5 ms·

EVs just kind of suck for travelling period. Tesla is probably best for travel due to their network and it's reliability. Fuel is just a lot MORE accessible.

by avgDev 4y ago

EVs just kind of suck for travelling period. Tesla is probably best for travel due to their network and it's reliability. Fuel is just a lot MORE accessible. That infrastructure was built over a long period of time. Fueling up is also quicker. Not sure how charger locations are selected but gas stations on freeways cater to trucks. A gas station in the middle of nowhere could be brining a lot of cash from truckers since a truck holds 120 to 300 gallons of fuel. So, these gas stations make sense from a business perspective. Installing a charger in the middle of nowhere seems like not a good idea at the moment. It has much more use in the city.

buffington 4y ago
Something I hope to start seeing is "middle of nowhere" gas stations adding chargers powered by onsite solar and/or wind turbines. This could give these businesses a new revenue source, but more importantly, one that doesn't rely on buying fuel. It doesn't replace their model, just adds to it (with what I'd imagine to be a pretty steep investment in terms of equipment costs). To be fair, I've not done the math to determine what might be required in terms of equipment needed to support EV charging commercially like this. My intuition is that it's certainly possible, but it's not the same thing as residential charging. For example, the solar cells I have on my home are able keep my EV topped off for my 20-30 miles of daily driving, but wouldn't handle 200-300 miles of daily driving for a single car, let alone the many potential EVs that might need that level of charging on a daily basis.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Electricity is fairly ubiquitous. Can you share a few map links of places you’d put a cafe and charger but that doesn’t have electrical service? Depending on how many vehicles you’re charging a day, you’re probably looking at a 50-100kw solar PV generator (either ground mount or canopy/rooftop) along with 100-200kw of battery storage. This is not insurmountable, just requires capital and land.
  - buffington 4y ago
    The idea of producing electricity on site is appealing to me primarily because it can provide a level of independence for a business that they probably don't see today. Using existing electrical infrastructure would do the job functionally, but has a similar problem to that of fuel: you have to buy it from a supplier. Perhaps with fuel there are multiple suppliers you can buy from, but with electricity you often have only one choice of supplier. With on site generation, you have another option that's either immune, or less impacted by, suppliers' changes in pricing, outages, or other shenanigans. Anecdotally, I know that upgrading electrical infrastructure in rural places (in this case remote southern Utah) can be very expensive. Someone in my extended family built a 2 bedroom home/cabin on a remote ranch. The ranch is already wired up with what I assume is a pretty overkill connection. It's a working ranch with a workshop, etc. Lots of high voltage, high amp outlets. The new cabin, located about 500 feet from the "main" structures, needed a hookup, and it needed to be metered separately due to local code requirements. The local electricity utility charged over $20k to extend the existing line. The existing line didn't need any upgrades to support the extension. I'm not saying it shouldn't cost anything, but $20k is a hell of a lot of money for 500 feet or so of wire. Also, that $20k was for the wire and various transformers/service panels only. Said family member had to hire the one contractor approved by the util to install two small telephone poles to carry the wire. What that cost I'm not sure, but it was steep, as it covered a week of labor costs for a team of 4 as well. Solar and/or wind would have probably been a better choice for that hookup, but said family member believes anything "green" is some sort of trap devised by anti-American socialists. Why owning their electricity supply wasn't the obvious choice over a government subsidized utility, I'll never know, but that's the choice they made.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      For comparison, I recently paid $10k to trench 200ft and lay cable of sufficient size for a 400A electrical service entrance upgrade. The utility upgraded the distribution transformer at their cost. That $20k is very reasonable for what was provided. The cost for a solar install is roughly $2-$4/watt (panels, inverters, and all the electrical to grid tie), depending on geographic location. Batteries add to that. High level, this is the cost unfortunately. On site generation typically doesn't save you a substantial amount until you're far from the utility hand off, where they're going to charge you hundreds of thousands of dollars to connect to your structure. From an energy sovereignty perspective, yeah, it's a reasonable path if you already have a sufficient service entrance to grid tie and can afford the necessary trimmings. I've talked to folks who have gone big and spent ~$200k+ in the process; that is beyond the means of many though.

by avgDev 4y ago

buffington 4y ago

Something I hope to start seeing is "middle of nowhere" gas stations adding chargers powered by onsite solar and/or wind turbines. This could give these businesses a new revenue source, but more importantly, one that doesn't rely on buying fuel. It doesn't replace their model, just adds to it (with what I'd imagine to be a pretty steep investment in terms of equipment costs). To be fair, I've not done the math to determine what might be required in terms of equipment needed to support EV charging commercially like this. My intuition is that it's certainly possible, but it's not the same thing as residential charging. For example, the solar cells I have on my home are able keep my EV topped off for my 20-30 miles of daily driving, but wouldn't handle 200-300 miles of daily driving for a single car, let alone the many potential EVs that might need that level of charging on a daily basis.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Electricity is fairly ubiquitous. Can you share a few map links of places you’d put a cafe and charger but that doesn’t have electrical service? Depending on how many vehicles you’re charging a day, you’re probably looking at a 50-100kw solar PV generator (either ground mount or canopy/rooftop) along with 100-200kw of battery storage. This is not insurmountable, just requires capital and land.
- buffington 4y ago
  The idea of producing electricity on site is appealing to me primarily because it can provide a level of independence for a business that they probably don't see today. Using existing electrical infrastructure would do the job functionally, but has a similar problem to that of fuel: you have to buy it from a supplier. Perhaps with fuel there are multiple suppliers you can buy from, but with electricity you often have only one choice of supplier. With on site generation, you have another option that's either immune, or less impacted by, suppliers' changes in pricing, outages, or other shenanigans. Anecdotally, I know that upgrading electrical infrastructure in rural places (in this case remote southern Utah) can be very expensive. Someone in my extended family built a 2 bedroom home/cabin on a remote ranch. The ranch is already wired up with what I assume is a pretty overkill connection. It's a working ranch with a workshop, etc. Lots of high voltage, high amp outlets. The new cabin, located about 500 feet from the "main" structures, needed a hookup, and it needed to be metered separately due to local code requirements. The local electricity utility charged over $20k to extend the existing line. The existing line didn't need any upgrades to support the extension. I'm not saying it shouldn't cost anything, but $20k is a hell of a lot of money for 500 feet or so of wire. Also, that $20k was for the wire and various transformers/service panels only. Said family member had to hire the one contractor approved by the util to install two small telephone poles to carry the wire. What that cost I'm not sure, but it was steep, as it covered a week of labor costs for a team of 4 as well. Solar and/or wind would have probably been a better choice for that hookup, but said family member believes anything "green" is some sort of trap devised by anti-American socialists. Why owning their electricity supply wasn't the obvious choice over a government subsidized utility, I'll never know, but that's the choice they made.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    For comparison, I recently paid $10k to trench 200ft and lay cable of sufficient size for a 400A electrical service entrance upgrade. The utility upgraded the distribution transformer at their cost. That $20k is very reasonable for what was provided. The cost for a solar install is roughly $2-$4/watt (panels, inverters, and all the electrical to grid tie), depending on geographic location. Batteries add to that. High level, this is the cost unfortunately. On site generation typically doesn't save you a substantial amount until you're far from the utility hand off, where they're going to charge you hundreds of thousands of dollars to connect to your structure. From an energy sovereignty perspective, yeah, it's a reasonable path if you already have a sufficient service entrance to grid tie and can afford the necessary trimmings. I've talked to folks who have gone big and spent ~$200k+ in the process; that is beyond the means of many though.