Chevy Spark EV Forum

It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:39 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Bolt!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:47 pm
Posts: 576
cwerdna wrote:
nozferatu wrote:
I doubt very much a charging standard would slow down any of the EV manufacturers. There's no proof of that other than hearsay.

Sure it does. I was at CES just a few weeks ago and happened to be at the Chargepoint booth where someone who knew little about EVs was talking to the reps while standing in front of the dual headed unit at http://www.chargepoint.com/express/cpe200/. He was "upset" or "angry" that "they" couldn't figure things out and there are multiple standards. I told him that there are 3 DC FC standards in the US, not just the 2 there and at least 6 different DC FC plugs in total, worldwide.

Go back to the days of DVD and DIVX. I remember when Circuit City was heavily pushing DIVX crap at their stores, since they were one of the primary involved parties. I overheard a sales droid at Socket Circus telling someone looking at DVD players to go w/one that had DIVX because "that's what hot". I remember hearing constant announcements at those stores telling people get a demo of DIVX, blah blah. That created confusion.

You had 2 formats using the same looking disc media and one of them had this goofy model rental model w/DRM along w/"silver" and "gold". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX. Once DIVX finally bit the dust, DVDs took off.

Before DIVX died, many DVD proponents were quite angry about DIVX and Circuit City in terms of stunting DVD's growth by creating consumer confusion. I boycotted Circuit City whenever I could and chose not to buy something from them if a competitor had it at the the same price.

It seems quite likely that many people who kinda considered EVs just didn't bother because they were "confused" and wanted to wait for things to be "sorted out". Who does that hurt? It hurts companies who are serious about EVs (e.g. Nissan).

GM couldn't care less as they weren't serious about EVs nor DC FCing any vehicles (see Spark EV sales numbers, the complete lack of DC FC support on any other GM vehicles and the almost 0 support towards DC FC infrastructure). I guess we'll see how serious GM is/isn't once the Bolt ships...


I just think you don't like GM....it's got nothing to do with the standard.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bolt!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:27 am
Posts: 593
Location: Manteca, California
Personally, I do not think EV car manufacturers should be responsible for building out the DCFC charging network. Instead, the respective utilities - PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E and others here in California - should, working in conjunction with EV owners / manufacturers and the California Public Utilities Commission, build out and maintain the necessary DCFC charging infrastructure in their respective service areas to meet the needs of EV owners and satisfy the mandates of the State's automobile Zero Emissions program.

In addition, the infrastructure should be set up so the EV driver needs only one RFID card and receives only one monthly billing statement, even if the driver charges in more than one utility's service area in any given month. This could even extend across states too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bolt!
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:35 am
Posts: 479
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
nozferatu wrote:
I just think you don't like GM....it's got nothing to do with the standard.

Nope, has nothing to do w/how much I like or don't like GM. Just look at their actions that I've already talked about over and over.
MrDRMorgan wrote:
Personally, I do not think EV car manufacturers should be responsible for building out the DCFC charging network. Instead, the respective utilities - PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E and others here in California - should, working in conjunction with EV owners / manufacturers and the California Public Utilities Commission, build out and maintain the necessary DCFC charging infrastructure in their respective service areas to meet the needs of EV owners and satisfy the mandates of the State's automobile Zero Emissions program.

On the surface, sounds like a good idea, but if you think about it more, oh boy, that sounds like an invitation to VERY slow rollout, red tape and bureaucracy. No thanks.

AFAIK, in California, electric utilities were banned from investing in EV charging infrastructure in 2011 (e.g. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/ ... rging-game and http://www.utilitydive.com/news/califor ... ns/334757/) and then it got lifted recently.

A quick Google search turned up http://www.publicpower.org/files/PDFs/U ... istics.pdf which indicates there are over 3000 electricity providers in the US. Look at http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/utilities.html just for California. http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/ services the city of Santa Clara. AFAIK, they're not on PG&E.

How about for WA and TX, as more examples? http://www.lni.wa.gov/TradesLicensing/E ... efault.asp https://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/elec ... a_rep.aspx

So, beyond the already lengthy process to install a DC FC that involves site selection, obtaining the land, running power there, permitting, actual installation work, working w/the utility already, etc, you want all the extra overhead and red tape of working w/utilities, committees, (slow moving) government PUCs on top of that? What about the other likely 49+ other equivalents of the CPUC but for other states? What about the areas where there are few or no EVs? I guess they won't get infrastructure then and will continue to have few/none.

The ZEV program is CA specific + the handful of other CARB states.

Can you imagine where Tesla's Supercharger network would be if Tesla's hands were tied via your proposal? How about the rest of the DC FC infrastructure if Nissan and BMW's hands were tied like that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bolt!
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 5:22 am 
Online

Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 5:52 am
Posts: 935
Location: KC,MO
cwerdna wrote:
>... that I've already talked about over and over.
MrDRMorgan wrote:
>>Personally, I do not think EV car manufacturers should be responsible for building out the DCFC charging network. Instead, the respective utilities ...

>>>On the surface, sounds like a good idea, but if you think about it more, oh boy, that sounds like an invitation to VERY slow rollout, red tape and bureaucracy. No thanks.
> Yes, you have.
Yes, I'm new to BEV ownership, but I had a PHEV for 2 yrs before that. I never used free public charging with my Volt. But I use the heck out of it with my Spark EV !
All I know is progress is a one way street. We can't keep complaining about THE new standard for DCFC in America.
The SAE is a great organization. The Japanese and the Koreans use their standards in their cars. They were early adopters of DCFC, but now there is a new more widely accepted DCFC standard with all other EV car manufacturers (except the big T).
Besides, who thinks that large charge port on a Leaf is the way to go? Or on the iMiEV they have two separate ports, one on each side.
Should we keep talking about the past on this subject?

Now, to the future.
>>Look at how Kansas City has the metro area covered because the local power company made it happen. http://www.kcpl.com/about-kcpl/environm ... ge-network
This power company, the L2 charge site owners and the +14 dual-cord DCFC units (and more on the way), shows this model can work.
A third party pays for the electricity at the DCFC units. Thanks Nissan ! I owe you some donuts !
At the L2 sites the site owner usually pays for the power. They usually have a plague stating this.

>>> This model works and it was a VERY FAST rollout !! Thanks KCP&L !

_________________
Used '14 2LT w/ DCFC.
In the middle of the country.
Far from any of its sibs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bolt!
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 4:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 12:00 am
Posts: 536
Location: Portland, OR
cwerdna wrote:
I've already talked about over and over.


...boy, ain't that the truth...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bolt!
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:35 am
Posts: 479
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
NORTON wrote:
We can't keep complaining about THE new standard for DCFC in America.

It is not "THE new standard". It is A new standard.

NORTON wrote:
but now there is a new more widely accepted DCFC standard with all other EV car manufacturers (except the big T)

It is not more widely accepted. Look at the installed base and sales of SAE Combo compatible vehicles. Look at how serious 2 of the players are:
- GM: not serious at all by only having shipped CA compliance car that sells in tiny numbers, not wanting to fund infrastructure either
- VW: not very serious by selling their e-Golf in only handful of states

Other than the above and BMW (the only serious one, which ended up including CHAdeMO as standard equipment on their Japanese market i3), the other "supporters", are not shipping any vehicles w/it in the US. Who are all these "all other EV car manufacturers" shipping vehicles w/SAE Combo inlets? There's a list of EV/PHEV makers and their sales figures at http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/.
NORTON wrote:
Besides, who thinks that large charge port on a Leaf is the way to go? Or on the iMiEV they have two separate ports, one on each side.
Should we keep talking about the past on this subject?

What's the problem w/these 2 ports? Outlander PHEV has J1772 and CHAdeMO on the same side.

Who thinks it's a good idea that a bunch of mostly non-serious about DC FCing EVs and PHEVs decided to create 2 incompatible plugs and standards: Combo1 and Combo2 (viewtopic.php?p=5012#p5012)? In the process they've increased DC FC installation cost (via dual-headed units or replacing existing ones), only a few of them actually sell vehicles that support the standard and those are incompatible w/existing DC FC infrastructure. And, some of them decide to also install only their standard of DC FC, which makes it useless for others.

CHAdeMO is a world standard.

Which is better? This "advantage" of a smaller footprint on a car for the inlet or access to a large pool of existing DC FC infrastructure w/o extra unnecessary costs?
NORTON wrote:
Now, to the future.
>>Look at how Kansas City has the metro area covered because the local power company made it happen. http://www.kcpl.com/about-kcpl/environm ... ge-network
This power company, the L2 charge site owners and the +14 dual-cord DCFC units (and more on the way), shows this model can work.
A third party pays for the electricity at the DCFC units. Thanks Nissan ! I owe you some donuts !
At the L2 sites the site owner usually pays for the power. They usually have a plague stating this.

>>> This model works and it was a VERY FAST rollout !! Thanks KCP&L !

We'll have to see if they stay working and they don't go into the red on those. Good luck on trying to convince power companies in much of the US to do the same. And this assumes there are no laws in place to prevent them from doing the above.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bolt!
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:27 am
Posts: 593
Location: Manteca, California
Yes, it would have been far better if a "standard" charging port had been mandated for all PEV vehicles. But that did not happen. Further, I cannot believe GM would spends millions of dollars to build an EV charging infrastructure in the three states where only 4313 Spark EVs were sold in the last 3 years. Even Nissan has only sold 78,510 nationwide in the same period. Nissan did build an infrastructure but where? Through their dealer network? There are only 6 Nissan dealerships with DCFC capability located along Hwys 99, 50 and 80 between Bakersfield, California and Roseville, California located East of Sacramento, California. There is no DCFC charging network anywhere along California I-5. Fortunately, NRG EVgo seems to be moving forward on their own to build out a nice DCFC network.

The maps on PlugShare give one a very good idea as to how the charging infrastructure is developing. A report by the Idaho National Laboratory tends to support what the maps show. Quoting from the report: "To support PEV driving, charging infrastructure should be focused at home, workplaces, and in public “hot spots” where demand for Level 2 or DC fast charging stations is high".

This report is worth reading. Here is where to find the report: http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/arra/SummaryReport.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bolt!
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:49 am 
Online

Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 5:52 am
Posts: 935
Location: KC,MO
cwerdna wrote:
....We'll have to see if they stay working and they don't go into the red on those. ....

This is a strange statement. Once again you are looking for things to fail and move backwards.

The power company is not giving away electricity. They are selling it.
You know who IS giving away electricity? Tesla.

The power company spearheaded this network and maybe paid for the installations, I don't know those details.
The networking is administered by ChargePoint. I have their card to start the charge and I get to view all my usage data!

I do know at each L2 site the property owner is paying for the electricity, afaik. It is stated on placards at the ones I use.
At the +14 DCFC stations Nissan is footing the bill !
Image

Thanks buddies !!

GM, please do a decent job of advertising the Bolt,,,, for a change.
This is a Bolt thread, after all !
You'd sell a lot of them in the KC area if people only knew!!

_________________
Used '14 2LT w/ DCFC.
In the middle of the country.
Far from any of its sibs.


Last edited by NORTON on Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bolt!
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 12:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:27 pm
Posts: 566
Location: Portland, Oregon
cwerdna wrote:
nozferatu wrote:
I just think you don't like GM....it's got nothing to do with the standard.

Nope, has nothing to do w/how much I like or don't like GM. Just look at their actions that I've already talked about over and over.
MrDRMorgan wrote:
Personally, I do not think EV car manufacturers should be responsible for building out the DCFC charging network. Instead, the respective utilities - PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E and others here in California - should, working in conjunction with EV owners / manufacturers and the California Public Utilities Commission, build out and maintain the necessary DCFC charging infrastructure in their respective service areas to meet the needs of EV owners and satisfy the mandates of the State's automobile Zero Emissions program.

On the surface, sounds like a good idea, but if you think about it more, oh boy, that sounds like an invitation to VERY slow rollout, red tape and bureaucracy. No thanks.

AFAIK, in California, electric utilities were banned from investing in EV charging infrastructure in 2011 (e.g. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/ ... rging-game and http://www.utilitydive.com/news/califor ... ns/334757/) and then it got lifted recently.

A quick Google search turned up http://www.publicpower.org/files/PDFs/U ... istics.pdf which indicates there are over 3000 electricity providers in the US. Look at http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/utilities.html just for California. http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/ services the city of Santa Clara. AFAIK, they're not on PG&E.

How about for WA and TX, as more examples? http://www.lni.wa.gov/TradesLicensing/E ... efault.asp https://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/elec ... a_rep.aspx

So, beyond the already lengthy process to install a DC FC that involves site selection, obtaining the land, running power there, permitting, actual installation work, working w/the utility already, etc, you want all the extra overhead and red tape of working w/utilities, committees, (slow moving) government PUCs on top of that? What about the other likely 49+ other equivalents of the CPUC but for other states? What about the areas where there are few or no EVs? I guess they won't get infrastructure then and will continue to have few/none.

The ZEV program is CA specific + the handful of other CARB states.

Can you imagine where Tesla's Supercharger network would be if Tesla's hands were tied via your proposal? How about the rest of the DC FC infrastructure if Nissan and BMW's hands were tied like that?




I think you've inverted the situation in California. The large utilities in California proposed building out a huge number of EVSEs in their territory, PG&E proposed building over 25,000 EVSEs. The California PUC turned that down because they want other players in the market. PG&E's proposal was scaled down to 2510 EVSEs. There was even rate payer pushback because it would cost ratepayers something like $2/year.


I don't have a horse in that particular race in that I don't live in California (though I grew up there) and I don't care who installs and owns the EVSEs as long as they work, are widely available, and meet everyone's needs. We've had privately owned EVSEs sitting around broken for years because private enterprise can suck when it puts its mind to it, and we have a fast charger in Oregon turned off because the owner and the power company can't work things out. One our local power companies (Portland General Electric) has installed "Electric Avenue" in front of their world HQ, which is a block of DCFC in CdM and CCS as well as SAE charging, at no cost. That was a pilot project several years ago at the local university, when there was little to no public charging available.


As for GM, I don't think they owe us EVSEs any more than they owe us gas stations. Though GM would suck less if they at least had DCFC at their dealers. But not even BMW or VM is doing that.

_________________
2015 Spark EV 1LT DCFC
BF Goodrich g-Force Super Sport A/S
ClipperCreek EVSE


Last edited by nikwax on Wed Jan 20, 2016 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bolt!
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:27 pm
Posts: 566
Location: Portland, Oregon
Speaking of the Bolt, this is an interesting read for the technically inclined:

http://gm-volt.com/2016/01/19/129946/

_________________
2015 Spark EV 1LT DCFC
BF Goodrich g-Force Super Sport A/S
ClipperCreek EVSE


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
© Chevy Spark EV Forum - part of the MyElectricCarForums.com Group