Electric car charging stations head to Love's Travel Stops across the US:
[Electrify America] announced Tuesday a new collaborative effort with Love's to install charging stations at its stops across the US. Five locations are already open as of today in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Utah and Florida. Crucially, the stops now open helped complete a nationwide charging route from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C.
The new stations will charge at rates up to 350 kilowatts and can add up to 20 miles of range per minute. Ultimately, Electrify America's goal is to continue chipping away at America's range anxiety about electric cars. With more places to charge, it will be mighty difficult to run out of juice. Of course, the company's also bound to invest the cash as part of a Volkswagen dieselgate settlement here in the US...
Will such partnerships vanquish range anxiety for electric vehicles (EVs)?
(Score: 4, Informative) by requerdanos on Wednesday August 19 2020, @07:13PM (8 children)
Granted, the charging network gets better and better, but it's still a lot easier to run out of juice away from any public charging station than to run out of liquid hydrocarbon fuel away from a station providing it publicly from tanks.
As range gets better and better, electric cars still average less range than gas/diesel vehicles too, for all that.
I applaud the improvements in the system and look forward to the day it will in fact be difficult to run out of juice, but I question whether that day is today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2020, @07:50PM (1 child)
I have fuel issues with GAS powered. I carry extra GAS with me. Now, can I buy a trailer with Extra or DOUBLE battery oack on it? Then I am in.
Also do not want cars - they are "roller skates" for a person of my size. The Suburban was good family - since there was space else where in the vehicle not just behind my seat. Now they have been shrunk - I can not even sit in the back seat - let alone the third row. I am looking for all wheel drive cargo van with windows. Maybe even a fully converted handicap van, since there back seat is move so the wheelchair and extra length in driver seats can fit.
Get the Flying-J and Pilots in (same company)... Loves not close enough together nor near enough. Pilot is at the end of road just before the freeway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @06:31PM
How tall are you?! Sounds like you need a big-ass Escalade.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday August 19 2020, @09:57PM (3 children)
Range may never be as good as an ICE vehicle.
The current state of EVs is not the end point of their development. It is only the beginning of all of the improvements yet to come. And they will come. Compare today's ICE vehicle to the original Henry T Ford.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @03:05AM (1 child)
The physics of energy storage and rate of release do not look good right now.
Maybe that will improve.
But for now, I am keeping my ice. And will not only vote against any individual politician. But his whole party, if I am threatened.
I already had to vote Democratic after the Republicans unanimously voted for the DMCA.
And I had been a " vote the ticket" republican before this. But my own party disowned me and sold out to the corporate whores and did not as much as bring up my concern of abandon ware becoming public domain. Once they got into office, screw you.
And I know the dimmocrats will too.
Will someone Please stand up for us common folk?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 20 2020, @04:57PM
I'm not suggesting radical improvements. But I expect to see a stream of small improvements.
Or we could just give up on EVs and believe that cheap fossil fuels will last forever. Not to mention problems of global warming.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 20 2020, @08:26PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2020, @11:44PM
You can charge off the interplanetary ionic filaments. Seven planets have been here since at least 2011, you can check out how to see them on facebook.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @07:40AM
That, and *charging time*. Most charging is to 80% of battery capacity. And most chargers are not 'level 3' chargers.
In short, driving 200 or 300 miles, then stopping for 4 hours to charge to 50%, isn't 'range'. With ICE, 2 minutes later, I have 100s of miles more range.
And more battery isn't the answer, because it's already an insane amount of juice that level 3 does. What's next? Level 4, with 3000V, 50A charging?
It only scales so well!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 19 2020, @07:14PM
It could have been Pilot, which only seems to locate at major highway intersections, where you can already find multiple competitor's fuel stops.
Love's can be found in little towns that no one has ever heard of, at both major and secondary highway intersections.
EZMart may have been a better choice in the south and southwest, because they are even more ubiquitous than Love's. Of course, few EZMart stores have the parking area to accommodate a dozen vehicles being charged.
In other regions, other chains may be better choices.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 19 2020, @07:20PM (25 children)
It isn't just whether you can charge them, it's the environmental impact of getting the electricity to charge them, which usually involves oil or gas or coal. Well, that and their batteries and building them in the first place.
The real solution to reducing car exhaust is going to have to be driving less. Which means things like keeping the telecommuting that a lot of people have gotten used to with Covid-19, reducing long-distance trucking in favor of freight rail, and a passenger rail system that isn't an embarrassment by international standards.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by requerdanos on Wednesday August 19 2020, @07:37PM (17 children)
I would say that this shouldn't be a primary consideration of the building-electric-charging-station side of things. Just build the stations, and wait for eventual increases in hydrocarbon fuels to price those options out of the market leaving solar, wind, and other clean technologies as the inexpensive choices.
Since electric cars don't have exhaust, and even cars powered by "dirty" electricity cause to be emitted less pollutants per unit of operation than cars with onboard hydrocarbon furnaces, electric cars seem to be pretty real in terms of a solution.
Plus, they allow, built-in capability, the totality of their power to come from clean sources (wind, solar, unicorn kidneys, etc.) with no modifications to their infrastructure nor vehicles (something not true of the furnace-type vehicles).
Rather than decide "which" solution is "the real" solution, I suspect we should probably do both of these things, both of which help.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2020, @07:55PM
Our Wal-mart and Meyers both have installed charging stations in the standard parking lot. They are located with-in 20 miles of a Car Factory that only build GAS cars. Do you think there is an issue?
I can see the Loves also installing the power points... Electric Semi are the next real equipment needing the charge points.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2020, @08:13PM (9 children)
I regularly drive 900 miles in my E-Class Diesel with an elapsed time of 14 hours.
Try that in an electric vehicle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2020, @08:17PM
and I get 32 miles per gallon.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Wednesday August 19 2020, @08:49PM
Congratulations. You figured out the current model electric cars not a one size fits all solution.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2020, @09:28PM (4 children)
You da man. However, that is TOO MANY HOURS OF DRIVING. You're ENDANGERING OTHERS.
Having to stop and recharge your batteries is a great way for you to take a nap too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @07:51AM (3 children)
A person can drive for 5 hours, get lunch, drive for 5, get dinner, etc, etc.
And gas breaks are "a break" too, one can make them 15 minute breaks.
Yet you WILL NOT drive 1400miles a day in any electric car today. It takes waaaaaaay too long to charge the batteries. WAY too long.
First, you cannot wait until battery = 0 to stop. Just like with ICE, you see you have a 1/4, 1/8th of a 'tank/charge', you need to stop and find a station. You need to give yourself 50 miles of headroom, or so.
That means you're taxing 20% of the battery charge as 'useful'.
Next, level 3 chargers might *might* hit 80% in 30 minutes. Yet, does that add another 500 miles of range? No, because you're charging 20%, 10% to 80%.
I drive from Ontario to California in 4 days. Yes, 4 days.
When I plugged this same trip into an EV charging station / route planner, it took 9 days. It wasn't where the charger is, but things like:
- it takes 30 minutes to charge, 7 times a day, versus 3 refuels, at 3 minutes each
EG, 210 minutes versus 9 minutes.
There is literally no comparison if you're driving ICE versus electric, for real range right now. It's fine inside a city. Not fine if you have to actually travel, and lots of people do!
And of course, that doesn't even include things like 'heat' and other such things, where as these are a byproduct of an ICE running.
H2 is the real long-term way to go here.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 20 2020, @12:32PM (1 child)
Why does it take you so long? Your starting point is halfway there. If you're starting in Toronto, it should take you 3 days. If you're starting in Kenora, it should take more like 2.5 days.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 20 2020, @08:21PM
I've unloaded in San Diego, come back to Yuma to load groceries for Toronto. It always took 72 hours or longer to drive to Toronto. Four days to drive it is at least somewhat respectable. It indicates that he may have stopped for a night's sleep along the way, which I didn't always do.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 20 2020, @08:15PM
Respectable.
About the only way that EV is going to compete with gas OR diesel engines, is if they do battery swaps. Pull up to a changing station, your low/dead batteries come out one side, and the fresh batteries are pushed in the other side. That's probably still 1/4 hour operation, not a three to five minute "fill up".
Of course, swapping batteries is likely to result in picking up a dud battery somewhere, that just won't take a good charge due to age.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @03:11AM
Yup, I have one too. I know exactly what you are saying.
It's based on engines which usually last a million miles. And will run on French fry oil in a pinch.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 20 2020, @04:10PM
Holy crap this is the most masterful implementation of Poe's law I have ever seen!
The +1 Informative is the cherry on top.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday August 20 2020, @03:56AM (4 children)
The problem with this is that there is a LOT more oil than anyone wants to admit. The oil companies say it is running out so they can try to keep prices up. Anti-oil types go along with this because they want to promote solar and wind and high oil prices help. Apparently they haven't really worked out that oil prices drop whenever alternatives seem economically sensible.
The atmosphere is going to be up around 2000ppm CO2 before oil runs out and higher before coal does. It was 6000ppm millions of years ago, that C didn't leave the planet, it just got buried for a while.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Thursday August 20 2020, @12:45PM (1 child)
It's not necessarily scarcity that I believe will drive the price up, as much as the "easy" oil mostly already being harvested, leaving us with oil that's harder to get to, or that needs more complex chemical processes to ready it as fuel. The more difficult drilling operations and more difficult chemical preparations are more expensive, thus theoretically, the price should tend to rise. I don't propose any timeline for this.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday August 21 2020, @07:52AM
The price of oil won't go much above the price of solar/wind etc. until the actual cost of getting it out of the ground goes higher than that price. Oil currently has huge profit margins, they will undercut alternatives every time they look like getting significant market share.
It's a much repeated cycle, start a significant number of alternative energy projects, oil prices will drop until the projects go bankrupt and get cancelled, oil prices go up, alternatives start to look feasible and attract investors, rinse and repeat. It has happened so much that it is a serious discouragement to potential energy investors. They now look at how many alternatives are starting up and whether it is enough to trigger another round.
In fact, I will make the prediction that the price of oil will stay just a few percent above the average amortized cost of alternatives for the next few decades. (That few percent is the cost of the uncertainty and inertia in replacing an existing system with an unknown one. As options get more fully predictable, that percent will go down). Then at some point the oil industry will give up on selling energy, and there will be a massive step up in the price of plastics, lubricants, and chemical feedstocks. They will attribute this price rise to "oil running out".
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday August 21 2020, @03:51PM (1 child)
Sure, there's lots of oil in the ground, and OPEC exists. That's not the only thing that screws up the pricing though. For instance, are any of these factored into the cost of oil?
- going to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen in no small part to get their oil
- the damage from poisoning the Gulf of Mexico
- putting the climate on track for Florida and a bunch of major cities to not exist anymore
- boatloads of government money that subsidize many aspects of the industry
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday August 21 2020, @06:44PM
No, of course not.
- the oil cartel doesn't pay for wars. Happy to have them though because they burn a lot of oil.
- they don't really care about the environmental damage, but the fine was probably mildly annoying.
- you don't think their mansions are going underwater do you? And their yachts will float a few meters higher.
- yes, boatloads of money. They like that.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @06:39PM
The battery problem is what stands out to me the most. We need significant advances in batteries to even think about starting to replace the ICE with electric.
(Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Wednesday August 19 2020, @08:44PM (4 children)
The problem is that I hear those charging stations give you COVID-19. And skin cancer, if they get their electricity from the sun.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday August 19 2020, @09:59PM (3 children)
Don't forget that windmills cause cancer. [thehill.com]
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @01:04AM (2 children)
Based on what little the Newsweek article one can finally get to from that link which actually contains a video snippet of the speech around that part, yup, those words did come out of his mouth.
Now, the 'property value' drop -- on that point he is generally right. Most nimby folks are not going to be willing to pay as much for property near one than away from one.
On the 'causes cancer' part, no idea where that one came from. So without finding the rest of the speech, to know what else he said somewhere else that would show that the Newsweek video snippet was another "out of context" quote, there is no defense for that screwball statement I can see at this time.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 20 2020, @01:58PM (1 child)
I bet that everyone disliked ugly electric utility poles when electric service started taking off. But they loved how much it improved their lives.
I bet that lots of people dislike ugly cell towers everywhere when cell service started taking off. But they loved how much it improved their lives.
They probably also don't like coal fired electric generation plants. Yet then complain about windmills and solar farms.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday August 20 2020, @09:27PM
Which is a good reason to disguise them as trees [sun-sentinel.com] and other structures.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2020, @11:16PM (1 child)
"The solution is getting rid of cars. The problem is, uh, whatever's necessary to justify that."
Clean energy is becoming cheaper than fossil fuel even without subsidies. Rare earths are a phony shortage. Nobody would have switched to trucks in the first place if they weren't more efficient than rail freight. The problem is that while trains might be more fuel-efficient at moving stuff pound for pound, they're less efficient economically because it's easier for trucks to share roads than for trains to share tracks, it's easier to build and operate freight loading stations for trucks, and you don't have to change modes for the last mile. So trains are good for really large loads of bulk cargo, or long haul container freight coming off of ships, and trucks better for smaller shipments. And most of the shipments are smaller shipments.
Passenger rail is awful for long distances. It's slow, expensive and the only real benefit is that it's fun to ride on trains. Europeans frequently mock the American rail system, while ignoring the fact that it takes about as long to go by rail from Portugal to Greece as it does to cross the United States. Rail works in Europe only because people usually travel short distances. The only place in America that resembles European travel patterns is the corridor from Washington to Boston, where rail is practical and commonly used, even if it isn't quite as good as Eurostar. Also, American freight trains are much better than European ones - partly because European freight trains aren't allowed to be quite as big, but mostly because the railways are full of passenger trains. So "just switch to rail" is not exactly an easy option.
There's a nonzero chance that electrified trucks become a thing in the next decade or two, and that chance increases if truck stops get into the charging business. Electric trains work OK in the city center where the rail comes with its own high power wiring, but I've never heard a serious proposal for a long haul battery-powered locomotive. (They're on the way as auxiliaries for regular diesel ones, but not to pull a whole train by themselves). Probably, trucks will be the more environmentally friendly option soon, on top of the economic benefits.
Nothing wrong with telecommuting, though. Half of those big downtown office buildings ought to be converted into apartments, and let downtown areas become cultural centers, not places where people sit in traffic on their way to sit in a cubicle.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 20 2020, @08:33PM
Actually, no. The problem with rail is, the rail company can't be held accountable. They can lose cars for months, and it's not their fault. As for actual efficiency? A study proved that you can move freight by rail for about 2 cents per ton per mile. Over the road trucks are closer to 40 cents per ton per mile. The ONLY reason trucks get the lion's share of freight in this country, is that truckers are held accountable. Trucking companies don't routinely "lose" trailer loads of freight only to "find" them months later in the wrong city, with the goods rotten inside.
If/when rail cars are equipped with GPS tracking, and the cars are actually tracked by some decent computer algorithms - then rail may compete with trucking. But, even more important, someone has to be held ACCOUNTABLE for getting the freight where it needs to go.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday August 19 2020, @07:31PM (15 children)
For EVs, typical recharge rates for the so called "Level 2" 240V charging station, which can be considered a base line of sorts, have been 20 miles per hour. (Level 1 is 120V and roughly twice as slow.) It's like refilling a gas tank through the needle of a syringe. If you do have faster options, such as CHAdeMO, it comes at the price of shortening your battery life, it can't maintain the relatively high charging rate past 80% capacity, and it still takes half an hour.
There is really no point in putting a Level 2 charging station at a travel stop. No one wants to sit in a travel station for 3 hours while their car recharges. If this report is correct, if it hasn't been exaggerated, if they aren't leaving out a bunch of limitations such as being unable to charge past 80% at that rate, and it will massively shorten your battery life, it may be good enough to make the EV a viable road trip vehicle. I note that they are using slippery language such as "up to". Oh, 20 miles per minute is the maximum, huh? What's the average?
What does it take to fill a gas tank, about 3 minutes? 15 minutes to gain 300 miles of range is still not as good as that, but it's tolerable. This, however, sounds more like it will take 30 minutes to gain 300 miles of range. Still tolerable, but it will be a tougher sell. 30 minutes to gain 100 miles of range, to that I'd say "no". Not good enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2020, @07:46PM
I was thinking the same thing. Assuming their "up to" language is meaningful, and one actually got 20 miles per minute of charge rate, then that is at best about 22 minutes, just to charge, to gain the range a hydrocarbon fill-up can give in about 3-4 minutes.
Of course, few will sit in their car waiting out 22 minutes of idle charge time, so this sounds like a bonanza for the quck-e-mart store where they will sell you a soda for 250% markup or a slim-jim for a 350% markup.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by KilroySmith on Wednesday August 19 2020, @09:01PM (7 children)
You asked. I own a Tesla Model 3 with 300 miles of range.
It takes 20-30 minutes to add about 200 miles of range to the car, and another 30 minutes to add the remaining 100 miles, if I pull into a Supercharger with a fully discharged battery. On long trips, I never charge to 100% because of that time penalty - it's faster to charge to 200 miles, and pull into another supercharger 3 hours down the road with a low battery. The Electrify America network will be equivalent to the Tesla Supercharger network eventually, both in ubiquity as well as speed. Note that most modern EVs (including mine) charge at about a 1C rate, which has been the standard rate for Lithium Ion batteries forever, and is seen as safe for the battery. User experience from the Tesla Model S indicates that Tesla battery packs will last over 200,000 miles before degrading to 90% of their original capacity, pretty much regardless of whether the owner uses Supercharging exclusively, often, or seldom.
I drive from Phoenix to the Los Angeles area 3-4 times a year. It takes me about an hour longer (5.5 vs. 4.5 hours) to make the 350 mile trip compared with an ICE. But, IMHO, leaving home in the morning the other 361 days a year with a full charge makes up for the slower trip times a few times a year. And never having to grab ahold of a gas nozzle that the previous user somehow covered in gas (leaving my hands smelling like gas for the rest of the day) is just the cherry on top.
As a point of comparison, the current record for an EV Cannonball Run (Long Beach, CA to New York, NY) is about 48 hours in a stock Tesla Model 3. This compares with perhaps 35 hours for a stock ICE car, and about 25 hours for a prepared ICE car (60 gallon gas tank, observers on the route looking for cops, etc) averaging 109 mph.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday August 19 2020, @09:44PM (3 children)
Another consideration for the EV vs. the ICE for a long trip is the Teslas are getting closer to self-driving. It will make for a more pleasant journey to be able to enjoy the scenery, read a book, or snooze. In that scenario a little extra time for recharging passes quickly.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2020, @10:18PM
There is no reason that self-driving must or will be restricted to EVs. It happens that Tesla is ahead of other manufacturers right now, but I wouldn't expect that to be permanent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @01:07AM
Self driving is orthogonal to the powerplant driving the car forward.
An ICE vehicle can be just as much, if not more, self driving than an EV.
So "self driving" isn't a benefit nor a curse of an EV or an ICE. Eventually the remaining ICE vehicles will gain self driving abilities as well.
(Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Thursday August 20 2020, @09:29PM
"How you doing? You getting tired of driving, want to take a break?"
"Woof!"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday August 19 2020, @11:35PM (1 child)
Sounds like a road trip is very doable, in a Tesla. And that is about what I expected, half an hour to get 200 miles of range. 20% to 33% longer travel time is not thrilling, but livable. It's the other electric cars that are unacceptable.
I own an old Nissan Leaf (2011) I got used, for cheap. The batteries are due for replacement, having degraded to the point that the car has only about 40 miles of range when fully charged. I love the low maintenance and ultra quiet ride. No emissions testing needed. No idling, and no fumes to breathe while idling with door open or window down. But the severely limited range makes it useless for anything other than very local trips.
I don't even try to use charging stations any more. I've learned they are not reliable. They might be turned off after hours, disabled, out of order, the wrong type, occupied, or, most likely, nowhere near my destination. Take a trip that you can't finish without a recharge, and you've put yourself at the mercy of the vagaries of these public charging networks. They don't take credit cards like gas pumps do, no. You have to set up accounts with each of whichever of the half dozen networks are in your area, and then you need their special card, or their app on your smartphone. Even when they are "free", they still insist you have an account. A charging station halfway to your destination is mostly useless, because it takes way too long to recharge. Even when it is at your destination, you might not want to stay that long. Oh, and Tesla gives other electric cars a giant middle finger, by not providing any means to connect them to Tesla's chargers. So I do all my charging at home. If it's too far for the electric to do the round trip on one charge, I take a gas burner.
To make that Phoenix to L.A. run in my old Leaf would take days, of course. Or not be possible at all, if there's a gap of more than 40 miles between charging points.
(Score: 4, Informative) by KilroySmith on Thursday August 20 2020, @12:27AM
The Leaf was a great city car, hobbled by Nissan choosing not to actively cool the battery (the Tesla will turn on the A/C to cool the battery if it gets too hot outside, even sitting in my garage) which caused a lot of battery degradation, especially in hot areas. They were also really early in the EV game, and it turns out that the Chademo charging standard they chose is going to end up on the trash heap of history. Unfortunately, I expect the Tesla connector to end up there eventually, also - eventually there'll be enough other cars with CCS connectors, and enough CCS charging stations, that Tesla will have to change (they already use CCS in Europe, because the EU decided on a single standard, and it wasn't Tesla). Bummer because the Tesla connector is smaller, sleeker, easier to manage, and identical in every market, unlike CCS.
I really wish that a few of the new EVs would take Tesla up on their offer and join the Supercharger network. Tesla has asked that, to do that, they sign a free patent license, and contribute to the cost of building the Supercharger network. But the old car companies are wedded to the idea of "We don't build gas stations, why should we build Charging stations".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @12:44PM
Aren't the Supercharger stations level 3 chargers? In other words, the ones in the article won't work anywhere near that fast.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MostCynical on Thursday August 20 2020, @12:19AM (5 children)
most people don't drive 300 miles at a time.
Daily US average is about 26 miles per day [statista.com]
most trips in the US are under the average EV range - actually up to 95% [greencarreports.com]
Anti-EV logic in SN seems to follow these options:
"EVs don't suit some of my trips, so they are useless technology"
"EVs don't suit one trip I do once a year, so they are useless technology"
"EVs don't suit one type of transport model, so they are useless technology"
"EVs don't suit every possible transport requirement, so they are useless technology"
replace "EV" with "motorbike", or "Box van", or "Milk cart", or "Mazda Miata" to demonstrate logic fail.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @01:09AM (2 children)
Very much depends upon location. Typical city/surburbia folk, yup, they don't drive anywhere near that on a typical outing or a typical day. A rancher out on the plains of Oklahoma, they very well may drive 300 miles at a time (or in several bursts throughout a day).
(Score: 3, Touché) by MostCynical on Thursday August 20 2020, @02:17AM (1 child)
hence most, not all
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 20 2020, @08:41PM
Maybe you should have thanked him for proving your point!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @10:03AM
Most people also don't have a Miata. Not practical enough.
Unlike EVs, though, nobody is saying everyone has to get rid of their current car and switch to a Miata.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 20 2020, @12:45PM
That is correct: most drivers don't cover much distance on a daily basis. Even EVs with range on the low end can cover the typical driver's daily needs.
EVs with longer ranges can manage road trips; there are many videos online of people doing just that, in Colorado (harrumph! EVs can't work in a place with mountains...), in Norway (harrumph! EVs don't work well in cold places...), etc. It takes about 30 minutes to recharge at a fast charger, which puts the pacing of the trip about in line with what the AAA recommends for safe practices on long trips (ie., "Take a break every 4 hours to stretch your legs and refresh").
Energy storage and recharging speeds are about to get better, though. We've seen a lot of stories come through SN on researchers trying different battery chemistry and structures; it's a matter of time before they cross the critical threshhold with energy density and recharge rates. The cool thing about that is it will sweep across all our civilization, not just cars.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2020, @11:19PM (2 children)
No, there aren't as many Love's as other rest stops. But it is a lot better than nothing. Hopefully it will encourage the others to follow suit. Travel stops should "love" this because they make more money from their convenience stores than from their fuel, at least when it comes to gasoline. (They get their share from truckers, though - diesel at truck stops is much more expensive than diesel at small gas stations).
20 miles of range per minute isn't quite as fast as refueling with gas, but if you can get 300 miles of range in 15 minutes, most people will be happy to go inside, pee, and buy a bottled beverage. It is a lot better than having to plug in overnight, which makes long distance road trips impractical.
It's not clear how much access to the charging stations will cost. I'm sure they'll charge something for it, but it needs to be at minimum competitive with gasoline.
Manufacturers need to make sure their charging is 100% compatible. Tesla Superchargers are better than no charging stations at all, but need to die out quickly. What if Toyota owners could only buy Toyota-branded gasoline?
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday August 20 2020, @02:12AM (1 child)
In parts of Australia the main highway locations are more expensive [fuelcheck.com.au], but the truck pumps charge the same as the car pumps
I have owned a few diesels, and preferred the high flow truck pumps - just because they were faster - these days you see "high flow" buttons on normal car diesel pumps, but they are still only a little faster than standard pump rates.
Also note, Australia's fuel quality isn't very good [caradvice.com.au]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @02:23AM
I think it is true around the world that on-highway filling stations are more expensive. There's convenience, drivers don't have to leave the highway and hunt for a station. There's the concession fee, franchisees pay to get a spot at the service plaza, because there are many customers passing by.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by istartedi on Thursday August 20 2020, @05:31AM (3 children)
If you've never stopped at Love's, you might not understand the cultural significance of this. Love's is a truck stop that also serves "4-wheelers". It's always seemed like a kind of redneck haven to me, in a nice way. It's the kind of place where you can get the basic fast-food sort of stuff, or fuzzy dice, or serious stuff that truckers need like placards and bungies to replace stuff that might have come loose. Anyway, to me it has always exuded that kind of "good ol' boy" vibe. To see electric chargers installed there seems like a milestone of "accepting change".
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 20 2020, @04:12PM (2 children)
Give me a Flying J or give me death!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 20 2020, @08:48PM
Flying J are alright. But, if you remember the days of Union 76 truckstops, the Flying J doesn't compare. TA was competitive with 76, but they always lagged a little. Today, there is nothing left that is comparable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22 2020, @02:17AM
We're giving you Trump, isn't that enough?