mass production might solve some of that problem. The other would be commercialization. Exxon won't stand still and let electric take over, they'll put in an "electric pump" where you can use that giant plug to get a quick fix for $5 or something. Restaurants would also be a good place for electric plugs. If you could go to McDonalds for $5 and get something crappy or go to Applebees for $10 and get good food plus a free charge, well that would be a very good incentive at little cost for Applebees beyond the initial investment.

↓↑report

You make a good point. In fact, Don Karner (CEO of eTac - the company behind the chargers) is hoping that retailers and employers will provide much of the needed infrastructure. However, I doubt Applebee's and other retail establishments would like to jump through the regulatory and safety issues just to provide electricity. The local Electric Co. would be the one to do it, and they'd certainly want to charge a premium for the "convenience". If you're using a charger on the road, you're a captive customer - they know you can't go far, and you'll pay whatever price they ask.

Why would a hydrocarbon company like Exxon or BP go through the expense of installing fast-chargers and setting up billing with the local Electric Co., when they could just sell their own reformed fuel cell fuel?

↓↑report

More fud from another industry lobbyist.

↓↑report

Assuming a half-hour lunch at Applebee's, you won't get more than about 25 miles of charge using the new standard J1772 connector at a maximum rate of 240V/70A. Not really enough to be useful IMO. Connection limits are the weak link in the quick-recharge chain, and get overlooked quite frequently in debates on the Web. Any connection running at a realistic voltage and amperage is not going to let through enough power to fill up your battery that fast.

I think the need for public charging stations is highly overrated, since people will already have the ability to fully recharge at home. Just about every forseeable EV, including the Leaf, isn't intended as a cross-country vehicle. It's for commutes and errands. All the public charging stations in the world won't change that. You could have the U.S. peppered with charging stations every mile, and you'll still only be able to travel 100 mile segments in between charges.

If there is a place for public charging, it's at locations where you know you'll be staying for several hours. Great examples include hotel chains like Extended Stay America, or the parking lots of large companies where employees will be staying a full working day. Then you can at least get your vehicle recharged enough to make a big difference.

↓↑report

You say the DOE pays 100million for 12,750 chargers, but the cost of the project is 200million which means that the additional cost is to be covered by electric utilities.
This would yield 127 stations for each of the 100 largest cities.

Sounds like not such a bad deal given that hydrogen advocates estimate that hydrogen stations would cost 2-4million apiece which would yield 100 stations under a similar scheme(if you could get oil companies to invest any of their own money). This would yield 1 station for each of the 100 largest cities.

Also at the costs you list of $20-40k per charger put electric charging stations in range of being affordable for individual entrepreneurs and complementary businesses such as hotels.

↓↑report

You also forget that you don't necessarily need to charge at these stations. People can still charge their cars in their garages. These chargers are ultimately a convenience.

↓↑report

Boyprodigy1

So you're saying we're paying $200 million just to make life convenient for some people in five states? Specifically, approximately 1000 hand-picked individuals in each state?

People, 90% of whom who have already told Nissan that they drive less than 100 miles a day and therefore wouldn't even need a charger? I'm sure they'll think of the rest of us as they drive by the charges they don't really need and likely won't use.

↓↑report

I think this is an extraordinary deal. 12,500 charging point is an average cost of only $16,000 each. For the initial run this in an average of 1.6 chargers per person, arguably total overkill, but smart if you want to ensure that the introduction will be positively received. I understan that the level 3 chargers are more expensive but this is REALLY cheap compared to hydrogen. If you set up a level three 'charge station' similar to a gas station, the chargers would only run 40,000 x 8 = $320,000 plus maybe another $100k for the rest of the facility. That's around $1/2 M for a similar facility to a gas station. Even at twice that it would be on par with the cost of a gas station with a similar number of pumps. Does someone have some better number to compare to a gas station? I'm curious how the comparison pencils out.

↓↑report

It's glaringly obviously letstakeawalk is trying to sow doubt, obfuscate and trivialise all efforts towards BEV adoption.

He is doing a pretty good job clogging up these message threads. There is enough rational and plausible content in his posts to convince the unwary. he is so damn dogged and determined... a real grinder.

It's so tiring to argue with him, people give up. I can even sense the editorial team being swayed by his relentless assault.

He has to be a morph of Glen Blencoe or something. If you did actually take a walk with letstakeawalk you will be brainwashed into a freaking hydrogen cult within 30 mins.

↓↑report

"I thought one of the benefits of BEVs is that they didn't need an large capital outlay to develop infrastructure?"

You thought people could just pull up to a tree and plug their EV in? no charging station needed??


"An estimated $200 million to install plug-in stations in only 5 test markets"

For over 12,000 charging stations thats an incredible deal. If power can be fed back into utilities during peak hours that would be a major boon to utilities as well, who have already suggested they'd subsidize something like this. How many hydrogen stations would $200mill get? 50?

↓↑report

You don't NEED this many public chargers to have a BEV work for a community. This is just a study to show the best strategies to expanding infrastructure. It doesn't mean every city has to install this many chargers.

Again, quoting myself: "Where chargers might be deployed is residences, employers, parking structures, retail locations, city-owned parking, and maybe even at gas stations." Basically every place that it might make sense to install, they will install a charger. They are expecting some locations to be "failures" and they want to learn why some locations don't work and some do. That is the reason for what seems like an "overkill" amount of charging stations.

In general, a charger can easily be paid by the owner of the location (even the level 3 chargers at $40k isn't that bad in terms of cost and any location can afford $1-2k for one of the slower chargers provided they have space/electricity for it). And the chargers can immediately start paying for themselves (for example the paid street-side chargers). This means it is not a heavy burden for private businesses to install their own chargers as plug-ins gain market share.

Even if you divide out the $200 million (which is a lot of money) over the 12750 chargers, you get $16k each, which isn't that much money per unit wise, esp considering this includes all the study/installation/location costs. If this wasn't part of a study and was a done by the a small business, I imagine you can easily install a J1772 charger for under $5k (the charger itself is only $1.5k).

↓↑report

--However, I doubt Applebee's and other retail establishments would like to jump through the regulatory and safety issues just to provide electricity.

The charging stations already come certified, and be put practically anywhere. These are practically guaranteed to become a mainstay at malls, restaurants, etc basically anywhere that customers can be convinced to spend extra time (and money) at for the convenience of a fast and cheap (or free) charge. A McDonalds store has already put in a free charging station for their customers. You apparently don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/07/07/green-mcdonalds-installs-electric-vehicle-charging-stations/#


--The local Electric Co. would be the one to do it, and they'd certainly want to charge a premium for the "convenience". If you're using a charger on the road, you're a captive customer - they know you can't go far, and you'll pay whatever price they ask.

You're blatantly wrong on two points

1) Local utilities would have incentive to offer LOWER prices on their own (outside-the-home) charging outlets since these would most likely be used during the day during peak hours when they would welcome ability of these BEVs to feed energy back into the grid, and some utilities are already offering to PAY CUSTOMERS to do this.

2) Local utilities DO NOT have a lock on charging outlets, and the fact that they're being installed will attract other charging station companies who see their is a market. Not only would these utilities have to compete with other charging station companies, they would have to compete with other local utilities and offer competitive rates to these companies for the rights to have their EV charging networks plugged into the utility's lines.

↓↑report

Polo

I appreciate the enthusiasm everyone shows for BEVs, I'm just playing Devil's advocate. I am confused by this:

"1) Local utilities would have incentive to offer LOWER prices on their own (outside-the-home) charging outlets since these would most likely be used during the day during peak hours when they would welcome ability of these BEVs to feed energy back into the grid, and some utilities are already offering to PAY CUSTOMERS to do this."

1. Why would the Electric Company even want to add to the burden on the grid during peak hours? Again, I thought the BEVs were intended to be charged at night, so that they wouldn't place an extra burden on the grid. Also, why exactly would a BEV driver want to feed energy back into the system at one of these charging stations? They're just going to need to get that juice back at some other time, why waste time and energy hooking up when it's not necessary? I know that some utilities will pay residential users for power put back on the grid, but it doesn't make sense to use a BEV in the same fashion. A PHEV, maybe, since they have on-board generating capability.


"2) Local utilities DO NOT have a lock on charging outlets, and the fact that they're being installed will attract other charging station companies who see their is a market. Not only would these utilities have to compete with other charging station companies, they would have to compete with other local utilities and offer competitive rates to these companies for the rights to have their EV charging networks plugged into the utility's lines."

2. Where do the charging stations companies get the power from, if not the local utility? In the future I could see solar, wind, or other non-grid sources, but since $100 million is being paid for by the electric utilities themselves, it's safe to assume they're planning on getting a return on their investment. Competitive rates? Who's the competition here? BEV users have only these charging stations to use, which makes them a monopoly. It only make sense that a service and a commodity provided to a captive market by a single provider would charge a premium price in order to make a return on its investment.

Of course, these are all hypothetical. We won't really know how it all works untill the infrastructure has been installed and the buyers receive their cars. I wish Nissan good luck, but I'm worried about the range and lifespan of those batteries. I'd prefer a PHEV, personally. Plug in at home, fine. But then there's no worries about range with the extender...

(...and to all those who think I'm a shill and have complemented my debating abilities, thanks. I do believe in the Socratic method, and apparently I do make enough sense to put people on the defensive.)

↓↑report

I disagree. Nissan is doing the right thing by making sure some forward-thinking cities are ready to support electric cars. Compare this to GM's strategy of fudging the MPG to confuse consumers. Nissan wants real people to be ready for real cars.

↓↑report

Then we'll have agree to disagree, Nick. Ah, well... I guess I'm not a real person, let alone ready for a real car.

↓↑report

Nick, [most] adults are capable of making decisions about whether a particular car with specific characteristics can satisfy their needs.

Nissan doesn't have to fudge anything, what they need to do is be very upfront about their state of the art product to earn customer trust. With that said, I agree with Yanquetino that Nissan should be open to offering LEAFs outside of areas targeted for initial public charging infrastructure. There is a market, two-car households for example, that will be interested in a LEAF as a second car replacement. There is no reason to artificially limiting sales.

↓↑report

Exxon may have locations(current gas stations) but people who don't deal drugs wont hang out at the gas station(unless there is a restaurant or coffeshop).

Exxon can also get commercial rates for electricity, but the electric utility could always cut out the middlemen by jumping into the business and installing their own chargers.

Right now oil companies are all pretty much on even footing and collude to set prices(the shell and mobil stations by me always have exactly the same price). But when it comes to electricity oil companies would not control the means of production and would always be at a disadvantage compared to a utility.

Maybe the republicans(and blue dogs) will do the oil companies a favor and make it illegal for utilities to sell electricity directly so they can continue to be "competitive".

↓↑report