Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

After Emissions Scandal, Volkswagen Pledges Charging Stations Across The US (siliconvalley.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the clean-air-acts dept.

Here's how the Volkswagen emissions scandal ends in California -- and the rest of America. An anonymous reader quotes the Bay Area News Group: In a decision with lasting implications for the growth of electric vehicles, state regulators on Thursday approved Volkswagen's plan to invest nearly $1 billion in California's EV network as penalty for its diesel-emission cheating scandal... San Jose and San Francisco are two of six cities slated for expanded community charging stations. A Volkswagen subsidiary, Electrify America, also will target low-income communities for at least 35 percent of the projects... The first phase calls for $120 million to build 400 charging stations with between 2,000 and 3,000 chargers. About $75 million will be used to develop a high-speed, highway charging network, mostly consisting of 150 kilowatt fast-chargers. The other $45 million will build community charging stations in six metro areas: San Jose, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, Los Angeles and San Diego. Another $44 million will build a "Green City" in Sacramento. It will provide access to zero-emission vehicles to low-income residents, through ride-sharing and other programs. As part of the 10-year comprehensive plan, Electrify America will build a nationwide network of fast-charging stations with universal technology.
That nationwide network is expected to cost another $2 billion.

142 comments

  1. Hitler Has His Hooks In America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Why Is Trump Allowing?

    1. Re:Hitler Has His Hooks In America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      To make Shillary Hitler's fans turn against electric because they hate anything Trump approves of down to eating and sleeping.

  2. " zero-emission vehicles to low-income residents" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Cool. New public lavatories!

  3. Low income communities by tquasar · · Score: 0

    Can people in low income areas afford a new electric car? Southern California to Las Vegas should be a priority for an EV network.

    1. Re:Low income communities by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      They're actually pretty (relatively) cheap now-a-days.

      https://electrek.co/2017/07/26...
      http://www.carsdirect.com/deal...

    2. Re:Low income communities by mentil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Low-income area means people who can only afford a used Corolla, not a new $35k car. Those subsidies are going bye-bye long before the lower classes are going to be able to afford electric cars (and of course, a tax credit means nothing if your net income tax each year is $0.)

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    3. Re:Low income communities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they can only qualify for onerous loans provided by the used car sales company. Where the interest on the car will be more than the value of the car itself.

    4. Re:Low income communities by tquasar · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's true.

    5. Re:Low income communities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Fuck the vultures.

    6. Re:Low income communities by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 0

      That raises a good point: the EV market is still a bit iffy. Buying a second hand car always carries a risk, but unless you get a real lemon, any repair work that may be needed will still be more or less affordable, and a more or less knowledgable person can inspect the trouble spots before he buys. But a second hand EV? When that battery goes, you're looking at a replacement costing over $10.0000.

      There was at least one car maker here (forgot which, I think it was a French one), that offered EVs with leased batteries. You buy the car but rent the batterym which gets replaced when needed. Makes sense even for the kind of people who buy new cars and sell them on after 4 years, as it makes selling the car a lot easier.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:Low income communities by ls671 · · Score: 2

      But a second hand EV? When that battery goes, you're looking at a replacement costing over $10.0000.

      I am not sure how much money that is but I can't make it come close to the cost of a new battery.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    8. Re:Low income communities by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      (and of course, a tax credit means nothing if your net income tax each year is $0.)

      That depends on how the credit is implemented. If it's an actual tax credit then you get a rebate for the amount of the credit, anyway. If it's just a tax discount then it isn't. The word "credit" is often used erroneously when it comes to taxes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Low income communities by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Or you buy a Hyundai. Since 2012 their EVs have come with a transferrable lifetime battery warranty and they have a 6/60k bumper to bumper and 10/100k powertrain warranty. Anyone who buys any EV right now which is not a Hyundai is doing themselves and everyone else a disservice, because the standard should be a lifetime battery warranty.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Low income communities by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      10k

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    11. Re:Low income communities by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      EV batteries last the lifetime of the car anyway. By the time the battery is worn out, the car will have fallen apart around it.

      Taxi companies have Leafs with over 200k miles and >80% remaining. Some Tesla owners are over 400k with the same.

      If you can get a home charger and the range is okay, used EV, especially a Leaf, is a great cheap car. Maintenance is low, fuel costs are low, and the buy price is ridiculously low.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re: Low income communities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Renault

    13. Re:Low income communities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a tax credit means nothing if your net income tax each year is $0.

      Wrong. A tax deduction is worthless in that case, but a tax credit would be refunded to the taxpayer in that case.

    14. Re:Low income communities by grumling · · Score: 1

      "Similar to a mechanical device that wears out faster with heavy use, the depth of discharge (DoD) determines the cycle count of the battery. The smaller the discharge (low DoD), the longer the battery will last. If at all possible, avoid full discharges and charge the battery more often between uses. Partial discharge on Li-ion is fine. There is no memory and the battery does not need periodic full discharge cycles to prolong life."

      http://batteryuniversity.com/l...

      The linked page includes a chart showing the relationship between depth of discharge and number of charge cycles. If I were to guess I imagine electric car drivers are charging daily/nightly when the car is parked at home and just leaving it on the charger when it is in the garage, even though they might have over 50% capacity remaining. Similar to smartphone users who are in the habit of plugging the phone in to charge when they are in the car or sleeping.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    15. Re:Low income communities by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Most, if not all EVs, won't let you discharge the battery below safe levels. For example, the original Leaf had a 24KWh battery, but you could only actually use about 22KWh of energy from it at most. Then the car would shut down and prevent you doing any damage. Naturally the remaining battery % and range displays were calibrated to account for that.

      Older Leafs have a special 80% charge mode that stops charging at, you guessed it, 80%. It was called "long life mode". The newer ones don't have it, Nissan realized that it was pointless. In fact, those taxi firms I mentioned have been doing multiple rapid charges every day, followed by a 100% charge over night.

      I actually miss the 80% charge option, simply because when you charge to 100% the regen doesn't work for the first few kilometres. I like having the regen on high as you can pretty much drive with just the accelerator, rarely needing to use the actual brake. The new Leaf, due in September, takes that to the next level with a "one pedal mode" that will bring the car to a full stop if you come off the gas completely.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:Low income communities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can get a home charger

      Many people in California are renters because the home prices here are insanely unaffordable, especially in coastal areas where the good jobs are. Try getting your landlord to install a home charging station. With so many renters and rental demand rising every year, it's easy to get rid of problem tenants like those who demand home EV chargers or want to install solar panels on the roof or some other such hassle. Owning an EV makes much less sense if you don't also own your own home and here in California, many of us don't own our own homes.

    17. Re: Low income communities by thundercattt · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same. How will this be good for someone in an apartment building with 30 tenants or where you have to park your car 5 blocks from the apartment building like NY.

    18. Re:Low income communities by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of Renault. Nissan also does it as an option on the Leaf.

      It may lower the sticker price on a new car, but it's a really bad idea. First of all, battery degradation has shown not to be an issue. Pretty much the batteries tend to have a useful life the same as the car itself. And they are unlikely to have a complete failure and need replacing.

      But rather than making selling a car easier, it makes it very much more difficult. People who are buying a used car rarely want to get roped in to an obligation to pay a monthly fee to lease the battery.

      All in all the battery leasing experiment has been a bad one.

    19. Re: Low income communities by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      These types of things aren't for the plebs like us. They are for the high up corporate types. You know the ones that make $300k/yr and cant budget in how they're going to afford having a kid.

    20. Re: Low income communities by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Ultimately there will be charge points most places that cars are parked. Every stall in a car park. Every parking spot by the side of the road.

      But even as it stands right now, there are apartment dwellers that have bought EVs. It just needs more planning. If you're just doing short trips around town, you probably don't need to charge every day, but perhaps twice a week. And rapid chargers can charge batteries in a reasonable amount of time now. 30 mins gives a lot of charge.

      Right now you probably need to be an enthusiast of you don't have your own off street parking. But with improving ranges and more chargers each year, and increasing charging speeds, the gap will only get smaller.

    21. Re:Low income communities by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Tesla's battery warranty isn't bad.

      8 year unlimited milage on the Model S & X.

      8 year 100K or 120K on the Model 3.

    22. Re:Low income communities by rfengr · · Score: 1

      I bought a used 2015 Leaf with 19k miles for $8,500. Great little car.

    23. Re:Low income communities by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Tesla's battery warranty isn't bad.

      Compared to Hyundai's, it is garbage. I only tend to drive cars which are at least ten years old, and usually closer to twenty. (My "new" ride is a 1998 A8 Quattro. It's replacing a 1982 300SD.) Assuming we're still allowed to drive cars that old, and drive ourselves, in that time I can buy a Hyundai Ioniq and know that the battery will cost me $0. That means that the resale value of the vehicle will probably be much higher than any other EV anywhere near its class even at ten years. A Model S will be worth more, but a Model 3 will be worth less. And by then I will probably give no fucks about performance and I will be pleased as punch to just have a car that works like an ordinary car, which is pretty much that vehicle's claim to fame.

      Most people don't want to own a car that old, but that is ridiculous. Around a third of the average car's energy consumption is in its production. Why not get that down to a sixth? The cars simply aren't built to last that long, because it doesn't make enough money, and we haven't been demanding it. But now that every automaker is basically competent, and practically all vehicles have sporty performance (unless they are the most econo of boxes) they are having to compete on quality because it is actually cheap. It hardly costs any more to make a car which will last twice as long. Chew on that for a while.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Low income communities by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I tend to buy cars that are 3-5 years old, and then drive them into the ground. So I know where you are coming from. But I don't expect any warranty.

      And with an EV I don't think I'd need one on the battery. Time has shown that they are far more reliable and long lasting than people would think.

      But in any case, if you are buying cars that are 1-+ years old, you can't expect the car industry to care less what you want.

    25. Re:Low income communities by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But in any case, if you are buying cars that are 1-+ years old, you can't expect the car industry to care less what you want.

      I don't, but I do expect them to care about what customers want, and customers want resale value. It's not their first consideration, but it is a consideration.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re: Low income communities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some can afford EVs. They will still need a charging infrastructure before buying.

      The poor can buy second-hand, as always.

    27. Re:Low income communities by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      They might not be able to afford a new 35K car. But a used Nissan Leaf (7.5K-15K) might well be in reach, and is worth considering if a limited-range car will suit their needs and they have a place to charge it. Electricity is cheaper than gas, and maintenance costs for the Leaf will be lower so long as the battery is still in good condition.

    28. Re:Low income communities by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      A lot of us haven't had the opportunity to buy one because they're not 50 state cars; they're only sold in limited areas. The upcoming longer range version of the Ioniq (not the 124 mile version being sold now) will be Hyundai's first 50 state EV.

    29. Re:Low income communities by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      It depends on whether or not it is a refundable tax credit. Many are not, including the federal EV tax credit. In other words, you only get the full credit if you owe at least that much tax. Non-refundable tax credits are a perverse incentive; they punish people for being TOO POOR. (Major gripe: the federal tax credits for education are also non-refundable.) If you can't take advantage of the credit, you're better off leasing the car (the leasing company gets the credit and reduces your rate accordingly) and buying it out when the lease ends.

      You could also just buy a used car; the original owner got the tax credit so the used price is reduced accordingly. That's why a used Nissan Leaf sells for so much less than the sticker price. But if you need a long range EV there aren't any used options currently; a Tesla Model S would be too expensive and the Chevy Bolt is too new for any significant number of used ones to be available. It will be a while before you can buy a used Tesla Model 3, a long-range Hyundai Ioniq, or any other future long-range EV.

    30. Re:Low income communities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the time this gets rolled out, a used Leaf will probably be in the $3K - $5K range, and the battery life on them is outlasting expectations. So there is a reasonable expectation that you could see a lot of these in lower income areas. What would be even more beneficial would be to have them subsidize replacing the batteries on those used cars.

    31. Re:Low income communities by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Silly Europian inverting commas and dots. In Europian notation, it would have been 10.000,000. Yep! that is correct! This is a correct representation of 10K.

      Nice reply although, 10k seems simpler to me indeed ;-)

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  4. 10 year plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They propose to (maybe) pay there fines over 10 years. Next time I get a parking ticket I will also propose a 10 year plan without making any binding promises.

    1. Re:10 year plan? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      "Don't charge us, we promise to charge ourselves!"

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:10 year plan? by ls671 · · Score: 1

      We already offer a 10 year plan for parking tickets without any binding promises:
      You come to jail and do some work in our factory unit every week-end for ten years. If you miss a week-en or if you are late, you do your full time.

      The Chief Justice,

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    3. Re: 10 year plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've already paid their fines. This investment is an additional part of the settlement.

  5. Time to regulate by bobstreo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Charging stations and connectors.

    I want one standard for charging, and one type of connector, so I can drive up to any charging station without worrying about it being the wrong kind.

    It's almost as bad as if Ford, Chevrolet, Dodge, Toyota and Honda had special stations that only worked with their cars.

    1. Re:Time to regulate by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0

      It's almost as bad as if Ford, Chevrolet, Dodge, Toyota and Honda had special stations that only worked with their cars.

      That wouldn't really be a problem for the bigger auto makers. It would be a value-add and people could make their choices based on it.

    2. Re:Time to regulate by ckatko · · Score: 2

      >I want one standard for charging, and one type of connector, so I can drive up to any charging station without worrying about it being the wrong kind.

      While clearly that's ideal. I'm not sure how hard it would be. I mean, some cars will be able to charge faster than others. So even if the charger "knows" the maximum rate, the charger may not be rated as high and it'll still charge slower. And this is assuming all vehicles are running the exact same voltage at the connector and converting it to what they need. Except that could also be a PITA because then the internal voltage converter is going to have to take up weight, may be physically large, and is an additional conversion efficiency loss (read: lots of heat).

      I'm sure a "best compromise" can be made. But it's certainly not a simple endeavor. We don't know what electric cars are going to be like in 2030, or even 2020. What if a new battery technology comes out (with drastically different charging profile / voltage / current ratings) and all our chargers are "adapted" to lithium-ion? We'll need another "compatibility layer" on top of the existing one which could be another source of inefficiency (supporting "new" chargers and "old, 2017" chargers requiring separate large DC-DC transformers). Who knows.

      Whatever "standard" comes out really needs to be a group effort with FORWARD compatibility as a key.

    3. Re:Time to regulate by Calydor · · Score: 1

      And then Ford manages to monopolize a 100 mile radius, so if you have friends visiting who drive a Honda they need to make special arrangements just to avoid running out of gas.

      This would surely be beneficial for all of society.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:Time to regulate by mentil · · Score: 0

      So you're saying you want it in USB Type-C format? That kilowatt charger will turn your Apple Macbook into a Samsung real quick!

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    5. Re:Time to regulate by tquasar · · Score: 1

      Good point. What if you had five gas and electric companies to choose from? I'm indebited to SDG&E who made ratepayers pay the cost of a failed energy project. SONGS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    6. Re:Time to regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As with many things it's the EU who's leading on this front. They will adopt and mandate a standard connector and rest of the world will follow suit.

      Another possibility is for everyone else to adopt Tesla's connector. Didn't Tesla include that when they released their patents to be used by the competition loyalty free. This will be the most logical choice since it'll be Tesla who'll supply the majority of the battery to other auto manufacturers. People forget that Musk started a car company as a proof of concept. What he wanted to do was to sell batteries to other car companies. Maybe it's time for Musk to split up Tesla Motors with Tesla. Other car companies will be reluctant to purchase key component from a active competitor.

    7. Re:Time to regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the all the future charging stations had another purpose as a mini electrical substation? Switching will be easier with existing infrastructure of a substation. Maybe instead of having a one large substation, that work be broken down to swarm of mini substations.

    8. Re:Time to regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good plan! I propose to use the European charging connector, and replace all charging stations in the US, and ban everyone from developing a faster charger that would require a connector with a larger electrical contact area (more current) or larger spark creep distance (more voltage).

    9. Re:Time to regulate by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      While clearly that's ideal. I'm not sure how hard it would be. I mean, some cars will be able to charge faster than others. So even if the charger "knows" the maximum rate, the charger may not be rated as high and it'll still charge slower.

      So? Let it charge slower. The problem is not being able to plug in in the first place. The open fast charging standards already negotiate the charging rate, that's not what the GP is complaining about.

      We'll need another "compatibility layer"

      There already are compatibility layers.

    10. Re:Time to regulate by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The standard is SAE J1772-2009.

      The only EV manufacturer that doesn't have a J1772 port is Tesla, but they still include an adapter for it.

      Some US manufacturers want to use the CCS1 plug style, which is backwards-compatible with J1772.
      =Smidge=

    11. Re:Time to regulate by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I want one standard for charging, and one type of connector, so I can drive up to any charging station without worrying about it being the wrong kind.

      Normally I'm not against government regulating standardisation, but why regulate this? The industry is already converging. These chargers will be CCS which is backed by the majors and even Teslas can be charged from CCS stations.

      I am against regulating after the fact for something that is already sorted.

    12. Re:Time to regulate by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
      You must regulate to avoid some company playing the "embrace, extend and extinguish" game. At some point some one will try to fragment the converging standard. Unix had a common protocol for authentication and file system sharing. Microsoft came up with Active Directory that allowed unix hosts to be controlled by AD but windows machines could not be controlled by unix servers. You don't want any vendor to play this game.

      Right now electric vehicles are bought by people who do the research and learn the facts before buying. If it hist mass market, there will be lots of less informed buyers. Uninformed consumers mess up the workings of the invisible hand of the free market.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    13. Re:Time to regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost as bad as if Ford, Chevrolet, Dodge, Toyota and Honda had special stations that only worked with their cars.

      You already have different pumps for different cars and people developing charging stations already think about having multiple connectors.

      Why are you are painting up an unrealistic nightmare scenario?

    14. Re:Time to regulate by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Nissan and Tesla are really the only outliers at this point as far as I'm aware. Everyone else uses J1772 + Combo.

    15. Re:Time to regulate by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      That standard only supports up to 240V/50A AC charging.

      The issue is in the standardisation of DC charging.

      Thankfully, CCS1 seems to be winning the race at the moment. It's likely that VW will install only CCS1 stations, since their US cars all use it. But Nissan and Tesla are still notable holdouts on not using CCS1.

    16. Re:Time to regulate by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Maybe it will take the European Union to make this happen, since they did make equivalent happen for mobile phones? With the anti-regulation stance of the current US administration, I see it less likely happening there, hence believing it will be the EU who will make it happen, if industry doesn't gets its act together first.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    17. Re:Time to regulate by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Most fuel stations provide at least one grade of diesel and at least one kind of petrol. Mandating a small number of connectors for different vehicle capabilities isn't a problem, especially if they're designed so that the high-current ones support a lower-current supply and gracefully fall back to the slower mode.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:Time to regulate by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3

      Standards like CHAdeMO and CCS allow the vehicle to tell the charger what voltage to produce and query the maximum available current.

      The chargers use switch mode power supplies too convert AC to DC with high efficiency. They can produce a wide range of voltages.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:Time to regulate by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Yea, you think regulating it is a bad thing until you realize you've been pay fifty cents per kilowatt-hour and somehow only the VW charging stations deliver half that power to you...

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    20. Re:Time to regulate by Rei · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And chargers already do that. They're not simple plugs, there's negotiation with the vehicle over charge rates before the charge begins.

      I was reading over VW's plan... and I have to say, while it's not quite as ambitious as Tesla's, it's a lot more substantial than I expected. 450 stations with 2500 chargers in the US, a mix of 150kW and 350kW chargers, over the next two years. Tesla is currently at 140kW per charger, with plans to unveil an "over 350kW" charger soon. Tesla has 909 stations with 6118 superchargers in the US either present or in permitting/construction.

      So while VW is not being quite as ambitious as Tesla, it's still a serious effort. And it makes me take VW's future EV offerings more seriously. I have trouble taking seriously any EV manufacturer who's not willing to put forth serious money into making a fast charging network; it shows that they don't actually believe that their vehicles are the future, that they just want to make a non-mass-market hair shirt to get the hippies to stop complaining.

      --
      So, apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
    21. Re:Time to regulate by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You must regulate to avoid some company playing the "embrace, extend and extinguish" game.

      No you don't. Embrace Extend Extinguish only works if you have a monopoly. The car market on the other hand is competitive.

    22. Re:Time to regulate by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No, I'm just capable of following a conversation and don't construe other people's words to mean something completely irrelevant that isn't at all being discussed, e.g. the sale of electricity when we're talking about connector compatibility.

    23. Re:Time to regulate by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      You can't monopolize electricity. It's much more fungible than gasoline. If there are people who need electricity to operate their car, somebody else will make it available.

    24. Re:Time to regulate by Rei · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the current is capped. So for example, if you have a 500V charger and connect a 350V vehicle, the maximum deliverable power would be 70% of what the charger could theoretically provide. Contrarily, if you had a 350V charger, and a 500V vehice showed up, it wouldn't be able to charge at all. So there is some balance involved.

      Adapters can themselves be capped, too. For example, Tesla's CHAdeMO adapters appear to cap at around 43kW, regardless of what the charger is theoretically capable of.

      The mix of standards isn't a disaster, but it is a problem that I hope gets ironed out sooner rather than later. And I really hope it's not a "one standard for Europe, one for Japan, one for the US...." situation that's terrible for people moving overseas and slows down overseas deliveries of new vehicles. Even Tesla, which has their own standard in the US, can't ship its US vehicles to Europe because in Europe they use Type 2 connectors.

      --
      So, apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
    25. Re:Time to regulate by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Not if every brand of car has its own specialized and highly patented plug, they won't. Of course with a minor computer interface to be able to apply the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions against anyone trying to reverse-engineer the plug.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    26. Re:Time to regulate by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It would be bad for consumers. Only being able to use a subset of chargers is a negative. The more different incompatible systems, the worse it is.

    27. Re:Time to regulate by certsoft · · Score: 1

      Tesla's can't charge from a CCS plug. While Tesla does have an adapter for CHAdeMo, they haven't come out with one for CCS.

    28. Re:Time to regulate by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Sorry yes you're right. Got the two mixed up.

    29. Re: Time to regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a standard, Mennekes/CCS, and everybody except for Tesla is using it.

    30. Re:Time to regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you get how DC charging works, do you?

      With AC charging, all the "charger" is, is just a relay. Just bullshit marketing to call it a "charger". (It might also be a current sensing device and a microcontroller. Wow.... like $100 of parts max... but most sell for MUCH more.)

      With AC "charging" (level 1 and level 2 in normal person speak), the car itself has the charging circuitry that sends current into the battery.

      With DC charging, the station itself has this circuitry. The car side has relay contacts that go directly to the battery. That means, it's actually really hard to have interopability between DC charging techniques between vendors. Not impossible, but expect any regulation in DC charging to stifle innovation.

    31. Re:Time to regulate by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      I think a single standard, even a very flexible one, at this point would slow progress.

      The battery tech is on the way to allow full charges in less than 5 minutes. If the vehicle has a 100 kWH pack, delivering 100 kWH in 5 minutes requires more than 1200 kW on the feed. So, something like a 12 kW feed at 100 amps. Try to get that through your current standard connector.

      Instead of standardizing the feed to the vehicle, what they should standardize is the feed to the "pump" and they should make that extreme. Build the stations with something like 20 kW per pump capacity (perhaps 100 kW for stations serving trucks). Then come up with a "pump" standard that takes multiple plugin modules that convert to the vehicle needs. There would still need to be some standardization to keep the numbers of modules that the station has to have on hand down, but the costs of change would be vastly less.

    32. Re:Time to regulate by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      There is a new charging technology out which will charge 25% in 5 minutes and 90% in 15 minutes. Sounds very promising.

      It uses a water cooled connector. It might require a new connector.

      I agree that I hope they all use the same connector. Tesla released so many patents to encourage electric cars.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    33. Re:Time to regulate by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      If the consumers are not informed, market will be fragmented. Microsoft did not have any monopoly in authentication servers and protocols. It made PC with absolutely minimal security. All unix workstations had an agreed upon standard, protocol. Microsoft, a late comer subverted the protocols and fragmented the market because it peeled of customers from unix yellow pages authenticaion servers. The IT bosses demanding their company PCs be centrally controlled and authenticated were severely misinformed and unaware of the history and the protocols.

      Multiple car companies might agree on a standard, but a new comer can "Extend" the standard, and fragment the market.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    34. Re:Time to regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would a manufacturer of electric cars be any more interested in building and exploiting an electric charger network than a manufacturer of cars with internal combustion engines is in building and exploiting a network of petrol stations?

    35. Re:Time to regulate by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If the consumers are not informed, market will be fragmented.

      Not at all. Fragmentation doesn't just come from ignorance, it comes from market power. Even an uninformed consumer quickly gets informed when their new toy doesn't work.

      Microsoft did not have any monopoly in authentication servers and protocols.

      No they had a monopoly on the systems that connect to these servers which allowed them among other things to drive the major benefit of Active Directory forward. If Unix workstations were the dominant machines then Microsoft's additions never would have made a dent in the market. You need incredible market power in the "extend" step of the EEE process.

    36. Re:Time to regulate by Rei · · Score: 1

      Why would a manufacturer of electric cars be any more interested in building and exploiting an electric charger network than a manufacturer of cars with internal combustion engines is in building and exploiting a network of petrol stations?

      How many people would buy petrol cars if there were no gas stations to fill at?

      Building a charging network means that you actually think that EVs are / will shortly be a mainstream thing for normal people, including people that actually go places, rather than just a hair shirt for hippies who are willing to put up with any inconvenience no matter how great for the benefit of Mother Earth.

      --
      So, apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
    37. Re:Time to regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many people would buy petrol cars if there were no gas stations to fill at?

      Petrol stations were built by oil companies because there was demand. Car manufacturers never built petrol stations in any significant numbers, if at all.

      Building a charging network means that you actually think that EVs are / will shortly be a mainstream thing for normal people, including people that actually go places, rather than just a hair shirt for hippies who are willing to put up with any inconvenience no matter how great for the benefit of Mother Earth.

      Lots of companies are building charging stations, usually energy companies, for which that is a logical step. I do not see why car manufacturers should need to get in this market. If they think it is a good business opportunity for them, good, but it is by no means a necessary condition for electric cars to become succesful.

    38. Re:Time to regulate by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      I do understand how DC charging works, and none of what you said contradicts anything at all that I said. It may be really hard, but it's slowly being solved. Several vendors have already standardised:

      Cars with CCS1:
        - VW eGolf
        - Chevy Bolt
        - Chevy Spark
        - BMW i3
        - Ford Focus electric

      Cars with CHAdeMO:
        - Nissan Leaf

      Cars with Tesla DC charging:
        - Tesla Model S
        - Tesla Model X

      Cars that are coming out soon supporting CCS:
        - Audi Q6 electric
        - Jaguar iPace
        - Porsche Mission E
        - Mercedes Generation EQ
        - Ford Explorer EV

      Cars coming soon with CHAdeMO:

      Cars coming soon with Tesla DC dhargnging:
        - Tesla Model 3.

      As you can see, this already pretty much is standardised. CCS has won.

    39. Re:Time to regulate by Rei · · Score: 1

      Petrol stations were built by oil companies because there was demand. Car manufacturers never built petrol stations in any significant numbers, if at all.

      Yes, and partly because of that it took half a century (1880s to 1920/1930s) before car ownership became widespread. Gas stations weren't the only problem, but they were a major one, particularly early on. Gasoline was originally unpredictable, in different formulations that may or may not work with a given vehicle, dispensed slowly and manually, sold from random corner shops in unpredictable locations, often far apart. Sound like anything being faced by the EV industry at present? The world's first custom filling station wasn't even built until 1905. The first drive-in station, not until 1913.

      I'll repeat: "How many people would buy petrol cars if there were no gas stations to fill at?" Because that's the situation being faced by EV buyers today. And we don't want to wait half a century for the chicken-and-egg problem to resolve itself.

      Lots of companies are building charging stations, usually energy companies, for which that is a logical step

      This is simply not true. High-power charging stations (aka, meaningful ones for road trips - 120+kW) are thusfar overwhelmingly only being built by Tesla. Nissan has a decent-sized network of CHAdeMOs, but they're only about 50kW and too slow for most people to consider for road trips.

      but it is by no means a necessary condition for electric cars to become succesful.

      Right, EVs are totally going to take over from gasoline cars if people can't take long trips in them. Totally.

      --
      So, apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
    40. Re:Time to regulate by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree, you have a point here.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    41. Re:Time to regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll repeat: "How many people would buy petrol cars if there were no gas stations to fill at?" Because that's the situation being faced by EV buyers today. And we don't want to wait half a century for the chicken-and-egg problem to resolve itself.

      You can repeat that a billion times if you like, but it still doesn't answer the question why they should specifically be built by car manufacturers.

      This is simply not true. High-power charging stations (aka, meaningful ones for road trips - 120+kW) are thusfar overwhelmingly only being built by Tesla.

      Ah, you're moving goalposts to high-power charging stations, which are only now starting to be built in significant numbers. And it doesn't answer the original question.

      but it is by no means a necessary condition for electric cars to become succesful.

      Right, EVs are totally going to take over from gasoline cars if people can't take long trips in them. Totally.

      Can you explain how using a charging station along the way is somehow only possible if it was built by a car manufacturer? I don't see your logic.

    42. Re:Time to regulate by Rei · · Score: 1

      You can repeat that a billion times if you like, but it still doesn't answer the question why they should specifically be built by car manufacturers.

      Because it shows *they don't plan on their vehicles being a hair shirt for hippies*. How many times and ways do I need to state this? It means "I'm not content for it to take half a century to scale up". It means "I want this to be a mass market vehicle". And on and on and on.

      This is simply not true. High-power charging stations (aka, meaningful ones for road trips - 120+kW) are thusfar overwhelmingly only being built by Tesla.

      Ah, you're moving goalposts to high-power charging stations

      No, you apparently can't read. "I have trouble taking seriously any EV manufacturer who's not willing to put forth serious money into making a fast charging network"

      which are only now starting to be built in significant numbers.

      Wrong. Tesla has been making them for years, and now has thousands. They're on V2 of their superchargers and will soon be releasing V3. The only thing that's happening now is - and once again back to my original point which you apparently didn't read but appear to be agreeing with in this statement: it's nice to finally see other manufacturers building a serious fast charging network as well.

      Can you explain how using a charging station along the way is somehow only possible if it was built by a car manufacturer?

      If it's not built by a car manufacturer then there are none. Because random private entities don't pour capital into making charging stations for vehicles that don't yet exist in sufficient numbers to justify their investment, and the vehicles don't come to exist in large numbers unless there are charging stations for them to charge at. It's a very simple equation.

      Selling EVs without also making a fast charging network is like selling cell phones without a cell network. Nobody is going to buy them. If you're making an X that also needs Y to exist to be profitable, you either make both X and Y yourself, or simultaneously partner with a partner to make Y at the same time. (If you're curious about cell phones, it's the exact same case - phone manufacturers worked in very close cooperation with telecoms to roll out the devices at the same time as rolling out towers, starting in specific regions and expanding outwards. The NTT/Motorola partnership was the first of these).

      Thanks to this big investment from Tesla having established the market, we may finally start to see private entities building their own networks.the Bay Area and some other places are starting to get full supercharger stations, making it easy to amortize the capital costs of new stations; with 500k new EVs per year coming online with the Model 3, it's easy to see the potential for profit. But it never would have gotten to this point of full, economically viable superchargers without that investment because only a small fraction as many people would have bought Model S and X vehicles without them. There would be no Model 3 because Tesla wouldn't have gotten the investment in such a large scale production plant because their sales would have been too low to make such grandiose plans realistic.

      Really, I have no clue why this concept is difficult for you.

      --
      So, apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
    43. Re: Time to regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will be the most logical choice since it'll be Tesla who'll supply the majority of the battery to other auto manufacturers.

      No it won't.

    44. Re:Time to regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't monopolize electricity.

      Really? I live in a municipality where we have a single power company that provides power for, what, a 100 mile radius region? My gut says 70%+ of the US is like that (due to regulations, bureaucracy, etc.). How many places actually have -choice- about where they buy their electricity from?

      Along those lines, I've always thought that without alternate sources of electricity, electric car pushers are going to cut off their noses despite their faces; while your local gas stations all offering a similar price may ~seem~ to be collusion, the reality is that they are in competition and you'll still have sources if one of the companies goes under. However, with only a single municipal source of electricity in most areas - especially with government backing - well, get ready to be held hostage.

    45. Re:Time to regulate by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      In the early stages, which we are still in, it makes sense for car companies to get involved to jump start the market. Basically, they're subsidizing charging station construction to promote car sales. The problem with that scenario is that there is an incentive for the car companies to make their charging stations proprietary (ie, Tesla Supercharger) so that other car companies don't get a free ride on the infrastructure.

      In the long run, I expect that car companies will exit the charging station business and leave it to others. Once the market for charging is established, the car companies should have no trouble finding buyers for their charging networks. It's possible that Tesla, which also has major investments in battery manufacturing and solar cells, will choose to be a major player in the charging business as well as being a car maker. I don't see Ford or GM entering the business, as they don't have Tesla's other investments to make it make sense. The major oil companies (Exxon, BP, etc.) are likely to get involved, as they already have a network of retail locations that could be repurposed for charging or have charging added as a sideline to gasoline sales.

    46. Re: Time to regulate by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Not quite true. There are some Japanese EVs that aren't available in the US that use CHAdeMO. And I have no idea what the Chinese EVs are using. But it's pretty much true for EVs that are readily available in the US and Western Europe.

    47. Re:Time to regulate by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "No, I'm just capable of following a conversation and don't construe other people's words to mean something completely irrelevant that isn't at all being discussed"

      You might be capable of following a conversation but your historical recollection is utter shit if you don't know the relationship between things being a standard and things like standards collusion (like diesel vehicle emissions testing) and the shit that goes on behind the scenes and always has since the day of Ma Bell.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    48. Re:Time to regulate by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Look please take your autism to a conversation where it matters.

    49. Re:Time to regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the EU, anyone is free to choose their electricity supplier. The power grid is maintained by government-owned companies (usually owned by a number municipal and provincial administrations) that collect a maintenance fee for each connection they serve and the power is supplied by commercial electricity providers. Consumers and business can freely choose who provides the power they consume. The market is heavily regulated, though, in order to maintain both power stability and a free market with healthy competition.

  6. Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    But it's good to see the German industrial juggernaut brought to heel. Germany must abide by the will if the US, as all of the EU ultimately has to do. Then we will destroy the BRICS' economy by political pressure or open war. Pax Americana will prevail.

    1. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      It's not the USA's fault that Europe is governed by socialists who as usual oppress their own people and suck the dicks of foreigners.

    2. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we're petrified of the only country in history to lose a war to Canada.

  7. Not the real reason by campuscodi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Their not doing it to make amends. The EV market is growing, they're just laying the groundwork for their future business.

    1. Re:Not the real reason by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Their not doing it to make amends. The EV market is growing, they're just laying the groundwork for their future business.

      All of the automakers have been waiting for someone else to handle this problem for them, because it's complicated and expensive. Real Estate is not really a thing that automakers do often. They occasionally buy a big piece someplace for a campus, but given the upcoming changes in the auto market it's unlikely that any major automaker will ever build another large factory. One Automated Vehicle has the potential to eliminate ten normal vehicles in the ideal case. Even if we see a one hundred percent increase in the number of people using cars to get around (which may be reasonable if self-driving minivans bring public transportation to the masses more cheaply than buses, and they certainly have the potential to do that) that's still up to a fivefold reduction in necessary capacity.

      Buying tons of little pieces of land in places it will be cheap to get lots of power is a PITA of an exercise, and you don't wind up owning a lot of valuable real estate, just little pieces. Nobody really wants to do it. Everyone has been hoping that the charging stations would just be there by the time they want to sell EVs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Not the real reason by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I think you are confused about who will be building the infrastructure.

      The automakers dont have anything to do with gas stations. Why would they have something to do with charging stations?

      Gas station infrastructure is mainly built and supported by the oil companies. The oil companies even pay to replace the old tanks when they start leaking. Thats a CITGO gas station, not a FORD gas station.

      Ultimately the charging stations will be built and maintained by the electric companies.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Not the real reason by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think you are confused about who will be building the infrastructure.

      Sigh.

      The automakers dont have anything to do with gas stations. Why would they have something to do with charging stations?

      Because nobody else is building them. They would like someone else to build them, which is what I said. Now VW is going to be building them, which is literally the topic of discussion at hand. Here is the pulse, and here is your finger, far from the pulse...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Not the real reason by SNRatio · · Score: 1

      Bingo. If this was to make amends the money would go to costs for treating patients with pulmonary diseases exacerbated by smog.

    5. Re:Not the real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If these automated cars end up being as dirty and nasty as public buses, they may not be as popular as you think. Here in Los Angeles the public transportation is crowded and dirty. The typical Los Angeles public bus has greasy windows, dirty or stinky seats and garbage or even excrement on the floor. Private cars will continue to prevail here because frankly the general public are a bunch of dirty slobs.

    6. Re:Not the real reason by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      But VW isnt actually going to build them.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    7. Re:Not the real reason by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The EV market isn't growing because people want EVs. It's growing because of massive goverment subsidies and CARB regulations requiring a certain percentage of automaker's sales be ZEV (zero emissions vehicles). EVs are currently the only viable ZEV, although Toyota has sold a few hydrogen vehicles (friend of mine has one - it too has massive subsidies). If you can't meet the ZEV percentage, you get banned from selling vehicles in California. And since about a dozen states automatically adopt CARB's rules (including New York), you end up banned from selling cars to more than a third of the U.S. population.

      So every automaker makes and sells EVs regardless of whether or not it's a good idea. (Or buys ZEV credits from a manufacturer who sells excess EVs, like Tesla - this is what keeps Tesla afloat). This is the most massive experimental social engineering program I've seen in my lifetime. We don't yet know if EVs are the right solution to clean energy for transportation, but people in government have decided that it is and are mandating them. You see, EVs (and hydrogen vehicles) aren't truly zero emissions. The energy to push these vehicles forward has to come from somewhere. EVs don't eliminate pollution, they merely transfer the pollution production to a power plant somewhere. So as long as we're generating electricity from fossil fuels, EVs will be powered by fossil fuels.

      There is one technology which truly is zero emissions - ethanol. It's a closed cycle. Use plants to gather solar energy, they extract raw materials from the atmosphere and use sunlight to convert it into sugars and starches, use bacteria to ferment it into alcohol, burn alcohol in a vehicle for energy releasing its constituents back into the atmosphere, which plants extract to form more sugars and starches. Brazil produces ethanol (using cane sugar) for about 83 cents/gallon, which puts it at about the same price per mile as EVs powered by coal-generated electricity (3.6 cents/mile). And the best part is, you don't need to build new infrastructure. The existing gas stations and pump technology works just fine as ethanol stations. And internal combustion engines can run ethanol with slight modifications.

      Unfortunately, (1) because burning ethanol releases CO2, CARB doesn't classify them as a ZEV even though unlike fossil fuels, that CO2 came from live plants and will be re-used by live plants. And (2) the ethanol program in the U.S. got hijacked by the corn industry. Corn is not ideal for ethanol production at our latitude (sugar beets are). But to prevent starvation we subsidize corn to make sure there's an excess supply. It's always a challenge to get rid of the excess corn - foreign aid, feed for cattle, high fructose corn syrup. And in the 1970s someone came up with the idea of converting it to ethanol. That's a great way to get rid of excess corn - its production costs are a sunk cost so you're not getting it back. Better to use the corn for something rather than let it rot in silos feeding rodents. But the corn industry took over the program and now we're wasting money growing corn for the express purpose of converting it to ethanol. The result is ethanol fuel which is more expensive than electricity and in some cases more expensive than gasoline per mile. What we should be doing is researching sugar beets for ethanol production, or how to modify sugar cane so it'll grow at our latitudes, or how to convert cellulose into sugar (it's basically a bunch of sugar molecules glued together end-to-end making it hard for animals to break apart into sugar, though a few bacteria have figured out how).

    8. Re:Not the real reason by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But VW isnt actually going to build them.

      They own the company that will build them, what's the difference?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Not the real reason by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      What you dont seem to understand that an announcement about building things is not the act of building things.

      Lots of companies have said that they plan to build things. Hell, we were supposed to have hydrogen fueling stations for our hydrogen fueled cars by now, but all we still have after DECADES is more promises about building one. The majority of the few hydrogen filling stations in North America were built with government dollars.

      The latest promiser of a hydrogen fuel network is Toyota. Toyota isnt going to build that either, just like General Motors didnt after it promised decades ago.

      When electric companies say that they will build a charging network, only then take it seriously. The reason that this is the case is obvious to anyone that isnt an economics illiterate that thinks a car company would invest in a network that its competitors can profit from without investing in it. You fucking idiot.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    10. Re:Not the real reason by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What you dont seem to understand that an announcement about building things is not the act of building things.

      What you don't seem to understand is that if VW doesn't build these things, they will be fined more than it costs them to build these things.

      When electric companies say that they will build a charging network, only then take it seriously.

      You didn't see Erin Brockovich, huh? I not only don't believe anything a mainstream power company says, but I also consider the people who work for them to be mass murderers until proven otherwise. You fucking idiot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Not the real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to say, are they also proving free power? Or are they just sinking fixed business costs? The difference is: with free, they are attempting to make amends. (Because it's not really free, they did REAL damage.) With buying charger stations and selling it: It's just another business opportunity for them.

  8. Solve for Volume. by geekmux · · Score: -1, Redundant

    You know, it doesn't really matter if it's gas, electric, solar, or a Fred Flinstone foot-pedaled model if you're still wasting countless hours sitting in traffic. Sure, alternatives that don't pollute the air are perhaps better for the environment, but it doesn't do much to solve for the growing volume problem we have on our roadways today.

    Technology has enabled a lot of jobs to be performed remotely, and yet we continue to fight employers who hold on to an archaic mentality that you must sit in traffic to report to an office building every day. This of course clogs up roadways, adds to the current pollution problem, and even negatively impacts the employee in a physical way, dealing with the stress of commuting as well as the toll of sitting.

    From a productivity standpoint, an hour-long commute adds up to 40 hours every month wasted. The financial impact to the employee is $100 - 200 in gas costs every month. With telecommuting, an employee could give back half of those wasted hours in exchange for exercising an hour every day while adding half a week in productivity every month, as well as obtain the financial benefit that would probably exceed the average raise. A healthier and wealthier employee will likely create a dedicated employee.

    If common sense doesn't convince corporations of the benefits of telecommuting, then here's a real "green" initiative; start fining them an environmental impact tax for every position that can be performed remotely, but isn't. Managing remote workers isn't rocket science, and neither is using the technology that enables it.

    1. Re:Solve for Volume. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      California isnt the rest of the country.

      You have badly congested roadways because you have bad policies.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Solve for Volume. by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Many cities in the US have congested roadways. One of the more interesting reasons for this would be that one time the auto industry decided to buy up and dismantle light rail around the country. It's almost as if there's an industry which has succeeded in convincing America to construct all its infrastructure around their product, whether or not it's a actually a good idea.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    3. Re:Solve for Volume. by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I live in California and frequently complain about the traffic but I recently visited the East coast and drove around NY, NJ, PA for two weeks and I can categorically state that the traffic was much worse than any I have encountered in California. Plus, you have all these toll roads which don't seem to do anything to reduce congestion but do make it more expensive to drive ("free market" capitalist road policy failure).
      I think the problem of "bad policies" is national. We are dependent on automobiles. Suburban sprawl is a symptom. Better policies might encourage mass transport and intelligently designed cities with higher density housing.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    4. Re:Solve for Volume. by geekmux · · Score: 1

      California isnt the rest of the country.

      Congested roadways and pollution wasn't invented in California. And they sure as hell don't hold a patent on it, preventing the rest of of the world from abusing it.

      You have badly congested roadways because you have bad policies.

      If this is merely a policy problem, then that "policy" has been adopted by damn near every other heavily populated country in the world.

      Volume is a critical value, as any engineer can attest.

  9. They are soo behind. by WarlockD · · Score: 2

    I had a VW GTI Jetta that I just turned in just 3 weeks ago. The process was way to simple. My original goal was to just trade it in for a new GTI but VW abandoned the diesal in the states.

    So I got a Hyundi Ioniq Hybrid instead. VW is WAY behind on there interior electronics. Even looking at the newer non diesel Jetta had no options in the way of LCD controls. The first time I tried Android Auto, I wondered why the hell everyone doesn't just do this instead of getting some proprietary menu. As a hybrid I have been getting about same mileage as I was from my GTI (about 44mpg per tank) so I am happy with that.

    I wanted the Model 3, but no way that's is happening in the next year till manufacturing catches up with the pre-orders and knowing Tesla, a bunch of early small recalls initially too. It just shows that some 3rd tier automaker and build a decent hybrid with an interesting interior. I really hope this is a wake up call for VW because all they seem to have is the bettle.

    1. Re:They are soo behind. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Those precious LCD controls are going to seem stupid when that shit stops working, and thats because it was always stupid.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:They are soo behind. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      As a hybrid I have been getting about same mileage as I was from my GTI (about 44mpg per tank) so I am happy with that.

      Wait, WTF? I get that mileage from my 10 year old french piece of shit and I don't even have the smallest or most efficient engine that was sold at the time. How are you not getting 70+mpg in a hybrid?

    3. Re:They are soo behind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A gallon in the UK is about 20% larger volume than a US gallon, so that 44 mpg US is closer to 60 mpg UK I think.

    4. Re:They are soo behind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interior elecronics?
      You mean that OEM crap which costs 5 times as much as an aftermarket unit and will always be outdated even when new or suffer from failing LCD in few years anyway?
      The only advantage of car manufacturer electronics could be more integration to limit disctraction, but a lot of them seem to prefer gimmicks.

  10. Too late for VW by NineNine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's too late for everybody who isn't named "Tesla". Tesla's got over 100,000 charging stations installed already. Tesla's chargers are going to be the de facto standard at this point.

    1. Re: Too late for VW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. The only problem is that Tesla's chargers are only compatible with electric cars of a single niche brand that may not be around anymore in five years time...

    2. Re:Too late for VW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too late for everybody who isn't named "Tesla". Tesla's got over 100,000 charging stations installed already. Tesla's chargers are going to be the de facto standard at this point.

      Try not to pleasure yourself too much - the tires your beloved Tesla (and other EVs) ride on is still made from petroleum. So are the lubricants required by the electric motor and propulsion system (bearing grease, etc.).

      P.S. There is no Santa Claus.

      Consider this your reality check for your sanctimonious, self-righteous attitude.

  11. Looks good on paper. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Charging stations will offer the most powerful and advanced charging technology ever deployed. 350 kW charging has the capability to add about 20 miles of range per minute to a vehicle, allowing up to300 miles of fuel to be added in only 15-20 minutes for some next generation vehicles

    Also not vendor locked, the chargers will not be proprietary.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Looks good on paper. by archer,+the · · Score: 1

      Which level 3+ fast charge system will they use? CCS, CHAdeMo, or Tesla? If they were smart, they might consider spending some of the money developing an adapter that allows a CCS car to plug in to a Tesla Supercharger. The eGolf uses CCS for level 3 charging.

  12. Reducing dependence on foreign oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever since the 1973 "oil crisis" the US has been paying lip service to reducing its dependence on foreign oil.

    Today the Conservatards would tell you that it's not our government's role to make this stuff happen; Free Markets and Unrestrained Capitalism will cure everything.

    Well, they have, sort of. It's taken 45 years, and VW fucking up so badly that the government couldn't ignore it; thanks to those progressive environmental protection regulations that people like the Koch brothers and Steve Bannon hate so much.

    If the Saudis and Putin are smart, they're figuring out now what they're going to do when the world isn't buying their oil any more. And how they're going to put down the revolutions when they can't buy complacency any more. (Hints: Russia, get rid of Putin. Arabia, get over your hard line religious dogma and give your women the vote.

    And if I'm lucky, I might see the day when I can fill up my "classic" 60s muscle car for less than $20.

  13. minus 53, Troll) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    anything can = 36440 FreeBSD themselves to be a

  14. You F#AIL it!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    during play, this The choosing

  15. What's a pledge from VW worth? by doug141 · · Score: 1

    I'm not inclined to take them at their word after what they did.

    1. Re:What's a pledge from VW worth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did they do to offend you?

  16. How to measure battery performance? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Taxi companies have Leafs with over 200k miles and >80% remaining. Some Tesla owners are over 400k with the same.

    This depends on the usage history of the battery. One of the things I would worry about as a purchaser is how do you determine the performance of the battery? It's not like a mechanical engine where wear-and-tear is visible to a trained mechanic. Is there are way to determine the "wear" on a battery short of discharging and recharging it - which takes time and adds wear- to measure capacity?

    1. Re:How to measure battery performance? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      In the Leaf, if you charge all the way up and there is some battery degradation, the display will show less than the full 12 bars of capacity. A few people have managed to lose a bar or two.

      It will be different in other EVs, but having driven a few they all seem to have plenty of data on the battery available. When I get my Leaf serviced they also give me a report on the battery. There is also an app (LeafSpy) that talks to a Bluetooth OBD-II dongle that can give you precise information on the Leaf battery, and I've seen similar ones for other vehicles.

      As such I think there is actually far less to worry about than with an ICE car. No exhaust, no catalytic converter/emissions, no belts, no radiator, no oil, no gearbox, no spark plugs, no fuel pump, no fuel injectors etc. It's much easier to check that there are no surprises or expensive repairs looming.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:How to measure battery performance? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Experience seems to be that people worry far too much about battery degradation. Sure, if you buy are really old used EV it might have lost 20% of it's battery capacity. But equally an old ICE car will have lost a proportion of it's power and fuel efficiency. You have to accept that one reason an old used car is cheap is that it's not good as a new car.

  17. Newton's second law of motion, F=a*M by Max_W · · Score: 1

    The second law states that the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object.

    VW Golf weights 1300 kg, an SUV weighs 2500 - 3000 kg. This weight is M in the formula F=a*M. F - is the amount of burnt fossil fuel.

    No way around this law. The heavier the car the more fuel it burns, the more pollution it produces. It is not possible to burn fossil fuel without producing CO2. The VW Golf burns less fuel than a SUV. Maybe they did something wrong in a paperwork, but VW Golf is still less polluting than a SUV.

    1. Re:Newton's second law of motion, F=a*M by mspohr · · Score: 1

      You're right about CO2 but the problem with diesels is NOx and particulates. These give people lung and heart disease and lead to thousands of premature deaths.
      OTOH, electric vehicles don't emit CO2 or NOx or particulates directly. Depending on the source of the electricity, they are usually much cleaner. In most of the US, the electric grid provides electricity which gives EVs a CO2 footprint equivalent to a 80 mpg car (and negligible NOx and particulates).

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re: Newton's second law of motion, F=a*M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Electric cars produce heaps of particulates. They still drive on tyres...

    3. Re: Newton's second law of motion, F=a*M by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Electric cars produce heaps of particulates. They still drive on tyres...

      As opposed to gasoline and diesel cars that magically hover over the road?

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    4. Re: Newton's second law of motion, F=a*M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, just like gasoline and diesel cars that also drive on tyres. Only with more mass, so more wear.

  18. Worst fucking idea ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worst fucking idea ever.

    RE: that will bring the car to a full stop if you come off the gas completely.

    That completely destroys defensive driving practices (ie foot over the brake, off the gas when cutoff in traffic.. etc.) that have been taught for decades.

    It will also increase fatigue. I can't drive with my foot on the gas pedal continuously - foot will cramp up and leg will get so tired/cramped I have to stop and walk around.

    And what about coasting down a hill, or coasting to a stop sign/light?

    Stop fucking around with basic driving practice!

    1. Re: Worst fucking idea ever. by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Relax dude. If you don't want one don't but one. The rest of us that aren't afraid of change can enjoy ourselves.

    2. Re:Worst fucking idea ever. by RzTen1 · · Score: 1

      I traded in my TDI for a Bolt. You get used to 'single pedal mode' pretty quickly and it's actually less tiring than driving normally. Moving your foot back and forth is way more intensive, doubly so in stop and go traffic. You can still smash the normal brake if there's an emergency. I feel like you'll stop sooner due to the fact that it'll already be slowing while you're moving between pedals while a gas car would just be coasting.

      How do you drive normally if you can't keep your foot on the pedal? Relying on cruse control constantly seems way more hazardous.

  19. Build Factories to Make Batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget charging stations. We need lots of cheap automotive batteries. The two big end points... home and work will figure out their own charging stations. Don't build pointless things that will only be scrapped in a few years. Build batteries and convert your old cars to use them.

  20. In other news, state wide brownouts hit California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they re-commission all those old coal fired generating plants in an effort to stave off the dark. Idiots

  21. Who approved this boondoggle by guruevi · · Score: 1

    Oh, we soooo sowwy, we sold cars all across the US with these flaws. How about we appease the largest voting bloc in the US. Here's a snippet from the strategic plan we proposed to investors, how about we do "this" as punishment in a single state. That note about receiving all sorts of discounts and tax breaks from the government, we will still sue them if they don't give them. That $2/kWh we will charge customers on top of the base energy cost, just ignore that dear lawmaker, we will pay taxes on that (*cough* in Ireland *cough*) - what was that - oh no, we said "we will have to buy some land". Oh you will help with eminent domain, yeah, your voters want you to care about the environment, good boy.

    But yeah, we are reawwy, reawwy, sowwy.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  22. skrew that,, what about even longer term impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is how i see it..
    What about LONG term jobs, ,stuff like that
    hosiptals, etc

  23. Rented batteries by DrYak · · Score: 1

    There was at least one car maker here (forgot which, I think it was a French one), that offered EVs with leased batteries. You buy the car but rent the battery which gets replaced when needed.

    That's the french Renault, for their Zoé line of cars.
    It's basically the same electric platform as Nissan (they worked together on this one) but with a Renault Twingo body bolted on it.
    (They also has electric bigger sedans and electric mini-vans, but I don't have experience with those).

    The older modal had a 22kWh battery that was only available as a rental.
    It has an official range of 125km, (in my own experience, between 100 and 150 km depending on for conservative I drive which is far enough in densely populated Europe).

    The new model has a 45kWh battery, that you can buy for ~8000 EUR together with the car or you can rent.
    Buying a new battery later costs 10'000 EUR (given that Renault plans to built battery factories, you can expect the price to eventually trop down in a few years).
    It has an official range of 250km (have no personal experience, the car sharing I'm using only have older 22kWh models).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  24. Follow the money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll wager that the massive contract to build these charging stations goes to a company owned by friends and family of California politicians and VW executives and that nothing ever gets built by the money will get spent.

  25. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Nationwide" now re-defined to mean, in California.

    Because, as all Californians know, they are the only state that matters.