Plug-In Road Rage: It begins

That's a windmill you're tilting at.

 

The plan targets liquid petroleum fuel users who can practically convert to natgas, essentially terrestrial (road, rail) and maritime, not aviation (except in the context of GTL). There was a direct call for natgas fueling infrastructure investment.

 

This guy was pissed enough to get the thing off.

 

For pluging in? You probably won't be around. Really this is a blown out of proportion story.
Now if you drill down at the data, you will see the 2 areas CARB has selected for pushing ZEVs are the number 2 and 3 areas for longest commute. Absolute corrolation for road rage. I don't think that it has much at all to do with lack of chargers
Top 10 cities with worst traffic commutes: Surprise [Graphic] - latimes.com

When california surved their leaf users they found charging not to be a problem. Only 8% had daily drives over 45 miles, but most wanted more range in their cars. When we drill down to the data we see that employers are putting in plugs, and its not a big problem. bolding is mine
Survey: To Be Satisfied, Electric Car Drivers Want 150 Miles of Range | PluginCars.com

So we should take a step back and use the data to see if adding fees to the conflicted chargers will simply get people to not want to charge. To me employers that are forward looking should provide free charging like they do free coffee as a benefit of working there. I certainly would not get the government involved unless less there was a problem there.

In texas form of deregulation regulation the municipal and corporate utilities are providing massive amounts of chargers, but what to get customers to charge at home. That is when electricity costs them the least. The infrastructure is just in case, to provide an occasional charge. Your scheme would seem to favor california regulations to encourage peak time charging. These utilities like City of Austin and NRG are building chargers but charging other rate payers for them. If more cars are charged at night, it will drop rates for everyone.

No to vow of poverty, these simply to not require the government to get involved to reduce range anxiety. The volt can run on gas. The tesla charged at home, or on the companies supercharger network (mostly completed

We have the infrastructure to charge at night at home. Why do you want the government to push small batteried plug-ins? That seems counter productive. Then instead of simply pushing battery prices lower, and plug-ins being self sustaining, you are going to require an expensive infrastructure. I have nothing against a 10 mile phev, if that is what the user chooses, but most of the cost is simply to make it a phev. If we have $200-$300/kwh of batteries (estimates in 2020) and you can get 20 miles out of 7 kwh or 40 miles out of 14kwh, then at $300 we are only talking $2100 cost in batteries versus $4200. To satisfy cafe the car companies likely won't mark up battery costs much after the tax credits run out. If you work at a job that has a plug or can get one great, you can choose the lower range, but the cost of batteries is likely lower than the cost of the infrastructure, and charging at night makes the cost of electricity lower.

What you have done here is created bassakwards economics. Assuming that batteries should be small simply because some big companies tell you so. Tesla has pretty much proved that large batteries don't kill efficiency.

spark ev has a range of 80 miles and gm has said they want to make one with a 200 mile range when battery prices come down. Its just really a learning experience for them.

fiat has said the 500 e is just a compliance car. They don't really want to sell them. Why would you build infrastrcue for them.

 

I never said that.
I never said I want governmental involvement -whether local, state or federal- to combat 'range anxiety', which involves primarily psychology, daily planning, and individual purchase decisions (whether to go PHEV or EV, and if EV how much range). This is not the province of government.
I clearly said that government -including, and especially, the federal government- has a legitimate role to play in reducing foreign oil usage. The workplace EVSE infrastructure would have federal involvement only for this purpose (if it were found to be effective). The federal involvement is only there for GHG and oil reduction....if it reduces 'range axiety' for drivers, so be it. That is a side benefit. It is no different than how CAFE's purpose means different things to the EPA (reduced GHGs) than it does to the NHTSA (reduced foreign oil), but they both intersect and end up having the side-benefit (or, as we in economics call it, a "positive externality") of reducing local smog, asthma cases and keep more money in the local economy.

Yes, we do have infrastructure (aka 'outlets') to charge our cars at night. I never denied that, but so? They are already there, and our cars get to do something productive in the garage rather than just sit there. But they are only half the infrastructure; the same could be said of why a car is just sitting there at work when it could be charging?
I don't want the "government pushing" small-battery plug-ins. You are really twisting my words here. Let me repeat my position:
(1) Studies should determine how much mass-deployment of 110v at workplaces would cost, especially with critical employers likely to have large #'s of EVs. I don't have the numbers, and neither do you. What I can say with confidence is that (a) 110v should cost less than 220v, all else being equal and (b) because of the 8+ hours cars are sitting there idle, 110v should re-fill almost all PHEV batteries and alleviate almost all EV range anxiety
(2) Based on info in (1) it -might- be found that tax credits towards workplace EVSE is more effective than those towards battery kWh

No, I have not created "bassakwards" economics. I have not created any type of economics. I am simply explaining to you how economics actually works.
No company "told me" batteries should be small; it is common sense. Your Tesla example doesn't prove a thing....you are never going to get volume on cars that price.
The bottom line is that when it comes to EVs, it doesn't matter what "can be done". 300 mile EVs can be done, heck even 200 mile EVs for under $30k will probably be done very soon. What matters is what sells the most. Do you recall the example I gave a few posts back of a hypothetical Ford Fusion EV??
A Ford Fusion Ecoboost will always outsell a Fusion Hybrid
A Fusion Hybrid will always outsell a Fusion Energi
and the Fusion Energi will always outsell a Fusion EV
This is an iron law of consumer 'rational' choice. People make decisions at the margins, and they will always choose the car that costs the least, with a (heavily discounted) value given to reduced future gasoline use. That is why we have always seen that B.S. with regard to the 'payback' on the 'hybrid premium'......we are starting to see less of it now that component prices have dropped and gas prices are up. Eventually every car will be some sort of hybrid, and guess what? Then they will no longer complain about a "hybrid premium" but they will be complaining about a "plug premium" of how a PHEV is 'not worth it' compared to a HEV, and on and on until every car is an EV. Bottom line is, we don't know where gas prices will go, and you yourself presented that chart from McKinsey plotting gas prices vs. adoption of EV/PHEV/HEV/ICE. But, at any given price, a lower AER PHEV will always outsell a higher AER PHEV.......especially once the AER is 'good enough' to ensure 50-100% gas-free commute, and even more so with workplace EVSE.

You don't know it is expensive. We haven't seen the costs yet, but what we have seen is a lot of counter-productive, fragmented promotion of workplace L2.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. YOu don't need L2 at work. Your car is parked there for 8+ hours. L2 is more expensive and a waste of money. Yes, it charges fast, which might mean fewer stations deployed, but then it involves the pain-n-the -rear of having employees unplug their coworkers to plug in their car, and that creates the type of problem we are now seeing.
Give every EV/PHEV a dedicated 110v. That is a possible solution.
Now, as far as costs are concerned, I said these should be split between employer, employee, utility and possibly gov. help.
Employer - gets benefit of Green PR and reduced oil use.......workplace charging is a perk to employees, and could potentially be worth $100-$200/mo. 'salary increase' depending on commute length and vehicle efficiency. It costs them nothing to simply host EVSE on their property; I don't think they should cover entire installation costs on their own
Employee - gets benefit of above-mentioned 'salary increase'....should still be expected to pay per kwh price, especially since charging is during peak hours, but this still beats gasoline
Utility - increased electric sales, and jump-starting of new techs: smart grids, V2G, grid storage, etc.
Government - Legitimate role in reducing GHG's, foreign oil, respiratory ailments, and ensuring more money remains in local economies as opposed to Mideast shiekdoms

 

To many contradictions, back peddles and modified answers for me to even bother with this guy anymore.

 

That's because you can't think of any. If you could, you'd list them.
Look, if your going to come onto a forum to spread incorrect economic theories, then I will call you out on it.....I worked way too hard for my degree not to.


iPad ? HD

 

Ain't that special. He's got a college degree. The only one spreading economic "theories" is you sir, and I disagreed with yours to mandate (force) employers to become fueling stations. I quoted you and stated my reasons why. Have a nice day teaching your class, but I did not sign up, nor will I sign off on this. We are done because I have to go work in the real world now.

 

Apologies. You did but you said it to bed rock not me, and I misinterpreted what you meant. What I said still goes, but I guess you agree.

You said you wanted a mandate for employers to have chargers. To me that is government involvement, that I disagree with. Now lets face it I am supportive of the government involvement in helping make battery technology viable. To me the number of L2 public chargers to combat range anxiety or being stranded is fine in most places now. In Texas the utilities put them in because they want more home charging.

Sure, and I threw out some numbers about why I don't think it would be effective at all. If you buy the DOE's story that batteries are coming down in price, then work place charging is just nice to have. Something that the nice employers (37% in the california survey) provide if people buy plug-ins that need them. It won't really speed adoption. Now if on the other hand you believe the naysayers, and battery prices will stop here, or even go up with higher material costs, a fake lithium shortage, etc, then its a different story. Perhaps phevs are the real solution, and more chargers are required. I would say we should at least wait to see how the gen II plug-ins look before deciding. The current federal tax credit looks sufficient to get growth through 2018. It would be wrong to pay the high price for chargers everywhere if they are not needed. Perhaps we need 1000 L3 chargers instead of hundreds of thousands of L2 and L1

cafe has been a blunt tool from a government that likes mandates but not real progress. Let's face one reality also and that is the poor politics of this all. The NHTSA was sucessfully lobbied by the UAW and IIHS to keep it the same too long. EPA is using an excuse to regulate because they wanted to give CARB the ability through sneaky methods to regulate mpg. Its all less effective that some simple regulation and higher oil taxes, but its what works politically these days.

Well then you need to build new power plants, or put ineffient ones on line during the day, and add more capacity to the grid. Small numbers don't matter, but if you start putting large numbers of cars charging during the day, the grid, especially in southern california will have troubl.

It depends on the employer. What if the employer has to decide whether to fire some one in order to pay for the infrastructure. It really doesn't cost much more for a L2 charger than an outlet if there isn't wiring. The wireing depends on the building and location of parking.

How would you know that by knowing the cost? If the credits for batteries work they will reduce the cost of all hybrid, phev, and bev batteries. We won't know if it will work until it works

Adding outlets where there are no cars will not get you cars. The battery tax credit already has proven that it works. In many places there are credits for employers to add solar and car chargers. What I object to is a mandate. The federal tax credit has expired for chargers, but chargers are so cheap now it probably is not needed. Its the wiring that will be expensive.

Well if you mandate chargers in all the busniesses, you will have created a cost to all businesses. Then you provide an incentive to buy a battery smaller than you would before. And we all know from econ 101 less demand for batteries actually makes them more expensive because you have to spend your R&D over fewer batteries. The chargers will go down in price, but not the charger installation.

Yep that is why the prius phv outsells the tesla S. What? It doesn't. Damn. I guess my poor comon sense makes me think that tesla may soon sell as many Model S's in china as they do in america. As battery prices come down, again because the demand spreads R&D over more units, the price of the blue star should come down. Lets check in a few years. I know its not that high school economics with the supply and demand curves of comodities, but if you understand the battery cost chart it makes sense. About 7% improvements each year with better chemistries.

No I probably never read it. So if you are giving me a 200 mile bev for under $30K (IMHO under $40K non subsidied) then why wouldn't it sell?

Ford doesn't have a fusion EV, they do have a focus bev. So a tesla model S outsells a fusion hybrid, but a ecoboost outsells the hybrid. Excellent. The fusion was designed to have a turbocharged ice. The S was designed to be a BEV.

That doesn't say much we have the gasoline/battery cost curve though, and that says a lot.
So we have a battery tax credit that seems to be working. Let the market decide. Toyota sells a lot more camries than bmw sells 3s, but there is a big market for 3s. I think there is a big market for phevs and a smaller one for bevs, until gas prices and battery prices shift it. That won't likely be in the next 10 years. With a phev you don't have range anxiety, but many report wanting more miles electric. This can be solved with bigger packs for some, and perhaps charging at work for others where the company, not the government chooses.

Which is why the median vehicle price in september (latest I could see) was $31,252 and the best selling vehicle in the US was an F-series pick up. That doesn't sound like the average customer is picking the cheapest car. The best selling car in the world now is the ford focus, again much more than a nissan versa. F-series will get more expensive on the next model with large anounts of aluminum. I think that IRON law (pun intended) is far off. The best selling car is the camry but the accord, altima, and fusion are not far behind.

Test dive a volt and a tesla. Few likely buyers think about a plug premium. These cars give you something different.

explain volt sales versus prius phv sales then. Don't use the word always, when the data says that it is not what is curently going on. IMHO toyota will add more range to the phv, and they have already said customers have asked for it. Nissan is already surveying existing leaf owners on how much more they would pay for 150 mile range. Many of these are on lease, so nissan can easily upsell. Lower battery cost and market demand seems to indicate the leaf range is also too low.

I don't understand. 37% seems like high penetration is such a short period of time.

OK genius tell me what L2 costs and how much L1 costs, if you force every employer to do it.

OK how about give walmart and mcdonalds workers wages that are high enough that they don't need food stamps. You are worrying about a first world problem. Someone wants a plug-in but its not a proper commute, so you are going to mandate it on employers. WE HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS. This will only get a reaction from those that don't like plug-ins about the government forcing an unnecessary mandate.

Why mandate it. There is no pr benefit if the government forces you to do it. OK who should pay for it if it costs them nothing? Taxpayers? How much. Could that money be used for more teachers?

For most employees they get nothing. Most surveyed in california at least probably would not charge often if they had to pay peak rates. Some would, but that number hardly merrits a government mandate. Why not just leave it voluntary.

How much oil would it reduce? In most places increasing daytime charging on a phev will use about the same ghg as burning gas.

 

It's apparent you struggled and can type, but not whether you learned anything.

 

For clarification, the residential charger credit was a flat amount that exceeds many currently available chargers, likely also including installation. It's not needed with the plug in credit and drop in the cars' prices.

The business one was a flat percent credit(30% I believe) of the chargers plus installation cost. It might have a cap to it. I think it should have been kept, because it applied beyond employee charging and to businesses electricifying their work fleet.

 

If the plug-in road rage continues / increases, is it even worth risking damage to your vehicle or worst, injury to yourself?

DBCassidy

 

It's somewhat puzzling to read posts about whether or not employers should provide the ability to plug in when there isn't even a requirement to provide a spot for employees to park their traditional vehicles. No regulation or mandate will make people to be civil with each other either. Good behavior comes from people sharing a common goal, a clear & concise objective that benefits many. That's what we need to find & spread.

Waiting for the situations emerging to somehow work themselves out on their own isn't exactly the approach we want. That's attitude is common though, so it's understandable. But being reactive is not how change comes about. We need to proactively seek out solutions. That requires actions like engaging other plug-in owners by holding gatherings... because it obviously isn't effective to have direct confrontations at charging-stations. Anyone remember how effective gatherings were, over a decade ago when hybrids were still new?

We're only now reaching the stage where our efforts can even be effective. Getting over the chaos of initial plug-in rollout was rather painful at times. Those first attempts unable to reach the masses resulted in disappointment & resentment... something we don't want to carry over to the charging-stations.

Recognizing what the mainstream actually needs has become easier. A big part of that is getting away from the one-size-fits-all mentality. Notice how resulting efficiency varies dramatically from owner to owner even with the same vehicle? That's why what happens at the plug is such a big deal. Each person will have a very different experience from the same recharge opportunity.

 

Supply and demand. If the supply is limited and in increasing demand, consumers tend to act more emotionally than rationally. This is human nature.

Remember the '73 oil embargo - odd/even, red, yellow, green flags, "last car in line for gas" signs?

I do, and don't miss the uncivility, irrational, reckless behavour of consumers.

DBCassidy

 

The most important obstacles at this point in the evolution of the plug-in market will require more than good attitude, although I highly commend the efforts of those before me that has helped provide the options we now have today. Whether infrastructure, standards and usage solutions will come from Industry and/or Government I do not know, but it will require more than the kindness of human nature as market share increases. Standards and regulation are always necessary within a large population.

 

Agreed. Perhaps I should view the above thread concerning the plug-in issues as being in the embryonic stages of development.

DBCassidy

 

Sorry, but just couldn't let this one go unfinished.

 

Y'all come back and talk to me when you've earned a PhD. in Econ
Until then........both ya'll are just BS.

Quit dragging the rest of us and this country into your paranoid world-view. Only in America, and I mean ONLY (I've travelled around the world) could mandating that employers provision a 110v outlet to their employees be seen as a 'Big Government takeover.' I guess it's better that instead of workplace charging, we send kids to die in the mideast, and let Chinese bankers dictate our future?

Keep spreading empirically, factually incorrect info, and I'm going to keep calling you out. I know it's tough, because y'all right-wingers live in an alternate reality.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. A certain middle-aged-white-besieged male viewpoint exists in this country, but thankfully it is coming to an end. More minority and women viewpoints! Yay!
I'm tired of people substituting their radical ideology for actual knowledge. I happen to believe in a positive role for government, and I believe in a strong federal government. Oh, and I vote. So do others. And they vote too. And looks like we are winning. Deal with it.

 

Pardon me, but it is you that keeps spewing your own tortured version of "alternate reality".

And you are smart clueless with your claims, on all counts.

 

I haven't had a chance to read all the posts/arguments but as I think I've said about my work, we're all surprisingly well-behaved re: charging despite the ratio being ~4:1 in terms of plug-in vehicle vs. J1772 handles despite the lack of any formal rules/regulations.

We actually had a meeting at work on Friday led by the facilities person to go over their plans for an EV valet service where valets would shuffle cars and charge them for you. It was purely optional and they will have a dedicated set of EVSEs and 120 volt outlets for those. We unfortunately had to start (optional) valet parking at work as we've been growing too fast for our buildings and parking. It'll be that way until some new buildings are completed (there are currently piles of rubble where the new buildings will go.) And, at the meeting, they told us some more info about the future buildings and charging there.

Some folks loved the EV valet idea (it's being done at some other Bay Area tech companies, apparently) and others (like me) would rather not valet our cars.

Our facilities person mentioned that the workplace charging was in some ways a recruiting tool. I suppose in the Bay Area, since numerous other tech companies are providing free charging, if you don't, you'd be at a slight disadvantage. It sounds like my company would rather spend the few $ on electricity and some kilo-bucks on EVSEs and installation, if it'll help attract and retain top talent.