Slashdot Mirror
White House, 35 States To Boost Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (cnbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: The White House said on Thursday it will establish 48 national electric-vehicle (EV) charging networks on nearly 25,000 miles of highways in 35 U.S. states. The Obama administration said 28 states, utilities and vehicle manufactures, including General Motors, BMW and Nissan Motor, and EV charging firms have agreed to work together to jump-start the additional charging stations. The corridors were required to be established by December under a 2015 highway law. The White House said 24 state and local governments have agreed to buy hundreds of additional electric vehicles for government fleets and add new EV charging stations. California will buy at least 150 zero-emission vehicles and provide EV charging at a minimum of 5 percent of state-owned parking spaces by 2020. The city of Atlanta will add 300 charging stations at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport by the end of 2017. Los Angeles agreed to nearly triple the city's current plug-in electric fleet to 555 vehicles from about 200 by the end of 2017. Of those, 200 will be for the police department. The city is also adding another 500 stations by 2017. One hurdle to the mass adoption of EVs has been the difficulty in finding places to recharge vehicles. In July, the White House said it was expanding a federal loan guarantee program to include companies building EV charging stations. The U.S. Energy Department said in July that charging facilities are now an eligible technology for the program that can provide up to $4.5 billion in loan guarantees.
We are now seeing affordable >200 mile range cars entering the market, like the Zoe and Bolt. As long as charger installs keep up a lot more people should be able to go 100% electric.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Don't you know all the new marketing rage?
Assembled in the USA [with globally sourced parts].
Posted anonymously since truth generally gets rated down.
You're FULL OF SHIT, says this apparently truthful comment
Every week I drive by multiple EV charging stations and each time I see at least one EV vehicle parked there without the cable to the charger connected to the vehicle. I've even seen EV vehicles parallel parked in non-parallel parking EV stations, thus occupying 3 parking spots without even charging the vehicle.
If the vehicle is NOT charging, why do they get special privilages to park in reserved parking spaces without complying with requirments of reserved parking spaces? It would be no different than if gas powered vehicles parked in EV charging spots and were not charging. Same as it would be no different if non-handicapped people parked in a handicapped spot.
The reserved EV spots should be in the WORST places in a parking lot instead of in the best, front, nearest locations where the handicapped spots are.
The police have been unwilling to cite these vehicles even though the spaces are in public property parking lots.
For those of you stuck on this worn Fox-News-meme, here's the fuller story:
Soon after O began his job in the White-house, he consulted top economists for solutions to the then quickly tumbling economy.
Looking at past stimulus plans and results from multiple countries, the economists suggested a stimulus had to be quick to be effective. "Big" infrastructure projects often take too long to ramp up. Surveys, plan review & approval, environmental studies, zoning studies, etc. have to be done first. These can take more than a year.
Therefore, the concept of "shovel ready" was created to only fund public works projects that could be ramped up quickly.
It turned out those are hard to come by. Some went to fixing potholes and the like, which I witnessed happening in my area, but otherwise they had difficulty finding quick-turnaround public works projects.
Instead, much of the stimulus was used to fund State budgets so that teachers, cops, fire-fighters, etc. would be less likely to be let go. This kept money flowing in the economy. Some also went to investments in green energy companies, such as solar. Sure, some went under, but investing is like that: win some loose some. To focus only on those that went under, like Solyndra, is cherry-picking evidence. (I will agree the investment selection process was poorly managed, though.)
It turned out the Great Recession went on longer than expected such that big public works projects would have been useful. But nobody has a crystal ball. The federal estimates of recession duration and depth were consistent with those made by private company estimates, I would note.
They were reasonable actions based on what was known at the time.
Some pro-austerity people claim that deep recessions fix themselves such that stimuluses are not necessary, but I've seen no evidence of this, other than making life so dreadful that people riot and war, which certainly stimulates economies, but kills.
Table-ized A.I.
I don't know, but you can be sure the energy dispensed through them will not come from the Middle East.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
>> White House said on Thursday it will establish 48 national electric-vehicle (EV) charging networks on nearly 25,000 miles of highways in 35 U.S. states
Better hurry up. It's a good bet that whatever crawls into the White House next will spend his or her time dodging civil and criminal lawsuits. "Ain't nobody gonna have time for your hipster charging stations!"
Canada and many first world nations did this over the last 15 years.
If anything, the US is way behind.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Your homework:
Google internal combustion engine efficiency.
Google electricity generation efficiency.
Google world power transmission loss.
Come back here with your answers, along with a conclusion, when you're done.
If you want to bias your results to soften your defeat, be sure to only consider coal generation.
For extra credit, research the following:
Vehicle emissions per kWh
Coal power plant emissions per kWh
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
... It will be $50 for a charge,, and you'll still pay the gas tax..
Not just the initial build-out of charging stations (BTW, which charging standard is being used?), but the ongoing cost of maintenance and the actual electricity? TFA is remarkably silent on this, which means I'm paying for it. I don't have an electric car, I don't want to pay for yours.
I recently did this calculation.
The amount of CO2 emitted per mile driving an EV assuming electricity is generated from coal is about the same as that from a gasoline car that does 40 mpg. How many cars do 40mpg in a real life mix of driving?
Yes, I ignored transmission losses, but perhaps that isn't fair because obviously gasoline gets from the refinery to your tank via zero energy teleport.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
This is what a lead-acid core charge is for... to encourage people to get batteries back to a recycler, and perhaps to cover the aspect of breaking up the batteries, neutralizing the acid, dumping all the lead into a smelter to purify and recast, then make new batteries. Other than the plastic casing, batteries are pretty well recyclable, provided they arrive to the recycle place intact.
I wonder if part of the reason for the fugly plugs is that the makers don't want to get sued if someone tries to wire 440VAC across their nipples or someone sticks a wire clothes hanger and tries to short circuit things.
Why add lots of charging stations at airports? When people are leaving their cars for multiple days, they don't need a 240v charger or anything fancy. All that's needed is a simple electrical outlet. Even a Tesla could recharge fully in four days from a standard wall outlet. Put your level-2 charging stations in places where people shop or work and will only be parked for a few hours. Put the level-3 charging stations along highways where people need to charge quickly.
Of course, the need for public charging stations decreases as the range of the cars increases. When the standard range is over 200 miles, most people can do all their non-travel charging at home. You don't need chargers at shopping centers and offices (though I still hear about people with crazy 100+ mile commutes). The real challenge is charging for people who don't have a garage. Focus on putting chargers at apartment complexes and on city streets where residents without garages park. Require charging as part of the permitting process for new apartments (we just did that in my town).
Now ditch coal fired plants and factor in alternative energy sources including solar roofs. That's the real long term solution.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The J1772 standard doesn't put out 110v or 240V on the pins until connection with the car is established.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Your leaving out the 2 biggest costs for electric cars.
1) Battery
2) Distribution and transmission.
Also tire/road wear, from cars that are 2* as heavy due to batteries.
These are not energy or carbon footprint neutral.
It is also a big drain on the environment building and maintaining the electric grid. Fixing all the lines that fail, and doubling the capacity to handle transportation will not be cheap, and costs more energy than what is lost in transmission.
Not to mention line workers is one of the 10 deadliest professions in the US. That is not counting all the people who die from accidents involving power lines.
Gasoline is not free to transport, but pipelines are generally safer and carry a much much higher density of power than power-lines. And costs about 1/5 that of power to transport per BTU.
This isn't true. Even ten years ago an 18% efficient panel would be energy positive after about about 1.5 to 2.5 years anywhere in the lower 48 states. The Silevo polycrystalline cells used by Tesla SolarCity in their Solar Roof are between 22 to 24% efficient. Then factor in that you don't need an underlying roof and the embodied energy goes down. Plus increased surface area of a Tesla solar roof vs modules on the roof will mean that the embodied energy is amortized more rapidly as some tiles will be 'working' harder than others in areas that modules never would have been placed.
The only thing that might make this system better is liquid cooling heat exchange or phase change material and/or maybe aerogel blanket beneath. Then the cell efficiency would go way up as the cells are cooled and hot water is generated for the building. Aerogel would insulate the roof. But all of that would add cost, complexity, and liability. In meantime SolarCity must focus on profit and a sustainable business model.
So the only company with a charger with a high enough charge rate that its actually usable for highway travel, the only company with an existing charger infrastructure covering almost all highway routes across the nation, the only company that offers to license all of its patents on this technology to any and all manufacturers who would wish to use it as long as they share in the costs and the ethos of open access, isn't involved in this project?
sigh.
And the worms ate into his brain.
Federal and state support should be SAE J1772 with DC fast charge and force car makers into line. No CHAdeMO, no Tesla proprietary charge, no Mennekes. A single standard. It would also help if all charge points were required by law to accept common forms of payment and not be exclusive to one make or model of vehicle. i.e. charging should be like filling up a gasoline vehicle, not some vertical thing where charge stations only support certain brands of vehicles or discriminate against competitors.
That might inconvenience people with existing vehicles (they'll have to use cables) but the long term benefit is obvious. It removes a format war, risk of verticality / monopolies and increases consumer confidence in electric vehicles.
Other regions in the world like Europe might choose Mennekes with DC fast charge as their single format but the same point applies.
No, the fact of the matter is this is Slashdot, News for Nerds. Most of us here already know these things, or at least have the gumption to do a little research so as to avoid mouthing off claims that are just plain wrong like you did.
The point is for you to go away and learn a bit for yourself, then you'll be more qualified to contribute to this discussion. It's no good us spoon feeding you now, is it?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I didn't leave out transmission losses, I specifically mentioned them. In the US the energy loss from electrical transmission is about 6.4% overall (down from about 9% in 1960), so not exactly devastating.
The environmental impact of generation is, of course, worst-case with filthy coal. Supplement it with hydro, wind, solar, nuclear and you have a much better scenario. With gasoline, you don't really have a choice - burn some planet-killing hydrocarbons or walk.
As for the battery, that is a problem. But much less than you might think. Li-Ion batteries are ridiculously easy to recycle and as for the weight you must remember that an electric car has very few moving parts. No engine block, no transmission (no pun intended). No need for a carburetter/injection system, clutch, fuel tank, oil sump. All these parts add significant weight to an ICE car as well as being points of failure.
Not sure where you got that 2x weight figure from. Are you aware that a Nissan Leaf weighs 3,354 pounds? A 2012 Toyota Camry weighs 3,190 pounds, or 5% less than the Leaf? That's not cherry picked BTW, just what I could find in limited time. If you can find a reliable source for that double weight claim, please direct me to it.
I fail to see how hazards to line workers comes into this, given that every town in the US already has electricity so far as I know. Perhaps you're referring to the fact that your national grid is extremely poorly maintained and in desperate need of an upgrade *regardless* of whether there is an increase in load due to electric vehicles.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
That is a good thing, which is why I mentioned that the plug type is as it is... because both sides do a handshake first before power is turned on. Otherwise someone would stick some bolts in the holes, get shocked, then go sue for a lot of cash. The J1772 design is pretty cool, where a relay flips power off before the plug is completely removed, which saves the physical connectors from pitting due to arcing.
The 2012 Camry LE has a 17 gallon gas tank and EPA mileage rating of 25 - 35 mpg, which means it can travel 425 to 595 miles on a single "charge". The Leaf can travel 107 miles on a single charge, and is a smaller car to start with. It would be more fair to compare vehicles similar in size, range and luxuriousness.
Tesla Model S = 4,608 to 4,936 lbs; range = 208 to 315 miles. Cadillac ATS = 3,373 to 3,571 lbs; range 320 - 480 miles. So, roughly 38% heavier (and the Caddy gets even lighter if you take out enough gas to limit its range to that of the Tesla). Certainly not double the weight, but significantly heavier, and proportionally harder on road surfaces.
Please clarify.
Table-ized A.I.
I'll do your homework for you when you start to pay me. I gave the argument and someone else easily gave the same exact point. How about YOU do YOUR OWN work and tell us what the benefit is. Dipshits like you are the ones running around demanding everyone do what you say, without facts to back your bullshit claims. GIVE US THE FACTS, or STFU and go sit back in your playpen.
|
Most Slashdotters aren't lazy fucks who shy away from crunching the numbers. Or at least, they didn't used to be.
Then again, we've also seen this trend over and over again in various forums on topics like these. Someone shouting "do the numbers for me." Then someone steps in and does. And then the cry is "your numbers are bullshit" because you don't WANT to believe what you're shown.
After seeing this cycle over and over again, it gets old, and we stop wasting our time.
The 2012 Camry LE has a 17 gallon gas tank and EPA mileage rating of 25 - 35 mpg, which means it can travel 425 to 595 miles on a single "charge". The Leaf can travel 107 miles on a single charge, and is a smaller car to start with. It would be more fair to compare vehicles similar in size, range and luxuriousness.
My 2016 Leaf is certainly a lot more comfortable and luxurious than any Camry I've ever been in. They're about the same size -- the camry is 15 inches longer, though they have equivalent passenger room. Range... well, of course the camry is going to beat the Leaf on range. Most gas cars will beat nearly all electric cars when it comes to range. There's really no point in trying to compare cars of similar ranges right now. I'd even say doing so is comparing apples and oranges. I mean that because I've found you do have to treat the electric car differently -- it will be a mistake to think it's a drop-in replacement for the ICE car. It's not just a regular car that plug in instead of filled.
I love driving my electric car, but I'm aware of its limitations. Long trips are something I will rarely do with the electric, and doing so will make that trip longer, but it's superior is almost every other case.
I'm not sure what the problem with that plug is, other than the space it takes up. Nice thing is, you'll have no problem figuring out how to plug it in (which end up) even in the dark.
The picture you linked is a combination cable which has AC and DC charging capabilities. The AC charging is the round plug on top, and the two smaller circles on the bottom are the DC charger. If you have a station which does not have DC fast charging capabilities, then they might elect for their charger to come without those two smaller circle connectors on the bottom. The J1772 wiki page has a graphic art representing both schemes. That's also known as the "Combined Charging Scheme."
The Nissan Leaf comes with a J1772 AC-only plug (most J1772 chargers are not the combo version) and a Chademo DC fast-charge.
Tesla's charger was patented, but Musk open sourced the patents two years ago. Now, that said, J1772 is a much older standard, in use for electric cars since 2001. The first Tesla roadster came out in 2008, and they decided to avoid the standard plug designs and make their own.
I've actually driven and used the J1772 plugs - they are freaking SLOW compared to supercharging even though the supercharger plug is simpler. Can someone explain this?
A Tesla supercharger is a very fast DC power, but the equipment is extremely expensive and you have to have a fairly beefy connection to the electrical grid. The Combo SAE and the Chademo fast charge can also both charge quicker than your AC-only J1772 which is a much lower power plug, usually running at 6.6kW or 11kW. You don't need to be able to draw as much as fast. An 11kW charger will give me around 11 miles of range in a half-hour charge. The DC fast charge will give me around 100 miles of range in a half-hour charge. That's a lot of electricity!
At work, we have a number of J1772 plugs for daytime charging. The typical charging station costs $1000-$2000 there. When our facilities manager looked into seeing if we could install a fast-charger, he found that the BASE model for this ran around $30k, and it would have required extensive electrical improvements as well. That's why the slower J1772s are more prevalent.
I did come off a bit negative on electric cars, I am interested, But I am also not convinced the best path to reducing our environmental footprint is battery cars.
> I didn't leave out transmission losses, I specifically mentioned them.
You underestimate the true losses with that. It takes a lot more energy to build and maintain the grid, which is not capable of supporting more than a small percentage of households having electric cars today. For example is a gas pipeline and gas tanker 100% efficient, because all the oil that goes in comes out? The cost is as good of estimate of the true environmental cost, and it is currently $.05 to generate electric, but $.12 for electric delivered.
Your correct I vastly overstated the weight difference.
>Tesla Model S = 4,608 to 4,936 lbs; range = 208 to 315 miles.
the 85 kwHr even by Tesla's numbers is maxed at 265 miles. The weight you stated is not for that P100D. To be fair the Tesla is 2* the weight of my Chevy Cavalier which also has a 300 mile range. Definitely difficult to compare apples to apples, as they electric does fill a vastly different purpose today.
> whether there is an increase in load due to electric vehicles.
I don't agree. With solar, battery packs, low cost standby generators... Were now able to make self sustainable houses with very little need for a grid, with few downsides. If we don't try and charge cars off the grid, we could be looking to downsize, and at least eliminate the huge interconnects into residential. The mega and always growing electric grid just cannot ever eliminate it's huge footprint, if we keep finding new uses for it.
Why?