Supercharging - Elon's statement that Daily Supercharging Users are Receiving Notes

[ShotgunF15E]

Simple logic that limits SpC to 30 min if all the stalls are busy and some way to discourage folks from leaving their vehicles unattended when charging is complete is all that's needed to address 99% of any possible overcrowding issues (by atleast keeping the flow of cars in line moving)

 

[dsm363]

Simple logic that limits SpC to 30 min if all the stalls are busy and some way to discourage folks from leaving their vehicles unattended when charging is complete is all that's needed to address 99% of any possible overcrowding issues (by atleast keeping the flow of cars in line moving)

The problem with this is that if you were traveling, you sometimes genuinely need more than 30 minutes of charging to get to the next supercharger.

 

[ShotgunF15E]

The problem with this is that if you were traveling, you sometimes genuinely need more than 30 minutes of charging to get to the next supercharger.

Maybe the logic could be integrated with the trip planner to account for exceptions...

 

[Jaff]

Wondered if a light on each SC station that turns on (not obnoxious, one hopes) saying 'fully charged'
would be a good thing or a bad thing.

You could also "default" the light to come on & and add a klaxon sound if an ICE parked in the spot...

then have the "clown hammer" come down on it...;-)

 

[ferdboyce]

To pick up on 4SUPER9's (and dandelot's) excellent suggestions, Installing a small, well located 3 color LED that changed from green to yellow to red would be readily apparent to owners who use SC's. If my mobile app 'buzzed' me a blinking red light at the same time, I know I would react pretty quickly . I think most others would as well, and the relatively few who would ignore the message probably won't react to much of anything except a fine or banishment. And as 4SUPER9 said, that's too "on the nose".

But then another possibility might be, within a certain amount of time after the battery was filled, for the charger slowly to drain the battery down to perhaps 80% SOC, with the understanding that, on the owner's behalf, Tesla was doing it's best to preserve battery life.

 

[4SUPER9]

TM would never remove charge from a battery. This has been brought up a few times in the past. While the idea has its merits, it will never ever happen, so let's try to forget about it.

Someone on another thread took our suggestion and did one better: there is no need to install lighting at a SC. We all have them in our charge ports. While they may conflict with their current use, we can learn to work around that. For example, red usually means not connected. It could also mean, done charging. Dual meanings.

 

[Boatguy]

This is not an engineering problem, it's a problem with willingness to recognize and address the issue. Tesla has all the information available already. hey know where each car is located, its SOC and whether or not it's plugged in. It's not SpaceX engineering to tell us which stall to use next, notifications to those using the chargers, keeping track of who leaves their car plugged in after it's reached 90%, or 100% for how long, etc. etc.

Congestion at chargers does not yet constitute a problem for Tesla, it's only a problem for owners. Tesla's problem is selling more cars, making 400,000 M3s, raising more capital, etc. When this becomes a problem for Tesla (i.e., the popular press or stock analysts start to pay attention to the issue), they will fix it. Not a day before.

 

[Canuck]

Congestion at chargers does not yet constitute a problem for Tesla, it's only a problem for owners.

If that was true, then Tesla would have never sent out the letter that is the subject of this thread. The letter didn't just magically appear to combat a non-existent problem for Tesla.

 

[Boatguy]

If that was true, then Tesla would have never sent out the letter that is the subject of this thread. The letter didn't just magically appear to combat a non-existent problem for Tesla.

I wrote "fix it". Do you feel the problem has been fixed?

 

[ecarfan]

Congestion at chargers does not yet constitute a problem for Tesla, it's only a problem for owners. Tesla's problem is selling more cars, making 400,000 M3s, raising more capital, etc. When this becomes a problem for Tesla (i.e., the popular press or stock analysts start to pay attention to the issue), they will fix it. Not a day before.

We already have examples of Tesla "fixing" congested Supercharger routes. Over the past year there have been several instances of the Tejon CA location being very congested, including a day about 4 months ago where there was a long line. It turns out a fix for that was already in the works, since the Buttonwillow Supercharger opened a couple of months later just north of Tejon. And problem solved. San Juan Capistrano was very busy as soon as it opened, then Fountain Valley opened, we know Santa Ana is permitted and Buena Park also appears it is going to get a Supercharger. Those locations are all fairly close together.

Tesla is clearly sensitive to SC congestion, and addresses it. Of course fixes do not appear instantaneously as the permitting and construction process is subject to delays outside of Tesla's control.

 

[Boatguy]

Well let me just say that it's unusual for a thread of a problem that's been resolved to be on page 62. But if it's solved, then we can all move along, nothing here to see or talk about. FWIW, this my was experience last Sunday morning.

 

[ohmman]

Well let me just say that it's unusual for a thread of a problem that's been resolved to be on page 62. But if it's solved, then we can all move along, nothing here to see or talk about. FWIW, this my was experience last Sunday morning.

Who said it was resolved?

What I see is someone saying that Tesla won't do anything until it affects their bottom line, even if it affects their owners. Then a few people pointing out that actions have indeed been taken. Maybe I missed the part about people saying it was resolved, but I think the issue is with your wording on Tesla's purported inaction.

The Buttonwillow build and the Harris Ranch expansion are excellent examples of Tesla responding to congestion.

The Petaluma Supercharger, which is very close to my house, is rarely as full as you've shown it. At least in my experience, it's usually just a few cars. One time I visited, it was full of ICE trucks with ATVs in the back (see photos in the Petaluma Supercharger thread), but there were still plenty of spaces available. Also, with 10 stations, turnover is bound to be really fast, even when full. Your photo doesn't show a problem. It shows availability.

 

[Canuck]

I wrote "fix it". Do you feel the problem has been fixed?

I don't see it as black and white. It's a fluid problem -- much like any resource a company must manage -- that requires a strategy and plan to keep on top of it. Part of the plan was sending out the letters. It didn't fix the problem completely, but I'm quite certain that it got a number of locals to think twice about charging locally and lessened the problem to a certain degree, plus adding chargers at busy locations lessens the problem, and adding new locations close to busy ones, etc.

Well let me just say that it's unusual for a thread of a problem that's been resolved to be on page 62. But if it's solved, then we can all move along, nothing here to see or talk about. FWIW, this my was experience last Sunday morning.

I wonder what that picture would look like if only the cars whose vehicle owners were on long distance travel were using them.

 

[RogerHScott]

Is anyone here familiar enough with the world of electric utilities to know whether Tesla is likely to be making bulk purchase
agreements with the utilities supplying the SC sites and/or whether whatever arrangements they make are likely to include a
minimum "volume" (MWh) purchase? It is hard to see how the utilities wouldn't risk losing their shirts running the feeders into
these SC sites unless Tesla promised to buy a certain non-trivial minimum amount of power, whether they need/use it or not.

If so, for some of the little-used SCs there may be essentially no incremental cost to Tesla of people -- local or otherwise -- using
them at this point.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Is anyone here familiar enough with the world of electric utilities to know whether Tesla is likely to be making bulk purchase agreements with the utilities supplying the SC sites and/or whether whatever arrangements they make are likely to include a minimum "volume" (MWh) purchase? It is hard to see how the utilities wouldn't risk losing their shirts running the feeders into these SC sites unless Tesla promised to buy a certain non-trivial minimum amount of power, whether they need/use it or not.

I've never seen utilities specify a minimal volume of kWh. They all specify a minimum connection charge, but that does not offset kWh, but rather power demand measured in kW. However, energy consumption (kWh) is always billed for even if you use a single kWh. Thus there will always be an incremental cost.

 

[rfmurphy81]

We already have examples of Tesla "fixing" congested Supercharger routes. Over the past year there have been several instances of the Tejon CA location being very congested, including a day about 4 months ago where there was a long line. It turns out a fix for that was already in the works, since the Buttonwillow Supercharger opened a couple of months later just north of Tejon. And problem solved. San Juan Capistrano was very busy as soon as it opened, then Fountain Valley opened, we know Santa Ana is permitted and Buena Park also appears it is going to get a Supercharger. Those locations are all fairly close together.

Tesla is clearly sensitive to SC congestion, and addresses it. Of course fixes do not appear instantaneously as the permitting and construction process is subject to delays outside of Tesla's control.

I must have missed the discussion about a Supercharger going in Buena Park. Was that posted somewhere?

 

[4SUPER9]

I must have missed the discussion about a Supercharger going in Buena Park. Was that posted somewhere?

There was a rumor/mention of that somewhere here once before. It was mentioned as part of a service center going in. A quick search was not able to reveal any hard details and it is not on the supercharge.info site.

Update: I did find a few mentions of the Buena Park Service Center getting 8 Supercharging stalls. I decided to make dedicated thread to it here

 

[Boatguy]

Is anyone here familiar enough with the world of electric utilities to know whether Tesla is likely to be making bulk purchase
agreements with the utilities supplying the SC sites and/or whether whatever arrangements they make are likely to include a
minimum "volume" (MWh) purchase? It is hard to see how the utilities wouldn't risk losing their shirts running the feeders into
these SC sites unless Tesla promised to buy a certain non-trivial minimum amount of power, whether they need/use it or not.

I can tell you that when remodeling my home in Northern California where service comes from Pacific Gas and Electric, I had to pay to have the wires pulled from the pole to the house meter, after I paid others to dig trenches, lay conduit, etc. If other utilities are similar, they are at no risk for losing money because Tesla pays to get the wiring from the nearest pole or high voltage supply to the supercharger.

 

[aesculus]

Is anyone here familiar enough with the world of electric utilities to know whether Tesla is likely to be making bulk purchase
agreements with the utilities supplying the SC sites and/or whether whatever arrangements they make are likely to include a
minimum "volume" (MWh) purchase? It is hard to see how the utilities wouldn't risk losing their shirts running the feeders into
these SC sites unless Tesla promised to buy a certain non-trivial minimum amount of power, whether they need/use it or not.

If so, for some of the little-used SCs there may be essentially no incremental cost to Tesla of people -- local or otherwise -- using
them at this point.

In California the utilities bill you for power, but mostly don't create the power you consume. That comes from another party. So the utility just wants to be covered for the cost of the infrastructure, whether you use it or not is another issue.

Commercial users such as the superchargers is a different rate structure than residential. For residential the IOU's were upset that some heavy solar users were not paying their 'fare share' for the infrastructure and the burden was falling to the other rate payers so they asked the PUC for rate change so everyone had to pay a minimum monthly usage fee. For commercial users they have a way of capturing the extra costs of the infrastructure.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Commercial users such as the superchargers is a different rate structure than residential. For residential the IOU's were upset that some heavy solar users were not paying their 'fare share' for the infrastructure and the burden was falling to the other rate payers so they asked the PUC for rate change so everyone had to pay a minimum monthly usage fee. For commercial users they have a way of capturing the extra costs of the infrastructure.

Yeah, but for the minimum fee I haven't seen any example where it offsets your kWh usage as the poster suggested. It might offset kW based demand charges, but even if you use a single kWh there will be an incremental cost. The closest thing I have seen are payment plans that average usage over a longer period (for example a year), but then you are still paying for incremental costs (just averaged out so that the monthly bill doesn't vary as much).