By on March 3, 2021

EVs

The Electric Highway Coalition, a consortium of six utility companies, will provide a network of  20-30 minute DC fast chargers for EV drivers, as reported by Electrek. Each of the utilities will be responsible for providing EV charging within their service areas, with most sites located along major highways for easy access and adjacency to other amenities.

EVs

Their mandate is to ensure drivers of EV have accessible charging stations along the Atlantic coast as far north as Washington, D.C., throughout the South, into the Gulf states, and the Central Plains. The power companies involved are: American Electric Power in Ohio, West Virginia, Texas and Oklahoma; Entergy Corporation in Arkansas and Louisiana; Tennessee Valley Authority in Mississippi and Tennessee; Southern Company in Alabama and Georgia; Duke Energy in Indiana, Florida, North and South Carolina; and Dominion Energy in Virginia and parts of South Carolina.

Jeff Lyash, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) president and CEO said, “Together, we can power the electric road trip of tomorrow by ensuring seamless travel across a large region of the U.S. This is one of many strategic partnerships that TVA is building to increase the number of electric vehicles to well over 200,000 in the Tennessee Valley by 2028. EV adoption will spur jobs and economic investment in the region, keep refueling dollars in the local economy, reduce the region’s largest source of carbon emissions, and save drivers and businesses money.”

Jointly, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and the TVA announced the development of a statewide network of EV fast charging stations every 50 miles along the interstates and major highways.

The most interesting part of this announcement came from the American Public Power Association, a service organization representing 2,000 community-owned utilities, who reported last year that there would be 10 to 35 million EVs in the U.S. by 2030, up from 1.5 million EVs in the U.S. in 2020, anywhere from a 6.66- to 23.33- percent increase in the number of EVs. They also noted that it would an investment of $75-$125 billion would be needed to revamp the electric power system by that date to service an estimated 20 million EVs. That’s somewhere between $3,750-$6,250 per EV. At that rate, maybe the astronomical rate being charged by the utility companies in Texas recently is their way of financing EV expansion?

[Images: Electric Highway Coalition, TVA]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

29 Comments on “Welcome to Electric Avenue — More Chargers on the Way...”


  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “That’s somewhere between $3,750-$6,250 per EV.”

    That’s clever.

    Here’s a similarly truthful statement:
    It costs an average of $112.5 million to build a 120-bed hospital, or $937k per patient.

    Discuss.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      While I am sure the argument I am about to make could be made to your hospital example, here’s my beef:

      Scenario 1:

      Electric Monopoly A gets a mandate from unelected technocrats (say $37.5 billion for the whole country, $3,750 x 10m EV capacity). They have to cough up $500 million they didn’t plan for, so they issue bonds, new stock, or take a loan/convertible notes to initiate the project. They then go through whatever regulatory steps they need to take to raise rates to cover this + incidental costs + probably a little extra because they can. In other words, I/you pay for this.

      Scenario 2:

      The Fed prints the $37.5B currency out of thin air at interest, it is collateralized against Fedgov T-bills, and then they money is transferred to the Treasury to be added as part of some spending bill. When the bill passes, the money is probably given to the Federal DOE and then allocated as grants to utilities or states to implement these projects. If the money is enough to cover the project (big assumption), in theory the stations are added but I/we still pay though taxation, inflation, and interest to the Fed banking cartel on the national debt.

      So really in either scenario I/we pay for this when I/vast majority do not/will never benefit from it, although in those choices the second is better because those consequences will happen anyway. The only way this really works without secondary consequences to John Q. Public is to emulate what gasoline stations did. Private companies build refueling stations and charge money for the energy. The refueling of those stations is then also funded through private capital as gasoline delivery is done now (although even in that scenario I see Fedgov kicking all or something into it).

      The only way I recant my position on this is if in the future it is revealed Peak Oil is about to occur/has occurred and they are front running it as best they can. The USD *is* the Petrodollar and *is* the world reserve currency, reduced oil usage hurts the USD from a national security standpoint – *any shift away from reserve status will dramatically impact this nation as a whole*. If sufficient oil is really available for decades, a shift as Europe and PRC are pushing for *hurts* the USD, I may argue its economic warfare. Meanwhile the US itself is not in an economic position to build an elaborate charging network ***for the rich*** because that’s who is buying the pure EV (new at least).

      But Karen is pushing Agenda 2030 and what likely will happen is in urban areas where they want to implement their gilded cage suddenly there will be charging infrastructure, and likely among major routes between cities but that’s it. There will be no public charging network in 80-90% of America, because in the economic war between the cities and rural areas, the cities will win and leave the rural areas to wither. Agenda 2030 = “smart”, “sustainable” cities by Big Brother. Meanwhile if Peak Oil is real, the rural areas will be ill able to afford gasoline and become further poverty stricken. When domestic electricity supply is unable to power the 10% EV fleet and everything else, look for brown outs in the rural areas to be standard procedure. They will take any part of the country they don’t care about to Third World standards – because then the youth will leave for the city. Until the events of 2020, jobs were largely in the cities as were the attractions and superior “education” infrastructure. I am unsure how the remote work movement will fit in with Agenda 2030 plans, perhaps as the rural areas deteriorate as intended people will voluntarily want to come to/back to the city? We shall see, but in any event in the automotive landscape is being driven off of an economic cliff with these forced projects.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Holes in your analysis:

        (1) EVs will not be only for the rich for long, and especially not once there is a substantial supply of them on the used market. They will be compelling as used purchases because, until the battery fails, there is so much less to pay for—and you get a *lot* of usage at reduced range before the battery outright fails. There’s already a grassroots movement in my city to set up poor people with used Leafs that have 40-50 miles range and can get them to jobs/shopping/school with lower ongoing costs than any gas car. As the pool of used EVs grows in the future these advantages will become better understood.

        (2) How many people are actually in the parts of America you think will be underserved? Even in rural America, the vast majority of the population is in towns that are along the “routes between cities” that you identify. Places that are many miles off major routes tend to be very, very empty. I think charging networks will be readily available to 90% of the *rural* population even if they evolve in roughly the way you describe. If “peak oil” is real, the best thing for those few who are still oil-dependent is to reduce everyone else’s usage of it.

        (3) Even if COVID results in a long-term shift away from cities—a big if at this point, given that previous pandemics never resulted in that—the shift will be to places along the charging network, because other places won’t have good enough internet access for remote work. Equipping the most distant 3% of the population with good internet access (even 5G wireless) would be a monumental public project, the cost of which to the 97% would dwarf public subsidies for EV chargers. In any event, whether and how to subsidize populations in areas so distant that they can’t survive economically without subsidies is a much bigger and more loaded question than, even, whether to transition to EVs.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          “…Equipping the most distant 3% of the population with good internet access (even 5G wireless) would be a monumental public project, the cost of which to the 97% would dwarf public subsidies for EV chargers.”

          Starlink? I don’t know of any public subsidies going to Musk for this and it will do exactly that.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            50 ms latency is vastly better than earlier satellite Internet but is not going to cut it for Zoom and all-day virtual desktop usage. (This is the same reason 4G LTE won’t work either). You really need fiber, DOCSIS 3.1 cable, or 5G wireless for this audience.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Can’t attest to Zoom, but I am in multiple Microsoft Teams video conferenced daily and I take about half on my 200 dollar Moto G Power over 4G LTE. I also stream lossless .flac and 1080 video over said arrangement from my Plex server without issue. The live conferences are more difficult due to the nature of real time communication but If zoom can’t do that it seems like an issue with that software.

            I don’t see why a connection via starlink would work assuming they aren’t pumping up their specs.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            50 ms latency is fine for streaming. But if you are able to hold live Teams meetings over it without tearing your hair out… more power to you. I don’t find it to work well. One of the most nerve-racking experiences of the COVID era so far was when I had to give a live presentation to a bunch of high-ranking executives over a 4G LTE link, because the presentation was scheduled after I was already on vacation; all the feedback (both words and facial expressions) was just delayed enough to make it really hard to respond organically.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “I had to give a live presentation to a bunch of high-ranking executives”

            I don’t think people living in extreme rural areas are doing a lot of that.
            If there is a “city exodus” from COVID and expanded telework it’ll be things like people moving from Atlanta to Tifton or from Chicago to Effingham. Not people moving to Coldfoot.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          1. This assumes there will be sufficient supply to meet demand, and as we have already seen remarketing valuations actually *increased* by the end of May 2020 over March 2020 after declining 11% as a whole in April (which is insane and AFAIK has never happened before to double digits). EV is no different and I do not believe in the near and possibly mid term demand will increase to a point where ownership becomes more common. I base this on the fact ev-volumes.com claims in Q4 2019 Tesla Model 3 was expected to account for 48% of all EV sales and Model S/X 12% for a 60% market share in USDM. 2020 and its ups and downs aside, Tesla likely retained or gained market share leading up to Q1 2021, therefore it commands 60%+ of the 2-2.5% market share of EV, which in and of itself is still in niche status from a supply standpoint. Thus, a simple and possible two thirds of used EVs for remarketing in 2021/2022 will be Teslas and this matters for one reason: resale.

          Shocking as it is to me, from a personal financial and automotive standpoint a short term ownership of the Model 3 may be the best return at the moment. Per Motor Trend in 2018 the Model 3 started at 35K before incentives, and I realize this was in theory and the price of options packages is difficult to determine from wholesale data. However the MY18 Tesla Model 3 mid range is currently pulling $32,9 on average with the AWD (only in long range and performance trims) at $37,2. Again I have no idea how these were priced with options but that strikes me as very good resale on a used car which AFAIK cannot be serviced by independent mechanics.

          MY18 TESLA MODEL 3 2WD 4D SEDAN MID RANGE

          3/3/21 $41,000 1,600 – – NON/A Black Regular Southeast Tampa
          2/4/21 $38,600 20,005 – – EL/A White Regular Southeast Tampa
          2/8/21 $32,500 20,588 4.1 EL/A Blue Regular West Coast San Francisco Bay
          2/24/21 $30,699 22,612 – – NON/A N/A Regular West Coast myCentralAuction
          2/2/21 $32,000 22,837 4.6 EL/A Black Regular Southeast Orlando
          2/15/21 $31,740 27,173 – – NON/A N/A Regular West Coast myCentralAuction
          3/1/21 $32,970 30,617 – – NON/A Blue Regular West Coast Riverside
          2/24/21 $35,200 32,847 – – NON/A Black Regular Midwest Kansas City
          2/17/21 $34,800 36,520 – – EL/A Blue Regular Southeast Atlanta
          2/9/21 $33,250 49,152 4.2 EL/A White Regular West Coast Riverside

          MY18 TESLA MODEL 3 AWD 4D SEDAN LONG RANGE

          2/24/21 $39,900 15,919 4.5 EL/A Gray Regular West Coast Nevada
          2/17/21 $39,000 16,564 4.4 EL/A Red Regular West Coast California
          3/1/21 $39,000 19,902 3.6 EL/A Blue Regular West Coast Seattle
          3/1/21 $36,730 20,277 – – NON/A N/A Regular West Coast myCentralAuction
          2/22/21 $34,708 23,179 – – NON/A N/A Regular West Coast myCentralAuction
          2/23/21 $38,000 26,294 4.0 EL/A Black Lease Midwest Ohio
          2/10/21 $33,000 26,671 2.4 EL/A Black Regular West Coast California
          2/8/21 $35,500 34,156 3.4 EL/A Black Regular Midwest Detroit
          2/12/21 $39,000 38,545 – – NON/A Black Regular Southeast North Carolina

          The Chevrolet Bolt and Nissan Leaf are probably the two most common “plebian” EV offerings, but with GM holding 6% and Nissan about 2% the total supply will be less than the Tesla equivalent. Per US news and World Report the Bolt’s avg MSRP was $33,3 and the Leaf’s SV (mid trim) $33,3, and $30,9 for base (we will compare mid trims). The Bolt pulls $14,0 (42.04% of MSRP avg) in LT trim and the Leaf SL $16,3 (48.9% of MSRP). Neither resale is particularly impressive although some of this (and Tesla’s) may be related to brand recognition, but it certainly shows one thing: despite supply being less, demand is even less than supply otherwise these prices would be higher.

          MY18 CHEVROLET BOLT EV 5D HATCHBACK LT

          11/25/20 $13,995 14,303 – – EL/A Blue Regular Southeast Tampa
          11/4/20 $15,300 20,716 4.6 EL/A Gray Lease Midwest Milwaukee
          11/3/20 $15,000 29,560 4.2 EL/A Red Lease Midwest Chicago
          11/25/20 $14,600 29,691 4.6 EL/A Black Regular Southwest Houston
          11/12/20 $11,600 32,463 4.5 EL/A Red Factory Midwest Detroit
          11/3/20 $14,000 37,725 4.3 EL/A Gray Lease West Coast Riverside
          11/23/20 $13,520 42,419 4.2 EL/A Black Regular West Coast San Diego
          1/14/21 $14,000 104,568 3.9 EL/A White Lease West Coast SoCal

          MY18 NISSAN LEAF 4D HATCHBACK SL

          3/2/21 $18,500 1,945 4.3 EL/A White Lease West Coast Riverside
          2/10/21 $17,250 13,881 4.0 EL/A Burg. Lease West Coast Seattle
          2/2/21 $16,250 16,447 4.7 EL/A Silver Regular West Coast Riverside
          2/15/21 $16,100 20,344 4.0 EL/A Gray Regular West Coast Riverside
          2/17/21 $17,250 21,213 4.3 EL/A Gray Lease West Coast Hawaii
          2/11/21 $16,500 22,168 4.0 EL/A Blue Regular West Coast SoCal
          2/3/21 $16,000 22,503 4.3 EL/A Gray Regular Southwest Dallas
          2/10/21 $16,200 23,020 4.1 EL/A Gray Lease Southwest Dallas
          2/2/21 $15,200 30,374 – – NON/A Red Regular Southeast Atlanta
          2/11/21 $15,200 32,821 3.5 EL/A White Lease Midwest Chicago
          2/17/21 $14,750 45,211 4.2 EL/A Silver Lease West Coast Hawaii

          So for #1, I have to disagree based on the data. I’m not sure how large the pool of CPO EV buyers is but I can tell you it heavily skews to Tesla. I believe this is in part because Tesla has succeeded in becoming Apple of EVs, it has successfully created a strong image and following despite any technical problems. As the supply of used Teslas grows, it is possible the resale will come down a bit if demand is better met – but it is also possible new CPO type owners step up and nothing changes. Should this occur, I predict it is because they are *buying a Tesla* not because they want an EV. The data shows less costly EV products already exist and demand is not strong for them.

          If I had data on Tesla owners to juxtapose against cell phone and computer ownership, I’d wager a healthy amount of Tesla owners also are Applephiles. If true, it could be in part because of socioeconomic class but I’d also suggest there is a certain psychology in play. If an CPO EV interested party already existed and was being prohibited by cost, why are they not shopping Leaf/Bolt et al? If cost was a barrier as I have previously argued, why not step into the CPO Leaf at $19,9? Data here would be telling as I posit those potential buyers are waiting in the wings specifically for a Tesla.

          This EV revolution for consumer products is simply not happening in the near to mid term -save unforeseen geopolitical events- despite the trillions invested and still being invested. If Tesla is going to step up sales, eventually they may reach a threshold where they meet new and used demand and it would be in their best interest to stay under that figure (I have no doubt they have moving estimates of this). The whole EV movement is predicated on the idea the masses will suddenly embrace it when [insert what happens here]. The data to me suggests it is more an exercise in branding and psychology to this point. The F-150 EV will be the make or break moment since it opens up a huge buying pool not previously tapped and Ford should be able to quickly add volume as quickly as or faster than Tesla. We shall see.

          https://www.ev-volumes.com/country/usa/

          “Pricing for the Model 3 is said to start at $35,000 before government incentives.”

          https://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-3/2018

          “Based on listings for the 2018 Chevrolet Bolt EV on our site, the average price is $33,300, which is well above average for the class. Prices range from $30,300 to $37,000 and vary depending on the vehicle’s condition, mileage, features, and location.”

          https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/chevrolet/bolt/2018

          “Where Nissan really hits its competitors hard is price: At $30,875, the new Leaf is not only less expensive than its predecessor, it’s priced in the thick of those less capable models. ”

          “The mid-level SV retails for $33,375”

          https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a14986916/2018-nissan-leaf-first-drive-review/

          2. Most of Western Pennsylvania and Northern West Virginia is very rural and there are many small communities close enough to a larger city/highway to shop/eat/hospital etc. but far enough for it to be infrequent – but whom can easily refuel in their small town. If these people are homeowners and can afford the charging infrastructure they could charge themselves, but the electric transport infrastructure will eventually hit a peak if enough electric demand is pulled (yes in theory they could add solar panels, I doubt this would happen given the socioeconomic status of these places). Given say 30% EV market share, what I do not expect is any electric infrastructure from major highway/larger city to be added for these locations. This is mostly for cost and common sense issues but I also believe an element would be part of fulfilling Agenda 2030. Perhaps not though, perhaps there will be state wide mandates? I think this is not realistic because many rural areas are still underserved with internet access as you cover in point #3, why would other utilities be any different?

          On Peak Oil, if true I believe these regions would become complete dystopia in a few years or less. The military would seize a large amount of known reserves in Alaska/Lower 48 for national security reasons. I cannot even imagine the world economy and commodities in this scenario -nor the impact to the Petrodollar- but in a severe enough condition the president may direct DOE to prohibit crude oil export. I imagine this would result in several nations doing the same with the Brent going insane for the few countries which would continue export (Norway, possibly Russia, probably Nigeria and some M.E. states). I seriously consider it a nightmare scenario only eclipsed by dystopian fiction and nuclear war scenarios. If somehow this process was dragged out over a decade, the impact may be less severe as these problems are mitigated or worked around (i.e., EV)

          On oil and national defense concepts, you may find this video interesting. In a Peak Oil scenario the same rationing would occur to the US civilian population:

          youtube.com/watch?v=kVo5I0xNRhg

          3. I tend to agree, but I don’t have any data to confirm or refute the point relocations would/do occur along charging networks (or more accurately, charging networks will be installed in places where certain highway routes or population numbers exist). I also agree it would be a massive undertaking to extend sufficient internet access/speed to all rural locations, I doubt it would happen. Perhaps 5G will be in part a way to address this since it would be easier to set up towers as opposed to digging fiber optic lines to all of these locations? EV chargers over existing rural infrastructure could perhaps be installed but charging time combined with demand/socioeconomic status suggests to me it would not be popular and the cost not justified.

          I agree with your final point but will suggest the rural subsidy question is perhaps more important than the decision to do it on a national scale save a Peak Oil scenario. If you do not consider this first, you literally engage in class warfare and create a deliberate have and have not situation. This has already happened with internet speed/access and it could be argued such access is just as important as electric/water etc. since many jobs now require it (though this issue had been partially mitigated by 4G and cell phones in the past ten years). However, the basic ability of transit without animal usage would probably be even higher on a list of survival needs and in the more likely future scenario of oil being taxed at European levels or higher directly engages in class warfare unless similar charging access can be readily had. I fully expect this given political events of the past few years which is in concert with some of the goals of Agenda 2030.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            The Bolt and Leaf prices are showing the way. A 2018 Bolt LT at $14k is an astonishingly good car buy from a TCO perspective. Ignore Tesla; like you say, it is more like Apple than a carmaker. Used Tesla values are high for pretty much the same reasons used MacBook Pro values are high. We are going to see higher EV production volume in the next five years; it’s already baked into production plans. When those EVs start showing up as inexpensive used cars you are going to see quite a change in attitudes toward EVs among non-rich people.

            (And, in computers, I’ve found it worth my while to do short-term ownership of Macs. Resale is so good that I can have really nice machines at reasonable TCO for the fast-depreciating computer world. I’m typing this on an iMac Pro with 128 GB of RAM and three 5K monitors, a good chunk of the purchase price of which was funded by my sale of my previous 5K iMac.)

            I believe there will be chargers in short order in small towns in the sort of relatively dense rural regions in the East you’re talking about. There are already chargers in many of them, and most of the utilities are happy to sell more power for low upfront cost (chargers are, like, REALLY cheap). No conspiracy theory is needed; economics will do the job. The places that won’t have EV infrastructure for many years are all in the West, with the exception of northern Maine. Like I said, there won’t be EVs, but there also really aren’t many people.

            I’m not inclined to engage with the conspiracy theory elements of your post, just to highlight the economic forces that are likely to shape the transition to EVs in the coming years.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            If Bolt/Leaf etc. are such good buys, why am I looking at 42%/49% valuations in three model years? Arguably there is more tech and probably production cost in both vs their ICE equivalents, and those equivalents generally can pull higher than 50% in three model years, extra clean (<20K miles) to clean. This is occurring because of low demand and possibly other factors such as financing and/or remarketing (used dealer sales, ads, etc.). People are simply not buying these even when they could be had extra clean for under $19,9 retail despite value for the money. Even with higher volume, non-Tesla demand has to pick up otherwise this will continue.

            If there were to be some sort of diktat where OEMs were required to produce a large total of EV product under current conditions (say 10% of market share or about 1.6 million), what would happen is they would be put out as cheap leases and then a glut of them would hit the aftermarket at once further depressing resale. This is precisely what GM did from about 2002 to 2008 and it flooded the market with slightly used but otherwise reliable dated models post 9/11 and Dot Com bust… then of course, well you know. I predict the same here, but if somehow because they would become even cheaper used and more available that more people would be turned on to them remains to be seen. Even if this were to occur though, it would be paid for by the OEMs in the forms of massive losses.

            Not to get into a MacBook vs the world thing, but while people may like the OS the hardware is mostly garbage. If you want to get a geek view of why this is, check out Louis Rossman, Macbook repair extraordinaire. What Apple does with its hardware also plays into some IP legal issues that may pique your interest:

            https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl2mFZoRqjw_ELax4Yisf6w

            Your positive resale experiences stem from a like of the OSX operating system, the easy interoperability of their products together, a serious focus on battery life vs everything else, the fact it is the only non-Windows machines accepted in mainstream business, and finally the psychological/branding/cult effect. Given the little I know about you, you are likely in Apple's ideal demographic because for you cost is less of an issue and have no problem spending on extras if you get what you want. The future history of the product doesn't matter much to you as you essentially "trade" it in auto parlance and get something new. Many Apple users are not in this position, and if you follow Rossman you will start to see how their model of near total control of hardware and software forces you into a loop of constant cost designed to force you into new purchases. I really don't know enough about EVs to suggest something similar will/does occur but the basic framework is already there with the battery being the major chokepoint.

            I'll be interested to see if you are right on your points of charging being widely available in rural regions.

            I don't see this as some sort of wingnut concept:

            "However, the basic ability of transit without animal usage would probably be even higher on a list of survival needs and in the more likely future scenario of oil being taxed at European levels or higher directly engages in class warfare unless similar charging access can be readily had."

            But to your point on charging infrastructure being made available in rural regions at least in the East, it would be moot if such a thing occurred.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            I believe a lot of the lack of demand for cheap EVs is transitional, with several factors underlying it: (1) people in houses don’t have the capital to install chargers; (2) a lot of people who need cars in this price range are not in houses; (3) there are a lot of one-car households who really do need to be able to drive long distance. Pile on the disinclination to figure out a new way of living when you are already tired from living paycheck to paycheck and you have the market situation.

            I think all of that will change over time. More chargers will get installed both at houses and in public, more people will hear from other people they know who have EVs, the reliability (non-Tesla division) and cheap maintenance of EVs will be better understood by the public. The fact that EVs can take long trips within most corridors, just with a speed disadvantage, will also become better understood. The people who are getting cheap Leafs here in Seattle adore them. They and other early used EV buyers will talk to others they know, and that is how perceptions will change.

            The Bolt has hands-down the cheapest operating expenses of any vehicle I’ve owned in my lifetime, but it was expensive to buy. If it were cheap to buy it would be a really great thing for someone without much money to spend on a car.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Additional:

          @dal

          I don’t have fiber but live in a general region where it is available. I was looking at Starlink despite the cost being double simply because I like the idea of using satellites for internet access (and I hate Verizon). In my cable/Wireless-N setup I attend several video and non-video Teams calls (4-10 participants) while being dialed into a Citrix session, but we all have experienced issues here and there in the past few months (esp video calls for me). I cannot decide if it is a bandwidth issue on my hokey home network or a Verizon bandwith issue (or perhaps being throttled because of times of day?). I do understand your concern of video conferencing given my background and it would be interesting to Wireshark network traffic over your 4GLTE and see what’s happening during a Citrix session and video calls.

      • 0 avatar
        Old_WRX

        28-Cars

        “The only way this really works without secondary consequences to John Q. Public is to emulate what gasoline stations did. Private companies build refueling stations and charge money for the energy.”

        That’ll never happen.. It would be honest. But, since it is painfully obvious that the EV has become highly politicized and that the reason for politicizing it is do-re-mi (as usual), the chance that it will be paid for by who ought to pay for it is nil. The fact that this whole EV thing is so infused with overwrought touchy-feely language strongly suggests that truth will not be involved.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          “But, since it is painfully obvious that the EV has become highly politicized and that the reason for politicizing it is do-re-mi (as usual), the chance that it will be paid for by who ought to pay for it is nil.”

          Not sure what “do-re-mi” refers too but winners and losers for its politicization would be interesting to examine. The “smart” phone is probably one of the biggest controversies not being discussed of the 21st Century because:

          1. You have little to no real control over Iphone/Android, what you install, and in some cases the right to repair it.

          2. Yes, it is recording and tracking you by design.

          Yet the “smart” phone was not politicized. I argue it was because huge multinationals such as Google, Apple etc. wanted to sell and harvest data from it while federal alphabet agencies and other commercial interests wanted to buy this data for their own nefarious means. I believe this is why these devices get little public scrutiny on the two points I name, I suppose when you own 90% of media you de facto control it and thus things you want to slip by get slipped by. But look over there! EV good, Orange Man bad, you will own nothing and be happy, etc.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      So those first 125 patients are all that hospital will ever be able to see?

      They will build more EVs, but those are the factual numbers now and even using aggressive growth numbers it is still spendy on a per EV basis. The cost being worthwhile is a different argument and you can certainly make that argument, but those numbers are what they are.

      There is certainly a bigger pool of patients already in existence for that hospital though than you are letting on. They don’t board the room up when that first patient leaves and never use it again…it gets used by other patients…a significant number over the life of the hospital which drives that number down.

      Besides there really isn’t a debate as to the need for hospital beds.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        @Art: All good points, and that’s sort of what I was trying to say.

        Just as with the capital expense for the hospital, the capital expense for the electric infrastructure will continue to serve well beyond a fixed timeframe and fixed number of vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      When “someone else” is forced to pay, things always end up tragically expensive. After all, why not?

  • avatar
    el scotto

    Chargers at the organic grocery store (duh), chargers at the normal grocery store, even chargers at Wallyworld. Get some grub, charge up te electric beastie.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    I don’t know how I feel about this. On one hand, it’s nice to be able to increase the viability of EVs as useful for more than just local driving.

    One the other hand, assuming I trust SCE to AUX’s math (which, as an English major I do, since he seems to be a technical person), that quantifies the magnitude of the investment to potentially forestall a peril as yet only predicted by computer models. As in all things financially large, a corporate coalition that will benefit from such an effort has become increasingly vocal supporting the argument that will make lots of money for its members.

    To me, it seems unnecessary. The essence of “financial thinking” is that if you spend X on this, then you’re not spending X on that. If, as I do, you view the market as a crowd-sourced information processing system that (although not infallible) is more likely to be correct than any collection of experts, no matter how well-meaning and disinterested they are, then I am not optimistic that this is an optimum solution from a societal standpoint, at least for a country that has substantial petroleum resources like the U.S.

    Even increasing the operating costs of vehicles like the Lexus IS500 by raising the price of petroleum fuels, whose annoying pop-up videos continue to appear on this site (I hope the pay you guys a lot of money for this junk) is going to be a lot cheaper on a mass scale than re-doing the electric grid to power EVs.

    And, if today’s electric rate payers are financing this, then it’s a huge externality with respect to the operation of EVs.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      These utilities are private (except TVA). The utilities see a business opportunity in EV expansion—as they should—and are investing some cash up front to make transitioning to EVs easier for people. The return on investment is not just from direct usage of these chargers but also from all of the electricity that the utilities will sell to the same EV owners when they charge at home.

      • 0 avatar
        T-Fawkes

        You’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head. The utilities are waking up and realizing they can squeeze out existing charging networks like the oil companies squeezed out the mom & pop gas stations.

        ChargePoint, EVgo, Blink, Electrify America, Tesla, etc. buy the electricity for their charging stations at the commercial rate and re-sell it to the public at a very narrow profit margin. TVA and other utilities either create electricity to sell it directly or buy it at wholesale cost for resale at higher rates. Either way they make more on each charging transaction than current networks could ever hope for.

        Add to that the more EVs on the road the higher number being charged at home or work and the broader the utility’s revenue stream. So it’s in their best interests to promote EVs as much as possible.

  • avatar
    craiger

    I just hope that if EVs proliferate, there will be enough charging ports at various stations. It’s one thing to wait in line for people in front of you to fill their gasoline tanks, and quite another to wait for the guy in front of you to charge his battery.

    • 0 avatar
      T-Fawkes

      I think it’s a safe bet the majority of charging will continue to be done where people live, work and shop or play rather than in a traditional filling station sense.

      Sure for travel on long trips there will need to be a lot of charging stations along major highways, but most people aren’t traveling between cities or states every day.

      The upside is those charging spots are going to need coffee shops and/or places to eat. WiFi and other things to do while waiting.

  • avatar
    craiger

    I just hope that there will be enough charging ports at various stations if EVs proliferate. It’s one thing to wait in line for a guy in front of you to fill his gas tank, but waiting in line behind multiple EVs would take much longer.

  • avatar

    How US was able to build Interstate highway system which is considered as a one of the wonders of the world and put man on the moon and same time not capable of building a single high speed rail? Or set up reliable energy system similar to Russian Unified Energy System. I predict daily blackouts and people freezing to death in US if government goes forward with making ICE cars illegal.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      The successes you describe were unified national (federal) programs with narrowly defined goals.

      Powering EVs remains the domain of local, private efforts, complicated by the interest of competing mfrs. A nationalized system with one charging protocol could do it, but that ship has sailed, apparently. The century-long dominance of the gasoline-based infrastructure is also a challenge for a new entrant like EVs.

      Now we have the Tesla protocol, CCS/J1772, and flavors such as 400V and 800V. Chademo is almost gone – thankfully – but it’s still the wild west in the EV world. Adding in the spotty reliability of non-Tesla chargers, and it’s a gloomy picture.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        Bigger players are getting involved. Shell announced 500,000 charging points by 2025. Tesla ports are going to become more plentiful now that EvGO is going to start adding them. BP Pulse is in the UK and will probably expand here.

        https://www.evgo.com/press-release/evgo-further-extends-nations-largest-fast-charging-network-to-tesla-drivers

        https://www.bppulse.co.uk/charging-on-the-go

        https://finance.yahoo.com/news/planning-500-000-charging-points-154918452.html

        https://www.bppulse.co.uk/charging-on-the-go

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ToolGuy: Hypothesis: It will continue to get worse. (The quitters are likely more competent than the clingers.)...
  • ToolGuy: Dear Honda: What is the third CGI image purporting to show, beyond the 90-inch vertical reach to the...
  • dal20402: It was a fixed 65 mph highway test. Look, hate Ford if you want, it’s your constitutional right. But...
  • ToolGuy: Jeep Thoughts (I know you can’t wait to hear): • My [halfway through college] daughter’s Two...
  • theflyersfan: I had to look this up because I swear I remember this from a long time ago, but there was one time in...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber