Re: [EVDL] EVLN: PGE wants CA ratepayers to pay bill for $653M public
Then you drive a Tesla P85 and realise you don't care what it sounds like because that much acceleration can sound like whatever it wants. John Lindsay On 13 Feb 2015, at 5:55 pm, Brett Davis via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: I think for many, if it's going to have a sound, it needs to sound good. Quieter is better and allows you to hear your music. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EVLN: PGE wants CA ratepayers to pay bill for $653M public
Rolling coal is a lot less cool than it used to be. A lot of diesel enthusiasts see it as waste, and don't really want the public hate (or stiffer regulation). My diesel will do this in certain settings depending on the rpm; I try to avoid it. I think for many, if it's going to have a sound, it needs to sound good. Quieter is better and allows you to hear your music. I used the most quiet muffler I could fit on my jeep, but admittedly the rumble of the 454 does sound nice. I do wish it was a little more quiet at times out on the trail. My son's jeep has a 4cyl, and the way it sounds, I wish it made no sound at all. Many new cars are very very quiet and that is a desirable selling point. Performance and convenience will win the day. Brett On Feb 12, 2015 10:22 PM, EVDL Administrator via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: On 12 Feb 2015 at 12:50, Ben Goren via EV wrote: Once the big automakers start making electric versions of their pony cars that out-race the top-of-the-line gasoline models .. almost nobody who buys such a car is going to want anything other than the electric version. II think that intelligent, educated gearheads who will jump at EVs. However, EVs are missing a couple of things that other kinds of people want: noise and pollution. There is a sizable population of people who, for want of a better analogy (forgive me), like to mark territory. A clean vehicle won't do that. The din of a barely muffled ICE is part of the thrill. Of course some of that din can be simulated. As we've seen with the recent revelations that ICEV manufacturers are adding electronic exhaust noise to their cars, it won't take much to design an EV with an Enterprise-style whoosh or a nice, gear-y, turbine-like whine. (IIRC GM designed the latter into the EV1 deliberately.) But the type of guys who like to roll coal - you are NEVER going to get them into EVs. If they go to the track and lose to EVs, they'll say it's a fluke. Maybe once they die off, choking on their own fumes ... (kidding) [Fuel] prices don't need to be especially high in such circumstances to make gasoline undesirable. Just the unpredictability and uncertainty alone will make people want to avoid it. What I think would do it more than price is consistent and significant inconvenience. During the 1970s mideast oil embargo, it wasn't so much the rising prices that got to drivers as it was lousy availability. In some areas of the US, buying fuel was a lot like buying TP or beef in Russia. Some stations had gasoline; many didn't. Where your gas gauge was didn't much matter. If you heard from a neighbor or relative (today it would be on the net) that a filling station had just gotten its allocation, you'd head over there to top off the tank, or buy your 8 or 10 gallon limit. You'd get there and find a line of cars stretching round the block. In winter they'd be idling, wasting the scarce fuel they were trying to buy. A cottage industry appeared, especially in university towns, with people who would - for a price - sit in your car for you in queue. It was a perfect job for college students, who could study while they waited. Of course it was mostly the upper crust VIPs who were willing to pay for that service. For the rest, a fuel efficient vehicle was suddenly REALLY desirable. Auto dealers had subcompacts sold, with hefty additional markup above sticker price, before they ever hit the lots. Used land yachts gathered dust on those lots before selling for fire-sale prices. (A friend of mine scored a once in a lifetime deal on a midsize car with a small V8, thanks to this scramble for small cars.) You can expect a similar demand for EVs if / when this happens again. In today's high-energy, hurry-up society, no one can stand to wait for anything. The rich folks will again be able to hire someone to get their fuel, but many others will be prime candidates for EVs. That just might be a good thing. David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to evpost and etpost addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20150213/e5f8bbad/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
Re: [EVDL] EVLN: PGE wants CA ratepayers to pay bill for $653M public
On 2/12/15 7:09 AM, Robert Bruninga via EV wrote: Even I would balk at that! $25,000 per charging station when a $15 GFCI ouitlet from Home Depot can do the same thing most of the time! Leaving aside any discussion about who should pay for level three charging stations, and how the business model might work, I just want to add a perspective on the increased utility of electric cars with fast charging capability. Level one charging does not offer the same utility as even level two charging, let alone level three. By changing the charging capability and you change what the car can do. By expanding what the car can do you increase the number of people who can consider using it. A level one connection does only one thing, and that's a slow charge suitable for overnight at home or much of the day at work, for those who drive within a range covered by that approach, and who have access to home or work charging. Or if a car is left for a sufficient period of time, like at an airport. So yes, for such particular use cases, it can be great. But these use cases may not cover most people most of the time. Level one charging greatly limits the utility of the vehicle because you only get a small amount of range per charging hour. There are times you may want to jump in the car and run an errand and you can't. There are people who need to drive outside of those constraints. So level one charging limits the number of people for whom an electric vehicle might fit, and makes the vehicle more of a compromise. Level two at 6.6kw allows our electric car to regain charge relatively quickly so it can easily drive more than twice its single charge range within the same day. That is a huge jump in vehicle flexibility and utility. It probably works best for those with level two charging at home or work, depending on where you are when you need to juice up. It also works if you're driving to a destination where you will be for a while, like a movie, concert or meeting, if you can plug in while doing your activity. Level two is useful, but less so, for trips where you need to charge halfway between start and destination, because for that use you have to wait out the charge time and it still takes hours. It helps to combine it with a stop where you can do something useful for those hours, but not every such trip is conducive to that. Level three charging, which our car also has, is another huge jump in vehicle utility because the wait time to recharge is much, much less, so it makes longer regional trips more practical. Thirty minutes or less is much more doable than multiple hours. In Colorado, with level three charging, I can easily drive from Denver to Fort Collins and back within a single day. That's a big jump in utility over level two charging, for me. Sadly, there's no level three charging available in Colorado Springs. For the cost of just a few more level three chargers in, say, Castle Rock and Colorado Springs, I could drive from Fort Collins to Pueblo. Just two more level three chargers, added to the ones already existing in Fort Collins, Loveland, Denver, Greeley and Pueblo, would open up the long Colorado front range metro area to my LEAF. Again, I'm just commenting on that one issue, the relative utility of level 1, 2 and 3 charging. I don't know how the California chargers in question would be sited, but if they use them to eliminate holes in the charging network to similarly increase the utility of the existing level 3 capable electric car fleet for people who live there, it could do a lot to make electric cars more useful to more people. It could increase their useful daily range to become regional vehicle. (I'm not advocating using the current LEAF for interstate driving). Increasing the flexibility and utility of electric vehicles in a way that moves them beyond just the simple level one commuter use, (as wonderful as that limited use may be for some people), helps to expand the market for these cleaner vehicles. Cheers, -Jamie http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/140/article/120539/ PGE wants ratepayers to pay bill for $653M in car chargers The state’s biggest utility wants to install 25,000 electric car charging stations across Northern and Central California and have customers foot the bill. More than 60,000 plug-in electric vehicles are currently registered in PGE’s service area in Central and Northern California. But there are only 1,991 charging stations statewide, according to the U.S. Lets see. That's 1 public charger already exists for every 30 EV's already. Or about 3%.. Yep That coincidently matches the State of Maryland's determination that 97% of all charging at work can be done from standard 120v outlets while vehicles are parked at work.. EV's are not optimum nor designed for distant travel. Throwing money at the problem to try to make EV's distant travlers will disappoint EVERYONE and in the long
Re: [EVDL] EVLN: PGE wants CA ratepayers to pay bill for $653M public
On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:08 AM, EVDL Administrator via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: They offer something that dramatically and powerfully compensates for the utility handicap I think that recent viral video of the Tesla trouncing the Dodge in a drag race, especially accompanied by the other videos of, for example, a Dodge aficionado urging people to not even consider going head-to-head with anything electric because they'll make the Dodge look bad...well, for an awful lot of people with testosterone poisoning, that's going to do the trick. Once the big automakers start making electric versions of their pony cars that out-race the top-of-the-line gasoline models, so long as the electric versions have at least the range of a Leaf and are somewhere in the middle (even upper middle) of the price range...at that point, almost nobody who buys such a car is going to want anything other than the electric version. As of about a week or so ago, the general public is starting to realize that, if you want to win races, you've gotta have an electric vehicle; gasoline just doesn't cut it any more. Pretty soon, that's going to mean that driving a gasoline-powered car is going to be a sign of emasculation and embarrassment, with all the glory going to those who drive EVs. It abruptly becomes crushingly expensive and/or extremely inconvenient to get fuel for an ICEV. I notice that gas prices are already soaring after their extended stay below $2/gal. My prediction, which is mine, is that not only is this the last time we'll ever see gas that cheap...but that this is the first of the big price spikes. I expect prices to begin fluctuating, with a constant roller-coaster ride starting now. And prices don't need to be especially high in such circumstances to make gasoline undesirable. Just the unpredictability and uncertainty alone will make people want to avoid it. Even if we just bounce back and forth between $2 and $4, people will still freak out. As they should Cheers, b -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20150212/cb15d750/attachment.pgp ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EVLN: PGE wants CA ratepayers to pay bill for $653M public
On 12 Feb 2015 at 12:50, Ben Goren via EV wrote: Once the big automakers start making electric versions of their pony cars that out-race the top-of-the-line gasoline models .. almost nobody who buys such a car is going to want anything other than the electric version. II think that intelligent, educated gearheads who will jump at EVs. However, EVs are missing a couple of things that other kinds of people want: noise and pollution. There is a sizable population of people who, for want of a better analogy (forgive me), like to mark territory. A clean vehicle won't do that. The din of a barely muffled ICE is part of the thrill. Of course some of that din can be simulated. As we've seen with the recent revelations that ICEV manufacturers are adding electronic exhaust noise to their cars, it won't take much to design an EV with an Enterprise-style whoosh or a nice, gear-y, turbine-like whine. (IIRC GM designed the latter into the EV1 deliberately.) But the type of guys who like to roll coal - you are NEVER going to get them into EVs. If they go to the track and lose to EVs, they'll say it's a fluke. Maybe once they die off, choking on their own fumes ... (kidding) [Fuel] prices don't need to be especially high in such circumstances to make gasoline undesirable. Just the unpredictability and uncertainty alone will make people want to avoid it. What I think would do it more than price is consistent and significant inconvenience. During the 1970s mideast oil embargo, it wasn't so much the rising prices that got to drivers as it was lousy availability. In some areas of the US, buying fuel was a lot like buying TP or beef in Russia. Some stations had gasoline; many didn't. Where your gas gauge was didn't much matter. If you heard from a neighbor or relative (today it would be on the net) that a filling station had just gotten its allocation, you'd head over there to top off the tank, or buy your 8 or 10 gallon limit. You'd get there and find a line of cars stretching round the block. In winter they'd be idling, wasting the scarce fuel they were trying to buy. A cottage industry appeared, especially in university towns, with people who would - for a price - sit in your car for you in queue. It was a perfect job for college students, who could study while they waited. Of course it was mostly the upper crust VIPs who were willing to pay for that service. For the rest, a fuel efficient vehicle was suddenly REALLY desirable. Auto dealers had subcompacts sold, with hefty additional markup above sticker price, before they ever hit the lots. Used land yachts gathered dust on those lots before selling for fire-sale prices. (A friend of mine scored a once in a lifetime deal on a midsize car with a small V8, thanks to this scramble for small cars.) You can expect a similar demand for EVs if / when this happens again. In today's high-energy, hurry-up society, no one can stand to wait for anything. The rich folks will again be able to hire someone to get their fuel, but many others will be prime candidates for EVs. That just might be a good thing. David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to evpost and etpost addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EVLN: PGE wants CA ratepayers to pay bill for $653M public
Even I would balk at that! $25,000 per charging station when a $15 GFCI ouitlet from Home Depot can do the same thing most of the time! http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/140/article/120539/ PGE wants ratepayers to pay bill for $653M in car chargers The state’s biggest utility wants to install 25,000 electric car charging stations across Northern and Central California and have customers foot the bill. More than 60,000 plug-in electric vehicles are currently registered in PGE’s service area in Central and Northern California. But there are only 1,991 charging stations statewide, according to the U.S. Lets see. That's 1 public charger already exists for every 30 EV's already. Or about 3%.. Yep That coincidently matches the State of Maryland's determination that 97% of all charging at work can be done from standard 120v outlets while vehicles are parked at work.. EV's are not optimum nor designed for distant travel. Throwing money at the problem to try to make EV's distant travlers will disappoint EVERYONE and in the long run undermine EV acceptance. We need to focus on educating the public that EV's are best used for local travel and commuter cars. Bob, WB4APR ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EVLN: PGE wants CA ratepayers to pay bill for $653M public
On 12 Feb 2015 at 9:09, Robert Bruninga via EV wrote: We need to focus on educating the public that EV's are best used for local travel and commuter cars. That's a pretty steep uphill climb. With enough will and budget it can be done for some minor adjustments. In the space of about a decade, advertising from GM, Ford, and Chrysler convinced American auto buyers that they really wanted trucks instead of cars. It helped that they also made trucks much more car-like. But in general, it's a losing proposition trying to sell people stuff by making what YOU think they should want, and then educating them on what it's good for and why they should want it. Rather, you sell them stuff by making what they already know they want and need. Here's a car that costs more than one that runs on gas. Oh, by the way, don't expect to drive it all the places you could drive a gas car. Sorry. That's just not a viable ad campaign. I'm a longtime fan of EVs, but I also recognize that they''ll never take more than a tiny fraction of the vehicle market until one or more of the following happen : 1. They match the utility of an equivalent ICEV (including range per tankful) 2. They sell at a price which matches their relatively lower utility 3. They offer something that dramatically and powerfully compensates for the utility handicap 4. It abruptly becomes crushingly expensive and/or extremely inconvenient to get fuel for an ICEV. Some ebikes accomplish #2. Tesla does #1 and #3. I know, other EVs accomplish #2 through (potentially) lower fuel and maintenance costs. That works for a few customers, no doubt including most of us on the EVDL. Regrettably, we're in the minority. Most folks are short-sighted and consider only the initial purchase cost. David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to evpost and etpost addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
[EVDL] EVLN: PGE wants CA ratepayers to pay bill for $653M public EVSE
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/140/article/120539/ PGE wants ratepayers to pay bill for $653M in car chargers February 10, 2015 SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The state’s biggest utility wants to install 25,000 electric car charging stations across Northern and Central California and have customers foot the bill. More than 60,000 plug-in electric vehicles are currently registered in PGE’s service area in Central and Northern California. But there are only 1,991 charging stations statewide, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Some drivers worry they will be stranded. The stations would have chargers that provide up to 25 miles of power for every hour of charging. For motorists driving long distances, the utility will install 100 “fast chargers,” which can recharge an electric vehicle’s battery in 30 minutes. A growing number of the fast-charging stations are popping up along the “West Coast Electric Highway,” which runs from British Columbia to Baja California. The utility says the goal is to help Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to have 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles in California by 2025. The price tag for the charging stations is $653.8 million. The chargers would be located in apartment complexes, retail centers, and at workplaces. PGE wants its 5.1 million electricity customers to cover the costs. On Monday, the utility submitted its plan to the California Public Utilities Commission for consideration. If approved, residential customers could see a hike of about 70 cents on their monthly bill for five years starting in 2018. PGE says there are other benefits as well. “By supporting market acceptance of electric vehicles, it should create tremendous new opportunities for other infrastructure and technology companies, help keep California in the forefront of electric vehicle innovation, and create new jobs in local communities across Northern and Central California,” PGE President and CEO Tony Earley said. Not everyone is behind the plan, including electric vehicle charging network ChargePoint. “The proposal PGE filed today creates a monopoly in EV charging equipment and services that will stifle growth and innovation in the market,” CEO Pasquale Romano said in a statement. [© 2015 Manteca Bulletin] http://www.govtech.com/transportation/PGE-Wants-California-Ratepayers-to-Foot-Bill-for-25000-Car-Chargers.html PGE Wants Ratepayers to Foot Bill for 25,000 Car Chargers in California by David R. Baker, San Francisco Chronicle / February 10, 2015 1 The utility described the $653.8 million effort as an important step toward reaching Gov. Jerry Brown’s goal of having 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the state’s roads by 2025. (TNS) -- As more Californians switch to electric cars, the state’s biggest utility — Pacific Gas and Electric Co. — sees a new potential role for itself: Gas station owner. PGE on Monday announced plans to install 25,000 electric car chargers across Northern and Central California, in what the company billed as the nation’s largest charger deployment project yet. The utility, based in San Francisco, described the $653.8 million effort as an important step toward reaching Gov. Jerry Brown’s goal of having 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the state’s roads by 2025. California already has more than 100,000 electric cars on its roads, a greater number than any other state or country. And 60 percent of those cars reside in PGE’s territory. But many potential buyers still suffer from “range anxiety,” the fear of running out of juice on the open road. More public charging stations would soothe that fear. “There is some growth in EV adoption, there is some growth in (charging) infrastructure, but the growth is nowhere near where we need it to be to reach the state’s goals,” said James Ellis, director of electric vehicle programs at PGE. While other companies — including automakers such as Tesla Motors, BMW and Volkswagen — are deploying charging stations as well, PGE’s plan comes with a significant difference. The program’s cost would be paid by all 5.1 million of PGE’s electricity customers, whether they own electric cars or not. In California, utility profits are based largely on the value of the equipment they own — the substations, wires, meters and poles. The cost for the charging stations would be passed on to PGE customers in the same way, adding about 70 cents to the monthly bill of a typical residential customer, starting in 2018. As a result, PGE’s plan requires the approval of the California Public Utilities Commission, which sets utility rates. PGE submitted its proposal to the commission on Monday. The idea of passing on the program’s costs irks consumer advocates. Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, noted that charging-station technology is advancing quickly. And it’s still not clear, he said, that electric vehicles will win in the looming head-to-head competition with fuel-cell vehicles, championed by Toyota,
