White House, 35 States To Boost Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (cnbc.com) 72
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: The White House said on Thursday it will establish 48 national electric-vehicle (EV) charging networks on nearly 25,000 miles of highways in 35 U.S. states. The Obama administration said 28 states, utilities and vehicle manufactures, including General Motors, BMW and Nissan Motor, and EV charging firms have agreed to work together to jump-start the additional charging stations. The corridors were required to be established by December under a 2015 highway law. The White House said 24 state and local governments have agreed to buy hundreds of additional electric vehicles for government fleets and add new EV charging stations. California will buy at least 150 zero-emission vehicles and provide EV charging at a minimum of 5 percent of state-owned parking spaces by 2020. The city of Atlanta will add 300 charging stations at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport by the end of 2017. Los Angeles agreed to nearly triple the city's current plug-in electric fleet to 555 vehicles from about 200 by the end of 2017. Of those, 200 will be for the police department. The city is also adding another 500 stations by 2017. One hurdle to the mass adoption of EVs has been the difficulty in finding places to recharge vehicles. In July, the White House said it was expanding a federal loan guarantee program to include companies building EV charging stations. The U.S. Energy Department said in July that charging facilities are now an eligible technology for the program that can provide up to $4.5 billion in loan guarantees.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you know all the new marketing rage?
Assembled in the USA [with globally sourced parts].
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know, but you can be sure the energy dispensed through them will not come from the Middle East.
Re:Cart before the electric horse? (Score:5, Interesting)
For those of you stuck on this worn Fox-News-meme, here's the fuller story:
Soon after O began his job in the White-house, he consulted top economists for solutions to the then quickly tumbling economy.
Looking at past stimulus plans and results from multiple countries, the economists suggested a stimulus had to be quick to be effective. "Big" infrastructure projects often take too long to ramp up. Surveys, plan review & approval, environmental studies, zoning studies, etc. have to be done first. These can take more than a year.
Therefore, the concept of "shovel ready" was created to only fund public works projects that could be ramped up quickly.
It turned out those are hard to come by. Some went to fixing potholes and the like, which I witnessed happening in my area, but otherwise they had difficulty finding quick-turnaround public works projects.
Instead, much of the stimulus was used to fund State budgets so that teachers, cops, fire-fighters, etc. would be less likely to be let go. This kept money flowing in the economy. Some also went to investments in green energy companies, such as solar. Sure, some went under, but investing is like that: win some loose some. To focus only on those that went under, like Solyndra, is cherry-picking evidence. (I will agree the investment selection process was poorly managed, though.)
It turned out the Great Recession went on longer than expected such that big public works projects would have been useful. But nobody has a crystal ball. The federal estimates of recession duration and depth were consistent with those made by private company estimates, I would note.
They were reasonable actions based on what was known at the time.
Some pro-austerity people claim that deep recessions fix themselves such that stimuluses are not necessary, but I've seen no evidence of this, other than making life so dreadful that people riot and war, which certainly stimulates economies, but kills.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Please clarify.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Canada and many first world nations did this over the last 15 years.
If anything, the US is way behind.
Exciting times for EVs (Score:2)
We are now seeing affordable >200 mile range cars entering the market, like the Zoe and Bolt. As long as charger installs keep up a lot more people should be able to go 100% electric.
Re: (Score:1)
Posted anonymously since truth generally gets rated down.
You're FULL OF SHIT, says this apparently truthful comment
Re: (Score:2)
This is what a lead-acid core charge is for... to encourage people to get batteries back to a recycler, and perhaps to cover the aspect of breaking up the batteries, neutralizing the acid, dumping all the lead into a smelter to purify and recast, then make new batteries. Other than the plastic casing, batteries are pretty well recyclable, provided they arrive to the recycle place intact.
Re: (Score:3)
Your homework:
Google internal combustion engine efficiency.
Google electricity generation efficiency.
Google world power transmission loss.
Come back here with your answers, along with a conclusion, when you're done.
If you want to bias your results to soften your defeat, be sure to only consider coal generation.
For extra credit, research the following:
Vehicle emissions per kWh
Coal power plant emissions per kWh
Re:Bad time for the Environment (Score:4, Interesting)
I recently did this calculation.
The amount of CO2 emitted per mile driving an EV assuming electricity is generated from coal is about the same as that from a gasoline car that does 40 mpg. How many cars do 40mpg in a real life mix of driving?
Yes, I ignored transmission losses, but perhaps that isn't fair because obviously gasoline gets from the refinery to your tank via zero energy teleport.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the fact of the matter is this is Slashdot, News for Nerds. Most of us here already know these things, or at least have the gumption to do a little research so as to avoid mouthing off claims that are just plain wrong like you did.
The point is for you to go away and learn a bit for yourself, then you'll be more qualified to contribute to this discussion. It's no good us spoon feeding you now, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll do your homework for you when you start to pay me. I gave the argument and someone else easily gave the same exact point. How about YOU do YOUR OWN work and tell us what the benefit is. Dipshits like you are the ones running around demanding everyone do what you say, without facts to back your bullshit claims. GIVE US THE FACTS, or STFU and go sit back in your playpen.
|
Most Slashdotters aren't lazy fucks who shy away from crunching the numbers. Or at least, they didn't used to be.
Then again, we've also seen this trend over and over again in various forums on topics like these. Someone shouting "do the numbers for me." Then someone steps in and does. And then the cry is "your numbers are bullshit" because you don't WANT to believe what you're shown.
After seeing this cycle over and over again, it gets old, and we stop wasting our time.
Re: (Score:2)
Now ditch coal fired plants and factor in alternative energy sources including solar roofs. That's the real long term solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Your leaving out the 2 biggest costs for electric cars.
1) Battery
2) Distribution and transmission.
Also tire/road wear, from cars that are 2* as heavy due to batteries.
These are not energy or carbon footprint neutral.
It is also a big drain on the environment building and maintaining the electric grid. Fixing all the lines that fail, and doubling the capacity to handle transportation will not be cheap, and costs more energy than what is lost in transmission.
Not to mention line workers is one of the 10 deadli
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't leave out transmission losses, I specifically mentioned them. In the US the energy loss from electrical transmission is about 6.4% overall (down from about 9% in 1960), so not exactly devastating.
The environmental impact of generation is, of course, worst-case with filthy coal. Supplement it with hydro, wind, solar, nuclear and you have a much better scenario. With gasoline, you don't really have a choice - burn some planet-killing hydrocarbons or walk.
As for the battery, that is a problem. But
Re: (Score:2)
The 2012 Camry LE has a 17 gallon gas tank and EPA mileage rating of 25 - 35 mpg, which means it can travel 425 to 595 miles on a single "charge". The Leaf can travel 107 miles on a single charge, and is a smaller car to start with. It would be more fair to compare vehicles similar in size, range and luxuriousness.
Tesla Model S = 4,608 to 4,936 lbs; range = 208 to 315 miles. Cadillac ATS = 3,373 to 3,571 lbs; range 320 - 480 miles. So, roughly 38% heavier (and the Caddy gets even lighter if you take out eno
Re: (Score:2)
The 2012 Camry LE has a 17 gallon gas tank and EPA mileage rating of 25 - 35 mpg, which means it can travel 425 to 595 miles on a single "charge". The Leaf can travel 107 miles on a single charge, and is a smaller car to start with. It would be more fair to compare vehicles similar in size, range and luxuriousness.
My 2016 Leaf is certainly a lot more comfortable and luxurious than any Camry I've ever been in. They're about the same size -- the camry is 15 inches longer, though they have equivalent passenger room. Range... well, of course the camry is going to beat the Leaf on range. Most gas cars will beat nearly all electric cars when it comes to range. There's really no point in trying to compare cars of similar ranges right now. I'd even say doing so is comparing apples and oranges. I mean that because I've found
Re: (Score:2)
I did come off a bit negative on electric cars, I am interested, But I am also not convinced the best path to reducing our environmental footprint is battery cars.
> I didn't leave out transmission losses, I specifically mentioned them.
You underestimate the true losses with that. It takes a lot more energy to build and maintain the grid, which is not capable of supporting more than a small percentage of households having electric cars today. For example is a gas pipeline and gas tanker 100% efficient,
Re: Bad time for the Environment (Score:2)
This isn't true. Even ten years ago an 18% efficient panel would be energy positive after about about 1.5 to 2.5 years anywhere in the lower 48 states. The Silevo polycrystalline cells used by Tesla SolarCity in their Solar Roof are between 22 to 24% efficient. Then factor in that you don't need an underlying roof and the embodied energy goes down. Plus increased surface area of a Tesla solar roof vs modules on the roof will mean that the embodied energy is amortized more rapidly as some tiles will be 'work
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Southern California with Tesla's being the new executive cars charging stations installed at commercial building are a premium amenity. In short brokers are placing EV Charging amenities on the front page of leasing brochures. With significant rate savings by DWP/Edison it is becoming profitable for building owners to provide these. even at $2/hr which is the average rate (sometimes discounted to tenants) I think in a very real world ten years from now the traditional fueling station will now become
Re: Exciting times for EVs (Score:4, Insightful)
If you did the math, original poster said they want a car that can go about 50 miles in under a ten minute charge. That is 25% more range than the average American drives in a day. That is approximately the same time you would spend in a gas station for an ICE car. Given you can charge at home, this would put the value proposition in favor of the electric car. So therefore every intelligent consumer would opt for an EV.
Now consider that we ALREADY have a car and charger that are better than these requirements. The Tesla Model S can charge 170 miles in 30 minutes on a SuperCharger. That's more than the original poster's request of 80% of 200 miles. (The overall range of the Model S is 315 miles. The range will go up at about 8% per year compounding --for at least a few years- as battery technology, etc. advances.)
EVs parking in EV charging spots when not charging (Score:1)
Every week I drive by multiple EV charging stations and each time I see at least one EV vehicle parked there without the cable to the charger connected to the vehicle. I've even seen EV vehicles parallel parked in non-parallel parking EV stations, thus occupying 3 parking spots without even charging the vehicle.
If the vehicle is NOT charging, why do they get special privilages to park in reserved parking spaces without complying with requirments of reserved parking spaces? It would be no different than if
Better Hurry Up Barry (Score:2)
Better hurry up. It's a good bet that whatever crawls into the White House next will spend his or her time dodging civil and criminal lawsuits. "Ain't nobody gonna have time for your hipster charging stations!"
If the GOP get in.... (Score:1)
... It will be $50 for a charge,, and you'll still pay the gas tax..
Who pays for it? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
People who don't own cars still subsidize people who do. They pay for rescue services, police patrols, parking lots, etc. and have to breath the fumes cars produce. Stop whining.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for a few outliers, people who live in metropolitan areas yet forego cars, the large majority of people without a car are poor -- low enough income that they won't be paying any federal taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if part of the reason for the fugly plugs is that the makers don't want to get sued if someone tries to wire 440VAC across their nipples or someone sticks a wire clothes hanger and tries to short circuit things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a good thing, which is why I mentioned that the plug type is as it is... because both sides do a handshake first before power is turned on. Otherwise someone would stick some bolts in the holes, get shocked, then go sue for a lot of cash. The J1772 design is pretty cool, where a relay flips power off before the plug is completely removed, which saves the physical connectors from pitting due to arcing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what the problem with that plug is, other than the space it takes up. Nice thing is, you'll have no problem figuring out how to plug it in (which end up) even in the dark.
The picture you linked is a combination cable which has AC and DC charging capabilities. The AC charging is the round plug on top, and the two smaller circles on the bottom are the DC charger. If you have a station which does not have DC fast charging capabilities, then they might elect for their charger to come without those
Airport charging (Score:5, Insightful)
Why add lots of charging stations at airports? When people are leaving their cars for multiple days, they don't need a 240v charger or anything fancy. All that's needed is a simple electrical outlet. Even a Tesla could recharge fully in four days from a standard wall outlet. Put your level-2 charging stations in places where people shop or work and will only be parked for a few hours. Put the level-3 charging stations along highways where people need to charge quickly.
Of course, the need for public charging stations decreases as the range of the cars increases. When the standard range is over 200 miles, most people can do all their non-travel charging at home. You don't need chargers at shopping centers and offices (though I still hear about people with crazy 100+ mile commutes). The real challenge is charging for people who don't have a garage. Focus on putting chargers at apartment complexes and on city streets where residents without garages park. Require charging as part of the permitting process for new apartments (we just did that in my town).
Re: (Score:1)
There's a lot of short-term parking at airports, too. There is a surprising amount of one day travel- fly out in the morning and back in the evening- that would benefit. And a lot of people who are flying for longer times don't want to park their car at the airport and pay for multiple days of parking, so they have somebody drop them off and pick them up.
Re:Airport charging (Score:4, Informative)
Also, while it seems like common sense to place charging stations at workplaces and shopping areas, it doesn't make sense form an administrative or engineering standpoint. When stations go in at your job site, your job site becomes the administrator of those stations. They effectively become refueling stations and they become responsible for the smooth running of their workers refueling. This is much more complex than most people realize. Additionally, when you place massive amounts of chargers (level 2 chargers for that matter) in areas where people are likely to park during the day, you're encouraging additional peak-time load which usually means more pollution per kWh. It's also more expensive to INSTALL the EVSEs because you have to trench and run electrical cables into open lots, install new transformers, etc.
If you want to promote EV use, the solution is NOT more chargers in public spaces, but more battery capacity at an affordable price (like the Chevy Bolt) and more charging at home. And this is the truest obstacle of the push for EVs.
The cheapest energy is off-peak energy. If you charge at home between 9pm and 6am, you're paying a couple dollars at most to fill up your car's battery pack. This is what everyone wants. But not everyone has a garage. Not everyone owns a home so that they can install an EVSE with which to charge an EV.
If EVs are to succeed:
1. EVERYONE has to be able to charge at home.
2. The cars can't cost more than a Prius. (The federal rebate needs to be reworked to be useful to those of moderate/low income.)
3. The cars must have at least a 200 mile range. (All of us working in sustainability are looking forward to the Chevy Bolt.)
4. We have to find a way to make battery manufacturing, recycling, and disposal environmentally safe.
That's a lot to ask for. Which is why I genuinely think that we're over-investing in battery EVs when we should be building more solar/wind powered hydrolyzers and focusing on hydrogen fuel cell vehicle adoption (Toyota Mirai, Hyundai Tuscon, etc.).
Typical government boondoggle (Score:3)
So the only company with a charger with a high enough charge rate that its actually usable for highway travel, the only company with an existing charger infrastructure covering almost all highway routes across the nation, the only company that offers to license all of its patents on this technology to any and all manufacturers who would wish to use it as long as they share in the costs and the ethos of open access, isn't involved in this project?
sigh.
Start forcing a single standard adapter (Score:3)
Federal and state support should be SAE J1772 with DC fast charge and force car makers into line. No CHAdeMO, no Tesla proprietary charge, no Mennekes. A single standard. It would also help if all charge points were required by law to accept common forms of payment and not be exclusive to one make or model of vehicle. i.e. charging should be like filling up a gasoline vehicle, not some vertical thing where charge stations only support certain brands of vehicles or discriminate against competitors.
That might inconvenience people with existing vehicles (they'll have to use cables) but the long term benefit is obvious. It removes a format war, risk of verticality / monopolies and increases consumer confidence in electric vehicles.
Other regions in the world like Europe might choose Mennekes with DC fast charge as their single format but the same point applies.
Re:Start forcing a single standard adapter (Score:4, Interesting)
The directive mandates Mennekes Type 2 with or without AC/DC combined charger and also says users should be able to charge on an ad hoc basis. More or less what I was saying about about non discretionary points that accept common forms of payment. That means in a few years that every charge point should be compatible with every electric vehicle in Europe. It should also mean the end of CHAdeMO and other charge types.
Even Tesla chose a type 2 charger (albeit one with additional DC charging capabilities) in Europe because the directive was coming. So even they saw the way the wind was blowing. Although they really should be using the combined charger or offering to incorporate their super-charging-DC-in-the-absence-of-a-DC-combined-charger capability into the standard.
Re: Start forcing a single standard adapter (Score:1)
Yes, the voltage is different and most modern European houses has 3 phased power from the utility. Mine is 3x40A at 230v. I have a 3x16A fuses for the car which can fully charge my Model S70 in some 8 hours ~ 11 kW on the type2 plug. As much as the installation is capable of. I have a friend with a Leaf. He is stuck with a type1 plug which yields at 3.7 kW. If you have only one phase at 120v, even at 20A, that just makes some 2.4 kW. It will literally take days to charge a Tesla. Also the type1 plugs are si