SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Can you possibly be more nebulous ? Your 'take' reads like a White House press release.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
VW Fallout: $2.0 Billion for ZEV Infrastructure Buildout
- Thread starter RubberToe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Can you possibly be more nebulous ? Your 'take' reads like a White House press release.
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Not one from the Trump White House, I assume. I’m providing data and facts. Make of it what you will.
The site design and permitting for the Electrify America DC locations in California is being done by the same contractor that Tesla uses. Now that this contractor is being paid by VW they are suddenly incompetent?
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Uh huh.
Your goulash of facts reminded me of a great children's story:
A mouse and elephant are running down a dirt path. The mouse turns to the elephant and proclaims "WOW! Look at all the dust and commotion we are making!"
Does "under development" have a non-ambiguous meaning ?
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
I agree with SageBrush. What you're doing, and forgive my phrasing, is trying real hard to polish a turd.
It is unfortunate that EA isn't doing as good a job as many of you hoped in establishing a convenient network of chargers similar to the SC network, but that's no reason to excuse it. They may still be able to iron out the kinks and get back on track, but they aren't on track right now.
Here is the section of the report that describes the reason for the delays:
We have seen some Tesla site in California also experience permitting delays. Having said that, Tesla has managed to build a very large number of Supercharger sites in the state using the same contractor. This has me wondering if the issues mentioned above (i.e. A.B. 1236, accessibility guidance, local permitting) are unique for some reason to EA, and not to Tesla?
The EA website shows 8 DC fast chargers up and running, with 28 coming soon. None are in California. Also note from my prior post that EA's goal is 160 fast chargers in California, with the major caveat that they might not achieve that due to the higher than anticipated cost of bringing each one online. They don't provide any numbers for monies spent so far, we will probably have to wait for the annual report to get those numbers to get a real idea of how many fast chargers may end up getting built.
The above paragraph certainly smacks of several organizations just arguing over permitting red tape. Several posters going way back to when the consent agreement was approved expressed doubt whether a "government forcibly created entity" (Electrify America) would have the same level of motivation to execute that a private company (i.e. Tesla) has. If there is no motivation to "get the job done", and you are making a nice salary arguing with various other nicely paid professionals, where is the forcing function to actually get fast chargers installed?
Agree with others who have characterized the report as polishing the turd. I worked for a startup for 18 months, and they produced monthly reports that were absolutely glowing. In every report, the future prospects couldn't possibly have been brighter. You really had to read between the lines to see what was really going on. Its the job of the people who produce these reports to put every negative detail in the best possible light. Its up to the reader to figure out what is really going on. We may have to wait until the second investment cycle planning gets underway (i.e. state review) to fully understand where we are at the end of the first cycle. What has the $200,000,000 produced, and what is the plan for the next $200,000,000?
While this certainly isn't a complete train wreck just yet, the engineer is definitely dozing off and the alarm clock is not looking to go off anytime soon.
RT
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Note that EA did not think it fact-worthy to say how many permits were submitted in CA, or actually give any details about the permits in progress.
My BS meter is off the scale, and I do not take EA's word for it that the CA bureaucracy is the main actor at fault. Heck, EA can just ~ copy/paste the Tesla submissions.
My bias: I'm not a fan of VW and post-Dieselgate think they are a bunch of pants-on-fire lying liars covered in lying sauce who committed a brazen fraud on consumers and government regulators that not-so-incidentally gave them a fraudulent advantage of their competitors.
Ahem.
That said, re all the mirage and negativity comments on EA's progress: REALLY? Because Tesla was so on-target, on-track, transparent and operationally efficient at permitting, design, construction and activation?!?!?! Because their forecasts were a paragon of accuracy and precision?!?!?!
Enjoying the use of the "?!" construction today, as it no doubt resoundingly and convincingly adds to the savage sarcasm and biting wit of this post.
Alan
Ahem.
That said, re all the mirage and negativity comments on EA's progress: REALLY? Because Tesla was so on-target, on-track, transparent and operationally efficient at permitting, design, construction and activation?!?!?! Because their forecasts were a paragon of accuracy and precision?!?!?!
Enjoying the use of the "?!" construction today, as it no doubt resoundingly and convincingly adds to the savage sarcasm and biting wit of this post.
Alan
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
There are some notable exceptions when comparing to Tesla, but one of the most glaring is the fact that they're spending money on advertising.
To add, EA appears to be using the same organizations/companies that Tesla uses. Surely, they've learned a thing or two in the last ~5 years of installing the SC network...this isn't exactly uncharted waters here.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Fair question and criticism. My negative attitude stems from three sources:
1. Jeff annoys me. Unfair to tarnish EA with the same brush but his unfailing whitewashing of GM and GM related just rubs me the wrong way.
2. Tesla is BY FAR the most important EV manufacturer; in fact more important than all the others combined. The political wrangling that excluded Tesla from benefitting from the VW settlement is plain wrong.
3. There is every indication that $2B is going to end up with very little to show for it.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
By the way, plugshare reports the cost to charge at the EA built station at the Walmart in AK, one of the current eight locations in operation:
$1 to start
$0.35 per minute
For the CCS/ChadeMO cars on the road that charge at rates from 22 to ~ 50 kW,
That works out to $0.29 at best and about $1 at worse per kwh
A Bjorn Nyland is called for:
Sheeeeeeeittttttt
$1 to start
$0.35 per minute
For the CCS/ChadeMO cars on the road that charge at rates from 22 to ~ 50 kW,
That works out to $0.29 at best and about $1 at worse per kwh
A Bjorn Nyland is called for:
Sheeeeeeeittttttt
I don't think the comparison to Tesla Supercharger deployment has any basis. People up-thread are saying things like "look, Tesla already opened so many sites in California, what's the big deal?" We don't know when Tesla started site development on any particular site and how long it took to get the site online after a site was identified as a candidate site. Therefore, you cannot conclude that the EA site development process is systematically any slower than Tesla's. One thing is clear - developing a fast charging site always takes way longer than any normal person thinks is reasonable.
Although the vast majority of those Tesla sites were presumably finished or under construction before these new California accessibility rules were announced.
Which report was “polishing the turd”? That’s what SageBrush said about my report on the EA report.
They are obviously having their problems, particularly in California, however it’s worth noting that they never promised to have any DC highway sites finished and open until spring of next year. They did promise to have some community AC charging finished by now so that is technically that part that is most behind schedule.
As others have noted, EA is using the same contractor that Tesla uses to design, get permits, and construct their California (any many other) site locations. This same contractor is already nearing completion on some locations in Oregon and may have built some of the locations already online elsewhere in the country.
EA is required to spend money on advertising to promote EVs as part of the settlement with CARB (which reviewed their plans carefully and approved them).
Glad to be of service to your curmudgeonly ways.
Your impression is yours to have. You may be annoyed when I correct false or misleading anti-GM claims or point out that the Bolt is an adequate long-distance vehicle when the proper charging infrastructure is available (I’ve driven ~1,000 miles over the last 2 days on my way to Canada).
I don’t think I’m a shill for GM. I reported way back in May, 2017 that the Bolt was limited to 55 kW:
Chevy Bolt EV Can Charge at 55 kW - HybridCars.com
I reported this year about some ongoing battery failure problems and two subsequent software “recall” notices. Other media like InsideEVs picked up and linked to my report:
New details emerge as a few Bolt EV packs continue to fail
I assume you are referring to which plug designs and protocols are supported on the EA chargers.
Aside from the Tesla design not being part of any published standard, Tesla has not done anything to make their mechanical plug parts available to other companies. For example, the two Tesla to J1772 AC adapter designs on the market weren’t able to purchase official Tesla inlet parts and were forced to reverse engineer and design their own parts. I think Tony Williams was also unable to directly purchase Tesla plugs for use in another adapter. Tesla has also not published their non-standard Supercharger signaling protocol (it uses CANbus but is different than CHAdeMO). That may be why, independent of the Electrify America effort, none of the 5+ major independent DC charger vendors support Supercharging plugs on their products.
It seems a tad premature to make that judgement at 1.5 years into a 10 year project. They have obviously spent much of that time hiring employees and contractors and making plans just like on any major nationwide infrastructure construction project. The fact is that the various DC charger vendors didn’t have production-quality equipment ready to ship prior to when the first EA stations were built early this year.
For a Bolt EV it works out to around $0.45 to $0.55 per kWh. This is roughly comparable to the non-subscription rates at EVgo chargers. EA has indicated they may roll out subscription plans with lower prices later this year or early next year. Right now they just take credit cards.
For cars that can charge at 100+ kW power similar to Tesla cars the EA rates work out to be roughly similar to Supercharger pay-as-you-go rates.
For the Bolt EV, today’s rates works out to be about the same cost as driving a typical gasoline car on a road trip so it’s not particularly punitive in that sense. I’m happy to pay it particularly until there is a larger competitive DC charging infrastructure built up.
Last edited:
PAYG is going to be expensive for charging, just as it's expensive for cellphones. You want a good network and no surprises, you're going to have a subscription. High-power electricity pricing has demand pricing that messes up the economics.
Let's say 15,000 miles per year, 150,000 miles of driving over 10 years, 8% DCFC, that's 12,000 miles of DCFC. Let's be very conservative and say 3mi/kWh, so that's 4,000kWh.
If margin $0.10/kWh, profit is $400 over 10 years.
$35k car, 10% margin, profit is $3.181.81 paid up front.
It's just seems plain _dumb_ to try make a direct profit on charging when you can instead forgo profit and try to make it _good_ instead to sell more cars.
How much infrastructure would be being built if EVgo didn't get $120M from a fine, and if ElectrifyAmerica didn't get $2B from a fine?
One thing I think people really need to think clearly about is how much is reasonable to pay for charging on the road. It's not going to be free.
These systems require capital, maintenance and of course power and if they are going to be widespread, significant profits. The current market of long distance EVs is microscopic, particularly with Tesla not supporting the current CCS standard. VW is dumping a bunch of capital into building out a starting system, but to keep it running, it has to make money.
These systems require capital, maintenance and of course power and if they are going to be widespread, significant profits. The current market of long distance EVs is microscopic, particularly with Tesla not supporting the current CCS standard. VW is dumping a bunch of capital into building out a starting system, but to keep it running, it has to make money.
May I present list of such cars:
// end of list
The Jaguar I-PACE, the 2019 Nissan LEAF, and the Audi e-tron are expected to be available in the US by next summer and all are rumored to charge at 100 kW or more during some significant part of the charging cycle.
EA opens its first West Coast location in Oregon. Overall number 9. More EVs per capita than Arkansas, so perhaps we will get some more reliable reports of its usage.
See the plugshare site here:
PlugShare - Find Electric Vehicle Charging Locations Near You
See the plugshare site here:
PlugShare - Find Electric Vehicle Charging Locations Near You
Similar threads
