I drive a EV with a range > 200 miles. Utility-customer funded chargers strike me as a solution tomorrow for a problem of yesterday -- limited EV range.
I don't know what this means. I have an EV also and the biggest barrier to EV adoption is charging infrastructure. I have a charger at home, but realize that many more people live in apartments and condos that require that infrastructure. Further, there are days when I forget to charge, and would really benefit from a quick 40-50 mile charging at a public location. Charging infrastructure is definitely a necessity.
Pardon the pun, but I agree the current lack of charging infrastructure is an "inconvenient truth" for many EV owners (or would-be owners). For those of us that live in apartments/condos/townhouses where residents don't have a dedicated garage, figuring out the charging is the hardest part. From personal experience: some newer apartments have charging stations installed, but there's typically only ~3 of them in a building of 200-300+ residents, so if >3 people buy an EV, they have to play charging musical chairs. For condos and townhouses, there's the trouble of figuring out how to install a 220V outlet and run a charging cable to your car in a way that people won't trip over it. While charging at other locations can be an option, it's also pretty annoying to have to wait around a grocery store or parking lot (or some other random location) for at least 2-3hrs for your car to charge. It sucks because I want an EV, but without having a convenient spot to charge it, it feels like running around with an iPhone5 when they first came out desperately looking for a lightning cable.
What the parent thread suggests is that if you EV range continues to increase, access to convenient charging becomes less relevant.
I think the parallel here is to cell phones.
If you cell phone battery sucks, you're probably carrying around a portable charger, and a usb+wall charger.
However if your phone normally goes ~2 days without a charge then you can simply charge nightly at home without carrying a portable battery and/or cable + wall plug everywhere you go.
the range can be as high as it wants, if you're living in an apartment without access to a personal charger you need public infrastructure because at some point you'll need to charge your car somewhere.
Because electric cars provide positive externalities for a city such as reduced pollution. Which is an especially big issue in densely populated cities.
Vehicle emissions contributes to as much as 50k premature deaths each year, tax dollars have been spent on worse things.
I understand and agree with these facts. And as a society we can choose to either increase the cost of the negative externality (like the vehicle emissions), or decrease the cost of the positive externality (emission-free vehicles). However, in this case, the "apartment" example is a transfer of wealth from people who have access to chargers (homes, apartments which chargers, workplaces with chargers) to people who don't have such access. Sure, HN has a San Francisco bias in its readership, but some places apartment owners compete for tenants. And to differentiate themselves, they'll add chargers.
It does not matter if your EV has 300 miles of range. Unless you want to be limited to a radius half of your max range. Otherwise, you need chargers wherever you need to go, as I assume you would like to do more than one way trips.
There are far too few chargers, specially outside the bay area (and even in the Bay, considering the number of cars already in the streets). EV will be more convenient than ICEs when you have both high range + charger availability.
I won't go somewhere with my EV unless I can get back without charging or there are 2 DC fast-chargers at different installation sites in the area I'm going. 2 chargers in the same parking lot are more likely to be 'down' for the same maintenance issue simultaneously. I still find DC fast-chargers are unreliable compared to gas pumps and there are far fewer of them. Though I will say the Evgo chargers at Whole-Foods/Amazon have been great.
About 1/3 of the time I'm doing this, I end up waiting in line for 20-45 minutes behind someone else anyway before I can start charging. I imagine this will only worsen if more infrastructure isn't built.
My wife and I have 2 vehicles, and only one is EV largely because of this issue. There are too many places I can't go with an EV without significant risk of being stranded. Stranded in this case may mean waiting 4 hours to charge up at the more common Level-2 chargers.
It's for this very reason that we've got a Model 3 arriving soon. It wasn't until I looked a bit more into the charging infrastructure that I realized that today's non-Tesla electric vehicles are effectively commuter/errand cars only. Without truly fast supercharging-style charge rates, you can't really take other electrics on a roadtrip.
Some people might consider 1-2 45min supercharging stops between SF and San Diego to be too much to tolerate, but wait until you tell them they've got to wait 3 or 4+ hours at a chargepoint station instead -- especially given that the charging infra isn't as tightly coupled to the in-car experience (maps, realtime charger info, etc).
I don't feel like I can trust random public chargers to exist and be available. Even at work, where we have 14 chargepoint chargers, they're all taken by 9am. I'm sure if I got plugged in (hah!) to the correct slack groups I'd be able to figure out when I can shuffle my car in, but realistically, you can only rely on home charging today.
I drove a Model X 75D down to San Diego and back before buying one. 1 - 2 45 minute supercharging stops is not even remotely the reality. Rated miles don't mean anything with the Grapevine and heavy traffic. Expect 5 stops if you want to get there with more than 20% battery.
I reviewed the Google location history for this and I was driving about 100 miles between stops, admittedly conservatively, but trying to stop with at least 20% battery. As a side note, I found that often Supercharging was not at the 200+ mi/hr rate if the station was heavily used (perhaps obviously). But, if you're planning on doing the trip end to end, expect it to take more than 30 minutes to get back the 100 miles to the next charger.
That is pretty conservative, which, of course, makes sense (especially when you're not used to the car; we have a destination charger available at a resort we often go to and it'll be a LONG time before I'm comfortable going somewhere and trusting that the ONE charger will work).
Of course, the model X is also sort of a worst case scenario because it's the least efficient car they sell.
IIRC my parents stopped 3x from Peninsula to San Diego (well, okay, north county) in their S 75d. But they didn't start with a full charge either, and on top of that, typical users only charge to 80-90% on a regular basis, and only cram it full for roadtrips. They could definitely make it in 2.
With a LR Model 3 you could definitely do the drive in 1 stop but it depends on the exact location; IIRC Atascadero is a little too close to SF and Buellton is a little too close to SD. On the other hand, with the proliferation of superchargers, the increasing number of options makes it a bit easier to YOLO it and then stop short even if it means a stop for a quick charge only 20-50mi from your destination.
I don't think you're being truthful here. EVs actually do better in stop and go traffic than driving flat out at 75 mph, because of the lack of wind resistance and the ability to do regenerative braking.
The Model X 75D has 237 miles range. At 504 miles total trip time, you should have had to make exactly 2 stops along the way. 5 would be completely unnecessary.
That first sentence crosses into personal incivility and so breaks the site guidelines. Please edit such swipes out of your comments here. They degrade discussion and provoke worse.
The rest of your comment is fine. If something doesn't add up or make sense, you can always express that without accusing someone of lying; for example, by asking a simple question.
> EVs actually do better in stop and go traffic than driving flat out at 75 mph, because of the lack of wind resistance and the ability to do regenerative braking.
This may not be true for Teslas. Most EVs and hybrids will increase their regenerative braking when the brake pedal is pressed, and use mixed braking at slow speeds and hard stops. Teslas, however, maintain a constant rate of regeneration when not accelerating, and apply the mechanical brakes when the brake pedal is pressed, without increasing regeneration. Thus, Teslas waste most of their energy as heat when not driven in one-pedal mode.
My Camry Hybrid has a "CHG" section on the lower "tachometer", where the needle dips when I press the brake pedal. Braking carefully to a full stop from freeway speeds regenerates enough energy to maintain 35-40 mph for 10-15 miles. Often I can get above the estimated 40mpg (sometimes over 50mpg) in stop-and-go freeway traffic, rolling along on battery, only using the engine for a few seconds to occasionally sharply accelerate.
The Model 3's abysmal (and recently improved) stopping distance may have something to do with this. Many EV enthusiasts tout the reduced stopping distance benefit of mixed braking. However, Teslas do not currently perform this sort of mixed braking, so they miss out on this benefit. Could it be a software update away?
I rarely ever touch the brake pedal on my Tesla M3, except once the car has reached almost a complete stop.
Unless you're braking hard for an unexpected stop, one pedal driving can easily slow you from 75mph down to almost 0 on a freeway off ramp (and recover that kinetic energy as charge).
I've driven a Tesla many times in stop-and-go: one-pedal is not hard to do nearly 100% of the time. No heat waste, and the energy graph shows lower than usual usage per mile.
What's the Grapevine? You're basically claiming your Tesla got half the rated mileage with no proof. I'm sure thousands of Tesla owners would dispute the accuracy of this claim.
The Grapevine is a mountainous area between Los Angeles and the central valley. Would imagine the elevation and turns could seriously affect battery life but not sure how much.
Makes me wonder if a solar panel hood/roof would help any.
You don't know the geography of the drive but you have very strong opinions on what actually happened. Classic Hacker News nowadays. Let me know when you own a Tesla and drive it down to 5% battery.
I own a Model 3 long range, and have put about 2500 miles on it so far. I've always gotten pretty close to the estimated range. Even on extreme hills like Shoreline Highway heading to Agate state park beach, I didn't notice anything excessive.
Remember, hills require more energy to climb, but you regain the energy on descent which is captured by regenerative braking. It's not 100%, but it's efficient enough that it doesn't make a significant difference. And, again, driving 20 mph through some switchback curves is a hell of a lot less wind resistance than driving 75mph on the freeway.
I still say you need some evidence to back up the claim that you got less than half the rated range on a Tesla. You better believe the media would be all over it if that were true.
The Grapevine is a mountain pass from the Central Valley to LA County, approximately 20 miles long, with rolling hills, that goes up to 4100 feet of elevation gain. (But note that common usage is to refer specifically to a 5 1/2 mile stretch that is the steepest.)
You're absolutely going to not get the rated battery life there.
Meh. Even in my turbocharged car, I get virtually the same mileage in the mountains going from sea level to over 8000 feet and back down vs what I get on a wide open freeway, and that's WITHOUT regen.
Obviously if you only go up but not down that's a different story, but mountainous driving is not nearly so hard on range if it's a net of 0.
> EVs actually do better in stop and go traffic than driving flat out at 75 mph
Is that necessarily true? The 75D has a curb weight of 5,140 pounds, which would require a fair amount of energy to get moving from a standing stop. While aerodynamic drag would certainly tax the powertrain to maintain 75 MPH (op didn’t specify anyway), one would expect the overall range at such speeds to be greater than in stop-and-go traffic. Or are regenerative brakes really that efficient at recapturing energy?
Looking up published mileage of say a Tesla X, Nissan Leaf, Chevy Bolt, and Toyota Prius, all but the X have better city mileage than highway mileage (but the X is 86 MPGe city vs 89 highway, so even then it's only 3% difference).
That's the neat thing about electrics and hybrids -- the "you get better highway mileage" intuition gets flipped by regenerative braking.
The DC fast-chargers are pretty good for me. I drive an 3y old Leaf with 85mi range, so I get an 80% charge in about 20 minutes though, which is hardly a big deal. It'll take me 5-10 to gas up as is, and usually the chargers are somewhere I can grab a coffee or whatnot while it's going.
1. I assume you're probably only using 60 or maybe 70mi, tops, of that range -- so you're talking minimum charging 3-4x as often as you'd be filling up with a gas car. (yes, I recognize that you probably change at home most of the time; of course, the shorter the range the more likely it is that you'll need to charge 'on the road' rather than at home)
2. What do you mean by DC fast-charge? In researching ChargePoint (I just became a member), it looks like most stations are 220v and something like 20a; even the ones that have higher current feeds are typically split in half if 2 cars are using it. I agree, 20 minutes to charge is hardly an unreasonable amount of time, considering how rarely one should have to charge away from home. But on a roadtrip, again, 20mins every hour starts adding up really fast.
Generally, though, I think people should spend less time worrying about day-to-day charging time (as opposed to roadtrip charging time), because they ignore fuelling time of gas cars. Let's say you spend 5 minutes a week filling up your gas car. That's 4 1/3 hours per year filling up (assuming we ignore any special trips made to the gas station. Thankfully we live across the street from one, but it's still not unusual to hop in the car after dinner and spend 10min driving to get gas to prepare for a trip the next day just to have one less thing to do in the morning, for example). Vs with an electric car where your charging time is effectively 0 if you plug it in at home every night or once a week or whatever. Then, of course, on a roadtrip, the times are flipped; do a thousand miles and you might only spend 15-20mins fuelling a gas car but maybe 2h charging an electric (depending on charge rate, again.. this is more supercharger speed we're talking about).
My father (long since retired) actually loves the charging breaks with his Model S on roadtrips; 1-2x 45min stops along the way from San Diego to Phoenix, or San Diego to SF, for example. He likes relaxing, stretching, chatting with other owners, .. feels in less of a hurry to race to his destination, etc. I'm sure a lot of this is down to the novelty factor and justifying one's purchase, but I also get it-- it's just a different way of thinking.
NO, with an electric car your charging time is probably higher. The difference is every night you spend and extra minute connecting the cable, and in the morning a minute disconnecting it. This adds up quicker than you realize, but since it is part of your daily habit you don't think about it.
The 10 minutes I spend filling my fuel tank every other week (including time to get there, it is on my route home but I have to cross a stoplight I normally turn right at) is ultimately less time that you spend charging your electric car.
Of course I fill my tank as part of a different errand, not a fill the tank now to be ready for the morning. This does change the calculation somewhat. I also don't know exactly how long it takes you to plug in and unplug that cable, if you normally park such that you walk past the charging port, and you just toss the cable wherever when done this can be much quicker. If your car door is next to your house door, but have to walk to the other side of the car, and then as a neat freak you carefully coils the cable up it will be longer.
1 minute (or at least 30 seconds for each plug/unplug) is reasonable; you're right that it's certainly not 0.
But if you're filling every other week you either have a massive 25-35 gallon tank, or you don't drive much. And if you're not driving much, you're probably not charging much, either :)
If I had a Leaf or eGolf I'd probably want to charge every day regardless; with something with 200-300 miles range, it certainly wouldn't be a daily thing.
I get 45mpg, and I typically put 11-12 gallons in at fill. My commute to work is 23 miles each way, so a Leaf would have to be charged every day (newer Leafs would last longer).
If I got a 200-300 mile range I'd set the battery charge to max life and charge daily, which I understand is the way to have the battery last the longest.
It seriously takes me 2 seconds tops to plug or unplug. That's zero as far as getting in the way of my life. And it isn't necessary to do this every day either.
Have you actually timed it? I guarantee it takes you more than 2 seconds to grab the plug off the hook and plug it in. How much longer I can't say though, it is case by case.
EVgo has CHAdeMO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHAdeMO) chargers which are direct DC, not AC converted to DC before input to battery so much higher charge rates. Superchargers are also direct DC.
Surely it doesn't take more than 2-3 mins to fill a car with petrol/diesel? Certainly don't think it's ever taken me any longer than that, unless I'm on a big journey and I need a break.
That exists, but also is unreliable. I've seen chargers that believe they are operational but the card reader is broken for example, so there is no way to authenticate.
There is a DC fast-charger at a walgreens not far from where I live that is broken 90% of the time (*not scientific) and always reports available online.
And if you should receive a call that a member of your family was in an accident and at the hospital in critical condition... "Sure ok I'll be there this evening."
This is really dependent on where you are. Where I live in Mountain View you're absolutely right. Where my dad lives 20 minutes from a paved road in the middle of California with no cell service, his truck is quite literally his only mode of transportation. Of course these are extremes, but most people live somewhere in the middle. Owning an EV will never be less limiting than owning an ICE vehicle. Whether it's an acceptable trade off will always be an individual decision.
>> Owning an EV will never be less limiting than owning an ICE vehicle.
Never may be too strong a word. Electricity is likely to continue flowing to more locations for longer than petrol stations will continue to get restocked.
For those with the means yes. Not everyone can afford an Uber/Lyft across town or state.
My EV can get me to the airport and with a bit of charging only just get me home. A ride share is $40+ off peak. Public transit isn't an option. If I lived further out in the suburbs such a trip wouldn't be possible without more prolonged charging.
You might balk at dropping $40+ spontaneously but a lot of people don't. I remember working a salaried position and still not being able to afford a spontaneous invitation to lunch with coworkers and I have never in my life been in financial trouble.
EVs might be practical in a dense Urban setting with access to Public transit but the further you are from urban centers the less practical it becomes exponentially.
If my wife's in the hospital I'll find the cash for a taxi.
The fact that EVs are practical in dense urban settings is great since those have the largest air quality problems that can be addressed by the centralized (or green) power generation that EVs utilize.
Plugin hybrids exist and cover both the use case of commuting on electric and gas for long trips. They aren't zero emissions then but for regular use they are close to it.
My solution would be self-driving battery extension packs
that are placed on the side of the road and can follow/recharge (like Aerial refueling) an EV that needs an extension without any halting of the car needed.
I think this is a bit far fetched, but I like the idea of something similar. Have rental stations with trailer hitch gas generators that I can pull along for longer rides. Turns every EV into a Chevy Volt.
Doesn't need to be a gas generator (a hard sell for an EV die-hard), what about trailer-pulled battery packs? The car would need a small tow hitch and a J-plug, chademo, CCS, or similar plug in the back. Pick up a fresh battery at a U-Haul, and drop it off in your destination town.
Or would the weight be more than a (future model) Leaf could easily be designed to pull?
No clue. The value of stealing that trailer goes up a lot more though if it's a stack of high density batteries.
The gas range extender though means that you can take your EV on a road trip and refuel in a matter of minutes. Overnight you charge, but during the day, you fill up along the way.
That's an interesting idea. Someone could get a subscription of $30/month for unlimited access to portalable batteries. Along the route if the car runs low just pick one up at a convicent location, put it in the back and keep on driving. Once the car is charged simply return the portable battery at another drop off location.
A better solution would be a modular battery that slides out on a rolling platform. Pull up to battery station, roll out old battery, roll in new battery. Drive.
Maybe ten years ago I watched Bob Kennedy Jr or 3 or something talk about having battery swap stations instead of charging stations. Seemed interesting but I don't know much about batteries!
Although great in theory, I can see two major obstacles to adopting that:
1) Essentially requires a standard battery form factor. Tesla alone already has between 8 and 13 batteries (not bothering to check if e.g. the Model S 60 is the same as the Model X 60). Throw in other manufactures and any future Tesla sizes and this becomes infeasible pretty quickly as your "gas station" begins to look like a warehouse.
2) Warranty. When you're swapping out the most expensive part of the car several times a week, what happens when you get a dud? Is it covered by Tesla's warranty, the swap service, or are you just screwed?
Or, what if I trade in my 8 year old essentially depleted battery for a brand new one? Obviously I should pay some sort of "upgrade" fee, but tracking that will be a headache.
If the charging station (or network) refuses to again swap a battery that they have recently swapped into your car, why would anyone use it?
I get that switching in $10,000 of hardware is kind of a big thing, but the question is like asking about how can I be sure every station has real gasoline (which hey, with ethanol, they don't!).
The battery swap thing I think is based on the idea that to be successful electric cars have to be an exact match of gasoline one.
I think battery swap doesn't make sense for passenger cars because as the guy said once you hit 200 miles of range charging isn't an issue. And having to stop and charge for an hour and a half every three hours on a long distance trip isn't the end of the world. Especially since you could roll those into lunch and dinner stops.
There's a drive I've been doing since I was a kid. Back then with fewer passing lanes and kids in the car, it always took about 6 hours. As passing lanes got added, it got so the trip was about 5 hours with careful stops. Recently speed limits got bumped up 5 MPH along the route and now it's an easy 5 hours.
The hour sure matters to me, I hate being in the "travel" part of a trip like that.
I am a proponent of battery swaps. But I use the term MPU - Modular Power Unit. They have a standard interface and standard sizes. They follow the principle of encapsulation - I don't know what is the tech inside, but I now that it exposes a given voltage and amperage. Neither battery companies nor car companies would on their own pursue such a strategy even though all would benefit. Portable electronics ony took off because batteries were standardized and became cheap. The same must eventually happen with large batteries. And just like small 3V and 10V batteries, there will be perhaps a half dozen different standard sizes. Some will be small enough to lift by hand (if you have strong hands) while others will be on racks (but built up from smaller MPUs). You don't have to swap your battery - they could be recharged in place. Standards will foster competition and innovation.
Tesla entertained this for a while. The investments in building relatively costly (initial+maintenance) swapping stations plus the capital tied in replacement batteries makes this option less attractive when you compare to their supercharger station.
For trucks one could easily see trucking companies just leasing batteries from Truck Stops. Where the truck driver stops, picks up a fully charged battery and then drops it off at another truck stop 300 miles later. Rinse lather repeat all the way from New Jersey to Utah.
Compressed gas cylinders sort of work this way. When you 'refill' a cylinder you just swap the empty one for a full one. You can even swap different sizes as needed. Which might also be useful for trucks.
"The utility will also spend $236.3 million on infrastructure and rebates to support electric trucks, buses and other medium or heavy-duty vehicles. Southern California Edison will spend up to $342.6 million on similar efforts."
So, mostly corporate welfare.
"place an emphasis on installing charging stations in disadvantaged communities or in facilities — such as ports — that tend to be located near low-income neighborhoods."
But they are going to dispense the corporate welfare in the general vicinity of poor people, so the poor people can get some vicarious enjoyment out of watching people who are already rich eat a free lunch.
