109
Congress provided $7.5B for electric vehicle chargers. Built so far: Zero.
(www.politico.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
109 points (84.3% liked)
Electric Vehicles
3157 readers
125 users here now
A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No self-promotion
- No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
- No trolling
- Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I disagree. They've added 21 in the past year in the US, so let's call it 2 per month on average for 2023. The plan for several states I'm interested in will outpace that immediately. I don't know where you got 1.5 sites per day, but that's absolutely not the case in any way. It's not even 1.5 stalls per day, instead it's 0.624 stalls per day. Can you tell me where you got that number from, because 1.5 sites per day would be 548 sites per year and with an average of 10 stalls per site they've installed this past year that's 5479 stalls. Back of the envelope math should have sounded wrong to you.
Again, your Tesla number is extremely wrong. You should go back to the supercharge.info site, go to the changes list, and switch to "add". Lots of Tesla sites have been in planning and permitting for years, and to be frank until something Tesla says actually exists in the world it's not worth much.
Maybe.
There's a couple I can think of off the top of my head. Can you not?
You're comparing to existing EA chargers, which we know isn't the real comparison at hand here.
Right, which is why I specifically didn't have it. So let's not start it, because there's no debate to be had. One is superior to the other, and it isn't NACS. That's entirely separate from the conversation being had right now.
Nope. Charger reliability has nothing to do with the connector, stop here. Do not pass go. It was the chargers, not the connectors. The connector decision was one of convenience because Tesla has a reliable network when used with a Tesla.
What I'm suggesting here is that companies are prepared to use the NACS connector, as published by SAE. They announced this because Tesla's network exists now and we didn't know what was going to happen with NEVI funds. Now most of those funds have been allocated (if not all?), and since all of those sites are going to get Combo 1 connectors as well as NACS, it's conceivable to me that they announced NACS to hype things up for a while, and the option to pull out is always there. They have zero requirement to use NACS on either chargers or vehicles, they simply may choose to. There's been quite a swing in perception of supporting a certain CEO in the past 6 months that might not be as appealing to a lot of people, so it may not be the selling point it would have.
Your stance just isn’t grounded in data or evidence, and is at best an emotional appeal for CCS instead of coming to terms that the data simply doesn’t give CCS any true advantage.
Where do you see they only added 21 in the past year? This number aligns closely to magic dock conversions not the total NACS compatible deployments.
Supercharger V3/V4 supports the CCS protocol. This is the number each car maker is citing when they say 12000 (earlier this year). V3 has been deployed for a couple years now.
Anyways, here’s my sources:
Slide 6 of the Q3 investor talk: https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/IR/TSLA-Q3-2023-Update-3.pdf (so it’s 1.4/day)
supercharger.info: go to the graphs tab and start around Q3 2022 and compare to around Q3 2023. they very closely align to the above document suggesting this third party site can’t be too far off.
TMC forums where people post photos of charging sites: (here’s one sorta close to me as an example) https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/supercharger-stafford-va-eustace-rd.305924/
There are literally at least a couple hundred threads of people posting construction updates started this year (and a sanity spot check suggests at least several of these are completed)
And to be very clear, this is 250kW DCFC stations.
And I have my personal experience that suggests a fast deployment: I live outside of DC and have regularly driven from around from Richmond to Baltimore this year. I have seen 7-8 come up alone:
When my car shows a new red blip for a charger, I get curious if I’m in the area.
I am seeing more than 5 other threads with new chargers started and finished this year on TMC.
To clear something up, I never said the connector itself was more reliable. I’m saying the car makers are probably going to claim that for sales to people who probably heard charging is hard or something.
You’re welcome to tag me in 2-3 years if CCS ends up being chosen over NACS again and I’ll happily concede, but I just don’t see it happening.
I told you exactly how to find it on the supercharge.info site in my previous post.
Slide 6 tips your hand, so thank you for commenting about this. You just posted the GLOBAL number, not the US number. NACS is US only, NEVI funds are US only. Pretty important detail, that one.
Tyson's corner has been in planning stages since those shitty 208v destination chargers were installed, so I'm glad they finally did something. Is it actually open now? Took them long enough on that one.
My guy…
“Add” and “Update” are the action Supercharge.info performs on a database record for a charging site.
“Add” is used when they insert a new site into their DB for the first time. Most of the time it’ll be added at Permit or Construction, but sometimes the community misses chargers under construction entirely and they get added as they open.
“Update” is used when Supercharge.info updates the status of a site. For example, when someone finds construction has started on a site previously marked as “Permit”, an Update entry is added as they change the site status to “Construction”.
21 sites on Supercharge were “surprises” that nobody reported a permit for or reported as under construction.
Now that I’ve helped you use the site, go back and add up lol
And no, I’m not talking about the destination chargers. I haven’t counted any destination chargers in my counts for anything. They operate as a completely separate group. These are the 16 or whatever Superchargers behind Bloomingdale’s.
Yes, it turns out you don't need to mansplain CRUD to me, nor owning and using a Tesla, because I'm personally familiar with both.
Since "update" can mean changed status in any direction it's the least reasonable metric to use, because you'll also capture closed, permanently closed, permitted, and under construction status updates.
You also don't have to mansplain the site since I've been using it longer than you've been a Tesla fan. After all, you are the one citing Tesla's Quarterly report's global number.
You keep clearly demonstrating that you aren't reading what I'm writing. And you seem to think you're telling me something even though you've very obviously got things supremely wrong. Again, global figure as one example and now you think I'm talking about Tesla adding destination chargers when what I very clearly said was that the SUPERCHARGER SITE has been planned every since they installed that shitty destination charger.
Do read the entirety of what I've written if you're going to try to argue against it. This is like for fourth or fifth time you've done this.
Here's the thing, I was accused of screwing up my numbers up by a factor of ~20. At that scale, one of our numbers are wildly off. I pointed out how your method is significantly inaccurate and why by explaining how your filter is incorrect. I'm not sure what you want me to do about this.
Given the data on their site doesn't show specifically-US-chargers over time, yes, the numbers I have are rough estimates. If we want exact counts of the current number of Superchargers, there's the
/mapsURL which shows the current total of a given search criteria.Let's compare this to the technically flawed mechanism I used, where I just counted up:
(Count of Transitions to Open) + (Count of entries added as Open).Here's the real count: https://supercharge.info/map, Set Country to USA, status to "Open": 2082 sites
And my inaccurate method's count: https://supercharge.info/changes, Set Country to USA, status to "Open": 2196 sites
That is a difference of 114 across all open chargers, regardless of deployment date. This is an error of 5.2%, I'd say that's pretty darn good for an internet debate. It at least qualifies for a "Mostly True" on Politifact.
Now tell me why it is unreasonable to correlate this number with the total number of North American chargers. There are only ~250 Superchargers in Mexico/Canada. Practically 90% of their North American deployment is in the US.
In the absolute worst case that Tesla deployed all of their Canada/Mexico chargers this year, I'd still be off by... 15%?
With my claim that they've dropped 400-ish chargers, who cares about even a 15% error? My point still stands, Tesla is dropping chargers and charging sites faster than everyone else.
I'm stating that your usage of the site is incorrect and your understanding of how to query the site is fundamentally flawed. Sorry?
OK, you're right. I did respond carelessly to your last statement here. To be completely honest though, I'm having a difficult time taking you seriously. You aren't citing anything nor do you acknowledge your errors as they're called out. You've only responded with baseless accusations that I'm grossly incorrect or denial that Tesla can deploy chargers.
I've showed my method and suggested evidence as to why my number is at least reasonable.
I can't help that you're unwilling to admit errors in an internet forum thread.