Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Is Prohibiting Commercial Drivers From Using Its Supercharger Stations (theverge.com)
Tesla has issued a new policy called Supercharger Fair Use, which prohibits new commercial drivers from using the red-and-white charging ports. The reason behind this new policy is to help alleviate congestion and improve the experience for others who rely on the Supercharging services. The Verge reports: Tesla says that the stations are intended for drivers who don't have ready options for charging at home or at work, and that when they're not used for this purpose, "it negatively impacts the availability of Supercharging services for others." Thus, the new policy says that for vehicles purchased after December 15th, drivers who plan to use their vehicles as a taxi, for ridesharing, commercial delivery or transportation, governmental purposes, or other commercial ventures won't be permitted to use the free stations. The company tracks usage and driver behavior, and if they find that someone isn't complying with the policy, they might be asked to stop, and simply limit or block one's vehicle from the stations in certain instances. The policy went into effect on Friday, December 15th, 2017. A Tesla spokesperson said that the company does "encourage the use of Teslas for commercial purposes," and that they will work with drivers to find other places to charge their vehicles. The policy carve out an exception, saying that some stations might be excluded, depending on local circumstances.
What about my Uber business? I don't have a charger at home guys but I got to Uber to eat!
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The more I read about how Tesla treats their customers and the cars the "sell" to them, it really looks like you lose nearly all privacy and that the car you spent a ton of money on is never, ever truly yours.
Electric, self-driving cars, are where the future is headed, however, all of this tracking will make me never purchase Tesla or any other car that tracks this much data. They have no right to know I stopped by "dildos r us" right before I went to visit my friend in prison.
> most electric cars will be hydrogen fuel cell based
ROFL !!!
This is a tell about the future of automobile transport:
The company tracks usage and driver behavior, and if they find that someone isn't complying with the policy, they might be asked to stop, and simply limit or block one's vehicle from the stations in certain instances.
Just as privacy was destroyed in personal communication, so to shall it be for transportation. I own a 1996 Chevy. I do not have to tell Chevy where I drive, nor do they get a say in where I go. They cannot block my car from certain destinations even if they wanted to.
We are on the cusp of a world where companies track everyone's driving. Arguably telecom companies already do that, but it's rapidly expanding in car companies, with GM Onstar, the Tesla system above, etc. Not only that, they will grant themselves veto power over your use of your automobile. Violate the Terms of Service? No more driving for you.
The ownership era is drawing to a close in every area, from phones, to cars, to appliances, to (legally owned) entertainment media.
Toyota is switching back to batteries. that should tell you something.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
First, you can do whatever you want with what you buy, but you didn't buy a supercharger. You can decide when you have the right to fill up on your own charger or use someone else's charger according to their rules.
Second, you didn't RTFA because it said for vehicles purchased after December 15th, the new rules shall apply. Meaning that no one that already purchased a Tesla is having the rules changed after the purchase.
Finally, the rule makes a lot of sense to me. If superchargers are getting contested and if a significant fraction are used by a small percentage of users, it's reasonable to makes rules to ensure they are more readily available.
All you can eat [1] buffet.
[1] Small print: Does not apply to fuckmungous fat bastards.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Or, just don't buy the Tesla. At least they are grandfathering in older vehicles, so no, they aren't changing things on the fly.
A bit over the top... TFA says NEW commercial drivers. So, if you become an Uber driver after this policy is in place, you have no-one to blame. In any case, people should never have had the expectation that Tesla would subsidize the fuel costs for their Uber business indefinitely. As usual in 'modern society', a small subset of users, intent on pushing the absolute limit of any arrangement, screws things up for everyone else. Complain to those Tesla drivers, not to the company that provided a pretty cool ownership perk and trusted people not to abuse it.
I never thought would be in favor of the gasoline car is that Chevron cannot remotely disable my ability to fuel up at any of their gas stations!!!
Chevron isn't primarily a car manufacturer, though, is is?
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
You don't WANT that many fast chargers. In fact, there's at least three reasons why you want fast charging to be the LEAST frequently used charging option.
it's just that in the end most electric cars will be hydrogen fuel cell based
Given the overall ride statistics, the opposite seems the more likely option.
Ezekiel 23:20
Making it is easy. I can do it with what's on my desk right here.
But storing and transporting it is a cowbag of a job - it leaks through anything and totally fucking knacks some metals. From a theoretical point of view the easiest way is to stick it to strings of carbon, but that's just crazy talk.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I think that Tesla the manufacturer's point is that commercial users should set up their own infrastructure, or should contract as a business expense for someone else's commercial infrastructure. It harms the totality of the electric car market by letting one fairly small segment of the market monopolize the recharging stations.
If I interpret this right, this is not the same as Chevron stating that one could not fuel-up because Tesla is giving the electric power to the customer, not charging them for it. If Chevron gave away fuel but wanted to charge commercial users would that be different?
Around here there are the normal gas stations for regular drivers, and there are perhaps one to two special gas stations for commercial accounts in a 50 sq mile area. These commercial fuel stations don't have convenience stores, don't have attendants, don't even have credit card readers. One has to have an existing account to get fuel, and enter credentials at the pump to activate it. This sort of setup would make sense for commercial electric users too, where they don't charge their cars at their residences or at their places of business.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Toyota is staying with hydrogen according to the most recent article I could find on the matter (April 2017).
Maybe you are thinking of Daimler? Although you should really read the whole article I linked to, in order to understand what Daimler is saying.
I can see some short term support going to all electric cars because of Tesla worrying other car makers. But long term physical reality dictates the end game, and all car makers know it.
There will always be all-electric cars mind you, they just will not be in the majority.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When is the last time you saw a big rig pull up to your local Chevron to fill up its gas tank? They are merely trying to separate commercial fleets from non-commercial fleets. Just like with normal ICE taxis, big rigs, construction, etc.
The reasoning behind this move, which if you think about it was inevitable, is the reason why I still think all cars being put electric is infeasible. You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
I think that there is a valley where there are too many electric cars for chargers, but not enough of the market has switched to have a huge push for ubiquitous chargers.
There is also an issue where people don't move their cars after charging (because no one wants to hang around 30-minutes) that will only get worse, even at for-pay chargers. I imagine in the future you aren't charged by energy, but by time instead.
You bought a supercharger station? Also...did you catch that this only affects commercial services, not individual owners?
I think you meant, "TODAY it doesn't affect individual owners.
There are a couple of statements you should be paying attention to: (1) "Tesla says that the stations are intended for drivers who don't have ready options for charging at home or at work"; (2) "The company tracks usage and driver behavior, and if they find that someone isn't complying with the policy, they might be asked to stop, and simply limit or block one's vehicle from the stations in certain instances."
If they're tracking usage and driver behavior, they can easily tell if you're charging your car overnight, and thus are someone who shouldn't be using superchargers. And while it's far from universal, many companies provide some charging facilities for their employees, so Tesla will be able to see if individual users are taking advantage of that as well. It would be pretty sad if a non-commercial user found out during a vacation trip that his car had been banned from superchargers because he charges at home every night and/or at work during the day.
I think that Tesla the manufacturer's point is that commercial users should set up their own infrastructure
In fact, that's apparently one of the reasons why they opened up their patents. So that companies could build these things in their parking lots etc.
Ezekiel 23:20
Any such solution that wouldn't use natural gas would be oxygen-neutral. However, it would also be about half as efficient compared to a battery vehicle, so the input energy would have to be extremely cheap to not push the operating costs significantly higher.
Ezekiel 23:20
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone
It might be possible if we let go of the 'gas station' model for distribution. For instance, what if all the other parking lots for restaurants, shopping centers, etc. had charging ports at every spot? Sure it will take some time to build out, but not impossible.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
They are not stopping anyone from charging the cars, they are just stopping them from 'abusing' (as defined by them) particular charging stations. If you left your car parked in front of the diesel pump for half an hour after filling the tank, the gas station would be within their rights to say 'you cannot fill up here anymore'
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
the roads are lined with power lines. under- and above ground. where ever there are parking spaces, there will be chargers. chargers are 2(or even 3) orders of magnitudes cheaper than gas stations.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
That seems rather unlikely though, doesn't it?
There's a world of difference between "I drive around town in relatively unpredictable patterns all day, every day, and use superchargers regularly" -i.e. a taxi service, and "I normally spend large amounts of time parked at a few constant locations, charging from non-superchargers, and occasionally travel extended distances where I do use superchargers." - i.e. commuting and then occasionally going on vacation.
The second vacation scenario is *exactly* what Musk has previously stated are the Superchargers primary purpose. Or do you know a lot of people that hire taxis to go on road trips?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
I'm sure that was also the case with gas stations when they first came on the scene.
This is my sig, there are many like it but this one is mine
but I certainly don't see any hydrogen cars.
LMGTFY
But really if you'd simply have read the article I link to, you'd know that and also know Toyota's hydrogen ramp-up plan which is clearly spelled out. I believe 30k hydrogen cars a year by 2030 as they slowly ramp up fuel cell production while better forms of electrolysis are worked out for the supply side.
I guess you prefer to be the anti-Tyrian though - you drink and remain ignorant.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It is not "hard" to make hydrogen. Hydrogen is made from natural gas. The problems is that natural gas is a better fuel for cars than hydrogen in almost every aspect. It is readily available, you don't have to have super high pressure to get decent energy density, natural gas engines are cheaper to make... Reforming natural gas into hydrogen releases the carbon in natural gas into the atmosphere anyway, so there is no potential reduction in green house gasses. What possible advantage does hydrogen offer?
I have never seen one in real life. I DO however see tesla's DAILY.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
I think that Tesla the manufacturer's point is that commercial users should set up their own infrastructure
I agree that's a salient point, however consider its from the consumer side - you buy a Tesla with the promise you can use the supercharger stations.
Let's say I just like to drive around a lot for fun. Suddenly the Tesla system profiles me as making a lot of daily trips and suddenly I'm put in the Tesla charging jail, and cannot use the stations anymore! That is a pretty nerve-wracking concept to me, after all what if there's a Google-Docs like slip-up and suddenly for no reason at all the software classifies most drivers as being off-limits from the charging stations? For all of us working in software we know that is not an impossible scenario.
Around here there are the normal gas stations for regular drivers, and there are perhaps one to two special gas stations for commercial accounts in a 50 sq mile area.
Yes but the thing is there ARE NO commercial charging stations so you are cutting them off cold with no other options, which again goes against the promise a car buyer understood.
It's not link commercial drivers cannot use the normal gas stations if a commercial one is too far away. Normal gas stations don't give a rip who buys the gas. So Tesla has reversed the model of availability and now they look very much like commercial stations where only select cars can make use of the services - not all of the cars that they make. And again there's the very un-gas station like concept that any car may be denied service at any time because of choices a remote server makes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Elon Musk is a smart guy, but he's pricing charging-equipped parking spaces below market equilibrium and then wonders why people sit in them all day.
All he has to do is install sensors and price each charging-equipped parking space a variable rate that maintains a roughly 15% vacancy at all times, like what San Francisco does. This encourages turnover and serves the maximum possible number of people.
It's like the tunnel he wants to build to bypass Los Angeles traffic. What will he do when that new tunnel gets congested? Is he going to block commercial drivers from using it as well, or is he going to build another tunnel below that one?
--Not Elon "It's Tunnels All the Way Down!" Musk
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Tesla says that the stations are intended for drivers who don't have ready options for charging at home or at work, and that when they're not used for this purpose, "it negatively impacts the availability of Supercharging services for others." Thus, the new policy says that for vehicles purchased after December 15th, drivers who plan to use their vehicles as a taxi, for ridesharing, commercial delivery or transportation, governmental purposes, or other commercial ventures won't be permitted to use the free stations.
If there's anyone who needs fast-charging stations I'd expect it to be the commercial drivers. A typical commuter can easily recharge at home or work after they parked. But a commercial driver can have 8+ hours of sustained use during the day. Unless they can swap cars part way they're going to have to re-charge during the work day. And the time spent re-charging is directly counted in their pay.
If commercial drivers are swamping the fast-charging stations it's because they desperately need them for their Teslas to be a viable option.
I stole this Sig
Finally, the rule makes a lot of sense to me. If superchargers are getting contested and if a significant fraction are used by a small percentage of users, it's reasonable to makes rules to ensure they are more readily available.
By the same logic it makes a lot of sense for an ISP to make rules about how the internet should be used in order to prevent a small percentage of users from using too much resources.
However, in this case, there are laws against it... oh wait.
The reasoning behind this move, which if you think about it was inevitable, is the reason why I still think all cars being put electric is infeasible. You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
Uh, why not?
still support electric cars mind you; it's just that in the end most electric cars will be hydrogen fuel cell based, where you can fuel up in a reasonable timeframe just like cars today.
So, instead of just installing new electric devices onto the existing power grid, you think that society should create an entirely new distribution network for hydrogen? That would easily take significantly more time and money that it would to simply install more chargers.
I don't respond to AC's.
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
You can while only an elite few run electric cars. When that phase passes the fights at the public charging points begin. Stock up your popcorn.
I never thought would be in favor of the gasoline car is that Chevron cannot remotely disable my ability to fuel up at any of their gas stations!!!
Chevron isn't primarily a car manufacturer, though, is is?
Your point? That's an advantage in getting fuel from Chevron isn't it? - which was the OP's point.
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
You don't WANT that many fast chargers. In fact, there's at least three reasons why you want fast charging to be the LEAST frequently used charging option.
And those three reasons are ?
What possible advantage does hydrogen offer?
Marketing, and it's been amazingly successful at that.
There are all sorts of suckers who will line up for a hydrogen car, but nobody wants a natural gas one.
Hydrogen is a HORRIBLE idea for vehicle use for dozens of different reasons, but marketing has successfully convinced the politicians, much of the general population, and apparently some slashdotters, that it's a good plan.
There is also an issue where people don't move their cars after charging
I always assumed that pretty shortly the Tesla cars will simply move themselves out of the way when charged... not even joking, as supercharger throughput is going to be an issue sooner rather than later.
I can also see someone going to a restaurant, the car driving over when a space is free, then driving back to collect the occupants when done, that way you don't need a lot of extra parking around the supercharger station itself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You don't need a fast charger to "fuel up". Most people are happily charging at home and every morning their car is fully charged.
Routinely using a fast charger would be as painful as having to drive to a gas station and pump gas.
Hydrogen is too inefficient which makes it too expensive. $14 for the equivalent of 1 gallon of gas and MPGe ratings 1/2 that of pure electric vehicles.
Not this time, they've done that in the past though.
This is probably one of the only times that Tesla has actually followed the reasonable approach and made a change only for future customers. Most of the time they just pull the rug out from under their existing customers, who cares what they were originally promised or sold?
I've read through the commentary so far. Sheesh, people, did Tesla kill your father or something?
Tesla has offered unlimited use of the Superchargers to most of their customers. They initially offered it to everyone, then they announced a change ahead of time (and not retroactive). Then they decided to make their deal more generous, and just to make sure the more-generous deal applied to everyone they announced a one-time retroactive change to give unlimited Supercharger use to all Model S and Model X customers as of that date.
Unlimited use of the Supercharger goes with the car, so every car that ever had it still has it. Buy a used Tesla that has unlimited Supercharger use, you get that benefit. This hasn't changed.
Now they announced their "Supercharger Fair Use" policy that commercial users will no longer be permitted unlimited free use of the Superchargers... and that's only on new sales of Tesla cars, so anyone who has already been running a business and using the Superchargers is still being allowed to continue doing it.
What if you want to buy a Tesla in 2018 and use it for a business? You still can, just install a Tesla wall connector and you can charge the car from empty to full in less time than it takes you to get a good night's sleep. (If you have a 240 Volt circuit with enough Watts you can charge a Tesla at one-quarter the speed of a Supercharger... at your home or business!)
What if you want to operate a whole fleet of Teslas as a taxi service or something? Tesla will sell you a private Supercharger station you can set up. Rumor has it a two-station Supercharger costs about $60K, and rumor has it that Tesla might give it free with a bulk purchase of 10 cars:
https://electrek.co/2016/10/03/tesla-to-deliver-its-largest-privately-owned-supercharger-station-to-a-taxi-fleet-in-montreal/
To those of you wailing that Tesla can control who uses their Supercharger stations: yeah, they can, but so far they haven't abused this in any way; and they can't stop you (and don't want to stop you) from setting up your own charging solution.
It's true that gas stations don't control who can get gas there. But they don't give the gas for free to anyone... they charge money which is why they don't care who gets it. Also, gas stations are pretty well built-out everywhere, while Tesla is frantically building new Supercharger stations; IMHO Tesla is looking after their ordinary customers by trying to keep a few users from disproportionately using the Superchargers.
And note that all Telsas can use all the other charging stations for all the other cars, with an adapter. If you are so worried about the Supercharger, get a CHAdeMO adapter; this will charge a Tesla about half as fast as a Supercharger station, which is still pretty darn fast.
If you read all the above and you still think Tesla is doing something wrong here, I'm really curious as to just what it might be. Maybe you think Tesla should promise to just give free unlimited power forever to everyone without limit? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
By the same logic it makes a lot of sense for an ISP to make rules about how the internet should be used in order to prevent a small percentage of users from using too much resources. However, in this case, there are laws against it... oh wait.
You do realize there's a difference between saying you'll deliver unlimited Internet and then not actually delivering it, versus saying you'll no longer deliver unlimited Internet then do just that?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
chargers are 2(or even 3) orders of magnitudes cheaper than gas stations.
You need a reality check, and we need a citation.
For instance, what if all the other parking lots for restaurants, shopping centers, etc.
I'm sure that all these extremely thin margin businesses will be delighted to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to upgrade every low-tech parking sport to a high-tech charging spot that now requires wiring, vastly more electricity and an order of magnitude more expensive upkeep than paving. Oh, and they get to give away all that electricity for free to add to the fiscal overhead fun!
Sure it will take some time to build out,
Problem is not (just) time, but expense, recurring expenses, and demand on the grid. Even just adding a handful of spots is pretty expensive which is why malls today don't have many.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In any case, people should never have had the expectation that Tesla would subsidize the fuel costs for their Uber business indefinitely. As usual in 'modern society', a small subset of users, intent on pushing the absolute limit of any arrangement, screws things up for everyone else. Complain to those Tesla drivers, not to the company that provided a pretty cool ownership perk and trusted people not to abuse it.
For new drivers, apparently you are correct, however your wording seems to imply existing customers should have no expectation. That's untrue. Tesla explicitly sold those customers free, unlimited, supercharging for life. There was no fine print of any form on that claim.
So yes, they have every right to park in a supercharger stall with the cable connected 24/7 if they want. That's what they were sold, that's what they paid for. I'm not saying that Tesla *SHOULD* have sold that, but they did, and it's not the customer's job to evaluate Tesla's business decisions. The only reasonable course of action for Tesla is what they have done now, which is to change the plan for FUTURE customers, but there's nothing they can reasonably (or legally) do about existing customers who use more than Tesla planned for.
I once saw an animation of how one would drive a Tesla up to the charging station where a robot arm reaches up from below and swaps out the depleted battery for a charged one. Did they not go with that? It seems that would eliminate the wait times hogging a charging cord.
Laundromats manage to make it work.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Are they expensive to install? YES THEY ARE.
That's also ignoring the cost of getting wiring TO each spot, and the huge additional burden of ongoing maintenance all of the wiring and chargers entail.
So what's the hold-up? I'd say it's the complete lack of demand.
There are already areas with high Tesla ownership running into issues. There's plenty of demand in places, but why would there be a rush to build out expensive support that no-one will be paying for?
Unlike your fantasies, I have resources to back up what I am saying, not to mention simple common sense for anyone that spends ten minutes on the thought experiment of what it means to wire every spot (or even just most spots) in a parking lot.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
You don't WANT that many fast chargers. In fact, there's at least three reasons why you want fast charging to be the LEAST frequently used charging option.
And those three reasons are ?
Not the GP, but that I can think of:
-Fast charge is harder on the batteries than a trickle charge. So your batteries won't wear out as quick.
-Trickle charging overnight can help stabilize the peak demand from the electrical utilities (usually demand is highest during the day, low over night). In a fictitious Utopian world you could charge at a discount rate where the utility could switch on and off your charger based on total grid supply vs. demand, especially with unreliable renewables like wind. If you're arriving home for the night, you don't really care when over the next 12 hours your car charges, versus having to get a full charge in the next half hour at a super charger.
If every parking lot would provide a charging port at every parking spot, it would be a marginal increase in installation costs (compared to the price of a commercial building, it's nothing)
You don't need a "commercial building" for gas filling. You can do it with open air self-service pumps taking credit cards. The "commercial buildings" associated with gas pumps (at least in my part of the world) sell groceries and stuff, which is a money-spinning sideline. Also, gas stations usually have canopies to attract customers by keeping them dry while they are self-service filling - expect the same at roadside re-charging stations when they become commercially competative.
Be fun to have it boomerang ...
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
I'm sure that was also the case with gas stations when they first came on the scene.
The popularity of IC engined cars grew very slowly, over decades, in fact you could say over a century. OTOH, the advocates of EVs are screaming that they want the change from IC to happen almost overnight.
That seems rather unlikely though, doesn't it?
It seems very likely to me, given the arse-hole behaviour of large corporates in general and Musk's megalomaniac tendencies in particular.
They are not stopping anyone from charging the cars, they are just stopping them from 'abusing' ... If you left your car parked in front of the diesel pump for half an hour after filling the tank, the gas station would be within their rights to say 'you cannot fill up here anymore'
So the idea that you would go and eat a meal etc while your car was charging is dead in the water. You must hover by your car then, to move it away from the charging point as soon as it is done.
That seems rather unlikely though, doesn't it?
It does today. Of course, the restrictions in the new policy seemed rather unlikely yesterday, as well. I still think the statement "that the stations are intended for drivers who don't have ready options for charging at home or at work" may spell trouble for non-commercial users in the future.
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
When just about every parking space has a charger (not necessarily a fast charger), the demand for fast chargers will be less.
Many EV owners now only charge at home (typically overnight) or only very rarely on a fast charger.
Also longer EV range and faster fast chargers (so you don't have to be on for so long) are coming.
Or, you know, water. Which releases.... oxygen.
But not to worry. No one's going to use hydrogen in any serious way. The transport and storage issues are a brick wall.
The tech that's going to be transformative here is either batteries with a decent lifecycle and energy density (neither of which are really quite there yet in commercially available batteries, anyway), or ultracaps, which already have the lifecycle absolutely covered, but aren't even close in terms of energy density.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Actually even under the old Net Neutrality rules, ISPs could engage in network management by throttling or deprioritizing the data of very heavy users. In many cases, this is necessary to maintain service for everyone else.
What they should not be allowed to do is discriminate based on the destination of that data. A byte is a byte is a byte. But if you are using up way more than all your neighbors, and the link is congested, it makes sense to put your bytes last in line. That's the only fair way to manage a network. I've implemented this on a constrained campus network, it was widely discussed/reviewed as totally uncontroversial. Usage was measured on a 1 hr window, meaning that even if you were put in the 'penalty box' (implemented as a lower QoS bucket) you would quickly be off it. Also the lower QoS bucket never kicked in unless our outbound pipe was more than 70% full.
It was actually a canard from the anti-NN folks that NN preventing network management. It never did. A byte is a byte is a byte . . .
Routinely using a fast charger would be as painful as having to drive to a gas station and pump gas.
Personally I don't find it as painful as having a car that takes hours to fill.. Even if it is in my garage. Because that introduces a risk at some point that I will need my car and it won't be charged. That's bad enough with a phone.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Last week someone came up with a new way to bind a chemical to hydrogen, turning it into a rather weird powder. Then you can turn it into a fluid with a solvent and suddenly the hydrogen releases. Can't find it now though.
If they can make it work, hydrogen is a go. That would make fossil fuel companies very, very happy.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
The non-ev competition for that roadster has less range, costs around 4x as much and requires even lower speeds if you don't want a pitstop every 2-3 rounds on the track. Comparing the roadster to a sedan is like comparing a ferrari to my prius: sure, the ferrari has worse mileage. Wanna trade?
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
If you apply for the Tesla charger to put one up at your parking lot, you get one free. No need to buy another. So it's infinitely cheaper.
Second, gas stations in densely populated areas are not recommended and often can't get zoning permits. No problem for the charger.
Third, gas stations need very expensive street coverings to prevent oil spills and fuel spills contaminating the ground water. No problem for the charger.
I think 2-3 times cheaper is an understatement, depending on where you live. Locally, I'd say it would be about 10-100 times cheaper.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Finally, a $250K car that can go as far as a typical midsize sedan without stopping, as long as you only have one passenger and don't go too fast ... /s
In other words, Porsche's sport car business model
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
The thing with superchargers is not that they are penalizing heavy use. They are restricting a particular kind of use. Heavy personal use is OK, light commercial use is not.
A neutral rule would be that if you exceed a specific number of kWh, you cannot use superchargers during peak times, or are limited to some specific spots. But beside that, a joule is a joule.
It is similar to the "no tethering" rule for mobile internet. Sure, tethering is generally heavy use but banning the practice instead of using quotas or standard QoS is definitely not neutral.
Do they forbid the use of Tesla chargers to mine bitcoins, just like some people abuse subsided electricity in Venezuela?
Couldn't disable a gas powered car? Sure they could. It would be trivial to include an over the air function to tell the onboard computer to turn the car off. As for fuel, I go to gas stations all the time that are 'prepay'. Guess what? The pumps don't work until you pay!
Hydrogen for cars is DEAD. It makes very little sense since it's simply more efficient, easier and cheaper to charge a car directly rather than mess around with all the storage and transport issues H2 presents. If you don't think electrical infrastructure can be sufficient, why in the world would you think that the massive investments needed for hydrogen will ever materialize?
Finally, Superchargers are a niche solution designed to enable LONG DISTANCE travel. Day to day, few drivers will use them as most charging will be done at home overnight and/or at work with a destination charger. This largely negates any 'refill' time advantage gas or H2 may have over batteries since day to day a vast majority of electric cars will never even have to go out of their way to recharge. They simply start full every time you get in them...
The Volt is a good car. Hybrids though won't likely be very popular once people see the benefits of the full electric.
This smacks of confirmation bias. You came into this article with the idea that it's impossible to have sufficient fast chargers to meet demand, so you decided to interpret the article to support this view.
I can't really see any scenario where it's hard, let alone impossible, for EV charger infrastructure to get built out as EVs become more common. Right now there isn't an enormous amount because the demand is small. But with demand will come supply.
There is a ~10-20x increase in charging time relative to fueling time, per mile driven. But because a lot of charging will be done at home, this doesn't directly equate to 10-20x more chargers than gas pumps. Right now with my current driving habits I'd need to fast charge around once per year, versus fueling up 15x. Suppose people visit a fast charger 10x less than a gas pump, then you'd need up to about a factor of two more chargers than gas pumps in the world to have the same availability. Although I also wonder if we'd need even that, given that most gas pumps today are empty most of time. But chargers are simple, no underground tanks or fuel deliveries required, so they're easy to build. In fact they can be put anywhere, even in restaurant or hotel parking lots where travelers might need them (and they are, today).
You may ask about apartment dwellers and the home charging issue? Well I assume that when there's demand the landlords will put outlets in the parking lot/structure, either locked outlets linked to your apartment in your reserved spot or a set of specific charging spots. And eventually no apartment building will even be built without considering EV charging.
Onboard maps become out of date. Once they become unusably out of date, there comes a need to transmit payment credentials to cover the cost of producing the updates for the onboard maps. These payment credentials usually include the buyer's postal code if not full home address. So yes, the GPS company can tell that you've moved house even if it can't tell where you've driven.
And don't try evading single-source map updates by using an OpenStreetMap client, as distracted driving laws in some states treat dedicated GPS devices and general-purpose pocket computers differently.
Hydrogen fuel cells? On a car? ...Do some research. Either maintainence is going to eat you alive, or you're going to be a terror bomber's best friend.
Yeah I charge a lot, but that's for my own personal reasons
Sorry, your bitcoin mining rig will have to leave the trunk and find a new source of power. :-)
When push comes to shove a good chunk of EV owners could actually get by only charging from a standard 120v outlet. Granted, they would have to keep their cars plugged in whenever they were not driving them and long distance (or even most medium distance) trips would be out of the question but the fact remains that what we have NOW is meeting the bare minimum of workability. Any new infrastructure just makes things that much better.
The rules don't apply retroactively, only to new purchases. Nobody had the rug pulled out from under them.
Petrol vendors certainly can ban you from refueling. For years they have had number plate recognition cameras to detect people who drive off without paying.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
About the same level of risk that the gas station you limp into is out of gas and you're stranded miles from home.
Anyone else get a little creeped out at the implications of Tesla "tracking usage and driver behavior" and controlling what you can do with the car accordingly? It has the feel of a software license or website's Terms Of Service. What other future behavior might they decide to prohibit? "Oh, look, you exceeded the speed limit twelve times. Reckless behavior voids your warranty."
It's clear you are unfamiliar with EV car charging. A lot of this is already standardized and has been for years. There are several charging networks that take care of all of this. For example, if I plug into a blink charger it keeps track of how much power/time I've used and bills me accordingly. Power is not that difficult. 208/240v are widely available and even 120V for slow charging. The chargers already have the protective relays and GFCI and many meter the power for billing. They're fairly inexpensive now too. There are also only 4-5 different networks out there so it's not a big deal to get cards to deal with all of them. I just keep the cards in my glove compartment. It's not that hard to call up EV GO, Blink or Chargepoint and have them install a charger for you where they handle all the billing and whatnot. If I have a business and I want to add charging, the easiest thing to do is to just contact one of the charging networks and have them install a charger in my parking lot. They deal with the maintenance and billing and pay for the electricity.
In terms of Tesla's superchargers there is typically a large transformer and a stack of chargers off to the side near the stalls. Tesla pays for the power and handles the billing (for new cars that aren't grandfathered in to free charging). In a number of places they're installing batteries and solar to offset usage.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
It's similar to what you say. You don't have to setup other infrastructure if you are commercial, what you have to do is pay for your charge yourself if you are commercial. That feels reasonable.
No, there are enough gas stations everywhere that it's pretty difficult for that to happen. Sure, if someone is going to be stupid and drive through when their tank is 1/8 full, it will happen. But it's easy not to do that.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The reasoning behind this move, which if you think about it was inevitable, is the reason why I still think all cars being put electric is infeasible. You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
I still support electric cars mind you; it's just that in the end most electric cars will be hydrogen fuel cell based, where you can fuel up in a reasonable timeframe just like cars today.
I think for electric cars to really take off, people will need to stop "fueling" their cars as they currently do. That is, instead of going somewhere specifically to "fill up" (or in this case, fast charge), they will need to destination charge. Instead of going to a gas station, charge up once you've reached work/home/mall/doctor's or wherever else you're going. Obviously, this will require an infrastructure change (except for home charging, which would just require an owner to add an electrical outlet), and a lot of private businesses to get on board with offering more charging stations at their locations, so it's not happening any time soon. And also obviously, fast charging networks will still be needed at various locations for road trips, deliveries, and other commercial transport.
But ultimately, while fast charging networks will be needed and more of them, the mindset for the vast majority of the drivers will need to change from "fuel/charge when near empty" to "charge whenever the car is parked." While this type of adoption/mindset seems unreachable, the ever-increasing capacity of all-electric car batteries may help to make this more palatable in the near future.
Want to bankrupt Tesla in a hurry? Every parking lot in the country should submit to have their free charger.
They aren't doing this to existing users. They're grandfathered in, much like how I'm grandfathered in to free charging for the life of my vehicle. It's only for NEW vehicles. It's their network, not yours. You're free to charge wherever you like. If a driver wants free electricity when driving for Uber or Lyft, then Uber or Lyft should pay for it, not Tesla. Tesla should not have to subsidize it.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
No, they are only changing it for new vehicles, not existing ones. For example, I am grandfathered in for unlimited charging though I only make use of it a few times a year when I do a lot of traveling.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
That's not what he said. He said 2-3 orders of magnitude cheaper, which is 1/100 to 1/1000 times the cost.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
30k hydrogen cars a year by... when?! 2030?!
Tesla has a car with a 600 mile range planned for 2020. Yes, it's a sports car, but their other models won't stay far behind. By 2030 you'll probably have 1000 miles of range. That means most people need a fast charge a couple of times a year at most (in fact, this is already the case for a large majority of people today). Also, those charges will become faster and faster. In 2030 you'll probably be looking at less than 10 minutes for 500 miles of range.
And apart from those very few long distance trips, the rest of the time you just plug in in your own garage or at work, instead of having to go to a hydrogen refueling station every week or so to fill up.
What exactly were the advantages of hydrogen again? The extra entertainment when filling stations catch fire?
30k cars a year by 2030, lol :-)
By 2025, the battery electric car will be dominate because:
1. In 2025, Norway will ban the sale of all petrol and diesel cars. Today, 40% of new cars sold in Norway come with a plug for charging.
2. The deployment S-curve is exponential which means linear thinking will give wrong results. Just look at the fossil fuel industry's linear predictions for the loss of oil sales due to the deployment of battery electric cars as an example of wrong headed thinking. Like Kodak for film versus CCD cameras.
Car manufacturers are getting the "big stick" from governments and cities that indicates the sale of their current vehicles are at risk of being prohibited in 7 years time in some markets. The car manufacturers have to adapt today or die. The only mass market viable solution for 2025 is battery electric.
Rapid S-curve deployments have seen:
Audio CDs replaced by Music downloads
Dial-up modems replaced by cable modems
Dumb mobile phones replaced by smartphones - new entrant was Apple
Film replaced by CCD cameras
CRT monitors replaced by LCD monitors
Discreet transistors replaced by microchips
Thermionic valve (tube) based equipment replaced by transistors
Horse and cart replaced by the car
History is full of the status quo changing "overnight".
Hydrogen is already dead, it just does not know it yet.
it's just that in the end most electric cars will be hydrogen fuel cell based, where you can fuel up in a reasonable timeframe just like cars today.
Sorry but that's just ignoring the facts of the state of electric cars and the time spent filling up in normal cars.
1. Average time someone spends on a forecourt is 8minutes.
2. Electric cars that need a super fast charge are usually being driven over long distances. It's probably good you have a long break every 2 hours anyway before you become a danger to yourself and others on the road. Even then the newest charging stations can happily get you those next 2 hours in about 10min of charging.
3. Most electric cars rarely or never see a charging station. You don't need to replace petrol with fast chargers one to one. Some estimates from within the oil industry say you replace them 1:5 on highways and 1:10 in cities. You don't need to fill up a car if it has a "full tank" every morning.
The exception there is ... commercial drivers.
Not if every spot offered a charger instead of just one in the corner.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Wait for daylight. Look up. See that bright, hot, yellowish thing up there? Energy supply is not in any way an insurmountable problem. We're outright awash in free energy supply.
However, energy storage and transport are actual problems. And hydrogen is a case where both of those come home to roost in a most uncompromising manner.
The only answer available from our repertoire of current technology that shows the potential to address all of the actual problems in the relatively short term is the EV using battery storage; hydrogen, in any form (fuel tank, fuel cell, etc.) hasn't got the characteristics to be a serious contender, nor is there any present indication in materials science that it ever will. It's a bad bet.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Wrong. Collecting and utilizing solar energy to split water does not release CO2. This would be the ideal way to do it, if it actually needed to be done.
But it doesn't. It's irrelevant, because hydrogen has other problems - transport, storage - that are by all indications insurmountable.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Why does Tesla not simply charge for usage of superchargers so that costs are covered? When there is congestion regularly at specific sites, they could simply expand the site or build a new site nearby.
Do you have any idea how much the power demand would be if you truly had a parking lot full of chargers? Tesla wants a 60 amp breaker to feed their fast charger. That's the size of the entire electrical service in old houses. Newer houses have only 2x-4x that size for the whole house. Restaurants have bigger power feeds than homes because they need the power. They don't have enough slack to feed a parking lot full of super chargers.
Say you want to provide power for 20 parking spots. You're talking a 1200 amp service. The main circuit breaker for that would run around $6000. Additional service breakers, wiring & conduit, tearing up the lot to install it, cost of all the chargers.... You'd hit a quarter million easy for the materials, never mind labor to install it.
I have no idea how a post promoting hydrogen fuel cells got modded up. And I have no idea why there can't be enough charging points. The vast majority of vehicles sit idle for eight hours a day while their owners work which is more than enough time to charge even just using a standard 110V/15amp plug.
The same people who object to this are the ones who don't understand why their ISPs want to charge them extra for using 100TB per month when the average users uses about 10GB/month.
I once used a laundromat that had a little bar that sold beer. Ingenious!
Even if that happens, you will still need at least 30 mins for a fill. Once there are that many chargers and they only take 10 mins for a fill then that will make EVs usable for most people.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
No EV advocate wants it to happen almost overnight, much less screaming about it.
Only in major centers. There are still tons of one gas station towns around once you get off the beaten path...
Logic fail. Customers are actually paying ISPs to carry their traffic.
Telsa prohibits commercial drivers because there is nothing commercial about Telsa or what they have to offer.
They just want to STOP profits and dip their hands in government subsidies (i.e. money pulled out of my pockets).
You simply CANNOT have enough fast chargers around to reasonably accommodate everyone who needs to fuel up in a day.
I was worried about this until I got my EV. Now, I just plug in at home, and I only need public chargers once or twice a month on a longer trip. If you have a place where you can charge overnight, you can always start the day with a "full tank". I need public chargers less than I needed gas stations, even though I have a fairly low range. With all the 200+ mile range cars coming down the pike the need for chargers outside of interstates etc is going to be fairly low, I'd expect.
The real infrastructure need is going to be all the L1 & L2 chargers for apartment dwellers etc, but that should be relatively easy an should happen organically to a large degree. Already new developments seem to be throwing a few L2 chargers into their garages.
Yeap... fuel cells are expensive, and jump-starting a hydrogen economy is a huge mess.
I disagree
I think we are already at the upper limits of battery technology and I only see minor improvements coming.
Railroads have wanted powerful batteries for years since they use electric motors to actually drive the train and just use diesel engines to generate the electricity for the drive motor.