Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

VW Fallout: $2.0 Billion for ZEV Infrastructure Buildout

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Miimura, do you have a link to the CalTrans plans for EV charging at rest areas? This is the first I have heard of it.

RT
CalTrans DCFC Plan Map.jpg


http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ctcliaison/2017/1217/superbook/49_4.20_Combined4Linking.pdf

I have also added them to my Map of Future DCFC Sites that shows future State funded charging sites. EA sites are not included.

I just re-read the CalTrans document and the Camp Roberts location is the only one that mentions the solar system. However, I have heard that the Shandon site will use the same system. Unfortunately it says "These charging stations will consist of portable solar powered units, supplemented with 110 DC trickle charging, to meet fast charging demand." I was wondering what the grid connection for "trickle charging" would be, but less than 6kW seems totally unworkable if anyone were to turn up after dark and drain the stationary battery. Subsequent arrivals would be left to scrape the bottom of the proverbial barrel. The system is being designed by Envision, maker of the portable solar EV ARC(TM) system.

The other thing that worries me about these sites is that most of them will be free due to vending restrictions a State rest areas. With only one charger at each location, it will not be wise to depend on these to make a trip.
 
Last edited:
Did they meet this schedule? I'll have to follow up and check these rest stops on the way to Vegas next time I go. But a $630k cost per DCFC installed is scary. They do say that they will be able to expand (hopefully less expensively) as the demand warrants.

caltrans%20schedule_zpsdbguitbw.jpg
 
Did they meet this schedule? I'll have to follow up and check these rest stops on the way to Vegas next time I go. But a $630k cost per DCFC installed is scary. They do say that they will be able to expand (hopefully less expensively) as the demand warrants.

caltrans%20schedule_zpsdbguitbw.jpg
If you look at the architectural details they prepared in the document, you can see why the cost is a little high.

I don't think ANY of them are on Plugshare yet.
 
The Electrify America Panoche Rd. Shell, with an address locating it in the town of Firebaugh, is a major travel services stop along I-5 in that area.

The construction had not been started yet as of a few days ago when I stopped in. It does have an excellent connection to the grid.

CA56061B-9E89-4B42-8D9B-6A9B1E2B1351.jpeg

8058AD47-DE91-43F3-84AE-B37AA53127EF.jpeg
 
“Electrify America’s plan for a second 30-month cycle of zero emission vehicle investment in California was approved by a vote of 12 to 1 by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) during its December board meeting today in Sacramento. Board member Dean Florez voted against the plan.

The company’s second cycle California plan calls for a shift in investments from a highway DC fast charging focus towards a majority of spending on community DC charging in the new plan which begins in July 2019 and extends until the end of 2021. A national plan that covers states other than California is expected to be submitted to the EPA by the end of January or shortly thereafter, according to the company.”

More details in my write up on my website:

CARB votes to approve Electrify America cycle 2 plan
 
Why is "a company headquartered in Cupertino" even eligible for free L2 hardware? Shouldn't they be limited to MUD and SMB? IMHO, major corporations that clearly have the budget and motivation to provide this equipment for their employees should not receive this subsidy.
Good question. This is apparently the standard arrangement that EA has for installing 240V charging equipment at workplaces (and residential complexes, etc). I suppose it is somewhat analogous to Tesla providing free destination chargers to hotels and retailers.

Generally, VW/EA has quite a bit of flexibility in fashioning their spending plans. It would be interesting to know more of the details of these arrangements.
 
Interesting. That's the first map I've seen that has indicated all the Cycle 1 sites.
On the 101 corridor between the Bay Area and LA Area, I see King City, Paso Robles, and the known site in Pismo Beach. Also sites around Santa Barbara and Oxnard/Camarillo.
I was also not expecting them to build on the 395 corridor in Cycle 1.
 
Interesting. That's the first map I've seen that has indicated all the Cycle 1 sites.
On the 101 corridor between the Bay Area and LA Area, I see King City, Paso Robles, and the known site in Pismo Beach. Also sites around Santa Barbara and Oxnard/Camarillo.
I was also not expecting them to build on the 395 corridor in Cycle 1.
That’s all old news..... Those basic routes/sites have been indicated on Cycle 1 maps going back to the “secret map” I wrote about last March.

“Secret” highway ultra-fast DC charging map revealed

I had the same newer CA Cycle 1 map found in today’s InsideEVs article in my October 4 article about the Cycle 2 plan. That article also includes handy tables of how many new locations will be covered in Cycle 2 on which highways. I don’t think there is map-level detail yet that shows approximate locations for the new Cycle 2 sites.

Electrify America proposes metro DC charging, no H2 stations for CA cycle 2

I’m told that the Cycle 2 draft national plan should come from EA by the end of January or so.

Here’s my favorite unofficial map of Cycle 1 approximate locations (including metro sites). I’ve forgotten now who put this together. It’s out of date now regarding open sites and sites that now have exact known locations.

The map hosted on EA’s website only shows open and “under construction” sites so it fails to show the overall scope of the system that is supposed to be finished by June 2019. EA has long acknowledged that some of the shown locations will not actually be finished until the end of 2019 although I think they intend all of the CA highway locations to be done by June 2019.

Electrify America Sites - Google My Maps
 
Last edited:
I wrote up a recent interview with EA’s Chief Operating Officer in Q&A format.

ER: Electrify America will have a smartphone app coming out?

Jones: Yes. It’s a basic charging app. It will allow consumers to interact with the stations and chargers — start a charge. It will be coming in the latter half of the first quarter of 2019 [by the end of March)]. That will also come with an announcement about subscription services and subscription-based pricing.

.....

ER: How much scalability is baked into the new sites that are being built? For example, are you over-sizing transformers so you can easily bring in more charging spaces in the future?

Jones: We are future-proofing where needed and where allowed. You have some site host constraints that don’t allow for that. When it’s possible we add to the site host contract that we can have additional chargers and add capacity later. We do sometimes upsize the transformer to make sure we can later add additional power modules to increase power. We are doing this on “metro” sites where we started with 50 kW dispensers. We’re now moving to install all metro sites at 150 kW though because it just makes more sense.

Q&A with Brendan Jones of Electrify America
 
The Hydrogen Fuel Cell Scam — From George W. Bush & "The Big 3" To Toyota, Honda, & Japan | CleanTechnica

A little more perspective on H2. As we have suspected, it was all a scam to keep us burning fossil fuels.

On February 6th of 2003, George W Bush gave a speech in which he touted the benefits of a hydrogen economy. Far from being farsighted or progressive, it may well have been one of the worst examples of greenwashing in our lifetime. The gist of the speech was that we should avoid raising fuel economy standards and deploying clean technologies such as electric cars and renewable energy and instead pursue a transition from fossil fuels to a hydrogen economy.

What was unstated, was that hydrogen was (and is to this day) manufactured using fossil fuels, and that building infrastructure for a hydrogen economy would literally take decades and cost trillions of dollars. In effect, what was really being implied was, let’s not do anything that would diminish the profits of the fossil fuel companies in the short or medium term (as CAFE standards or deployment of renewable energy might) and let’s get behind something that would not truly be possible or practical in our lifetime (or any other lifetime).

The need to have a massive and costly buildout of infrastructure remains one of the most glaring problems of a supposed transition to a hydrogen economy. The cost of a single hydrogen fueling station is likely to be over $2 million. This is in contrast to the relatively modest $50,000 cost of deploying a high-speed battery-electric car charging station. Another factor here is the reality of putting into place an all-new infrastructure from scratch versus building off of an already existing electrical infrastructure that exists in every developed nation.

Lost in all of the optimism and the panacea of a new hydrogen age is the cold fact that hydrogen in not something that exists in nature, and to this day is created using natural gas. In fact, the separation of hydrogen (the so-called reforming of natural gas) requires combustion. This immediately refutes the very notion that hydrogen is a clean energy source — in addition to being a secondary energy source, it also requires the burning of fossil fuel for its very creation. The end result of a hydrogen economy would be the use of large amounts of energy and the release of carbon dioxide.

In addition, the transport of hydrogen requires it to be liquefied, meaning it would have to be in turn refrigerated to a temperature of negative 253°C so that it could be stored in tanks during its transport. This process too would require the use of a significant amount of energy and the release of carbon dioxide.

Hopefully the "Electrify America" initiative will resist H2.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: FlatSix911
Hopefully the "Electrify America" initiative will resist H2.
So far, they have resisted. They say things about how they have worked with H2 proponents to find suitable investments but, darn it, just haven’t found any yet. They may yet fund some heavy vehicle H2 infrastructure but my guess is that they are kicking the issue down the road and hoping it will eventually go away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hiroshiy and mspohr
EA lists nine locations which it claims will be open in California by the end of the year.

https://electricrevs.com/2018/11/14...fy-america-sites-planned-to-open-before-2019/
Update article on my website:

Last November Electrify America predicted that nine of their locations would be open by the end of the year in California. I didn’t quite work out that way.

Of that original list, only three have actually opened:

  • Country Hill Shopping Plaza, 2965 Rolling Hills, Torrance, CA.
  • Walmart Supercenter, 8465 Elk Grove Blvd., Elk Grove, CA
  • San Francisco Premium Outlets, 2774 Livermore Outlets Dr., Livermore, CA

Electrify America opens 3 of 9 planned CA sites by end of 2018
 
  • Like
Reactions: hiroshiy
The Hydrogen Fuel Cell Scam — From George W. Bush & "The Big 3" To Toyota, Honda, & Japan | CleanTechnica

A little more perspective on H2. As we have suspected, it was all a scam to keep us burning fossil fuels.

On February 6th of 2003, George W Bush gave a speech in which he touted the benefits of a hydrogen economy. Far from being farsighted or progressive, it may well have been one of the worst examples of greenwashing in our lifetime. The gist of the speech was that we should avoid raising fuel economy standards and deploying clean technologies such as electric cars and renewable energy and instead pursue a transition from fossil fuels to a hydrogen economy.

What was unstated, was that hydrogen was (and is to this day) manufactured using fossil fuels, and that building infrastructure for a hydrogen economy would literally take decades and cost trillions of dollars. In effect, what was really being implied was, let’s not do anything that would diminish the profits of the fossil fuel companies in the short or medium term (as CAFE standards or deployment of renewable energy might) and let’s get behind something that would not truly be possible or practical in our lifetime (or any other lifetime).

The need to have a massive and costly buildout of infrastructure remains one of the most glaring problems of a supposed transition to a hydrogen economy. The cost of a single hydrogen fueling station is likely to be over $2 million. This is in contrast to the relatively modest $50,000 cost of deploying a high-speed battery-electric car charging station. Another factor here is the reality of putting into place an all-new infrastructure from scratch versus building off of an already existing electrical infrastructure that exists in every developed nation.

Lost in all of the optimism and the panacea of a new hydrogen age is the cold fact that hydrogen in not something that exists in nature, and to this day is created using natural gas. In fact, the separation of hydrogen (the so-called reforming of natural gas) requires combustion. This immediately refutes the very notion that hydrogen is a clean energy source — in addition to being a secondary energy source, it also requires the burning of fossil fuel for its very creation. The end result of a hydrogen economy would be the use of large amounts of energy and the release of carbon dioxide.

In addition, the transport of hydrogen requires it to be liquefied, meaning it would have to be in turn refrigerated to a temperature of negative 253°C so that it could be stored in tanks during its transport. This process too would require the use of a significant amount of energy and the release of carbon dioxide.

Hopefully the "Electrify America" initiative will resist H2.

The December 1st issue of the Economist had a special report on decarbonising the global economy:

https://www.economist.com/sections/special-reports

I read the entire report as someone either here or on a different website said it was worth reading. I was surprised at how much attention that Hydrogen received. I reached my free article limit, so can't provide any good examples off the top of my head. But I do remember that they were pretty convinced that Hydrogen trucks were required, and didn't think much of battery powered trucks.

RT
 
The December 1st issue of the Economist had a special report on decarbonising the global economy:

https://www.economist.com/sections/special-reports

I read the entire report as someone either here or on a different website said it was worth reading. I was surprised at how much attention that Hydrogen received. I reached my free article limit, so can't provide any good examples off the top of my head. But I do remember that they were pretty convinced that Hydrogen trucks were required, and didn't think much of battery powered trucks.

RT
I don't think many people are really going to believe that batteries are useful or productive for long haul trucking until Tesla shows that it really works in practice and trucking companies actually show the economics work too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SageBrush