VW Fallout: $2.0 Billion for ZEV Infrastructure Buildout

[stopcrazypp]

I think we've been to this rodeo before. Tesla has been working its tuchis off to spread Superchargers. They set/advertise a beyond-ambitious set of SC targets, and then try to fill in as many as they can. Permit problems and other exigent issues inevitably force deviations between planned and actual.

Which leads me to wonder: is VW likely to prove way better at the whole permitting / installation process than Tesla? Or able to match Tesla's ability? Or playing catch up even on deployment rate for the next couple of years? When I think about it in the light of absolutely no facts whatsoever, it seems to me that VW is actually going to wind up playing catch up. Sure, I bet VW has staff able to handle permitting... but probably focused on VW corporate operations. Dealerships likely handle all the local permitting and building. So VW may actually be in the position of having to staff up and build a new operation for siting and building out their charging network. When we complain that Tesla doesn't match their own projections for SC buildouts, we may find that Tesla will nevertheless outperform VW's nascent effort. Maybe by a substantial margin.

Alan

Presuming Tesla is not self-limiting themselves purposefully (as some in other threads are speculating) I think it is likely that VW won't be moving as fast as Tesla, especially at the beginning. Tesla has been doing this for a while, so I expect they will be faster than someone starting now.

 

[mspohr]

I think we've been to this rodeo before. Tesla has been working its tuchis off to spread Superchargers. They set/advertise a beyond-ambitious set of SC targets, and then try to fill in as many as they can. Permit problems and other exigent issues inevitably force deviations between planned and actual.

Which leads me to wonder: is VW likely to prove way better at the whole permitting / installation process than Tesla? Or able to match Tesla's ability? Or playing catch up even on deployment rate for the next couple of years? When I think about it in the light of absolutely no facts whatsoever, it seems to me that VW is actually going to wind up playing catch up. Sure, I bet VW has staff able to handle permitting... but probably focused on VW corporate operations. Dealerships likely handle all the local permitting and building. So VW may actually be in the position of having to staff up and build a new operation for siting and building out their charging network. When we complain that Tesla doesn't match their own projections for SC buildouts, we may find that Tesla will nevertheless outperform VW's nascent effort. Maybe by a substantial margin.

Alan

I think the most difficult parts about installing Superchargers is dealing with all of the different local building agencies and electric utilities as well as working with local shopping centers and motels for parking space. They each have their own requirements for permits and inspections and the utilities often have to special order a transformer and install it on their own schedule. Tesla has an advantage in that they have been scouting locations and dealing with these issues for years. VW will have to build a team to do this from scratch (and I don't think they can rely on their dealers who are just not interested in doing anything but selling and servicing ICE cars.

 

[Pollux]

I AGREE @mspohr, they can't rely on their dealers!

 

[Jeff N]

Here come the special interest groups to try to block VW from replicating Tesla's proven Supercharger rollout strategy.

The usual suspects: other automakers want H2 fuel cell spending, Ford wants EV chargers placed where few people have electric cars, and the Sierra Club joins the parade of social justice commenters advocating for EV chargers for the economically disadvantaged rather than focusing on making the quick transition to EVs successful by placing facilities where they are needed first:

Automakers want California to revise Volkswagen charging station plan

 

[McRat]

Here come the special interest groups to try to block VW from replicating Tesla's proven Supercharger rollout strategy.

The usual suspects: other automakers want H2 fuel cell spending, Ford wants EV chargers placed where few people have electric cars, and the Sierra Club joins the parade of social justice commenters advocating for EV chargers for the economically disadvantaged rather than focusing on making the quick transition to EVs successful by placing facilities where they are needed first:

Automakers want California to revise Volkswagen charging station plan

The Sierra Club sure changed. They used to endorse genetic cleansing and sterilization to rid us of the poor and those with dark skin. Now they want to buy them EVs? HAHAHA!!

 

[mspohr]

The Sierra Club sure changed. They used to endorse genetic cleansing and sterilization to rid us of the poor and those with dark skin. Now they want to buy them EVs? HAHAHA!!

Do you have any source for this statement or is it just part of your stream of hate?

 

[McRat]

Do you have any source for this statement or is it just part of your stream of hate?

Look it up. Eugenics was a very popular idea in the USA, and the head of the Sierra Club was a big proponent back then. But so were many others. Adolf H actually got a lot of his ideas from the USA.

 

[Jeff N]

The Sierra Club sure changed. They used to endorse genetic cleansing and sterilization to rid us of the poor and those with dark skin. Now they want to buy them EVs? HAHAHA!!

I assume you are referring to issues related to this:

Sierra Club - Wikipedia

I'm not familiar with that history but the Wikipedia summary doesn't mention "genetic cleansing" or "sterilization". I can imagine there could have been anti-Mexican racist elements to that or it could have largely been driven by concerns about overall population levels (or a mixture of both).

I should probably read Paul Ehrlich's book "The Population Bomb" since I've heard about it and I'm interested in 1960's history. Knowing nothing about what it actually says, I agree that the huge world population booms in the last 100-200 years are a serious issue.

We have managed to temporarily avoid the past predictions of starvation by plant genetic modification, and huge uses of fertilizers and pesticides but there is likely a limit to future productivity gains. Meanwhile, populations continue to surge. Also, this hasn't avoided the inherent related increases in carbon emissions and ocean fish populations are being devastated by overfishing, pollution, and acidification via carbon emissions all of which are significantly linked to human population levels.

 

[McRat]

Basically, the Sierra Club devolved over time to a political movement instead of an environmental champion.

 

[cpa]

OK, so VW cheats, gets caught, and is punished.

The other automakers and the Sierra Club want to weigh in on the punishment? Look, automakers, you were not a party to the litigation. If you do not like the settlement, then spend some of your own money and create your own BEV charging network.

Make America Great Again! Spend some of your own money!

 

[mspohr]

I assume you are referring to issues related to this:

Sierra Club - Wikipedia

I'm not familiar with that history but the Wikipedia summary doesn't mention "genetic cleansing" or "sterilization". I can imagine there could have been anti-Mexican racist elements to that or it could have largely been driven by concerns about overall population levels (or a mixture of both).

I should probably read Paul Ehrlich's book "The Population Bomb" since I've heard about it and I'm interested in 1960's history. Knowing nothing about what it actually says, I agree that the huge world population booms in the last 100-200 years are a serious issue.

We have managed to temporarily avoid the past predictions of starvation by plant genetic modification, and huge uses of fertilizers and pesticides but there is likely a limit to future productivity gains. Meanwhile, populations continue to surge. Also, this hasn't avoided the inherent related increases in carbon emissions and ocean fish populations are being devastated by overfishing, pollution, and acidification via carbon emissions all of which are significantly linked to human population levels.

Sounds like some people wanted the Sierra Club to be anti-immigrant but this was voted on several times and soundly defeated.
I think mcrat is just making up the genetic cleansing and sterilization stuff.

 

[mspohr]

OK, so VW cheats, gets caught, and is punished.

The other automakers and the Sierra Club want to weigh in on the punishment? Look, automakers, you were not a party to the litigation. If you do not like the settlement, then spend some of your own money and create your own BEV charging network.

Make America Great Again! Spend some of your own money!

I agree with your point about the auto makers. They were not party to the litigation but they are part of the problem. Toyota keeps flogging H2 cars and wants other people to pay for the infrastructure to support them. Hopefully this won't go anywhere (like their cars).
The Sierra Club does have a right to speak to the settlement as an environmental organization.

 

[McRat]

Sounds like some people wanted the Sierra Club to be anti-immigrant but this was voted on several times and soundly defeated.
I think mcrat is just making up the genetic cleansing and sterilization stuff.

Understand that human genetics and eugenics was based on scientific research. The US gov't even sterilized people against their will back then. It was not the lunatic fringe, it was scientists. And lower population counts is better for the environment, which is odd that the Sierra advocates higher population now.

I agree with your point about the auto makers. They were not party to the litigation but they are part of the problem. Toyota keeps flogging H2 cars and wants other people to pay for the infrastructure to support them. Hopefully this won't go anywhere (like their cars).
The Sierra Club does have a right to speak to the settlement as an environmental organization.

Since putting EV charging stations in less optimized locations for EV travel makes the air dirtier, then why would the Sierra Club endorse it based on ecology?

Your religion, politics, skin color, or national origin does not make the air cleaner or dirtier. Engineering and technology does.

 

[mspohr]

Understand that human genetics and eugenics was based on scientific research. The US gov't even sterilized people against their will back then. It was not the lunatic fringe, it was scientists. And lower population counts is better for the environment, which is odd that the Sierra advocates higher population now.

You're conflating immigration and population. Sierra Club defeated attempts to make it anti-immigrant. Sierra Club never endorsed eugenics or sterilization. Sierra Club doesn't advocate "higher population".
You're just making stuff up... Is this part of your "Make America Hate Again" campaign?

 

[mspohr]

Since putting EV charging stations in less optimized locations for EV travel makes the air dirtier, then why would the Sierra Club endorse it based on ecology?

Why does it bother you that poor people might have access to EV charging?

 

[miimura]

Personally, I thought the Electrify America plan was pretty well balanced. There was some of everything. If people want the L2 MUD and public stations to go to disadvantaged communities, that's fine with me. High rent apartments in Silicon Valley should be installing stations to attract tenants anyway. Taking money away from the highway charging plan to put more money in H2 is ridiculous. The State already has a plan to spend $200M on Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure, but they're unable to even spend what is already allocated. Pledging more money is not going to get it built any faster.

 

[McRat]

Why does it bother you that poor people might have access to EV charging?

Oddly enough, it's the affluent areas that cannot 'afford' EV charging sites. The real estate is too expensive. Same reason you don't see many gas stations there.

Using income as a basis for EV site deployment is asinine to the extreme. Your paycheck does not even have a J1772 port in it, nor do any direct-deposit pay systems support DCFC.

It is electric cars that require electricity. You should put electric car chargers where electric cars need them. That should be the only consideration whatsoever. You don't put sprinklers systems in for your artificial turf.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Personally, I thought the Electrify America plan was pretty well balanced. There was some of everything. If people want the L2 MUD and public stations to go to disadvantaged communities, that's fine with me. High rent apartments in Silicon Valley should be installing stations to attract tenants anyway. Taking money away from the highway charging plan to put more money in H2 is ridiculous. The State already has a plan to spend $200M on Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure, but they're unable to even spend what is already allocated. Pledging more money is not going to get it built any faster.

I think the idea is that given VW's settlement has a time based requirement for the use of the money, forcing VW to build stations may actually get them built faster.

 

[mspohr]

Oddly enough, it's the affluent areas that cannot 'afford' EV charging sites. The real estate is too expensive. Same reason you don't see many gas stations there.

Using income as a basis for EV site deployment is asinine to the extreme. Your paycheck does not even have a J1772 port in it, nor do any direct-deposit pay systems support DCFC.

It is electric cars that require electricity. You should put electric car chargers where electric cars need them. That should be the only consideration whatsoever. You don't put sprinklers systems in for your artificial turf.

That's like the fool looking for his lost keys under the street lamp rather than where he dropped them because the light is better there.
A used Nissan Leaf can be had cheaply and would be a good car to get around the city and to work if you had a place to charge it. Nobody is going to buy an EV if there is no place to charge it.
Something about chickens and eggs would seem to apply here.

 

[Jeff N]

Personally, I thought the Electrify America plan was pretty well balanced. There was some of everything. If people want the L2 MUD and public stations to go to disadvantaged communities, that's fine with me. High rent apartments in Silicon Valley should be installing stations to attract tenants anyway. Taking money away from the highway charging plan to put more money in H2 is ridiculous. The State already has a plan to spend $200M on Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure, but they're unable to even spend what is already allocated. Pledging more money is not going to get it built any faster.

Agreed. The state's written guidance to VW in February promoted H2 spending in the first cycle but did not demand it and seemed okay with it if VW deferred H2 until a later spending cycle.

Although most of the CARB members, various speakers at the last hearing, and apparently various written comments including some submitted by automakers urge H2 spending in the first VW spending cycle I'm doubtful that CARB will actually vote to block all or even part of VW's spending plan. I think this is mostly theater being queued up to urge VW to spend on H2 on the 2nd cycle beginning in late 2019. By then, it may become more clear that H2 is a near-term failure for ordinary consumer passenger cars.

I'm actually okay with some limited H2 funding aimed at fleets and trucking where the stations would be likely to be heavily utilized and where battery storage may not be as practical initially. I'm open to the idea that large-scale deployment of solar and wind may eventually result in scenarios where offline H2 generation is an economically sensible use of energy otherwise unusable by the grid. I suspect the scale of that generation is limited and not near-term and I doubt that general purpose H2 fuel cell cars with neighborhood stations makes sense in the next 10-20 years.