Nevada Superchargers (location speculation, discussion)

[wycolo]

I think we can assume deep pockets here, that if an SC is built at point A it does not mean it is delaying an SC somewhere else.

An isolated SC like Bozeman could be a test for a contractor who would later fill in the next several in that region.
--

 

[GRA]

The other I-90 superchargers are no doubt in some stage of site procurement and permitting. If one site is quick to get through the permitting stage, there's no need to delay construction. There have been various isolated superchargers before like Mitchell SD and I-70 in Kansas which were soon connected to the network.

Sure, but connected to the network for what? If there aren't any significant number of Teslas in the area or within several hundred miles, then why is any effort AT ALL being spent there at this stage, when areas with much higher demand go wanting? If someone want's to install an SC that isn't connected to the network right now but will still be very valuable, can anyone explain why Columbia, MO, exactly half way between St. Louis and KCM, hasn't had an SC installed long since?

Tesla has stated that there's not a money problem, and I'd be very skeptical of any claim that it's harder to get permits in U.S. jurisdictions than it is from not only different European countries but in many cases multiple different languages. We know Tesla can install SCs much faster in the U.S. or elsewhere (such as has recently been shown again in Europe) when they put the effort into it, so why are they lagging so far behind the rate they themselves announced? It's not as if U.S. crews are being used in Europe. More importantly, why are they devoting effort so early to installing SCs in areas that will inevitably have lower usage, like I-90 in Montana, ahead of I-70, I-35, I-40 etc.? What's the business rationale?

 

[mspohr]

I think it would be good to stop and take a deep breath and relax.
I'm sure that Tesla will install a SC in your favorite location soon. They have the money and they have a plan. They just can't do everything at once.
The business rationale is to have SC everywhere. It will take some time.

 

[GRA]

I think it would be good to stop and take a deep breath and relax.
I'm sure that Tesla will install a SC in your favorite location soon. They have the money and they have a plan. They just can't do everything at once.
The business rationale is to have SC everywhere. It will take some time.

Oh, I'm relaxed - I'm waiting for a small AWD CUV based on the Model 3 platform, as an S/X is way out of my price range and too big in any case. But I do care that Tesla succeeds, and the Supercharger deployment philosophy is one of only two major mistakes I think they've made so far. Unlike the other one (the Falcon Wing doors on the X, which they're going to be stuck with for years), SC deployment order could be corrected tomorrow, but won't be unless they hear about it. Besides, many of the places I drive to will be the last ones to have charging of any kind available, so I don't expect there to be an adequate network for me for years yet.

The way I see it, the primary (one and two digit) interstate system is probably about 45,000 miles, while the secondary (three digit) urban interstates that probably make up the remaining 2k+ miles can be largely ignored. So, just achieving an average SC spacing of 100 miles on the primary interstates will take 450 sites, but to provide a more robust network you need them closer, no more than 70 and preferably no more than 50 miles apart, requiring 643 and 900 SC sites respectively; getting to 30 mile spacing, as is quite common for gas stations on rural interstates, would require 1,500 SC sites.

Then, you also need SCs on major U.S. and state highways, so let's figure at least double the 1,500 sites for the interstates, and just to allow us some wiggle room let's call it 5,000 sites (versus ca. 100k gas stations, most of which are in urban areas and as such we don't need a comparable number of public SCs for home-charged BEVs). At their current rate of progress in the U.S., even getting the primary interstates done might take until the end of the decade depending on the spacing, so I think smarter, targeted deployment is essential. It's not going to affect me for years yet, but I do want the maximum number of owners to benefit as early as possible.

 

[slcasner]

What's the business rationale?

I don't recall where, but I read an explanation that the surprising initial cross-country SC route was determined by the road trip that Elon planned to take with his kids. But then delays in installation created a conflict with school schedules, so the road-trip idea had to be shelved. Instead there was the cross country record drive event with two teams of Tesla employees.

 

[NickInLab]

Charging at level 2 chargers and spending hours waiting at RV parks is intolerable for 99% of the population. I am an obsessive enthusiast who can't wait to get a Model III, but supercharging is the minimum acceptable recharging speed for me. I desperately want to dump the ICE, but I don't want a car which comes with conditions - I want a car that will take me where I want to go when I want to go there in a reasonable amount of time.

If you mean the minimum acceptable speed for road trips, then we are in complete agreement. But I've seen people refer to the Model S in particular (not just BEVs in general) as a leash. Why? Because they don't know that Supercharging exists. You have drag them by the ears, kicking and screaming, to their web browser and show them that, yes, you really can drive a Model S from LA to NY in about the same amount of time as an ICE.

 

[NickInLab]

I understand the PR benefit of having a transcontinental route for the reasons you state, but if a transcontinental route is so important, then surely an efficient transcontinental route, one that doesn't add 700 miles to the trip or require installing SCs [...]

An efficient transcontinental route is better than an inefficient one, yes. But any route is better than none. It forces BEV skeptics to make a much weaker argument: Before superchargers, they could say something like "It takes a BEV a month to drive from Chicago to Seattle. [Or Chicago to LA, or NY to LA]." That's a pretty powerful argument against BEVs for most people, because it makes such a trip completely impractical for the vast majority of the population.

However, even with the current route, as stupidly planned as it is, their argument is reduced to "It takes a BEV an extra day to drive [those routes]." And a BEV advocate (say, a Tesla Gallery salesperson) can come back with "Yes, but look at all the National Parks along the route. Don't you want to smell the roses?" The pro-BEV argument doesn't really get more powerful if Tesla built a driving-time-optimal Supercharger route. Right now the BEV advocate can deflect the extra time question and blame the circuitous route (which Tesla will surely improve in the future). A direct route would force him to admit that supercharging slows down the trip a little.

So a stupid transcontinental route changes the calculus from "totally impractical" to "a little inconvenient." An optimal route changes it from "totally impractical" to "a little less inconvenient." I'm not saying the current route is better. I'm saying that it's good enough for now. Eventually I want to see a supercharger at every freeway off-ramp. But practical business considerations mean that starting in LA and marching along, building a supercharger at every off-ramp until they reach NY, means that Tesla goes bankrupt and we never get a real Supercharger network at all.

 

[cpa]

I believe what one of the issues for Supercharger deployment and build-out is figuring out where to install near major junctions that may be popular destinations (like Salt Lake City) or may not be popular destinations (like Billings.) Right now there is a Supercharger in Nephi, which is about 85 miles south of downtown Salt Lake City. Maybe Tesla intends to build Superchargers around Salt Lake City (like Tooele to the west, Evanston WY to the east and Ogden to the north) rather than Salt Lake City proper. Once they decide on that strategy, then filling in the routes becomes a little easier.

St. Louis might be under the same consideration, so until Tesla determines where to install Superchargers along I-70, I-44, I-64 and I-55 in or near St. Louis, it probably does not make any sense to try to fulfill the network eastward through Kansas and Missouri until they have determined how far from St. Louis the first westbound Supercharger will be.

I know it is frustrating when there are locations like Billings that are isolated, but in the long run it is better to have a well-planned network with reasonable distances between locations than to go about things haphazardly and wind up with Superchargers either 40 miles apart or 240 miles apart because they decided to build it like the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869!

 

[GRA]

I don't recall where, but I read an explanation that the surprising initial cross-country SC route was determined by the road trip that Elon planned to take with his kids. But then delays in installation created a conflict with school schedules, so the road-trip idea had to be shelved. Instead there was the cross country record drive event with two teams of Tesla employees.

Exactly right, there was no business rationale, just a personal desire to take a nostalgic family trip, which is why I suggested that Musk should have paid for the SCs (7 of them, in MN, SD and WY) that were otherwise unjustifiable at this time for business reasons), to be reimbursed later.

 

[roblab]

I desperately want to dump the ICE, but I don't want a car which comes with conditions - I want a car that will take me where I want to go when I want to go there in a reasonable amount of time.

I am sure that you understand that if you own a gas car, it comes with conditions. Sure, you can fill up quickly while on a trip. But for most people, since they can't see pollution and don't count the cost of filling up with fossil fuels, the only condition they see is how long it takes.

And we are only talking, for the most part, of people taking a once in a while trip, and mainly charging at home during the roughly 23 hours a day when we aren't driving!

For many of us, the trade off of one "condition" with another is a worthwhile, even valuable thing. As it is, though, if I have to charge at a 50 amp outlet, I can arrange it that said outlet is at a motel, where I will not be required to "wait" at all. I have had many motels offer to install an outlet, for no other reason than that they value the electric car business. when I have not even asked.

Sure, it might take a phone call, maybe some extra planning. But the trade off might be my kids' or grandkids' health and happiness. And mine.

The condition that I had to give up, was periodically changing my weekly schedule, driving out of my way when I was going somewhere else, getting out and pumping poisonous noxious fluids into my car, standing in the weather, and then, and THEN, having to go PAY for it! I guess you gotta weigh your conditions. Charging my car while I wander around a strange town being a tourist ain't so bad.

 

[detlefo]

If I need to get across the country for business the obvious choice is to fly. On the other had, if I want to see something and enjoy the drive, I will take a scenic route. Having followed the SC route across the country is really serves well as a scenic drive. It is clearly not the most direct or fastest, but it is one of the most scenic passing close to many great parks. On my x-country drive I took a slower (not speed) pace and tried to get in a hike most days. My objective was to experience the middle part of this country for the first time. My Tesla was the perfect means to this end. The rest of the country is filling in and I clearly want 80 across Nevada to get to ski areas in the Wasatch and Rockies. Definitely need more than the 2 projected SCs. I'm sure there will be more. After all Truckee was never in the plan and I'm sure it became a reality as a result of input from many owners, myself included.

 

[GRA]

An efficient transcontinental route is better than an inefficient one, yes. But any route is better than none. It forces BEV skeptics to make a much weaker argument: Before superchargers, they could say something like "It takes a BEV a month to drive from Chicago to Seattle. [Or Chicago to LA, or NY to LA]." That's a pretty powerful argument against BEVs for most people, because it makes such a trip completely impractical for the vast majority of the population.

However, even with the current route, as stupidly planned as it is, their argument is reduced to "It takes a BEV an extra day to drive [those routes]." And a BEV advocate (say, a Tesla Gallery salesperson) can come back with "Yes, but look at all the National Parks along the route. Don't you want to smell the roses?" The pro-BEV argument doesn't really get more powerful if Tesla built a driving-time-optimal Supercharger route. Right now the BEV advocate can deflect the extra time question and blame the circuitous route (which Tesla will surely improve in the future). A direct route would force him to admit that supercharging slows down the trip a little.

So a stupid transcontinental route changes the calculus from "totally impractical" to "a little inconvenient." An optimal route changes it from "totally impractical" to "a little less inconvenient." I'm not saying the current route is better. I'm saying that it's good enough for now. Eventually I want to see a supercharger at every freeway off-ramp. But practical business considerations mean that starting in LA and marching along, building a supercharger at every off-ramp until they reach NY, means that Tesla goes bankrupt and we never get a real Supercharger network at all.

You posit an interesting theory, that the current poor routing masks the greater inconvenience of the more frequent and longer stops required of current Teslas for longer road trips (once the range gets up to 4 hours + at freeway speeds that won't be an issue anymore). All I can say is that it's a good thing that the Musk brothers didn't route their initial coast-to-coast trip via Fargo and New Orleans:wink: , or people'd really have some 'splainin' to do.

As to having national parks along the route, rose sniffing etc., if that were a primary issue you'd think they would have completed I-70/I-15 right away (Zion, Cedar Breaks, Bryce Canyon), and I-15 in Idaho and I-80 at least in western Wyoming, as I seem to remember there are some heavily visited parks in the northwestern part of that state, and yet no provision exists to reach them from the nearest major metropolis (SLC). Unlike say Mt. Rushmore, most people can spend more than a few hours in Yellowstone and the Tetons without getting bored.

 

[GRA]

I believe what one of the issues for Supercharger deployment and build-out is figuring out where to install near major junctions that may be popular destinations (like Salt Lake City) or may not be popular destinations (like Billings.) Right now there is a Supercharger in Nephi, which is about 85 miles south of downtown Salt Lake City. Maybe Tesla intends to build Superchargers around Salt Lake City (like Tooele to the west, Evanston WY to the east and Ogden to the north) rather than Salt Lake City proper. Once they decide on that strategy, then filling in the routes becomes a little easier.

Heading north on I-15, I think Brigham City or Tremonton makes more sense. They definitely need one in Idaho Falls, probably should have one in Pocatello, and others in West Yellowstone and either Jackson or Moran Junction. Evanston (I think Little America is a bit far in winter) and Rock Springs make sense.

St. Louis might be under the same consideration, so until Tesla determines where to install Superchargers along I-70, I-44, I-64 and I-55 in or near St. Louis, it probably does not make any sense to try to fulfill the network eastward through Kansas and Missouri until they have determined how far from St. Louis the first westbound Supercharger will be.

The biggest problem with the SCs is that they aren't pay at the dispenser, which means that they can't (although they seem to be doing so in China, but there are special conditions there that require it) be located right downtown at major junctions in big cities, to prevent freeloading locals from hogging them. For cities with lots of interstates crossing them, especially those with ring roads like STL, this causes major location issues. Be that as it may, Columbia is the obvious choice between STL and KCM, as it's 125 miles from each of them, and is also at the turnoff for Jefferson City when coming eastbound. They could also put an SC in Wentzville west of STL, where I-64 and I-70 intersect, even though the distance is kind of short from Columbia.

I know it is frustrating when there are locations like Billings that are isolated, but in the long run it is better to have a well-planned network with reasonable distances between locations than to go about things haphazardly and wind up with Superchargers either 40 miles apart or 240 miles apart because they decided to build it like the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869!

Hey, 40 miles apart would be fine, and eventually they'll want to be that close, But an average 100 miles apart is fine for starters.

 

[dmckinstry]

Well, I've been hoping to make it to Missouri before the end of the year. If they complete the superchargers across Montana (along I-90) and into Wyoming by then, the distance is about 1100 miles to Denver. Denver to Columbia, MO would only require one overnight charge at an RV park. As it is, I would have to add about 1000 miles to the trip to travel west to I-5 and then down to southern CA. Across Nevada would be a much better option, and it makes more sense to add two or three superchargers in Nevada than four or five new superchargers between Ritzville and Cheyenne. I'm not counting the one in Coeur d'Alene. It been listed as coming soon for about a month, but there's still no permit listed. Even if one of the superchargers were at Wells, it still a bit far from there to Nephi, UT (262 miles). I'd have to top off at an RV park in Wendover.
In any case I'd put in my vote to complete them across Nevada first. We have relatives in Sacramento and friends in Reno.

If one of those routes isn't in place by mid-December we'll have to just travel to southern California then, and head over to Missouri in the spring.

 

[HHHH]

Maybe this will get some traction now that Nevada has been identified for the Gigafactory.

 

[mspohr]

"The biggest problem with the SCs is that they aren't pay at the dispenser, which means that they can't (although they seem to be doing so in China, but there are special conditions there that require it) be located right downtown at major junctions in big cities, to prevent freeloading locals from hogging them."

I live near a new SC and plan on using it regularly so I guess that makes me a "freeloading local"... however, I am not aware of any restrictions on how often you can use a SC or if there are any distance requirements which would prevent locals from using it.
Do you know of any restrictions on freeloading locals?

 

[cpa]

"The biggest problem with the SCs is that they aren't pay at the dispenser, which means that they can't (although they seem to be doing so in China, but there are special conditions there that require it) be located right downtown at major junctions in big cities, to prevent freeloading locals from hogging them."

I live near a new SC and plan on using it regularly so I guess that makes me a "freeloading local"... however, I am not aware of any restrictions on how often you can use a SC or if there are any distance requirements which would prevent locals from using it.
Do you know of any restrictions on freeloading locals?

No there are not. However, one would hope that the "freeloaders" would arrange their usage to off-peak travel hours to minimize the congestion for travelers or visitors, and that they would cheerfully move their car even if not fully charged if the supercharger bays became full. Locals always have the luxury of charging whenever they want. Travelers not as much.

 

[GRA]

"The biggest problem with the SCs is that they aren't pay at the dispenser, which means that they can't (although they seem to be doing so in China, but there are special conditions there that require it) be located right downtown at major junctions in big cities, to prevent freeloading locals from hogging them."

I live near a new SC and plan on using it regularly so I guess that makes me a "freeloading local"... however, I am not aware of any restrictions on how often you can use a SC or if there are any distance requirements which would prevent locals from using it.
Do you know of any restrictions on freeloading locals?

One of the measures that has been discussed on MNL to ameliorate the problem of locals taking up all the spaces at SCs is to limit the number of times (or perhaps the number of kWhs) an owner could charge at an SC within a certain radius of their home or work. The SCs aren't there for use in place of routine home charging. Of course, some owners may live in rental housing without any ability to charge at home or in public charging nearby, so Tesla would need to make some allowance for this. That's increasingly likely to be the case with the Model 3.

 

[mspohr]

What's MNL?
Where does Tesla say anything other than "free, lifetime" SC use?
Is there a documented problem with freeloading locals?... or is this FUD?

 

[GRA]

What's MNL?
Where does Tesla say anything other than "free, lifetime" SC use?
Is there a documented problem with freeloading locals?... or is this FUD?

Sorry, mynissanleaf.com. Tesla hasn't said anything, we were just discussing the issues once Model 3 gets into production and what might be solutions. There have been problems reported here on TMC at a couple of CA sites, (Fremont and Hawthorne IIRR), and it's certainly been a problem with other makes at non-Tesla sites. No matter the income level, if you make something free there will always be someone who takes advantage of it.