Slashdot Mirror
Tesla To Build a Rapid-Charging Station Between LA and SF
thecarchik writes "Earlier this year at the official launch of the 2012 Model S Sedan, Musk said that Tesla was planning on installing ultra-rapid charging stations along major arterial freeways such as the I-5 between Canada and Mexico, but declined to give specifics. But in an official Tesla earnings call last week, Musk let slip where the first of these ultra-rapid charging stations would be: somewhere between San Francisco and Los Angeles. However, even by the shortest route, the distance between the two cities is nearly 400 miles, meaning that an equidistant SuperCharger would be no use to owners of Model S sedans with smaller 160 or 230-mile battery packs."
I'm so glad I have a Civic; more than 400 miles between fuel stops and half the cost of an electric car that I'd have to recharge three times in that distance.
Because LA sucks.
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
This is a pretty important quote from TFA missing from the summary:
And while most of Teslaâ(TM)s current orders are for Model S Sedans complete with 300-mile battery pack option, expect Tesla to install multiple SuperChargers along the I-5 route to cater for drivers of lower-range Model S sedans.
So while an charging station placed exactly half-way between LA and San Francisco would be of limited utility to some Tesla owners, it would serve most buyers of the Model S sedan...
How would an equidistant supercharger (thus, one that is 200 miles from each of two points, themselves 400 miles apart) fail to help drivers with cars that have a 230 mile range?
You have to build the first one somewhere.
Did he say 'directly in the middle of the I-5 route between LA and SF."?
it's so strange to have access to some basic maths, to have done vehicle simulations and also have an environmentally-friendly hat on, it catches me unawares when i see things like this. i have to double-take for a second, because it's so incredibly strange for EVs to have on-board either high-explosive materials (lithium) or highly toxic metals (nickel) in such huge quantities, i really can't understand why people don't understand that batteries are a storage mechanism not a power source, and don't design vehicles accordingly.
there's quite a lot involved, so please forgive me dear slashdot reader for not cut/pasting it all here - here's a link http://lkcl.net/ev to relevant articles and so on. some insights are also on http://hybridcar.com/
They'd better build one one the Top Gear test track. Hammerhead is half way, isn't it?
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
How would an equidistant supercharger (thus, one that is 200 miles from each of two points, themselves 400 miles apart) fail to help drivers with cars that have a 230 mile range?
Good question. That quote was directly from TFA.
That said, there could be a couple of reasons that the drive from LA to San Francisco is not equal in energy use to other drives of a similar length. LA and San Francisco are separated by mountains -- it's not a perfectly flat route.
Additionally, there energy-consuming traffic on both ends of the route.
Finally, few drivers of the LA-SF route are likely to be driving downtown LA to downtown San Francisco. I would guess that many owners of the Model S will live in the upper-income suburbs, some of which are south or west of Los Angeles or in the case of San Francisco, in the North Bay.
Methinks you might want to start by actually turning out some of those promised cars first.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Doesn't sound smart to equip these vehicles with a proprietary connector. Why not have a standardized connector, and sell more vehicles ?
However, even by the shortest route, the distance between the two cities is nearly 400 miles, meaning that an equidistant SuperCharger would be no use to owners of Model S sedans with smaller 160 or 230-mile battery packs.
Wake up, it isn't about usefulness. It's about hype.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
In mountain driving. As one who has made the drive in question dozens of times, I'm immediately thinking about The Grapevine, aka the Tejon Pass
Can a Tesla even make it from Magic Mountain to Bakersfiled with that kind of mountainous driving? I think you'd need at least 3 charging stations, one on the San Juaquine side of the Grapevine, and one on the Los Angeles side of the Grapevine, then one somewhere in the middle of the San Juaquine valley.
Who's going to build the coal-powered power plant to supply electricity for the chargers?
For lack of a better sig, this one has to do.
Yes, and more importantly, the main story is that they are planning on building them all along I-5, this is just the first one. So people with other Teslas models will have to wait a few more months before they can get from SF to LA. OMG electric cars are a failure !!1!1!
Every post that slashdot has accepted from thecarchick driving traffic to thegreencarreport has been full of misinformation and FUD. You would think that slashdot might get tired of being played for fools but apparently not.
I've about had it with this site. I swear that this is the only reason I have had to visit slashdot the last several years. I should just admit that it is a harmful habit and leave.
How long would it take to charge and how many charging stations would there be? If it takes an hour to charge, and all the charging stations are full, you could end up waiting quite a while...
Not really fun if you've got a bunch of kids in the back.
Tesla: For people with too much disposable income who want to look like they care about the environment.
In mountain driving. As one who has made the drive in question dozens of times, I'm immediately thinking about The Grapevine, aka the Tejon Pass
Can a Tesla even make it from Magic Mountain to Bakersfiled with that kind of mountainous driving? I think you'd need at least 3 charging stations, one on the San Juaquine side of the Grapevine, and one on the Los Angeles side of the Grapevine, then one somewhere in the middle of the San Juaquine valley.
The nice thing about mountains is that, for an electric car, pretty much all the energy you use going up you get back on the way down. Assuming it can make it to the top of the pass, shouldn't limit the range too much as it will be a (mostly) free ride on the way down.
This is true, hadn't thought about that. :)
Tesla cars use batteries, and as much as I love electric cars, I have stopped getting excited about such stories for several reasons:
1. They use Li-ion batteries, which means they will degrade at the same pace as those in my laptop. The horror.
2. Their idea of an "ultra-rapid" charge is one that takes "under an hour". This is a huge problem. Even if the range could be extended to the point where you can drive from LA to 15 min outside of SF, you would still need to stop for an hour to refuel before driving that last 15 min.
3. The price. Because of the above problems, they are unpopular, which prevents any benefits from economies of scale.
This story isn't about fuel cells so I will avoid talking too much about them, but I really believe they are the way forward. Yes, they have their own problems and could benefit from some advances in catalyst technology, but they are unaffected by the range/refueling problem. Also, once you buy one it's final, none of this taking the car in every few years to replace what is essentially the entire price of the car.
The ultimate addition would be partially subsidized charging lanes along major interstate highways. The major issue right now with pure-electric vehicles is their poor range; if the highways were powered, this would be a greatly reduced problem. I foresee solar-powered induction chargers, even if they are pay per use. I could imagine driving through the midwest between say LA and Dallas, or San Francisco and Vegas, on a pure-electric vehicle without concern for losing power in the middle of the desert. Simply exit onto the lane, your EZ-pass will automatically pay a nominal fee, and set the cruise control.
Bonus points for single lane highways with markers for automatic driving, no passing, just specify your exit on the nav system... That's a bit off in the future, but might as well plan for it now! :)
I suppose if you have to ask you can't afford it applies to the car itself. But what will the recharge cost be (how is it metered, cost per hwh maybe?)
Also if it becomes popular there might be a line at the "pump" er socket.
I have a better idea for recharging for people who need to drive more than 60 miles with heat, AC, headlights, lights, and so on: how about implementing an electric car which is capable of converting chemicals with a very high energy density into heat energy, which can be harnessed as mechanical energy to turn a generator which could be used to recharge the battery, and perhaps even transmit power directly to the wheels in tandem with the electric motors on demand when more power is required? Ideally, such a system would be able to create the required heat from a number of different chemical compounds, ranging from hydrogen to LNG, from propane to diesel, kerosene, or gasoline. I guess we shall forever be stuck with impractical battery-powered vehicles which drop stone cold dead somewhere between 60 and 230 miles, and never attain a practical-yet-economical long-distance driving range.
If only there were a practical solution which already exists today. One can dream, though. One can dream. ;)
In all seriousness, right now hybrids are practical. Small turbocharged engines are practical. Hybrids with flex fuel capability are practical. Those all give you what is practically unlimited range, good economy, and if you do happen to pull a boneheaded move and run out of energy, you can get a couple gallons (or small compressed tank) of fuel and be on your way, without having to wait hours for a recharge (or "only" 1-2 hours for a high-current rapid charge which accelerates degradation of the cells). The Prius has a great system (in principle), as does the Limited Hybrid, and even the Chevy Volt. You can achieve a practically unlimited range given the existent fuel distribution infrastructure, and not having to wait half a day to recharge the battery every 60-230 miles. I'd love to see someone drive a production car electric car cross-country with the AC running, on a typical vacation schedule. How long would it take to drive to a popular destination like, say, Disney World, or the Grand Canyon from where you live in a hybrid or gasoline/diesel powered car, vs, an electric car (assuming you have recharge stations on the way)? Driving the speed limit, hitting traffic jams, etc. on the way, I can get to Orlando in 22 hours. Via electric car, it would require six recharges (that is being optimistic on the range - more likely 12 with A/C, radio, etc. running). So, 22 hours of driving plus (6*48) to (12*48) hours for recharge cycles., That's longer than most people get for vacation. Or, if you want to drastically reduce the lifetime of your battery packs and you happen to find rapid charge stations along the way, you're still charging at a 56mi/hr rate (Tesla's best-case rating), which would put you at just under two hours to make it the next 224 miles (assuming you would actually achieve that range in traffic with the AC or heat going, wipers, headlamps, etc). - contrast that to refilling a fuel tank, which normally takes under five minutes. Ten if you have a really slow pump, and you have to also answer a nature call and then buy a snack in the store, etc.
From the wikipedia article:
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Of course, back when I was frequently making this drive, it was uphill *both* ways ;)
have you considered writing a book?
yes, they are exclamation mark one exclamation mark :) but that really doesn't go down too well. hybrids on the other hand work very well: they're a compromise - a best-of-both-worlds compromise. which is why i'm designing an ultra-efficient one, having looked at the maths, done the simulations etc. http://lkcl.net/ev
I meant two. yes TWO! Or three...
and one with a machine that goes 'Bling...'
There is a variant of Deep Vein Thrombosis called Traveller's Thrombosis.
This is why it is wise to take a break every 90 minutes or two hours. However, the break does not typically have to be long. Frequently I merely stop the car, walk around it once or twice, and then continue.
Carnival bumper cars just point a paddle at the ceiling.
BART, and many other electric trains, just stick out a paddle and get their electricity from alongside the track.
So why are we not doing something similar for cars? Install something under the road, or along the side, to charge the car as you drive?
I know I'm offering the simplified consumer point of view here on "we have x technology, why can't we just do y?"... I don't know electricity... But I do know I'm tired of trying to find a station for gas, and sure as hell don't want to be caught somewhere in between electric stations with a 6000 pound car I can't physically push to the side.
In fact, although better batteries are the main need, not a lot can be done to improve EV efficiency further. Unless most power is generated by renewables- it isn't - the benefits of EVs compared to state of the art IC-based systems are pretty marginal.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
You paid for the ride down, with the ride up.
your enemies, as always are: Friction and Heat.
"3 charging stations, one on the San Juaquine side of the Grapevine, and one on the Los Angeles side of the Grapevine, then one somewhere in the middle of the San Juaquine valley."
Exactly... except for the spelling. Joaquin u to an o and no ending e....
This is really starting to make the car attractive, except Im driving to Folsom, CA ( Hi RANDY! )
I would like to see any engineering projects of any complexity that you have successfully carried out. Your design weight is, I think, simply unachievable with reasonable life on real roads. I do not think you have any idea of the working stresses on an automotive chassis, including absorbing the vibration from your IC engine, and you don't appear to have considered hills. Also some of the observations on your website are incorrect; the Volt on its IC engine is not nearly as economical as a Prius. And the reason that the Volt and the Prius ar the size they are is that the cost of hybrid technology has not scaled down, so until now it has only been available at a price where people expect a mid-size car. Toyota is now scaling down slowly. Your 350kg three people carrier will be unreliable, unsafe, uncomfortable and expensive, because those are the tradeoffs.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
AAA Electric Vehicle Roadside Assistance! - I thought this was a much better solution for range anxiety. Although I guess if you know for a fact you're going to exceed your range limit on a long trip, a planned stop somewhere is better than an emergency call.
A battery pack that could be quickly replaced would be a better solution.
thecarchik, re-do your math, then re-write your article. I'm not even going to explain.... Sheesh! Can Slashdot maybe start screening writers before they're allowed to post such nonsense?
Personally, I don't know why they don't use removable batteries which you "use" rather than own. Car company X installs a charging station/Battery swap station at the local convience store. Their employees swap out a battery for yours. You own a car from company Y? You are out of luck. You stop payment on your battery usage rights with company X? You are out of luck. You lose your company X battery, tamper with battery identifications? You are out of luck. However, if you maintain payments to company X and play by the rules, you can use their battery swap shops to your heart's content.
Last I checked 230 + 230 = 460. So if the shortest route is nearly 400 miles wouldn't the 230 mile battery pack work fine? I mean yeah you have to account for getting out of an into the city, but 60 extra miles seems like enough to me. So the owners of the 160 mile battery wouldn't be able to make it, which given the market for Tesla cars, I'm sure is a minority. Additionally this is supposed to be the first of many, so they'll just have to wait a bit longer. I may be wrong, but the submitter of the article seems to want to label this hope instilling progress as either not good enough or proof of electric cars not working, I'm not really sure.
I was at a conference in Oakland last week where a guy from Southern California Edison spoke about the future of electric vehicle charging. When asked about the cost to charge an EV via a level 1 charger through the night versus a level 3 (20-40 minute) quick charger during peak hours (when they're most likely to be used) he said that he didn't have the exact numbers on the *power* difference (though it's significant), but the dollar-per-fill-up difference will be extreme.
The Level 3 charger alone is expected to be $50,000 - $60,000 depending on existing infrastructure. That cost will have to be made up in fill-up cost.
Then there's the cost of the power at the time of the day.
Then there's the amount of power it takes to charge something so quickly.
He closed with "It will *definitely* be a premium service. We don't expect many to need or utilize the service."
So why is Tesla doing it? Oh yes... because they're catering to a crowd of luxury environmentalists... the crowd that shrank to, like, three with the crash. Tesla's business model of supporting electric vehicles on the backs of the super wealthy has failed... they're just floundering now.
for mountain driving, fuel economy understandably critically depends on the weight. if you have a 550kg vehicle (including passengers) and a 25% gradient, then even at 50mph you still get almost 60mpg. if however on the other hand the weight is 1550kg, then that fuel economy drops staggeringly quick: expect to get best case 20mpg.
i'll add "gradient" in a moment to the simulator i'm writing, so you can try it out here: http://lkcl.net/ev/vehicle_simulator/output/Simulator.html
Here's a picture of one... http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,3253,l%253D289592%2526a%253D289696%2526po%253D7,00.asp?p=n#fbid=0aLLDV-J5kV In Dixon.
I wonder how a Tesla will perform in North Dakota in winter? Tesla is wasting time, and worse, taxpayer money. Hopefully, this is a last spasm of the green economy.
an ill wind that blows no good
Tesla already has 5 chargers between LA and SF. Not super fast, but they do the job; about 50 miles every hour of charge. There are also hundreds of standardized "Type 2" J1772 chargers going in, thanks to the stimulus package.
http://carstations.com/
https://www.chargepointportal.net/index.php/device/devicelocation.html
http://www.evchargernews.com/regions/ch-tesla-tesla.htm
A short adapter mates them with the current Tesla charge port on Roadsters. The only reason that the Roadster needs this is that Tesla got the car into production ahead of the completion of the standard. The Model S will be J1772 compliant.
The focus on chargers is all a bit of a sideshow however, because EVs are BETTER than gas cars: they can be charged while parked, at home and at work. A car spends,what, at least 22 hours a day sitting idle, and even a household dryer outlet is enough to fully charge it while you're sleeping. There's almost never a reason to go hunting for a roadside charger (although it is kind of fun). Seriously, how often does anyone drive more than 300 miles without stopping? Worrying about that is like driving around in a van so you're always ready to move.
The roadside chargers are for road trips. Not to be forgotten, but a tiny minority use of our cars. If we want to stop sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas each year for oil, this is how we do it.
Noob here, this article got me curious, considering how popular passive charging stations are getting, how feasible would it be to have passive chargers built into roads? I mean, one of the reasons that people avoid electric cars is because you have to stop to charge so often, imagine if you never had to stop, because you were charging up while driving along.
Unfortunately, I'm late into the article, so I'll probably won't have my curiosity remedied.
PS Is it just me, or is Slashdot weirdly laggy using Opera (even with a fairly beefy machine)? It's gotten to the point where I'm really careful typing because I don't want to have to go back to correct any mistakes.
Having spent some amount of time in Hollywood rigging cars and trucks to do this (more precisely Los Angeles environs.. they don't blow up many cars in the city proper)...
Nothing like a 5 gallon jug of gasoline and some detonating cord with some black powder to ignite it...
Cars don't burst into flames
Trucks don't burst into flames
It's *hard* to set a car on fire in any meaningful way. We're talking sloshing lots of gas around and lighting it. The burned out hulk by the side of the road? ALmost certainly a failed fuel injector hose, so you have a 30-40 psi pump spraying significant amounts of gasoline around the engine compartment where it ignites... That pump keeps running quite a while. The engine runs quite nicely bathed in flaming gasoline, at least at first.
If your solution doesn't scale to the magnitude of the problem, you don't have a solution. You have a hobby.
And if you don't know why rapid charging is a fad, here's a rundown to the uninitiated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM2TUjVmJac
If there's somoething worse that we can be doing than absolutely nothing about the problem, it's doing nothing while selling ourselves on the illusion we're doing something useful.
It's interesting that car manufacturers are going to build the infrastructure, same with Daimler Benz in Germany (http://www.ipmd.net/news/001282.html) .