nowtta60 said:A good comparison for you – we’re close enough in numbers to get some officials to realise how far they are behind…
UK population 64 million, land area 94,000 square miles
Electric Highway as tweeted today has 445 Rapid Chargers active: 211 Chademo 50kW, 164 AC 43kW, and 70 CCS 50kW.
Note these are not the only rapids – just the national network located on motorways and trunk roads.
http://www.zap-map.com list the total locations (not individual charge heads) as 362 50kW DC and 202 43kW AC plus a number of 22kw which are hard to separate out as they are in with the 7kW Fast AC units ??? I and most other people class 22kW as a Rapid not fast!
California population 40 million, land area 163,000 square miles.
Hopefully you can find the numbers for that. Nothing like a bit of bench marking to use as thumbscrews. UK isn't that different to CA, Lots of urban areas, with a large number of people out in the sticks.
If things go well – California will leap ahead of the UK and then I can use the numbers to show how we are lagging behind etc etc ;-)
To my mind the main North-South West Coast artery from Mexico to Canada is i5, and to run a 440-mile segment of the WCEH over on 99 is pure folly, which would be underused by many of today's EV drivers, and there just aren't that many Central Valley locals who drive EVs (yet).
I am sure there are many like myself who also still own an ICE, and would leap at the opportunity to take my EV from the Bay Area to the Southland, but the prospect of schlepping over to 99 and enduring hours of bad air and worse traffic would tip me over to just saying, screw it, I'll take the Global Warmer instead.
As to the challenge of bringing enough electricity to 40-mile sections of I5, that really shouldn't be a deal-breaker, it's the kind of thing California used to be able to do before breakfast. Besides, there's a ton of drought-striken land that could be solared over — I'm thinking in particular of those nauseatingly stinky cattle pens just off i5 by Coalinga, they could sure use some shade; actually, on second thoughts, perhaps putting the charging station up-wind would be better.
drb said:... But others without the REx, need to be able to recharge in order to get the most out of their city vehicle.
It may be that 100 DC fast chargers are planned for the SoCal metro area but they do not exist in reality. I know where those in Orange, Los Angeles and San Diego Counties exist--but at the present moment, they are no where near 100. Four years, perhaps. I won't hold my breath.
The corridor project is a bit like the bullet train, a project few will use. Again, I would like to see the corridor built but not at the expense of developing infrastructure for the metropolitan areas, the areas in which most folks will use their electric vehicles. Sales will grow not as a result of the corridor electric grid but as a result of ample charing opportunities in the cities and suburbs of California and elsewhere.
nowtta60 said:Hi Tony,
Sorry to hijack the thread but do you have any plans to bring out an AC > CCS unit? Over here in the UK there's hundreds of dual 3 phase AC/Chademo units but only a handful of CCS. We additionally have a lot of 22kW AC chargers especially on the continent. Likewise 440V 3phase AC is available nearly everywhere, even at home if you wish (once you've paid to be upgraded). The only unit I've seen capable of doing this is €16,000 and runs at 22kW not the full 43 available from the AC units on the UK's Electric Highway.
Hope your ideas start to move, I'd love to come out there for a road trip holiday. Have done New England, Florida, and Phoenix > San Diego > Las Vegas. But Still haven't gone up the coast via San Fran to Seattle. Tell the powers that be - there's at least 1 person who's going to delay his next US tourist trip until I can do an electric fly drive on just the route you've mentioned. ;-)
TonyWilliams said:To the folks who are comfortably living in a major urban area like San Francisco Bay, and who think only they deserve EV infrastructure (while acknowledging the gross pollution and lower economic status of the Central Valley), here's what our state considers:
"The California Energy Commission is required to assess the localized health impacts of the projects proposed for ARVTP funding under Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Solicitation PON‐13‐606...."
"Environmental justice communities, low‐income communities, and minority communities are considered to be the most impacted by any project that could result in increased criteria and toxic air pollutants within an area because these communities typically have the most significant exposure to the emissions. Assessing these projects and the communities surrounding them is important because of the health risks associated with these pollutants. Preventing health issues from air pollution in any community is important, but it is especially important to minimize any negative impacts in communities that are already considered to be at risk due to their continued exposure to these contaminants."
i3an said:Tony, you're only digging yourself deeper. What is the point of putting charging stations where there aren't any EVs, and are unlikely to be any for a number of years? Better put them along I5 first, where they will presumably enable people to use EVs instead of ICEs, thus reducing smog along i5 and thus immediately helping the air quality downwind, along 99. And no, as I have tried to explain, I don't think "only" we in the coastal cities deserve EV infrastructure, I just think that in the long run the environmental justice communities etc. would be better served if the initial investments were put where they would get the most immediate use, along I5, and then build out along 99 as well. I can just imagine some local Fox station staking a rookie reporter in a woefully deserted charging station in, say, Chowchilla, and using this as an example of wasteful government run amok. Me, I'd rather see video of queues outside my hypothetical station in Coalinga, showing government working intelligently.
And the i5 is for long distance travelers (stopping every 50 - 60 miles ).
Lol that's true. I'm right in the middle of the country, near Birmingham and the only direction i can drive 200 miles without needing an i3 that floats and has an outboard is North up towards Scotland. I can just about stretch 200 if I go southwest into the far end of Cornwall.Jeffj said:And the i5 is for long distance travelers (stopping every 50 - 60 miles ).
Reminds me of the old saying - "In the US, they think 200 years is a long time. In the UK, they think 200 miles is a long distance."
drb said:The very idea of a "corridor" running from Mexico to the Canadian border tells us that the i-5 is and must be the backbone of this infrastructure project. Its purpose is not to provide folks living in rural or semi-rural communities with electrical charging stations but, rather, to be part of a transportation grid facilitating EV traffic over long distances.
Given limited resources, we cannot be all things to all people. I hope the people in the hamlets and cities along Highway 99 get electrical charging stations and buy EVs, If we are going to build a corridor, however, let us do that and then expand as resources become available.
Perhaps High 99 was selected for the same reason that the Central Valley was selected to begin the bullet train project--decision-making by the political class rather than by engineers and persons whose objectivity grasped how much easier and more rational the train project would be running alongside the I-5. If you were forced into taking the 99, I commiserate with you but still suggest you oppose route. If you selected the 99 without the interference of elected and appointed officials, then I say again, stationing electrical charging stations along the 99 is counterintuitive to everything suggested by the notion of a green "corridor" running from Mexico to Canada.
i3an said:Have any Environmental Impact Reports been published comparing the I5 vs. 99 routes for the proposed WCEH between Red Bluff and Grapevine?
A side-by-side comparison on Google Maps (and Waze) shows that the 99 route is only 6 miles longer but takes a whopping 42 minutes extra, presumably because of traffic snarls and lower speed limits. Even assuming that putting chargers along 99 first would increase long-distance EV usage (a dubious assumption), what kind of justice is served by adding to the existing traffic congestion?
Better to prioritize on I5 first, then in a few years, as the price of EVs and the chargers comes down, extend the network to 99 and 101.
i3an said:Tony, you claim:
"I'm confident that there are a multitude of such studies... it's been STUDIED TO DEATH !!!"
Could you please provide links?
Otherwise, the common sense suggests that the best place to run the WCEH is along the existing I5 highway, not the 42-minute longer 99 byway.
drb said:Tony, you take liberties with my argument suggesting the weakness of yours. I mentioned "hamlets" and "cities" I spend a good deal of time in Fresno and pass through Bakersfield frequently. This still doesn't change the argument--the 99 is not the road to anchor the electric highway. Enough!
Enter your email address to join:
