Page 4 of 4

Re: California Lags in DC Fast-Charging Station Density for Electric Vehicles

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:38 am
by SageBrush
GetOffYourGas wrote:I'm not sure where you are getting this.

You are right, my mistake. 190 mile range is more 75 mph.

As an aside, as a ballpark estimate for most cars, I use the EPA highway figure MPGe (corrected for charging losses) as a surrogate for travel at 65 mph. So in the case of the Bolt with a 110 MPGe and 60 kWh max usable battery the range works out to
60000/(33700/(110*1.12)) = 219 miles*. This rule of thumb underestimates the range in cars like the Tesla with unusually low CdA values because the actual EPA testing occurs at a much lower speed and then a 30% discount on the range is applied.

These discussions should keep in mind that we normally assume EPA testing like conditions of travel, meaning 50 - 80F ambient, not wet, no snow, and no headwind.


*
60,000 - Wh battery capacity
33,700 - Wh in one gallon
110 - Highway MPGe
1.12 - 12% charging losses

Re: California Lags in DC Fast-Charging Station Density for Electric Vehicles

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:01 am
by smkettner
paulgipe wrote:
SageBrush wrote:I'm sorry, but this OP is self-serving propaganda of the eastern Sierra advocacy for the advancement of feeble EVs in sparsely traveled areas. I sort of appreciate the advocacy* to not leave any EV behind (thanks, George) but not the approach.
I think you would be surprised by the volume of traffic on US 395. Why do you think Tesla installed four superchargers on the route?
I don't know the DC charging available on 395 but I am all for the expansion to have something every 100 miles before we build another hydrogen station anywhere.

Re: California Lags in DC Fast-Charging Station Density for Electric Vehicles

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:05 pm
by GRA
smkettner wrote:
paulgipe wrote:
SageBrush wrote:I'm sorry, but this OP is self-serving propaganda of the eastern Sierra advocacy for the advancement of feeble EVs in sparsely traveled areas. I sort of appreciate the advocacy* to not leave any EV behind (thanks, George) but not the approach.
I think you would be surprised by the volume of traffic on US 395. Why do you think Tesla installed four superchargers on the route?
I don't know the DC charging available on 395 but I am all for the expansion to have something every 100 miles before we build another hydrogen station anywhere.

Naturally, I'm all for building both QCs and H2, especially as you need fewer H2 stations to provide the same coverage, but that's an argument that's been hashed out many times already, and no need to repeat it.

Re: California Lags in DC Fast-Charging Station Density for Electric Vehicles

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:23 pm
by paulgipe
peter wrote:I'm a 7 yr 2011 Leaf owner who recently bought a 2018 Bolt and returned the Prius. We are now 100% electric.
It also makes me wonder that it may be possible to do the uphill route with no stops with very careful driving. But certainly even a 15 min stop is all that should be necessary.

Also note: total cost of trip was $0 thanks to recent EVgo/Chevy promotion, solar, & free destination charging.


Great trip report Peter. The detail is useful to all the nerds on this forum. ;)

As I've been trying to point out on this thread if you have reasonable capacity, 60 kWh, and reasonable charge rate, 45 kW on a 125 amp station, with reliable DCFC stations these kinds of trips are easily doable now.

As noted downthread from your post, it's not just the EV, it's the EV and the network. The network includes the stations, DCFC to be sure, and a reasonable charge rate. At the moment 40-45 kW charge rates are satisfactory. Yes, 125 kW would be better, but that's not what we have at the moment. What we need is the charge stations. They are completely lacking on certain routes--in California where we have an official state policy promoting EV use.

I've posted on this site our 175 mile trip at the speed limit over the Sierra Nevada to Independence. We could have gone on to Bishop if there was a charge station there. That's a 200+ mile trip, but we would not have likely reached the ski resort of Mammoth Lakes.

Paul

Re: California Lags in DC Fast-Charging Station Density for Electric Vehicles

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:51 pm
by GRA
X-posted on related topics:
EA is building a QC site at the Von's in Bishop. It's a bit far (0.6 miles) in typical Bishop summer temps to walk to Schat's Bakery or the White Mtn. Ranger District office, but it should make trips up the east side a lot easier. Other EA QCs are being built in Bakersfield, Barstow and Hesperia, so access to 395 from the south should be much improved, although at least a couple more ON 395 are needed.

Re: California Lags in DC Fast-Charging Station Density for Electric Vehicles

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:18 pm
by paulgipe
Thanks Guy. EV Connect has said they would start construction on their single kiosk (CEC grant) stations at the Mojave Spaceport and Inyokern airport in two weeks. They said that 6 mos ago as well but time is running out for them. No word yet on CP and EA's other stations in the area.

Paul

Re: California Lags in DC Fast-Charging Station Density for Electric Vehicles

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:41 am
by paulgipe
Recargo's CEC funded station in San Luis Obispo hasn't started construction. I checked Friday at the last location they had been approved for. No sign of activity. It could have been hidden somewhere, but if so the stations is not going to be obvious. They have to the end of the year to fulfill their contract.

Paul

Re: California Lags in DC Fast-Charging Station Density for Electric Vehicles

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:48 pm
by GRA
paulgipe wrote:Recargo's CEC funded station in San Luis Obispo hasn't started construction. I checked Friday at the last location they had been approved for. No sign of activity. It could have been hidden somewhere, but if so the stations is not going to be obvious. They have to the end of the year to fulfill their contract.

Paul

Seeing as how EA is building QCs all along 101, I think what CEC does there may be moot, especially if they keep building sites with just a single QC (as they've done on 120 to Yosemite), which no one in their right mind will depend on being operational/available.