Congress Spent Billions On EV Chargers. But Not One Has Come Online. (politico.com) 227
Press2ToContinue shares a report from Politico: Congress at the urging of the Biden administration agreed in 2021 to spend $7.5 billion to build tens of thousands of electric vehicle chargers across the country, aiming to appease anxious drivers while tackling climate change. Two years later, the program has yet to install a single charger. States and the charger industry blame the delays mostly on the labyrinth of new contracting and performance requirements they have to navigate to receive federal funds. While federal officials have authorized more than $2 billion of the funds to be sent to states, fewer than half of states have even started to take bids from contractors to build the chargers -- let alone begin construction. [...]
The goal is a reliable and standardized network in every corner of the nation, said Gabe Klein, executive director of the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, which leads the federal government's efforts on EV charging. "You have to go slow to go fast," Klein said in an interview. "These are things that take a little bit of time, but boy, when you're done, it's going to completely change the game." [...] Aatish Patel, president of charger manufacturer XCharge North America, is worried the delays in installing chargers are imperiling efforts to drive up EV adoption. "As an EV driver, a charger being installed in two years isn't really going to help me out now," Patel said. "We're in dire need of chargers here."
The Biden administration is expecting a deluge of chargers funded by the law to break ground in early 2024. A senior administration official granted anonymity to speak on the specifics of the rollout said the pace is to be expected, given that the goal is to create a "convenient, affordable, reliable, made-in-America equitable network." "Anybody can throw a charger in the ground -- that's not that hard, it doesn't take that long," the official said. "Building a network is different." The administration insists it is doing all it can to speed up the process, including by streamlining federal permitting for EV chargers and providing technical assistance to states and companies through the Joint Office. It expects the U.S. to hit Biden's 500,000 charger target four years early, in 2026, the official said.
The goal is a reliable and standardized network in every corner of the nation, said Gabe Klein, executive director of the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, which leads the federal government's efforts on EV charging. "You have to go slow to go fast," Klein said in an interview. "These are things that take a little bit of time, but boy, when you're done, it's going to completely change the game." [...] Aatish Patel, president of charger manufacturer XCharge North America, is worried the delays in installing chargers are imperiling efforts to drive up EV adoption. "As an EV driver, a charger being installed in two years isn't really going to help me out now," Patel said. "We're in dire need of chargers here."
The Biden administration is expecting a deluge of chargers funded by the law to break ground in early 2024. A senior administration official granted anonymity to speak on the specifics of the rollout said the pace is to be expected, given that the goal is to create a "convenient, affordable, reliable, made-in-America equitable network." "Anybody can throw a charger in the ground -- that's not that hard, it doesn't take that long," the official said. "Building a network is different." The administration insists it is doing all it can to speed up the process, including by streamlining federal permitting for EV chargers and providing technical assistance to states and companies through the Joint Office. It expects the U.S. to hit Biden's 500,000 charger target four years early, in 2026, the official said.
I hope I'm wrong (Score:2)
..but I predict that they will be expensive, crappy, unreliable and late
Re: (Score:2)
They're late because congress demands accountability and that they take lots of time to do anything. This way they can complain that the government is late. Best way they know to gum up the process. Of course, if the money gets spent quickly and there's a small mistake then all hell breaks loose.
Overall, the demands that everything is perfect, that bids are thorough, the procedures be followed, often costs more money than some projects spend on the actual work. This is why there are $500 hammers, not bec
Re:I hope I'm wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember reading a $500 hammer story, where they tracked down what actually happened.
For example, the $500 hammer wasn't just a hammer, but a hammer, pick, and shovel.
No problem, $100 for a good set at a store, right?
Not quite, they were for use in cleaning out bunkers of unstable explosives. As in some poor sap had to go in there and shovel out explosives that had been sitting there since like WWI.
Obviously, a spark would be bad. As in "remains never found", much less "closed casket funeral".
So to have the durability required, while being non-magnetic, non-sparking, and a whole lot of other "Nots" while still being able to function as a good quality shovel, it was made of some special alloy.
And the set ended up being ~$500, which was actually the going price for that specific item.
And yes, from reading the requirements list, in order to take advantage of the money new manufacturing lines needed to be set up in the USA to make the chargers, which takes a while.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know about some specific anecdote about a $500 hammer. But I was in the military and I've interacted with government services and spending a whole lot of unnecessary money to do a whole lot of failing to deliver is the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that's equally true of commercial enterprises, too. In the UK, Birmingham council went bankrupt because Oracle's services management software had cost ten times what was quoted and didn't actually work.
Re: I hope I'm wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
....spoken like someone who has never gone to a third world country to see what nations without effective governments look like.
Also, while I'm at it, the amount of waste in private enterprise beggars belief. Way more than anything "government" has wasted.
Re: I hope I'm wrong (Score:2)
Usually that's on the part of government contractors. Boeing is especially bad at this as they treat basically every government contract as an infinite money source.
Re: (Score:2)
....spoken like someone who has never gone to a third world country to see what nations without effective governments look like.
Also, while I'm at it, the amount of waste in private enterprise beggars belief. Way more than anything "government" has wasted.
I've been to several third world countries... the Philippines and Mexico among them, with considerable time in the former... and they have lots of government, at all levels, regulating just about everything, at least on paper. And that government usually treated its own people like a shakedown scam, hands constantly in their pockets. Those governments saw their public as a resource to be plucked and plundered.
Because men aren't angels, as Madison noted, government is a necessary evil. But when their are few
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea is second world, you dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes that's why the Libertarian Paradise of the Congo was such a paradise when the government collapsed and the state pretty much stopped doing anything. Too much gubbmint.
Re: I hope I'm wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Socialism has nothing to do with government. Businesses that are owned by their employees are socialist (the workers own the means of production). Nor does socialism have anything to do with policy, it's an economics theory.
Anyone who uses "Marxism" is living in the last century. There are no Marxists these days, and there haven't been for a very long time.
In short, you're using words you don't understand for the purpose of hating people different from yourself. That's cowardice.
Re: I hope I'm wrong (Score:2)
Sure. But Leftists like being called leftists. I guess thst makes both sides happy, so good job.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember reading a $500 hammer story, where they tracked down what actually happened.
For example, the $500 hammer wasn't just a hammer, but a hammer, pick, and shovel.
No problem, $100 for a good set at a store, right?
Not quite, they were for use in cleaning out bunkers of unstable explosives. As in some poor sap had to go in there and shovel out explosives that had been sitting there since like WWI.
Obviously, a spark would be bad. As in "remains never found", much less "closed casket funeral".
So to have the durability required, while being non-magnetic, non-sparking, and a whole lot of other "Nots" while still being able to function as a good quality shovel, it was made of some special alloy.
And the set ended up being ~$500, which was actually the going price for that specific item.
And yes, from reading the requirements list, in order to take advantage of the money new manufacturing lines needed to be set up in the USA to make the chargers, which takes a while.
Same with the $5 screw. It's not for the screw, it's for knowing exactly which mine the zinc used for anti-corrosion came from and that ever screw is made to exacting specifications.
However I suspect this is more a traditional case of a government just throwing money at an idea with no oversight. Corporations took the money with no commitments on their part, pocketed it and when the government asks where's the stuff, they'll ask for more money.
Re: (Score:2)
However I suspect this is more a traditional case of a government just throwing money at an idea with no oversight. Corporations took the money with no commitments on their part, pocketed it and when the government asks where's the stuff, they'll ask for more money.
From reading the summary, the money hasn't even been spent yet, because the states haven't fulfilled the requirements to get the money released, much less any corporations.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is why nobody should want more things handled by government and everyone should want to minimize bureaucratic power... also because bureaucrats don't have any accountability to voters.
The same is true in corporate America but the inefficiency grows with the scale of the entity and there is no bigger and therefore less efficient entity than government.
If you really have an issue with something being for-profit, healthcare perhaps, then have them spawn a handful of independent non-profits that can borro
Re:I hope I'm wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem with corporate America is that they are not beholden to citizens. If you are poor and can't afford their products, then screw you. The corporate world takes care of paying customers only. As in charging stations in big cities only, probably already a glut of them there, but none in rural areas where they're needed the most because the corporate types probably don't care that the 5% of the population that drives that far matters to them. Just look at how corporate America is utterly unable to get broadband done well, how it was amazingly slow at mobile phone rollouts compared to Europe, etc.
Government on the other hand, when it functions properly and isn't burdened by obstructionist legislators, wants to help all citizens, because they all have a representative in the legislature that is looking out for them (or usually looking out for their vote). No legislator from Montana is going to tell a constituent "screw you, you're not as important as the rich people in New York, so no internet/charging/phones/medicine for you!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A govt can't stay in power if they let "the health, quality of life, or anything else about their citizens" get to far away from what those citizens want or feel they deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That stops being true once they disarm their citizens. At that point pretending to care about or address needs of the citizens is just another tool in their toolbox for suppressing unrest. We've had enough socialist regimes already and seen how poorly they ultimately treat their citizens. Once they've disarmed the populace it is only a matter of time before scaring the populace into submission is easier than appeasing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I hope I'm wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Let's do a comparison on healthcare, shall we?
US:
Cost: $4.3 trillion or $12,914 per person.
Government interference: Multiple Terri Schiavo laws to interfere with her treatment, States outlawing abortion, no useful healthcare for those in need.
Death panels: De facto ones, yes. They're the insurance companies.
Price gouging: $1,000 insulin shots, $700 epipens.
UK:
Cost (converted to dollars) : $228.1 billion, or $5,281 per person
Government interference: None.
Death panels: None.
Price gouging: All medicines cost $12.60 per prescription to the customer.
The UK has the government fund the NHS, but the NHS is wholly responsible for treatment decisions and the government has no say in the matter.
Much the same is true for the BBC, as well. If is Government-funded but the government's authority begins and ends with the charter that dictates quality of service. The government cannot dictate to the BBC what to show. That's why the Tories are trying to defund it, they don't want free speech, they want absolute control over what people hear and see.
This sort of system works and works well. The government centrally funds and dictates standards, but has no other power or authority.
This is how to run services.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm perfectly happy with my medical care.
I REALLY do not want the government involved with it...ugh, I can picture it as basically the worst DMV type situation....sitting all day, waiting for the next window to open, generally manned by less than stellar intellects, who don't give a shit about their customers in front of them.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't happen anywhere else. Because the government doesn't run the health service, it merely funds it. There is no DMV experience because it's not run by bureaucrats or manned by civil servants.
NHS waiting times are typically shorter than waiting times I've experienced in Virginia Beach (VA), Abingdon (VA), North Charlestown (SC) or Portland (OR), which would seem a pretty respectable cross-section of America.
I have lived 33 years in the UK and 20 years in the US, so I have a decent range of experien
Re:I hope I'm wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, none of that is actually true.
Second, you vote for the Federal government. If it is corrupt and dysfunctional, it is because you elect corrupt and dysfunctional people. Don't blame the Feds for your choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, none of that is actually true.
The following are true statements. If you disagree, by all means, please explain.
To the fist point, unless and until there is a layer of government above the federal (e.g. a global government) then the federal government certainly is the furthest from the people.
To the second point, the US Constitution makes clear that it describes a government of limited powers that can do nothing more than what said constitution specifically empowers it to do.
Re: (Score:3)
You get the government you choose.
If you choose people based on how good they look or how well they hate on your opponents, you get the government you deserve. A government crewed by people who are utterly dysfunctional but get good ratings on TV.
If you chose people who would do a good job, who listened to those they represented and not just the ones with money, who considered the long-term implications and not just their popularity at the next election, you'd get a government that works.
Typically, between
Re: (Score:2)
"If you choose people based on how good they look or how well they hate on your opponents, you get the government you deserve. A government crewed by people who are utterly dysfunctional but get good ratings on TV."
Absolutely true.
"Typically, between 40-52% of the nation intentionally votes for politicians they know will raise unemployment, raise the deficit, increase mass shootings, and harm international relationships, in order to "own" the other side and promote their religion."
And you reveal yourself as
Re: (Score:3)
..but I predict that they will be expensive, crappy, unreliable and late
And don't forget that the design of all of those stations was locked in before very nearly the entire U.S. auto industry threw in the towel on CCS (and Volkswagen and Stellantis will almost certainly follow suit eventually). As a result, the government-built chargers will require an adapter to use them with pretty much all new cars built in model year 2025 or later. They'll basically be out of date by the time they turn most of them on.
Re:I hope I'm wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt the abandonment of CCS would have all that big of a change in the short term since, if I recall correctly, half the EVs on the road now have CCS. This means that chargers are going to have to support both CCS and NACS for some time. Because NACS will communicate the CCS protocol the adapters should be inexpensive and durable. Getting level-2 AC charging with an adapter (be that NACS to CCS or CCS to NACS) is a trivial matter. DC charging will require some work. I discovered that not all EVs support DC charging so that could make many problems of adapters and such moot.
The way I see it there will be a transition period of about 10 years as the CSS vehicles wear out and fade away. Any that still remain on the road at that point are likely for people that are happy with charging only at home, and/or don't think much to keep a couple NACS adapters around. Any chargers put in place now would in 10 years likely have needed a cable replacement or other maintenance over fair wear and tear on the chargers to get them to NACS, and in the mean time they'd almost certainly need to provide adapters at the chargers so it doesn't much matter that they have CCS or NACS at the end of the cable.
I discovered that in most places around the world the EV driver is expected to bring their own charging cable to the charger. That would certainly cut down on the initial build cost and later maintenance costs. It is the cable that is were most of the wear and damage would occur, and is perhaps the most expensive part in the charging station. Perhaps EV chargers could provide a charge port in addition to the charge cable, that way if the included cable is broken people have the option to plug in their own cable if they have one. That won't completely solve the problem of mismatching of ports but it could resolve it to some large measure. I don't know what the port on the charger for the bring-your-own-cable driver would be, there's a handful of valid options. Just don't go nuts on picking some oddball outlet and it will be fine. With V2V charging a thing then using NACS or CCS as an output are valid options, as would a 30 or 50 amp NEMA outlet like those seen for home EVSE, campsite RV shore power, and so on. NEMA outlets aren't likely to be out of date any time soon.
I've been thinking that if NACS catches on then it might find uses beyond EV chargers, such as for RV shore power. Maybe we will see portable generators include NACS outlets with the expectation people will use the same kinds of cables and such they'd use for V2H, V2L, V2X to plug things in. It's a thought, and I suspect I'm not the first or last to think of it.
Re: (Score:2)
That is only true for AC charging.
Re: (Score:2)
Fast chargers (DC max. from ~150-350 kWh) have their own cable.
Re: (Score:2)
Who the fuck is going to want to pay extra money for a vehicle that forces you to remember to bring a cable....and get out of a car and go to charger and read and try to figure WTF type charger it is (AC/DC)...especially on a cold rainy night with kids in the car?!?
Hell, I leave the house all the time and forget shit, but nothing I currently leave would generall
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, why would you EVER take the cable out of your car? I have a cable in my trunk for level 1 charging and it has come out exactly twice. Once to verify it worked (it did) and once to show it off to my dad. If I used that particular cable, I'd plug it in and when I UNPLUGGED my car, toss it back in the trunk.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt the abandonment of CCS would have all that big of a change in the short term since, if I recall correctly, half the EVs on the road now have CCS.
Perhaps, but that's a bit misleading, because A. a lot of those are European cars, which use a different CCS connector (type 2), and B. even if you limit it to U.S. cars, a lot of those are plug-in hybrid vehicles.
If we limit things to the U.S. market, Tesla has sold a total of 2,117,145 BEVs from 2015 through September of 2023 (source [goodcarbadcar.net]). In total, there are around 4,430,767 million EVs, including BEVs and PHEVs as of... I think October of 2023 (source [anl.gov]). So approximately half of all "EVs" in the U.S. have
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, and also, I'd guess the Bolt and the Leaf are the leading non-Tesla BEVs in terms of volume. The Leaf charges at a maximum of 46 kW, and the Bolt tops out at 55 kW.
At those rates, the cars take superhuman patience to road trip.
Personally, when my Model 3 throttles down from 250 kW to around 80-90 kW, I unplug and head on my way. 80 kW or lower isn't worth the time waiting for more charge, unless there are some special circumstances (like, you're about to cross a gap that lacks chargers - I haven't p
Re:I hope I'm wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see it there will be a transition period of about 10 years as the CSS vehicles wear out and fade away. Any that still remain on the road at that point are likely for people that are happy with charging only at home, and/or don't think much to keep a couple NACS adapters around. Any chargers put in place now would in 10 years likely have needed a cable replacement or other maintenance over fair wear and tear on the chargers to get them to NACS, and in the mean time they'd almost certainly need to provide adapters at the chargers so it doesn't much matter that they have CCS or NACS at the end of the cable.
The typical number of years before cars are scrapped is more like 14 years (and climbing). CCS will be around for a couple of decades. But I doubt there will be more than 500k CCS BEVs (not including PHEVs, which are unlikely to make long road trips on battery, and thus don't benefit much from CCS charging) in total by the end of the 2024 model year versus probably approaching 3 million cars with NACS.
Assuming everybody switches over in 2025 (which seems fairly likely), then in ten years, probably ~97% of cars will have NACS charge ports. By the time you reach 14 years, NACS cars will likely be approaching 99%, and that's before you factor in the ones that get scrapped.
So assuming the rest of the industry does, in fact, adopt NACS, then it makes far more sense to just give NACS-to-CCS adapters to those 500k people whose cars are stuck on CCS, then build NACS infrastructure exclusively, because even if you ignore Tesla cars entirely, the number of NACS cars are likely to exceed CCS within a couple of years at most, and expecting all of them to carry adapters is going to be a lot more expensive almost immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem with widespread adoption and welcoming of EVs to the general populace, at least in the US.
The common person, isn't going to know about charger this (AC vs DC)...what amps....what needs an adapter (what happens when you get to a station, you're low on power and realize you forgot your adapter?)....
I agree that there's a learning curve that very few people know about unless they're BEV enthusiasts/early adopters. The same thing happened with email, texting, smart phones (and will probably happen quickly with Chat GPT)... some people (especially older people) won't want to learn about the new technology and will stay stuck in the past. And the times will simply pass them by...
As for needing but not having an adapter... I guess it could happen, but I just keep mine in my glovebox... It's there if I need
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, this isn't war so I would expect government to move slowly. 2 years doesn't sound like all that much time when it comes to planning let alone breaking ground on new projects.
Big Whoop (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just a bunch of chargers...it's the whole enchilada. Standards have to be drafted and agreed upon, power systems need to be built out, payment methods need to be worked out.
BMW, Ford, Genesis, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar, Kia, Lucid, Mini, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz, Polestar, Rivian, Toyota, and Volvo only gained access to charge on the Tesla Supercharger system last month.
Re:Big Whoop (Score:5, Insightful)
That reminds me of a math question. If it takes 1 woman 9 months to make a baby, how long would it take 9 women to make 1 baby if they worked together?
Re: (Score:3)
Define "baby".
Re: (Score:2)
"Anybody can throw a charger in the ground" (Score:2)
"Anybody can throw a charger in the ground -- that's not that hard, it doesn't take that long,"
Then why aren't they doing that!?
Re: (Score:3)
Plenty of places do because they get an incentive. The problem is there is no upkeep from the party who owns the charger. The business has nothing to do with its operation or maintenance.
Re: (Score:3)
It does say in the summary that there are a lot of requirements before states can start accepting the money, and it seems likely that a lot of those requirements about insuring some degree of maintenance and reliability. None of this is weird, large scale projects like this always have extensive planning stages.
Re: (Score:3)
They're not allowed to! If they put up even one charger that no one uses, or that is faulty, congress will ream them for wasting tax dollars. So instead they spend even more tax dollars jumping through all the hoops.
Way back in the 80s working at a defense contractor, dealing with the overhead of contracts themselves felt like it was 1/3rd of the company, with the rest doing actual work. It's probably gotten worse since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Said so many ignorant managers, so many times before.
Only tesla properly installs (Score:2)
Problem is putting the eight charger in the right place.
Only privately funded networks like Tesla do that right because they consider use cases, and economic sense in use.
Perhaps address the *home* charger issue first? (Score:3)
My partner and I wouldn't have even considered an EV for him if there was no way to charge it at home. Lots of people aren't in a situation where they own their home and can install a charger in their garage or driveway. So far, we've still not needed to do any DC fast charging because the car starts every morning with a full "tank". If you actually have to drive somewhere and charge the up every few days, you'd be better off sticking with ICE.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, that problem is going to be much harder to address and will likely take many years.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of the resistance to adopting EVs has been complaining about range.
Based on our experience buying an EV, it's more likely that every dealer not named "Tesla" would rather you buy an ICE vehicle off their lot, and that doesn't inspire confidence.
I also think another issue is simply the way cars are sold. Most people would probably be happy with an EV if given the opportunity to try one risk-free. A test drive around the block really isn't the same thing, and then you're expected to commit to a lease or purchase where there's significant financial penalties if the vehicle
Re: (Score:3)
You probably know this, but if you bought the EV and aren't leasing, you might want to consider charging to a level lower than 100% (unless you need the full capacity), because it may increase battery longevity.
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, when your car tells you it's at 100% charge, it's probably closer to 80%. Turns out that most companies making EVs actually know how lithium batteries work.
Occasionally, but not usually.
Yes, some cars are range-locked, where they use the same battery in long-range cars and shorter-range cars because it is cheaper than building different hardware (and then they can offer to unlock it for money later). Also, I think some companies have done the same thing in response to fire problems on a couple of random BEVs over the years as well.
However, those are the exceptions, rather than the rule. AFAIK, most BEVs allow you to operate the vehicle from a minimum of two
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is charging at work. I can actually charge at home in my garage, but it is cheaper to charge during the day at work.
How is it cheaper to charge at work?
I did some contract work at a place that had a free EV charger for any employee that had an EV to use. I don't recall anyone using it. Are you perhaps just using an outdoor 120 VAC outlet to charge at work? Either way you do this just how long do you expect it to be cheaper to charge at work if EVs become the norm? It's some nice PR to have a single EV charger in the employee parking lot but that's a long way from allowing all employees to plug in, or even half or a q
Re: (Score:2)
How is it cheaper to charge at work?
Because the price per kWh is less.
Are you perhaps just using an outdoor 120 VAC outlet to charge at work? Either way you do this just how long do you expect it to be cheaper to charge at work if EVs become the norm? It's some nice PR to have a single EV charger in the employee parking lot but that's a long way from allowing all employees to plug in, or even half or a quarter.
There are twenty level 2 chargers, more than enough for everybody. I have yet to see it even half full. And several of the business around me have chargers for their employees as well. I like how you constructed your own completely wrong scenario in your head, based on absolutely zero info, to fit your anti-EV point-of-view.
Re: (Score:2)
...based on absolutely zero info...
Did you miss the part where I saw free EV chargers at workplaces before? That's first hand info. Then comes what I got from YouTube Channels like Technology Connections, the host of that channel spoke of how he charged his EV at work.
When it comes to EV chargers at work I'm quite pro-EV, I believe that EVs today have more than enough range that EV drivers should not feel "range anxiety" from not having chargers at work. Also, if people keep demanding EV chargers everywhere then that is perpetuating rang
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, I've never seen a single charger at all at any worksite I know of.....
There's precious few public chargers at all when I've looked at the websites people recommended to search fo
Re: (Score:3)
120V is sufficient to charge a car at night, and 240V is not some sort of mind blowing install for basic amperage. Home charging is not an issue.
That sounds about right to me. A bit of looking at a few examples for EV charging and they can get about 4 miles of range per hour with a 120 VAC charger. I read somewhere that the average commute is less than 40 miles per day, so if people can get a 10 hour charge per night then they should be good. If they forget to plug in or something then presumably they will have something like 150 miles of range yet on the battery, and they can make up for the lost time charging on the weekend, or by finding a fas
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe we all have 230V with either 10 or 16 Amps per fuse, for AC charging that translates to 2.3 or 3.6 kW per hour. Most Europeans will therefore move to a 3x 16A (3-phase) connection delivering AC charging at 11 kWh.
At commercial enterprises you often find 3-phase 32A connections that can deliver AC charging up to 22 kWh.
The EV needs a converter (rectifier) for AC charging and many can 'only' handle
Re: (Score:3)
In the US, here's the typical breakdown: Level 1 charging is single-phase, 120-V. The charger (the size of a box of kleenex, with an input cable and output cable, usually provided with the car purchase) can plug into any ol' outlet. The circuit breaker is 20 A or less, and the charger tends to build in some de-rating from there. So ballpark the charging rate is 1-2 kW. For a typical BEV/PHEV, that'll gain you 3-6 miles (5-10 km) per hour of charging.
The real fight (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA mentions the requirement that it have a credit card reader, just like gas pumps. I can almost guarantee that's the real reason for the delay. Lined up on the other side of this? Not just the GOP, but lobbyists for proprietary networks, and "app" based payments. Fuck those guys with a rusty rebar. Sideways.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you already have to use the proprietary payment system to turn on your rented in seat heater and get more horsepower so its fine /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
From a privacy standpoint, credit cards really aren't any better than app-based payments. Plus, card skimmers are still a thing.
Re:The real fight (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine if every gas station required you to install a different shitty payment app to fill up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this. I wasn't addressing privacy issues at all. A requirement for a bill reader would be even better; but that ship has sailed. Credit cards are run by regulated banks and credit unions, and they're kind of a requirement in the modern era. I don't want smart phones and apps being the passport to modern life, it's a world of suck if that happens.
Seriously, even relying on cards is bad and this was illustrated for me just today. I went to my favorite coffee shop and it was cash only. Reason? Som
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if every gas station required you to install a different shitty payment app to fill up.
I can... It's called parking in the UK. You've a dozen shitty apps and a half a dozen other shitty apps meant to roll those dozen shitty apps into one giant, shitty app but none of them work.
I tend to gravitate towards council owned car parks as they're the most likely to have a cash or card ticketing machine.
I think we need a law that states "if the app doesn't work, service is free". Yes, you'll have everyone saying the app doesn't work without trying but that's the point. We want to put a lid on th
Re: (Score:2)
But without this option, are you saying you will be required not only to have a smart phone, BUT also to have it on you every time you drive somewhere?
I know some people are addicted to them, but I often think back to the "old days" when I only had a wired phone at home and had to wait to get home to get my messages off the answering machine.
I'll often leave my phone on the coun
Re:The real fight (Score:5, Interesting)
That was one of the first things I encountered when I bought a used Leaf. I thought people paid for a charge just like paying for gas: with a credit card. I had no reason to suppose it wouldn't be like that, and so I didn't check. And so the first time I tried to recharge at a ChargePoint station, it was a disaster.
Had to use my smartphone at a nearby restaurant that had WiFi (because charging stations sure as heck don't provide any WiFi and I have limited minutes and bytes on the cellular network) to set up an account with ChargePoint, then my credit card to fund it, then my phone again to activate the charging station. And then, the charging station refused to work, claiming that my car was "not ready"! Was there some problem with my car? I didn't know. I called the number on the charging station for assistance, and got nowhere. All this took over an hour, and by then, the occupant of the nearby free charging station had left. So I drove over to that station and it worked fine. Got a charge while I waited another hour.
The charging network is so unreliable and fragmentary, I strongly advise that owners do all their charging at home. Use the electric only if it has the range to do the round trip without recharging. It's a pain in the rear to set up half a dozen accounts to be sure you can use any charging station no matter who owns it.
Cancel it! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If the private sector had already done it, then the government wouldn't have needed to step in. Leaving it to the private sector leads to competing charger standards and wasteful duplication of networks. Just because the private sector is better at doing some things does not mean that it is better at doing everything.
Re: (Score:2)
The market for electric vehicles will not take off until there exists an infrastructure to support it, so waiting for it to take off before building that infrastructure simply does not make sense. Besides, EV prices have been dropping this year [usatoday.com]:
Wrong priority of locations. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I would posit that MOST people want their cars to be able to do everything their current ICE vehicles can....and that encompasses a lot of varied use cases, one common one is, the long road trip.
Few people are wanting to, or willing to buy an expensive vehicle that is niche...only good for short distances to/from work...you know?
Back in the day... (Score:2)
Someone saw a need that wasn't being met - they would create a business to satisfy the need and make a profit from it. No government needed.
Now we detest profitable businesses and so the government has to subsidize the "winners" that they choose, making sure absolutely no one makes any money, doing it.
Hey kids get off my lawn
Normal (for Government) timeline (Score:2)
Congress often grants money that people can apply for. Then it takes a while to set up the standards you need to meet, the application system, to advertise everything, then for businesses to apply, be granted, then submit plans, get those plans approved, all before they build it.
3 years is not that strange for something this complex.
In fact, getting things done quicker usually means one thing - corruption. Typically a targeted grant for one business that already has plans built and approved but no money,
What About The Motel Room? (Score:2)
Gotta hang out somewhere while it takes your car 14 hours to charge. Because we know, just like cell phones, folks are gonna run those batteries until they are totally drained.
Re: (Score:3)
Chargers are also typically found at McDonald's and other fast food places, they love those people that have half an hour to spend it with them.
Like I can say form personal experience, on a longer trip the food costs more than the electricity.
Transmission and Distribution Line Capacity (Score:2)
If the electrical provider says, "Sorry, we don't have enough line capacity where you want to build this," the project is dead in the water until the provider upgrades the lines and substations. The supply chain, even just for common items like pad-mount service transformers, is still backed up 12 months or so, and anything that falls under disaster repairs automatically jumps to the front of the line.
Adding new transmission lines is also terribly slow, not only do you have NIMBY problems, but some of the p
Re: (Score:2)
If the electrical provider says, "Sorry, we don't have enough line capacity where you want to build this," the project is dead in the water until the provider upgrades the lines and substations.
I recall reading about someone, possibly the US Postal Service, that wanted to replace all their diesel trucks with electric trucks and submitted a request for a bid on upgrading the electrical supply to charge up the trucks every night. The utility thought this was a prank, or someone misplaced a decimal point somewhere, because the electrical load was something on the level of what the entire surrounding neighborhood consumed. They'd have to do massive upgrades to the supply, all the way back to at leas
usable range vs maximum range (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the biggest lies EV manufacturers tell is giving out unrealistic range figures. Yeah, that Tesla can go 330 miles, if you start with a full charge, don't drive too fast, don't use the A/C, and you completely drain the batteries. But the usable range of an EV is roughly half the maximum range.
Why? You're not going to run it completely out of charge any more than you'd run a gas burner completely empty, you want to keep a reserve, say 10%. Fast charging can't be done beyond 80% full. So already, the usable range is just 70%. The A/C can knock as much as 20% off the range. And finally, traveling at well over 100 kph can knock another 20% off.
Re: (Score:3)
Blame Canada! Um, I mean, blame Republicans! (Score:2)
In the article they are trying to lay some of the blame on EV adoption on Republicans for wanting to remove the EV charger subsidies, claiming that if the subsidies went away that it would impact EV adoption. I have my doubts that the (empty) threat of removing the subsidies is impacting EV sales.
The Republicans don't have the ability to hold up any legislation, so long as all the Democrats are on board. This was proven with the Inflation Reduction Act. So, first thing is the threat is empty. Second thi
Re: (Score:2)
I should add to my above comment on the silliness of any POTUS to have a 10 year plan. It appears to me that Democrat Party candidates for POTUS love to have a 10 year plan on energy and the environment. Does it not appear odd to anyone that any POTUS would propose a 10 year plan when they'd be in office for no more than 8 years? I find it odd.
Well, okay, there is one way for someone to serve 10 years (minus a day but who's counting) as POTUS. That is be VPOTUS and then have POTUS removed from office by
Re: (Score:2)
Reminder: Private Sector vs Public Sector (Score:2)
This experiment has been run many times in many places, but I will provide two examples of interest to geeky folks:
Example 1: The US Government once hired the highly-qualified professor Samuel Pierpont Langley [wikipedia.org] to create the first manned heavier-than-air vehicle. He spent government funds to build his Langley Aerodrome [wikipedia.org] and never got it to fly. The US government named facilities (like NASA's Langley Research Center) after him, and the Smithsonian put his flop into the museum as "the first heavier-than-air man
Goota love dear /. (Score:2)
Congress didn't spend anything (Score:3)
The headline says "Congress Spent Billions", but the body says that complex requirements have prevented anyone from receiving money.
Re:Typical us government graft (Score:5, Insightful)
Where in the article did you see that funds were being used for other purposes, or did you just make this up? They are withholding money until the states show that they can do a proper job, which has led to delays. This is exactly the opposite of what you described.
Re:Entitlement + bureaucracy + dilusion (Score:4, Insightful)
and then look at what powers the chargers.
Even using natural gas as an electricity source, you are still polluting less due to a stationary power plant being way more efficient than a mobile (ICE) power plant. Start throwing in solar/wind/hydro/nuclear, and EVs become way less polluting.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
Until Solar, Wind, Nuclear,Geothermal displace 100% of existing electricity use, the balance has to be made by Gas, Oil or Coal. Until then, your electric car is coal powered.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
OOOhhh....and I can't wait to put the Federal govt in charge of my healthcare after seeing the efficiency here!!
Re: (Score:3)
Even a casual observer can find many reports of chargers being broken, monopolized, or even *just* malfunctioning. Anyone with an EV that wants to take a trip longer than two charges is challenged with charger availability. The issues are 0. enough chargers where they are needed, 1. enough chargers to overcome failed charging stations, 2. chargers to serve travelers despite no local demand.
'already enough' is just not accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Teslas can use an adapter to charge at a CCS charger, so assuming these chargers are maintained, they won't go to waste... that's assuming they're maintained.
Tesla is putting adapters on their chargers. Because Tesla manages the charging interface with their car they had to develop a work-around for the lack of any interface on their chargers, people have to get an app on a smartphone and set up an account with payment details. It sounds like a lot of EV charging networks are using phone apps so this should not be any worse or better than the competition.
It sounds like for the Tesla chargers that don't yet have the adapter installed it is still possible to use
If they're getting paid, it shouldn't matter (Score:3)
As I understand it, Tesla is going to be getting paid by any EV owners other than those who bought the unlimited supercharging package with their early generation cars.
So more cars = higher utilization = more money for maintenance, so long as the foreign (IE not Tesla) cars aren't doing something crazy to damage the chargers at a higher rate, maintenance shouldn't be affected. The extra money might even help pay for more chargers in more locations.
I've heard that part of the problem with high down rates fo
Re: (Score:2)
So, one has to have a working smart phone in order to drive an EV and refuel outside of home?
These chargers aren't like gas pumps where you can just put
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and by the way, stop confusing socialism with communism.