections can be overcome.

 

But again, you are only focusing on one part of the overall picture I am pointing out. I would have been one of those 'initial adopters' however, what has me not accepting it right now is my concern about the range and the price. The initial price is going to be a stunting point regardless, however, the other issue again is that if I wish to do more than have it be a simple commuter (Being a 1 car owner versus a 2), I don't look at the Leaf or the Volt right now as an 'obvious' choice to jump at until the infrastructure is there to make the savings more worthwhile.

To me, the more obvious answer to the EV purchase solution, beyond the cost, is the actual adoption of charging points to make such vehicles not only worthwhile but also providing opportunities for people to not feel 100% hampered by the design of the BEV or any EV vehicle. And yes, maturing battery technology might bring down the price, but again, how do you encourage people to keep producing better batteries? By having demand of product that needs it. I see that the only thing that developed the battery tech for the most part wasn't the EV1, but going small with the cellphones, the laptops and now netbook/tablets, wanting lighter weight devices.

You also realize that Electric Carts and Electric Vehicles have been around for several years as well, but were not considered practical 'cars'. While I am not sure about what battery technology it was using, again, they were meant for short range, not for what people will eventually want, which is longer range, just as people want their devices to hold a charge longer than a day these days. And one of the things that has a lot of these devices floating around is, surprisingly enough infrastructure to support it and people taking advantage of that.

 

I'm confused by your response. I can see the Leaf being a no-go without infrastructure, but one of the reasons I went with the Volt is because Colorado and the mountain west lacks charging infrastructure but with the Volts EREV design I can still use the gas-station infrastructure.

For me the Volt was the best way to reduce gas consumption. I've already done a 900+ mile trip (crossing 4 states) and multiple 200m one-way trips. Taking those trips in my wife's SUV would have taken much more gas (so a Leaf would have effectively used 40 gallons more gas. A Prius would have used 80 gallons more. Oh and my costs are about $.026/mile mostly for wind-power.

 

The selling point of the Volt is that it is an EV car, even though technically, it is an EV car with an ICE Range extender. The thing is, the Volt is suffering the issue of cost. It's cost, without the known incentives is way higher than the existing Prius cars.

And not knowing about the Range Extending ICE generator, people will also look a little at the Volt's savings as not being 100% there without taking advantage of the Charging points and the lower cost. Please remember, the selling point of EVs is to do two things:

1) Get off Gas
2) Use Electricity to be the lower, renewable fuel source.

The Volt, right now looks like an expensive Prius, but uses the Electric motor more. Ideally, it would be better to have the charge points to keep the cost of fuel low and enjoy also the longer ranges it has. But in the meantime, I strongly feel that in general, HAVING charging points being built up, would benefit the Volt more by furthering its range and using less fuel, making the gas be the emergency reserve. You state your costs is .026/mile with Electric. That's great. Now... What is it when you are going past your normal battery range, don't charge up short of the Range extension. It's only the miles travelled on the Electric + gallons used * last rate you paid for Premium gas. Now comparing that scenario where you do get to recharge without having to go into range extension mode for the full round trip. To be honest, the savings is better without the Range extension kicking in than to have the range extension kicking in and to me, that maybe the one thing that may hang over some people. The Volt is a 'Leaf' but paying for the convenience of a better portable generator that will be flipped on the fly.

And ultimately, you WANT the way of the car to be full electric and lower price point, but the problem is, without the infrastructure being there, you won't get people adopting the electric vehicle technology due to range limitation. The Volt's method is different, it is only a few years old and with the high costs, people aren't going to embrace it, even with reassurance, as it didn't exactly get hordes of people to cling to the Prius the first few years as well, after all, it has only started growing more and more just like Blu-ray DVD. It is basically jumping to 'accept' a standard... You know that Toyota was not the only Hybrid out there, Honda also had their Hybrid as well, Nissan as well. I remember looking at looking at the Honda Civic Hybrid 6-8 years ago, but Toyota Prius is 'top' with the Gas-Electric hybrid. Again, it is a 'wait and see' type of culture to see what would be the good jumping for. Not everyone will be convinced without some sort of safety net and someone may put out a 'better' EV than the Volt or a different variant than the Volt, but it still boils down to one simple fact... We want to head towards Electric Cars... We will still need the infrastructure, even if you want to keep sticking ICE generators as range extension, cause you want the ICE to be the 'safety blanket' not 'necessity' to get further, you want the Infrastructure to encourage people to adopt the frugality of Electric Recharging, using renewable power versus gas. But you won't get that if you rely on the 'safety blanket' to cover the battery's short coming of range and not give people the infrastructure to ween ourselves off gas or not use an ICE engine that uses something other than crude oil fuel sources.

 

Don't agree with most of what you said. The Volt is not an expensive prius, its mostly an EV with an occasional range extender. But the range extender means I don't use the SUV for long trips.

To start, the only charging stations I've been to are not cheap enough to consider.
U.Col Boulder campus has one and its $3/hour for L2, max 3 hours, so for $9 I can get about 30miles of charge. No thanks, gas would have to be $12 a gallon for that to be cheaper.

Canopy parking at Denver international provides free charging if you valet park, and it too is only $9 a day extra, though since its a full charge I'd get 40 miles, so its about one gallon's worth of $9/gallon.

Installing a decent L2 charger in a public place costs $2-$20K depending on the install complexity. A QC will be an order or magnitude more. The settlement has 100Million providing 200 fast-charge and 10000 or about $9.8K per unit, most of which will be L2. In the long-term the installers have to turn a profit which means they have to cover the costs of electricity (which is cheap) but also amortize the install costs + maintenance + profit over the few customers. I've looked at many business models, and its unclear that a recharging infrastructure will be financially sustainable.


I'm not sure that BEV and QC is a viable long-term answer. I believe that an EREV is a better medium or even long-term solution. With an EREV you get the value of electricity for normal driving and the density/speed of other fuels for long distance. The alternative fuel for the EREV may not be gasoline, it could be CNG, biodisel or even hydrogen, but the cost of a 300 mile battery will be higher than an ICE for a long time. CNG or hydrogen, if I'm only filling up every few months or on major road trips is not near the infrastructure demands as 1 pump could handle dozens of people per hour, a QC can handle 1. Once a 250mile BEV is affordable, I could see models where the range extender is a rentable option for long trips (e.g. from UHALL).

If anything for long-term BEVs I see the battery-swapping and the better long-term model, as it can be much faster for a full charge and as it works for apartment dwellers too. With a BEV+swapping you address people that cannot plug in at home (millions) and it is convenient enough to go far and even address the long-term battery replacement issue, you don't own it you rent it.

 

Realisticly, it is going to be awhile, if ever, before a BEV can work for a one car household. The Tesla S with 300 mile range could probably do it, but I'm willing to bet the people that can afford it already have more than one car.

That's ok, the BEV doesn't have to work for everyone. It just has to work for most in order for it to be a benefit to society. They are already near the most point. Most people don't have 50 mile one way commutes. Most have commutes that can be served by the average 70 mile range available now. It might work for me outside of winter. Cold weather range is currently an issue, but should be solved with increased range. A charging network might also work, but to be honest, I wouldn't get a BEV that couldn't get to work and back on a single charge.

The price can be a stumbling block, but people have to learn to get past the sticker shock. Fuel and maintenance costs are going to lower than a traditional car. The prices are still high, but not horrible. Some of it is do to limited markets and production. That, and an outside contractor, is what plagues the Focus EV $40k price. The Leaf starts at $36k and the iMiEV at $28k. Most of that price increase over the traditional car is battery. Renault, IIRC, is leasing the battery on their EV. This brings the purchase price down to the regular car level, and you still end up ahead in fuel costs with the monthly lease fee.

 

I wonder how things are going in Japan with their vast QC network.

$3 / hour for L2? Hopefully that includes hourly parking fee which can be $2/hr on university campuses.

API still has a lot of oil and gas they want to drill for and sell. They play the 'energy tomorrow' commericial about every day.

I heard Chelsea Sexton said would be better to invest in charging infrastructure for homes and multi-family units (apartments) and workplace (I think). At least get that down and clean up the commutes.

 

And here is where I disagree on that. Long Term, you don't want to be relying on gas at ALL. That is the point of WEENING us off crude oil fuel sources. The general intention is to move towards renewable energy sources not stay with a non-renewable energy source. Is that not the point of what an EV car is suppose to be? The range extender, in my opinion is a safety blanket, but in the long term, you don't WANT to be reliant on the crude oil range extender.

Furthermore, U of Colorado, probably like other places, are having the people who are going there to pay off the installation of said chargers as well as probably like every other university, trying to milk as much as they can to encourage people going there to use Mass transit and not use personal vehicles to go there. My own Alma Mater has parking meters that are ridiculously priced, even though they have parking structures that replaced the old parking lots that were there, again for that very same reason.

Another thing is, your situation is NOT the same situation in other places. Hell, I work in Santa Barbara, and in SOME public parking structures, there is a few spots with 'Electric Cars Only' with an outlet there, no an L2 charger, but an actual outlet to plug into. To be honest, it doesn't REQUIRE valet parking to plug into the grid to get a recharge, but again, not all the public parking structures have been outfitted to allow for this and again, this is not an L2 charger, but it does lend one thing to my thinking, the encouragement to USE EVs and providing the infrastructure to that encouragement, especially for people who are outside of the estimated return range of some of those vehicles.

The thing you and a few others are ignoring or want to ignore is that in the long run, the practical point is to get off the use of non-renewable fuel sources, and this is coming from a person DRIVING a car that is running on a non-renewable fuel source. A single car driver should be not only able to afford such a vehicle, but also feel that in the long run it isn't going to be a problem. And personally, I feel that it IS a problem with a weak infrastructure. People are going to feel like Cycledrum where it doesn't seem very practical to need to stop every x miles for 30+ minutes to gain an extra x miles to go. You find that it is cheaper to have the fuel source instead of making use of charge points and cite two situations that both situations charge you for it, yet cite that this is the end all versus the reasoning for it, which I cited for a University, that is one way they encourage people to not take up space, and the other is more than liking trying to offset not only the cost of the charger and the use of their electrical, but just to take advantage of people they view as having the money to afford it.

But hey... If you want to NOT encourage beefing up the infrastructure for electric recharging for EV cars, and want to keep using non-renewable fuel to recharge the car for extended ranges... You could have just bought a Honda Hybrid imo... >.>