San Francisco Bay Area Quick Chargers Getting them sooner

[TonyWilliams]

FREE CHARGING IS THE DEATH OF PAY-FOR-USE CHARGING, AND WILL ULTIMATELY FAIL BOTH.

Nah... This is just toe-in-the-water. Once it builds demand and spurs sales of EVs, there will be demand for far more power stations. Can't have station demand without EV sales. Need stations to create EV demand. Chicken and Egg. Nissan decided to supply some eggs.

And the demand will be... More "free" charging. Why would somebody want anything else after being weened on free?

 

[surfingslovak]

If Nissan wants to give dealers a charger, and subsidize the install, I think it's awesome. But I do want everybody to understand the ramifications of free transportation energy to the masses, and how that will play out in any competing for-profit charger ventures.

Understood. Given what we see playing out right now, I don't think that quick charging will compete with level 2 charging, which will most likely become the domain of plugin hybrids. While free (Nissan or otherwise) quick chargers will put for-profit QC initiatives at risk, there simply aren't that many out there yet. What's happening with the Stanford site is a shame, and perhaps a good example. I don't know what utilization it's seeing these days, but it can't be high, since there are five or six free Blinks within a 10-mile radius.

Stanford level 2 charging stations, which now bill 50 cents per kWh, are usually free too, with the exception of the occasional Volt or some EV without QC capability. Contrast that with Palo Alto, where all five level 2 stations are nearly continuously in operation. Fortunately, the city will supposedly end the free-for-all party soon, and install more stations.

While it might be possible to provide level 2 charging for free or at nominal cost, I'm not sure if it will be sustainable in the case of quick charging. I just don't know enough about that to make an educated guess. What we do see already is that it's a great tool to sell more EVs. Is that a bad thing? How will this move end in your playbook couple of years down the road?

 

[NYLEAF]

I don't think the Nissan dealers should make it free. My fear is that they'll have their demo Leaf hooked up to it all day long. I don't mind paying to use the QC. It's a huge service for me, especially if it means I get home without worrying, or if it means I can make a trip in the Leaf that I otherwise could not.

On the other hand, I would be willing to pay more for a QC that was better located. We all know the issues with having to charge at a dealer. I would pay more for a QC that was located directly on the highway, instead of a mile off the highway. I would pay more for a QC that was located at a 24/7 retailer, rather than one that's located at a dealer that closes at 6pm and doesn't really want me there in the first place.

 

[Nubo]

FREE CHARGING IS THE DEATH OF PAY-FOR-USE CHARGING, AND WILL ULTIMATELY FAIL BOTH.

Nah... This is just toe-in-the-water. Once it builds demand and spurs sales of EVs, there will be demand for far more power stations. Can't have station demand without EV sales. Need stations to create EV demand. Chicken and Egg. Nissan decided to supply some eggs.

And the demand will be... More "free" charging. Why would somebody want anything else after being weened on free?

Supply and demand. Even with DCQC, miles delivered per hour pale in comparison to a gasoline pump. In the time it takes to add, say 200 miles to 3 LEAFs, a gas pump will add 3000 miles to a dozen cars. While a QC plug at every Nissan dealer sounds like a LOT right now, it's still a vanishing speck of infrastructure compared to the ICE world. There comes a time when you're waiting for 3 or 4 other vehicles to charge at Nissan, then the available $7 QC down the street starts to look like a good deal.

 

[TonyWilliams]

There comes a time when you're waiting for 3 or 4 other vehicles to charge at Nissan, then the available $7 QC down the street starts to look like a good deal.

So, the for-profit venture gets the scraps in an already difficult business in general. All I can say is good luck.

 

[TEG]

...If Nissan wants to give dealers a charger, and subsidize the install, I think it's awesome. But I do want everybody to understand the ramifications of free transportation energy to the masses, and how that will play out in any competing for-profit charger ventures...

It wouldn't be just Nissan.
Multiple cities have decided to offer free EV charging as well to help show their support of "green" technologies.
I also know of many business that offer free charging primarily as a perk to employees, but also helpful to visitors just "passing through".
Then there are business that will give away the charging in their parking lot in an effort to get people to patronize their business.

 

[TonyWilliams]

What we do see already is that it's a great tool to sell more EVs. Is that a bad thing? How will this move end in your playbook couple of years down the road?

It will be a great tool to sell EV's at $7 per charge, also. I picked $7, since that is the minimum fee for NRG. If everything is largely funded by Nissan, the dealers would have something that they ordinarily would not consider, and the driver has access to a scarce commodity, and the competing for-profit charger business can stay in business.

That's the best way I see to expand available high power chargers. In a few years, if every Nissan dealer is handing out free charges, I see other existing chargers bankrupt, and gone, like the 7-11 Eaton charger in San Bernadino.

The only ones remaining will be grossly subsidized with some government handout, or a deal like NRG. Folks, these things just don't operate for free!!!

At some point, all these chargers will become huge burdens to their hosts with little or no revenue. How do you think that plays out long term? What happens if the "free" dealership Sumitomo wears out or breaks? Who pays for a new one? Sure as heck not the dealer, who got stuck with the power bill all those years to hand out free transport. They will just disappear.

At least there will be a Prius to drive then.

 

[TonyWilliams]

...If Nissan wants to give dealers a charger, and subsidize the install, I think it's awesome. But I do want everybody to understand the ramifications of free transportation energy to the masses, and how that will play out in any competing for-profit charger ventures...

It wouldn't be just Nissan.
Multiple cities have decided to offer free EV charging as well to help show their support of "green" technologies.
I also know of many business that offer free charging primarily as a perk to employees, but also helpful to visitors just "passing through".
Then there are business that will give away the charging in their parking lot in an effort to get people to patronize their business.

I think you're referring to other than expensive to buy, install and operate DC chargers.

NOT A SINGLE CITY, COUNTY, UTILITY, STATE OR OTHER PUBLIC ENTITY IS GIVING AWAY DC CHARGING IN CALIFORNIA.

 

[surfingslovak]

What we do see already is that it's a great tool to sell more EVs. Is that a bad thing? How will this move end in your playbook couple of years down the road?

It will be a great tool to sell EV's at $7 per charge, also. I picked $7, since that is the minimum fee for NRG. If everything is largely funded by Nissan, the dealers would have something that they ordinarily would not consider, and the driver has access to a scarce commodity, and the competing for-profit charger business can stay in business.

So it sounds like it would be better for Nissan to establish some sort of a session fee, perhaps via subscription, which could be given away for the first year, but might cost something thereafter. That way there is always some cost associated with quick charging, even if it's borne by someone else for the time being. I don't know enough about the motivation behind this change of strategy, but I would not be surprised if it was at least in part inspired by Tesla's supercharging network. In this case, as you say, there are no other competing entities offering superchargers and the automaker is directly operating the network, which would not be quite the same in the case of Nissan. Also, and I hate to mention that, but if Tesla ceased operations or was acquired by another entity, there could be consequences to the super charger network, and no replacement for it.

 

[walterbays]

That's the best way I see to expand available high power chargers. In a few years, if every Nissan dealer is handing out free charges, I see other existing chargers bankrupt, and gone, like the 7-11 Eaton charger in San Bernadino.

It disappeared with ZERO competition, paid or unpaid, within driving distance of it. Killed by the CPUC's decision to apply demand charges to vehicle fueling.

It would be terrible if N California's sole for-profit quick charger were killed by competition from 10 free Blink chargers nearby. But in S California we have no such riches. Even if some day there were 10 Blink chargers near the pay EVOasis charger on the critical route between San Diego and Los Angeles I can't imagine it being threatened. Location, reliability, dependability, and convenience are more important factors than price.

Sure, some people will "Just Drive the Prius" just as some people will stand in line at Walmart for 30 minutes to save 30 cents on a pack of gum. I think most people value their time more highly.

 

[essaunders]

What we do see already is that it's a great tool to sell more EVs. Is that a bad thing? How will this move end in your playbook couple of years down the road?

It will be a great tool to sell EV's at $7 per charge, also. I picked $7, since that is the minimum fee for NRG. If everything is largely funded by Nissan, the dealers would have something that they ordinarily would not consider, and the driver has access to a scarce commodity, and the competing for-profit charger business can stay in business.

I would support a connection fee plus a per minute occupancy charge. I'll pick $5 connection plus $.10 per min for an example (I haven't worked out the math on what this means for real charge examples - so values are very much TDB). This places a value on both the service (connection fee) and the time using the charger. This incentivizes quick partial charges (better value per kwh) and keeps people from needlessly occupying the charger and space.
The biggest value of a dealer based DC charger is a backup plan for when I travel longer distances and the destination L2s are occupied.

 

[Herm]

So it sounds like it would be better for Nissan to establish some sort of a session fee, perhaps via subscription, which could be given away for the first year, but might cost something thereafter.

Perhaps an owner loyalty reward depending on how many Nissan vehicles you own and how long.. you get so many free charges per year.

 

[waidy]

What we do see already is that it's a great tool to sell more EVs. Is that a bad thing? How will this move end in your playbook couple of years down the road?

It will be a great tool to sell EV's at $7 per charge, also. I picked $7, since that is the minimum fee for NRG. If everything is largely funded by Nissan, the dealers would have something that they ordinarily would not consider, and the driver has access to a scarce commodity, and the competing for-profit charger business can stay in business.

I would support a connection fee plus a per minute occupancy charge. I'll pick $5 connection plus $.10 per min for an example (I haven't worked out the math on what this means for real charge examples - so values are very much TDB). This places a value on both the service (connection fee) and the time using the charger. This incentivizes quick partial charges (better value per kwh) and keeps people from needlessly occupying the charger and space.
The biggest value of a dealer based DC charger is a backup plan for when I travel longer distances and the destination L2s are occupied.

While I do not object to pay for charge, I have reservations on paying $/time. Some EVs has 3.3kW charger, some 6.0, some 6.6, some 9.6 .... In additions, the hosts/sites may have lower voltage feed than others or they have energy demand monitor (lower the amperage during high demand hours). I think it would be fair to $charge$ the session using "per kWh", and NOT $charge$ per time basis.

 

[TEG]

NOT A SINGLE CITY, COUNTY, UTILITY, STATE OR OTHER PUBLIC ENTITY IS GIVING AWAY DC CHARGING IN CALIFORNIA.

I have been told that the City of Palo Alto will have a free CHAdeMO this year.

It is expected to be very close to the "pay per use" one at Stanford Shopping center, so I think it is a relevant example of fee vs free competition.


Also, I have heard that the free CHAdeMO in Vacaville sometimes works.
http://www.recargo.com/sites/1138?photopage=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://sfbayleafs.org/past-events/2013/01/2013-leaf-bay-area-reveal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...Once again JeremyW drove from Folsom, only requiring one quick charge along the way at Vacaville...

 

[Nubo]

There comes a time when you're waiting for 3 or 4 other vehicles to charge at Nissan, then the available $7 QC down the street starts to look like a good deal.

So, the for-profit venture gets the scraps in an already difficult business in general. All I can say is good luck.

No, what I mean is that this initial skeleton network of Nissan QCs may be enough to make the use of QC more commonplace, spur demand, sell more BEVs, and CREATE a market. If that happens, then people will be clamoring for more QCs. Right now there just isn't much of a market, thus the "already difficult business". We are nowhere near the knee of the adoption curve, when things really take off. If/when we do get there then the Nissan QCs will fade in significance.

Reference the adoption curves below: we are not even at the 1% stage!

http://findwhatworks.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/technology-adoption.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

EDIT: changed to link instead of embedded pic. Pic too big!

 

[essaunders]

I would support a connection fee plus a per minute occupancy charge. I'll pick $5 connection plus $.10 per min for an example (I haven't worked out the math on what this means for real charge examples - so values are very much TDB). This places a value on both the service (connection fee) and the time using the charger. This incentivizes quick partial charges (better value per kwh) and keeps people from needlessly occupying the charger and space.
The biggest value of a dealer based DC charger is a backup plan for when I travel longer distances and the destination L2s are occupied.

While I do not object to pay for charge, I have reservations on paying $/time. Some EVs has 3.3kW charger, some 6.0, some 6.6, some 9.6 .... In additions, the hosts/sites may have lower voltage feed than others or they have energy demand monitor (lower the amperage during high demand hours). I think it would be fair to $charge$ the session using "per kWh", and NOT $charge$ per time basis.

my suggestion was only for DC quick charge, with a specific focus on Nissan LEAFs at Nissan dealers. Pricing for L2 would need a different set of models.

 

[TonyWilliams]

This places a value on both the service (connection fee) and the time using the charger. This incentivizes quick partial charges (better value per kwh) and keeps people from needlessly occupying the charger and space.

Another fantastic reasons to pay for the service!!!

The quick charger at San Juan Capistrano charges by the individual minute. So, a two minute charge would only pay for two minutes.

 

[edatoakrun]

duplicate post deleted

 

[TonyWilliams]

NOT A SINGLE CITY, COUNTY, UTILITY, STATE OR OTHER PUBLIC ENTITY IS GIVING AWAY DC CHARGING IN CALIFORNIA.

I have been told that the City of Palo Alto will have a free CHAdeMO this year.

It is expected to be very close to the "pay per use" one at Stanford Shopping center, so I think it is a relevant example of fee vs free competition.

I'll be anxious to see how long Palo Alto decides that free is good for them (when virtually nobody will be a Palo Alto tax payer using it), and how much of a hit there will be on use of the nearby pay charger.

My argument is that it is not sustainable, and detrimental to the build out of additional chargers. In addition, there's no incentive to not leave your car there all day.

I absolutely GUARANTEE that there will be folks so cheap that they won't charge at home to save $2 in electricity so that they can go park at a free charger all day (or night). That has already happened with a Chevy Volt owner who bicycles to her house while she leaves the Volt at the Mitsubishi headquarters to get $1 worth of free electricity.

 

[edatoakrun]

="essaunders"...I would support a connection fee plus a per minute occupancy charge...

Eventually each economically viable fast charge station will probably combine charges for time, and per each kWh dispersed, with variations for TOU for both the cost of electricity and the demand for the charger. At only a 50 kW (or less) charge rate, and a total transaction cost of only five or ten dollars, most DC stations will not be able to give their time away for free, as gas pumps now do.

On the west coast, you should expect to pay much more, probably at least twice as much, for a Summer afternoon Charge than for one late at night/early morning during off-peak demand for both the station and the grid.

This will probably be a relatively complex adjustment for the ICEV stunted brain to comprehend.

It goes without saying that each DC station will also have to have multiple chargers, and DC queuing will have to be adapted to the longer fueling time.

I have no problem with Nissan putting less dependable single "free" chargers at less than optimum locations, their dealerships, as a quick-and-dirty solution. I hope that Nissan has the sense to prioritize dealerships on favorable short inter-city corridors, such as I-80 from the Bay area to Sacramento.

Hopefully, Nissan is already working on a better long term DC promotion program.

IMO, this would be a co-promotion program with a chain or chains of coffee shops, restaurants, mini-marts, etc. for the establishment of true "charge stations" that can be supported by charge fees and co-marketed sales once the BEV fleet reaches sufficient size.