My first DC Quick Charge

[N952JL]

High Power Level 2 charging stations in California - 14 stations that supply 15+ kW (208V+ @ 70A) http://www.evchargernews.com/regions/ch-tesla-tesla.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (note there are a couple 32A stations in this listing beyond the 14 High Power Level 2 charging stations)

We'll want QC also, but high power J1772 is a LOT cheaper, a LOT faster and easier to deploy!!![/quote]

The High Power J1772 chargers will not do a thing for a Leaf. J1772 is limited by the Leaf's built in 3.3kW charger. The extra power is not used as the charger will limit it to 3.3kW. Not so with the QC. The QC bypasses the onboard charger so we are not limited to 3.3kW.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

the 3.3 kW charger makes more sense to me know in light of the DCQC. I'm guessing that Nissan figured that QC would be the method of choice for on the go charging and that L2 would be mostly for home or longish term parking... I can see that happening if L3 really gets off the ground here. I think we are all going to be a lot more satisfied withe 3.3 kW for L2 once we get a real taste of L3. It's kind of interesting to see a trend, some 8-9 months ago there were people advocating putting in lots of L1 chargers because they were "so cheap", and that's what we have an Seatac and it's virtually useless accept for longish term parking. now that reality has set in and we are getting tired of waiting around at L2 stations, there is a shift even further up the ladder to L3 being the key. And if L4/capacitors come to fruition, L2 are going to be about as useful as L1 are to us now. I really hope there is not a lot of waste of resources when we look back at this down the line. I'm thinking a few dozen L3's in the state is going to prove more useful than thousands of L2 stations. I do really wonder if we should not shift the focus to L3's and once a good back bone is in place, then focus on "fleshing the bones" with L2 "if" it's needed.

 

[Phoenix]

Does Oregon and/or Washington impose a demand load charge for the DC QCs that are installed? What is the cost structure for QC electrical usage? What entity is operating these QCs and how are they charging users for the cost?

 

[DaveEV]

Does Oregon and/or Washington impose a demand load charge for the DC QCs that are installed? What is the cost structure for QC electrical usage? What entity is operating these QCs and how are they charging users for the cost?

For sure they do. Actual costs and thresholds for triggering demand charge billing will vary depending on the utility. Look up a utility then browse their site for commercial rates.

 

[Herm]

Project Better Place went further up the ladder, originally they planned to provide a network of L3 chargers, home charging plus battery swap, but they later decided to drop the L3 chargers.. no one would use them if you can get a battery swap in less than 5 minutes.

 

[edatoakrun]

went further up the ladder, originally they planned to provide a network of L3 chargers, home charging plus battery swap, but they later decided to drop the L3 chargers.. no one would use them if you can get a battery swap in less than 5 minutes.

Or, no one would use Project Better Place’s expensive and impractical battery swap stations, if DC charging was available...

 

[Levenkay]

Does Oregon and/or Washington impose a demand load charge for the DC QCs that are installed? What is the cost structure for QC electrical usage? What entity is operating these QCs and how are they charging users for the cost?

Dunno, but this might be a good spot to inject a follow-up question:

Seeing how QC stations are so unabashedly expensive anyway, do any of them use some form of local high-density energy storage to smooth out their load? I would think QC stations would be ideal candidates for big flywheel energy storage, or maybe a dozen past-their-prime LEAF packs?

 

[Herm]

Or, no one would use Project Better Place’s expensive and impractical battery swap stations, if DC charging was available...

Your basic mistake is (and a very common one) is to identify battery swap with PBP.. the whole point behind PBP is to sell you miles just like your phone company sells you minutes.. they promise that its cheaper than an equivalent ICE car. Battery swap is just a sales tool they use to allay range anxiety.

Perhaps they made a mistake in their modeling but they seem to think no one will use an L3 charger if battery swap is available.. and BTW, I dont think battery swap will be a great deal of expense for PBP, perhaps cheaper than several L3 chargers.

 

[davewill]

Or, no one would use Project Better Place’s expensive and impractical battery swap stations, if DC charging was available...

Expensive? Have you looked at the demand charge problems haunting the QC installs? As far as practical goes, I'd rather wait for a 5 minute battery swap than a 20 minute "quick" charge any time...that would allow for true long distance capability. I also rather like the idea of leasing the battery and swapping it occasionally. That way I don't have to worry about battery wear and other factors. Instead, I can just keep driving my car for as long as I can keep it in good condition.

 

[edatoakrun]

Or, no one would use Project Better Place’s expensive and impractical battery swap stations, if DC charging was available...

Expensive? Have you looked at the demand charge problems haunting the QC installs? As far as practical goes, I'd rather wait for a 5 minute battery swap than a 20 minute "quick" charge any time...that would allow for true long distance capability. I also rather like the idea of leasing the battery and swapping it occasionally. That way I don't have to worry about battery wear and other factors. Instead, I can just keep driving my car for as long as I can keep it in good condition.

What you are describing is the moral hazard inherent in separating ownership from use.

In a "swap" system, drivers who are "hard" on their batteries and cause accelerated wear, will be subsidized by those who take better care.

Battery swap stations appear likely to cost on the order of 10 times as much to build as quick chargers do, per battery recharge cycle. And they will be subject to the same demand charges for electricity, as public DC chargers. It's true that they could avoid this by stocking batteries in large enough quantities, perhaps 2 or more per car, that they could level electricity demand over a 24 hour period, but that would probably be even more expensive. than the demand charges.

Saving that 15 minutes per charge, will likely be prohibitively expensive, IMO.

 

[davewill]

What you are describing is the moral hazard inherent in separating ownership from use.

In a "swap" system, drivers who are "hard" on their batteries and cause accelerated wear, will be subsidized by those who take better care.

Battery swap stations appear likely to cost on the order of 10 times as much to build as quick chargers do, per battery recharge cycle. And they will be subject to the same demand charges for electricity, as public DC chargers. It's true that they could avoid this by stocking batteries in large enough quantities, perhaps 2 or more per car, that they could level electricity demand over a 24 hour period, but that would probably be even more expensive. than the demand charges.

Saving that 15 minutes per charge, will likely be prohibitively expensive, IMO.

I have trouble worrying about a "moral hazard" when I'm making lease payments the whole time and the "hazard" consists of a possible 5-10% additional range degredation. I rather see it as a remedy for the main drawbacks of BEV ownership, high cost/low lifetime of the battery, and lack of range. As far as the cost of the facility goes, at least battery swap has a funding source, the lease payments. As you can see from the comments here, there's a real question whether public charging, L2 or QC can be a profitable enterprise.

Also, battery swap solves one of the main stresses of QC on the grid...recharging can be done either off local PV or wind, or off-peak. QC pretty is pretty much guaranteed to generate high loads during peak hours.

 

[edatoakrun]

... battery swap solves one of the main stresses of QC on the grid...recharging can be done either off local PV or wind, or off-peak. QC pretty is pretty much guaranteed to generate high loads during peak hours.

Only if you buy 2 battery packs per "swapping" vehicle, one for the car, and one to be charged at the swap station during off-peak hours. This alone would raise the capital cost per BEV, near 50%, at current high battery prices.

Electricity use during high demand periods should cost more for ALL electricity consumption, to reflect the higher costs of this service.

The way to prevent "stresses" to the grid, is to charge TOU rates for electricity. The rational preference of BEV drivers to do the vast majority of charging most conveniently, off-peak, would be rewarded by the lower prices.

Even if the U.S. converted it's entire vehicle fleet to BEVs, The load placed on the grid by air conditioning, would dwarf BEV charge demand, during summer peak grid demand periods.

If you are worried about “stresses” to the grid, worry about what is causing the problem, rather than the solution, which will largely be BEVs.

 

[davewill]

Only if you buy 2 battery packs per "swapping" vehicle, one for the car, and one to be charged at the swap station during off-peak hours. This alone would raise the capital cost per BEV, near 50%, at current high battery prices.

Yes, that's pretty much the paradigm, although local PV and wind could improve that equation somewhat.

Electricity use during high demand periods should cost more for ALL electricity consumption, to reflect the higher costs of this service.

The way to prevent "stresses" to the grid, is to charge TOU rates for electricity. The rational preference of BEV drivers to do the vast majority of charging most conveniently, off-peak, would be rewarded by the lower prices.

Even if the U.S. converted it's entire vehicle fleet to BEVs, The load placed on the grid by air conditioning, would dwarf BEV charge demand, during summer peak grid demand periods.

If you are worried about “stresses” to the grid, worry about what is causing the problem, rather than the solution, which will largely be BEVs.

I'm a bit baffled by this response. YOU were the one complaining about the demand charges associated with battery swap, I was simply pointing out that it could be worked around in the case of battery swap. It can be worked around with QC, too, but it requires even more battery storage than the swap scenario, assuming an equal number of cars being "refueled".

 

[edatoakrun]

"davewill"I'm a bit baffled by this response. YOU were the one complaining about the demand charges associated with battery swap...

In fact, you were, when you brought the subject up yesterday:

"davewill"Expensive? Have you looked at the demand charge problems haunting the QC installs?

You seem to be confusing TOU rates with demand charges, two separate concepts in electricity rate design schemes.

In fact, if demand charges are imposed on otherwise equal amounts of kWh demand, EV charging at entirely off-peak periods, would be billed more, than for 24 hour level demand, whether at battery swap stations, or at BEV owners' homes.

This is why demand charges are an absurdity for EV charging, or any other use for which demand can be easily shifted to predominately off-peak periods, by applying TOU rates.

"davewill" ...I was simply pointing out that it could be worked around in the case of battery swap. It can be worked around with QC, too, but it requires even more battery storage than the swap scenario, assuming an equal number of cars being "refueled".

Please rephrase this, so it is understandable.

 

[Herm]

Battery swap stations appear likely to cost on the order of 10 times as much to build as quick chargers do, per battery recharge cycle.

but they can handle 12 cars per hour while an L3 charger does 2.. and no chance the station will be ICED at your moment of need.

 

[davewill]

...I was simply pointing out that it could be worked around in the case of battery swap. It can be worked around with QC, too, but it requires even more battery storage than the swap scenario, assuming an equal number of cars being "refueled".

Please rephrase this, so it is understandable.

I'll try, but no promises.

Any sort of quick EV refueling runs the risk of using large amounts of electricity during peak hours triggering unfavorable TOU and/or demand charges. To beat those, you can use two main strategies, one is to use local power generation (PV or wind), and the other is to spread out usage especially over the off-peak hours. To make those work requires local battery storage. A battery swap station would simply stock enough spare packs so that the combination of local gen and off-peak charging can keep an adequate stock of charged spares. For QC, you need to have battery storage sufficient to keep the QC working. Since storing the power and then using it to charge the car's batteries involves an extra discharge/charge step, it would require more reserve battery capacity for the QC scenario.

Anyway, this whole argument is rather moot. The REAL obstruction to battery swap is car manufacturer buy-in to the concept, not any of these issues.

 

[edatoakrun]

Battery swap stations appear likely to cost on the order of 10 times as much to build as quick chargers do, per battery recharge cycle.

but they can handle 12 cars per hour while an L3 charger does 2.. and no chance the station will be ICED at your moment of need.

I doubt many ICEV drivers will want park in front of DC chargers, and pay the “going” $12 + an hour rate.

The costs I posted were the best estimates I have seen for relative costs per recharge.

To use your example, for the same price to install a single 12 charges-per-hour battery swap station, you could build on the order of 120 charges per hour (60 chargers) worth of DC stations, in multiple locations, of course.

I would be interested in more accurate estimates of this cost variable, if anyone has better numbers. Total costs estimates of the swap stations that I've read, range from a (large) fraction of a million dollars, to several million dollars, each.

A very large factor in this would be the number of battery packs kept in inventory.

Given your example again, if you wanted to swap close to 200 battery packs over 17 hours, and charge them up entirely in 7 off-peak hours, you’d be sitting on several million dollars worth of costs, per station, in battery inventory alone.

It would be a lot cheaper, of course, if you could get drivers to come in in the middle of the night to swap batteries, which is another reason why swap stations probably make more sense for 24 hr. use fleet vehicles, such as taxis, delivery vehicle, etc. rather than for privately owned BEVs, IMO.

 

[Herm]

Supposedly the battery swap stations have a stock of 10 batteries, and they can keep going on that indefinitely with forced cooling and quick charging if traffic warrants it.

 

[edatoakrun]

Supposedly the battery swap stations have a stock of 10 batteries, and they can keep going on that indefinitely with forced cooling and quick charging if traffic warrants it.

Which begs the question:

Instead of concentrating those 10 (?) fast chargers at a single battery swap location, why not place the same fast-charging capacity at multiple locations, distributed throughout the surrounding area?

Moving the same electricity over wires to the DC fast chargers, rather than over the roads in the BEV batteries, as they travel to and from the swapping stations, seems to be a superior alternative. Making BEV drivers travel longer distances, and take more time driving (perhaps even exceeding the time savings swapping provides) for more expensive charges, doesn't seem like such a great idea.

For many years I thought battery swap systems would be the only way to put BEVs on US roads in large numbers. But I really think DC/L3 fast charging (of extremely expensive) batteries, makes the concept an undesirable alternative, for privately owned vehicles, and for large geographic areas.

 

[Herm]

Which begs the question:
Instead of concentrating those 10 (?) fast chargers at a single battery swap location, why not place the same fast-charging capacity at multiple locations, distributed throughout the surrounding area?

Because, given the choice, PBP members will choose the battery swap and leave the L3 staions unused. So PBP chose to ditch L3. I think having both would have been ideal, and give other cars a chance to use the fast charger at some hefty fee, or maybe even a membership fee. Lets see how PBP does in Israel and Denmark, perhaps they will adjust their model. Nissan reducing the cost of the stations to $10k helps.