Hacker News Reader

There is a 4th reason. EA is not investing in features to prevent this.

They have added an 80% cap to a handful of busy chargers in California.

What they should do is add an electronic queue for the chargers, and automatically add the $0.40/minute idle rate to any charging above 80% when someone is queued for your charger.

They also need to do something about people with low voltage cars taking the high voltage spots. Something like a time factor in the price for the high voltage stations, to discourage low voltage cars using those unless necessary.

Teslas are 400v up until the CyberTruck. You probably mean low kW. If I pull up to a charging station and it’s open and 350 kW, you better believe it I’ll be charging my 100 kW max car in that spot, and I shouldn’t haven’t to pay more for the same kWh.

It's both.

Some new cars have 800V architecture and will be able to benefit from high voltage chargers as they roll out.

There are also cars that can't charge at 350kW, but still take a 350kW charger.

Charging a 100kW car in the 350kW bay is fine, but these owners should be given some reason to prefer a 100kW or 150kW charger if it's available. I like the idea of using someone being queued for the charger to trigger an infrastructure charge if you are underutilizing the charger, just like we already do if you are simply parked there and not charging.

At the very least, require that drivers at least try to use the charger that best matches their car if it's available. Require that they plug in, or that they document a non-EV in the space before connecting to an over-spec charger.

How about no. I’m not going to fill out a form to charge my car. I use the 150 kW chargers when available, 350 kW when not. I rarely DC fast charge anyway.

Edit: yeah feel free to downvote me. I believe in not just the rich being able to fast charge without issue.

>I believe in not just the rich being able to fast charge without issue.

What about the competing interest of making charging fast and convenient, which surely would drive EV adoption? Is slowing the energy transition a worthwhile cost in the pursuit of equity?

Most EVs now can charge at over 100 kW peak, and that means most EVs will be able to in five years. I don’t see how it’s that big of a deal to allow people with older, used EVs to charge at all stations. Even charging companies have this stance.

The base principle I want to see is that if you have a 100kW car, and 2 stations are available, 150kW & 350kW, you have to at least try the 150kW station first, and move to the 350kW if it's not working or available.

People already do that.

Yes

>Charging a 100kW car in the 350kW bay is fine, but these owners should be given some reason to prefer a 100kW or 150kW charger if it's available. I like the idea of using someone being queued for the charger to trigger an infrastructure charge if you are underutilizing the charger, just like we already do if you are simply parked there and not charging.

...or just charge a premium for using the fast chargers. That way you're not you're not checking your phone every 5 minutes to see whether you're racking up additional charges and whether you need to move your car or not.

Definitely agree with this, last time I was at the EA charger I thought it was comical seeing Rivans and Audis waiting for an IKEA truck (ford van) that was creeping up from 95%.

While these measures will help, the reality is that EA did not invest in enough chargers per location.

Re Tesla superchargers - because Tesla is currently valued as a tech company at multiples of PE. Chargers are utility companies and command very low margins high upfront costs and high maintenance so are usually priced pretty low. In many instances utility companies that are private don’t even make profits and have to be rescued by the government and taxpayers in the long run so yeah that’s why.

Also here probably foresees being forced to open up the Tesla charger network (maybe that's always happening?) so why bother to invest?

I hear you, but gas stations make money, right? Can't Tesla adopt the same model and lease parcels of Supercharger land to convenience stores?

If you are correct that they are a utility and should be priced low, then Superchargers would be detrimental to Tesla's stock price and should be spun out as a separate utility company with lower margins. This would create a better EV experience, thus furthering Tesla's goal.

> as these programs expire (usually 2 or 3 years max after purchase of the vehicle) it will get better.

Won't next year's batch of new EV owners be doing the same thing? Or have companies stopped offering the incentive?

Yeah your right, I thought car manufacturers would slow this down considering how expensive this has to be for them but here is a link showing all the offers available today if you buy a new EV https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/evs-with-free-charging.html

This is really annoying and should stop