Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Wednesday June 21 2017, @12:37PM   Printer-friendly
from the thousands-of-hamsters-in-wheels dept.

When I wrote about Tesla's rapid expansion of its supercharger network, I was equally surprised by the extent of its less publicly touted network of "destination chargers"—slower, "Level 2" chargers that it is distributing to hotels, malls, restaurants and other locations so folks can charge while they shop/eat/sleep, and thus relieve some pressure from the faster superchargers which folks use for longer distance road tripping.

It got me thinking about another network of charging infrastructure which folks often don't talk about: The Level 2 chargers which most of us electric vehicle drivers install in our homes and—sometimes—places of business. These chargers don't just enable our own electrified driving, but they also provide some peace of mind to any friends and relatives who may consider driving electric, and who can now be sure of a charge if they come for a visit.

In fact, I've noticed several private charging station owners—especially businesses—in my region are publicly listing their charging stations on the various apps that are available for locating charging spots. Interestingly, this isn't just limited to restaurants or shops offering charging as a perk for your business: We have real estate companies and industrial operations simply offering up their charge points as a free service to the electric vehicle community. (Often, they'll stipulate—quite reasonably—that their own vehicles get first dibs.)

Is a network of free- or metered Tier 2 charging stations the solution to EV range anxiety?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by Grishnakh on Wednesday June 21 2017, @05:13PM (9 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday June 21 2017, @05:13PM (#529119)

    Huh? 100,000 miles is far from the typical lifetime of a modern car. My last two cars hit 100K without any major servicing or repairs, just normal maintenance.

    I see this kind of thing on the internet regularly. Someone makes a comment like the OP saying that 100k is a car's lifetime, others counter with incredulism.

    My theory is the 100k people are Chrysler buyers. How often do you see Chrysler vehicles from the 1990s or even 2000s still driving around? Not much, and when you do see one, it looks like hell.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @05:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @05:40PM (#529131)

    Yep, when we were leaving high school my friends have Neons while I had a Civic and they insisted that they had the better cars. I still see 2000 or older Civics on the road but can't remember the last time I saw any generation of Neon still running and they got rid of theirs over a decade ago due to either being wrecked or being more expensive to maintain than to replace.

    My Honda was at 144k miles when it died in a crash. My Lexus has 149k on it and right now just needs a new front wheel bearing while I'll easily swap out myself this weekend.

  • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Wednesday June 21 2017, @07:26PM

    by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 21 2017, @07:26PM (#529159)
    Well Chrysler is one of the few brands I haven't owned over the years (the 100K+ cars I have owned are a Chevy and a Ford) so I can't really refute that argument.
  • (Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday June 21 2017, @07:38PM (1 child)

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 21 2017, @07:38PM (#529163)

    My Jeep Cherokee went to 190k miles before i crashed it. If i wasn't so poor at the time i could have had it fixed and kept going.

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Nuke on Wednesday June 21 2017, @09:34PM

      by Nuke (3162) on Wednesday June 21 2017, @09:34PM (#529229)

      Mine did 270,000 until I sold it two years ago to someone still using it.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by mojo chan on Thursday June 22 2017, @08:46AM (4 children)

    by mojo chan (266) on Thursday June 22 2017, @08:46AM (#529425)

    In the UK lots of Taxi firms use Leafs. There are some with 200k miles in 3 years on them. >90% battery capacity remaining, for basically zero maintenance beyond tyres and brake pads.

    I've been driving a Leaf for a few years now. If you maintain 70 MPH you can drive for about 1.5 hours before needing to charge, which takes around 45 minutes. Other cars have even better range, e.g. the latest model Zoe is capable of over 200 miles on a charge and costs less than the Leaf (at least on paper, Nissan does massive discounts).

    Battery tech is not the problem, only cost is. Cost is coming down rapidly. Once you get to about 250-300 miles range at motorway speeds (a Tesla 100kWh battery can do that) it's basically at the limit of what a human can safely do anyway. There will always be some people who desperately need to do 8 hours straight on a regular basis, but for the vast majority it's more than adequate. To give you an idea, EU rules for commercial drivers require a 45 minute break every 4.5 hours of driving, and drivers usually split that into two 30 minute breaks every 2 to 2.5 hours. Breaks are strictly enforced - you can't do any work at all during them, not even pumping gas, so charging for half an hour regularly is no problem.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday June 22 2017, @02:38PM (3 children)

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday June 22 2017, @02:38PM (#529510)

      There's a big problem with your analysis: you're wrong about needing to take breaks. Drivers may need to take breaks, but vehicles do not, and in the US, long-haul trucks frequently do not, regardless of any laws about drivers needing breaks. Drivers frequently drive in 2-person teams, so that one person is sleeping or resting while the other is driving; that way the vehicle is constantly in motion instead of stopped unproductively. This isn't that uncommon in passenger cars either. So the recharge time is still a factor, just less so with cars than trucks.

      If the industry could have come up with a standard-size quick-swappable battery pack, this whole issue could have been avoided. That would bring up the issue of how do you deal with liability when a battery goes bad or is degraded (who owns it and needs to pay to fix/replace it?), but I think that's a solvable problem.

      • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday June 22 2017, @02:53PM (2 children)

        by mojo chan (266) on Thursday June 22 2017, @02:53PM (#529514)

        Seems inefficient to have two drivers per vehicle, rather than say two vehicles that have to stop regularly. That's what they do in Europe.

        --
        const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday June 22 2017, @03:34PM (1 child)

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday June 22 2017, @03:34PM (#529530)

          Seems inefficient to have two drivers per vehicle, rather than say two vehicles that have to stop regularly. That's what they do in Europe.

          Drivers are cheap compared to the vehicle.

          Plus, a lot of teams are married couples. You want them to stay in separate vehicles from each other?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 22 2017, @04:40PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 22 2017, @04:40PM (#529558)

            Might help the relationship.