"Unfit for purpose:" Broken EV chargers spoil the Electric Super Highway
EV driver on his third "big lap" of Australia in an EV says Queensland electric super highway has too many broken fast chargers and is "unfit for purpose."
thedriven.io
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Queensland EV Superhighway-Unfit for purpose
- Thread starter Blue heaven
- Start date
thedriven.io
Yeah 50 kW doesn’t cut it these days for road tripping. Hopefully the efforts of other states (e.g. NSW) in mandating both larger sites (min 4 stalls/4 cars in NSW) and minimum powers (175 kW) will eventually embarrass the other states, when EV drivers here have uneventful travels at holiday times, while other states have queue meltdowns.
From NSW Drive Electric Round 2 Grant funding guidelines:
For standard stream stations:
- a minimum of 2 chargers to service a minimum of 4 bays concurrently (i.e., 4 charging plugs)
- a minimum of 2 charging bays rated at a minimum of 175 kW per bay (+/- 20%)
- a minimum of 2 charging bays rated at a minimum of 350 kW per bay (+/-15%)
- have 4 designated car parks for 4 (or more) BEVs with lane markings
For fast-track stream stations:
- a minimum of 4 chargers to service a minimum of 8 bays concurrently (i.e., 8 charging plugs)
- a minimum of 6 charging bays rated at a minimum of 175 kW per bay (+/- 20%)
- a minimum of 2 charging bays rated at a minimum of 350 kW per bay (+/-15%)
- have 8 designated car parks for 8 (or more) BEVs with lane markings
I think this is an uncharitable take, stemming from an unrealistic attitude about deploying these stations. You're mentally comparing 50 sites with single 50kW chargers versus 50 sites with quad 150kW chargers, but that's not the counterfactual. The counterfactual would be a dozen sites with quad 150kW chargers, if that.
The question is whether it is better to go for a wider, shallower network first, or a deeper, narrower one. They went with wider, shallower that allows for many more feasible routes (as did the NRMA with their network in NSW), and I don't think it was a bad decision to do so.
I think there are a few things to unlock here.
Agree that it's much more important to have a spread of stations, than more at each site initially.. and until this 2nd QESH phase there were almost no DC chargers further than 20km from the Qld Coast.
First issue I see is with Chargefox - there is simply no excuse for them not marking a charger dead..
After all now they don't own any chargers - that and billing is their job.
Second issue is whether the charger owner (in this case Yurika) is investing enough in maintenance - this is both people, spare parts and SLAs with hardware manufacturer.
Third issue is the SLAs themselves - this seems to allow for endless buckpassing. Imo there is no excuse for not getting parts out quickly if you are the manufacturer.
Finally and fourth issue is the failure rate of these Tritium units. Now unfortunately we haven't seen enough alternatives in harsh Australian conditions. In theory Tritiums in-built cooling and IP65 rating should make them much more reliable than some other units.
Agree that it's much more important to have a spread of stations, than more at each site initially.. and until this 2nd QESH phase there were almost no DC chargers further than 20km from the Qld Coast.
First issue I see is with Chargefox - there is simply no excuse for them not marking a charger dead..
After all now they don't own any chargers - that and billing is their job.
Second issue is whether the charger owner (in this case Yurika) is investing enough in maintenance - this is both people, spare parts and SLAs with hardware manufacturer.
Third issue is the SLAs themselves - this seems to allow for endless buckpassing. Imo there is no excuse for not getting parts out quickly if you are the manufacturer.
Finally and fourth issue is the failure rate of these Tritium units. Now unfortunately we haven't seen enough alternatives in harsh Australian conditions. In theory Tritiums in-built cooling and IP65 rating should make them much more reliable than some other units.
I think the issue is the learning rate of EVs. I think only the enthusiasts foresaw the exponential increase of sales currently occuring.
QESH phase one wasn't tick and flick. At the time, there wasn't much other choice for 3rd party charging. But the subsequent ones definitely have been. Putting in single stall chargers in 2023 is ridiculous and very shortsighted. I'd be happy with even dual 75kW chargers at each location. Not a single stall that can charge two cars, two actual charging stalls.
Yes tritium and chargefox have their issues like moa999 has detailed, however this is critical infrastructure. Even if tritium had a 0% failure rate, two charging stalls should be the minimum.
Agree. It seems ridiculous to spend all the effort running the power infrastructure to the stall and then only install a single charger. Especially when those chargers are a slow 50kW. That basically guarantees a several hour wait time on weekends and makes road trips very difficult. Tesla has the right idea of always installing multiple >100kW chargers.
Governments do not have foresight, thats why they continually underbuild. Roads for example - instead of 3 lanes they build 2, instead of 2 lanes they build 1. The incremental cost of building extra is in most cases less than coming back to put in that extra lane.
The M2 in Sydney is a perfect example. Put in 2 lanes but not only that the overbridges over the M2 were built with the design of the M2 with 2 lanes each side. When they had to expand the M2 to 3 lanes at enormous cost, they could not widen the M2 under the bridges - well they could but it would necessitate demolishing the overbridges and starting again.
Has Tesla ever installed x1 supercharger at any location?
The M2 in Sydney is a perfect example. Put in 2 lanes but not only that the overbridges over the M2 were built with the design of the M2 with 2 lanes each side. When they had to expand the M2 to 3 lanes at enormous cost, they could not widen the M2 under the bridges - well they could but it would necessitate demolishing the overbridges and starting again.
Has Tesla ever installed x1 supercharger at any location?
I’m getting thru Elons biography on audible.
I would not want to be the engineer who suggests installing only 1 supercharger at a location haha.
raynewman
Active Member
Where does the M2 narrow to 2 lanes each way under a bridge from 3 lanes either side?
The M2 tunnel under Epping Oval was widened from 2 lanes to 3 each way with some impressive engineering. Three bridges over the M2 were lengthened to increase their spans over the widened roadway below. It’s not easy to do - but it is possible.
M2U Bridge Lengthening, Widening and Other Modifications (Henry Ah Cann) | PDF | Prestressed Concrete | Beam (Structure)
Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site.
Head east under the Lane cove road bridge.
M2 is 3 lanes in Epping Tunnel and 3 lanes east of Epping tunnel. The left lane then continues as an off ramp to Lane cove road. M2 continues as 2 lanes under Lane Cove Road bridge. After that bridge one lane is added as an on ramp from Lane cove road. becoming 3 lanes again.
That is the main bottleneck apart from Lane Cove tunnel heading east being 2 lanes.
The old Euroa temporary SC was a 2 sled installation.
Come to think of it - it just goes to show how far ahead Tesla is. Their temporary fast chargers are faster, more reliable than state subsidised, permanently installed fast chargers from the competition
That’s not a widening to 3 lanes. It’s another off-ramp. After Lane Cove Rd, the M2 is 2 lanes eastbound to the Lane Cove Tunnel, which is only 2 lanes wide. So at some point there had to be a 3 lanes to 2 narrowing, and traffic engineers presumably worked out the least impactful point at which to do that is after the eastbound offramp to Lane Cove Rd. Nothing to do with the overhead bridges.
But because of the narrow Lane cove Rd overpass (ie not initially designed for future 3 lanes) the 3 to 2 narrowing occurred there rather than further east at Delhi Road.
The 3rd lane HAD to become an off ramp to LCR because of the LCR overpass.
It's a bottle neck now with no way of making M2 3 lanes all the way to Delhi Road apart from expensive re-engineering of the overpass.
Similar threads
