Hacker News Reader

Comment by breakyerself | Hacker News Reader

I think these supercharging stations are sad. I get annoyed at the 5 - 10 minutes that it takes to fill up my gas tank. 30 minutes to fill up would be excruciating. I remember seeing videos a few years ago where they wanted to have a standard for robotic drive throughs that automatically swapped out a cars low battery for a fully charged one. You could have a fresh battery in less than 5 minutes without getting out of the car. Your old batter would get charged and end up in someone else's car later. Why is that not obviously the best solution here?

View on HN

The problem is that you're thinking of a supercharger station like a gas station. You get annoyed at the 5-10 minutes it takes to fill up your gas tank because you have to do it every week, because the gasoline fumes make them very unpleasant places to be, and because you almost invariably have to fill up at frustrating times (e.g. in the afternoon so you have gas to get to work the next day).

But a supercharger station isn't like a gas station. In an electric car, your routine charging is handled at home, overnight. The supercharger station is for emergencies and long trips. It's not a place you go to after a long day at work so you you can get back to work the next day, it's something you can work into your road trip, something you can combine with bathroom breaks and getting a cup of coffee.

The robotic drive throughs are a lot more expensive for a questionable amount of value-add. The vast majority of people spend most of their time in a usage mode (commuting to work), where in-home charging is sufficient. But they also go on the occasional long-drive. That's the use-case supercharger stations fill. After that, what's left? Who takes long car trips (200+ miles) on such a frequent basis that a 30 minute charge in the middle (that can be easily combined with a rest-stop break) is a major inconvenience?

Exactly. Or to put it in a different way, the total time you spend waiting for your car to recharge/refuel is way lower for an electric car. The electric car is optimized for the 99% case (where recharging at home is sufficient). A gasoline car is optimized for the 1% case where you take a road trip.

You get the exact same effect for people who claim they need a pickup truck instead of a small city car just so they can transport some furniture or motorcycles or a Christmas tree in the back.

I own a Tundra short bed, but also a Lexus ct200h (wife) and a Model S.

If there was an app like Uber, but for pickup trucks (on-demand/fungible capacity for transport of larger-than-car items), I'd sell my pickup truck tomorrow. I don't own the truck because I haul every day, I own it because its 8pm and someone calls and says they need help moving something right now.

Have a Home Depot nearby? Most places do. They have long hours (6AM-10PM) and rent trucks by the hour or the day.

Bingo. The first time I saw this at my local Home Depot, I sent a photo of the rental trucks to my brother. He now drives a 2-door car.

* (Well, he drove one then, too. But we were stressed about how to move large items in a pinch, and this solved our problem.)

If they had online rental reservation with an in cab activation terminal they could conceivably expand that to 24 hours a day availability.

It works for Home Depot because they don't have additional real estate requirements to support truck rental, just park them in a standard parking space at their existing retail outlet.

If there is no Home Depot maybe other business such as Walmart or the region's grocery store chain could get in the truck rental business using their own surplus parking.

If you live in a city, Zipcar is great for this.

How many times does that happen? Genuine question. I never needed a van or a truck out of the blue. Is it something to do with the American culture?

Your friend is getting a new couch and will give you the old one. How do you get it from his house to your house?

On the notice board in my local supermarket, there are about 10 man and a van business cards pinned on. I'd probably call the one with the cutest logo.

That's the cultural difference. In the US, we like to do things ourselves, no matter the cost.

It's funny because of the wasted resources.

I wouldn't say no matter the cost, but if the income is disposable, yes, we'd prefer to be able to do something when we want and not based on the schedule of a company/vendor we'd have to have the service provided by.

A great example? Look how popular 24 hour Walmarts are.

2-3 times a week.

really? what kind of situations?

People with trucks arrange their lives with the expectation they can immediately move large objects. The rest of us only move large objects a few times a year and borrow our friends' and families' trucks, and they resent us for it.

No resentment here. If couldn't have afforded the ~$45K for the truck, and the few thousand dollars per year for gas and insurance, I wouldn't have bought it.

I don't get people. I don't own the truck for social signaling, I own it as a tool, just like my welding gear, my CNC mill, and my laser sintering 3D printer.

You say "Hey, sorry maybe you should have thought that out better. But can it wait until tomorrow, because we can go rent a truck for way cheaper than me paying insurance and maintenance on a truck in case you have an 8pm 'emergency' again."

Zipcar rents Tacomas and E-150s. I wish they'd add something like a long-bed F-250, but I guess many zipcar drivers would find it difficult to drive one (even driving the E-150 in cities is a pain)

Zipcar has pickup trucks depending on where you live.

I live in a suburb of Chicago; no Zipcars nearby. I am a member though, as it allows me rental both in the US and Europe (I travel to Europe often, and I find Zipcar rentals very convenient there).

I agree, for people who have a house and a garage/driveway that's true. But many (most? also think internationally) people like me park on the street everyday. So until there are outlets available by the side of all streets, it'll be a pretty big inconvenience.

For the time being, Tesla seems pretty focused on the U.S. market, and we're a highly suburban country of garages and driveways.

That's a very good point.

Who takes 30 minute rest stops? I think you're reaching.

Anybody with a wife and/or kid? People who eat?

> Who takes long car trips (200+ miles) on such a frequent basis that a 30 minute charge in the middle (that can be easily combined with a rest-stop break) is a major inconvenience?

Um, lots of people do that. I used to drive from San Francisco to San Diego on a long weekend, a distance that would likely require two charging stops. Or drive to Lake Tahoe for skiing, which would require at least one. (And don't get me started on real long-distance driving trips of the visit-the-grand-canyon variety.)

If charging stations always just happened to be perfectly located to simultaneously coincide with (a) where you needed them, and (b) places you wanted to stop for 30 minutes, that'd be one thing. But it seems unlikely that would be the case. Instead it'd be exactly what you just said gas stations were in your first paragraph - a place you invariably have to fill up at frustrating times. I guess the good news is it might force you to get some reading done?

A Tesla seems like a fine second car for people who have a lot of money and want to use it to show off their Green credentials. It's not a fine primary car for people who actually like to drive and live in an area suited for doing so.

> people who actually like to drive and live in an area suited for doing so

So... that's what, about 15-20% of the US population? With all respect, your point seems isomorphic to "this car isn't perfect for everybody". Well, duh.

The point you're replying to is that (given a reasonable infrastructure) the Tesla works very acceptably as a long distance vehicle. I don't see anything in your post to refute that.

> So... that's what, about 15-20% of the US population?

Um, I actually would have assumed a much larger number. Parent post asked "Who takes long car trips (200+ miles) on such a frequent basis...<that charging would be inconvenient>?". My answer: I do (Or did, when I lived in California), and I know lots of other people who do too. I'm curious where that guy lives (and where you lived) that you think it isn't normal for a person who owns a car to often take 200+ mile car trips?

I think the Tesla might "work acceptably as a long distance vehicle" if you live someplace where actual long-distance travel is unusual and inconvenient. A lot of the east coast might qualify. But probably not California. Or Nevada or Wyoming or Texas or just about any of the larger states.

> your point seems isomorphic to "this car isn't perfect for everybody"

That it "isn't perfect" is a foregone conclusion. But this guy specifically claimed having to take a HALF-HOUR STOP to recharge isn't inconvenient on long trips. It quite obviously IS going to be inconvenient. You can reasonably claim the car is worth getting DESPITE that inconvenience factor. But you can't claim it's NOT INCONVENIENT. That's just nuts. That's drinking the Kool-Aid.

Given my frequency of long distance trips, assuming the existence of charging stations along them, and knowing my other requirements for a vehicle[1] and balancing these issues against each other, I would happily buy the Tesla intending to take it on said long distance trips. Pass that Kool-Aid, I guess.

Just take a deep breath. I know, I know -- someone is wrong on the internet. But you don't have to fix that, nor tell other people what kind of car they should decide to buy or what sorts of feature in that vehicle they should value over others. Relax and have fun in your low rider pickup truck or whatever floats your boat.

[1] Which, sadly, don't include the need for an new vehicle right now. So no Tesla for me.

> "Given my frequency of long distance trips, assuming the existence of charging stations along them"

Where are those trips? That "assuming" is actually kind of a big deal given that there are currently only 9 supercharger stations in the entire US so far.

I grant that I might be a bit of an edge case - the last time I rented a car for an extended period it was to drive from New York City to Jackson, Wyoming and back. There are currently no supercharger stations at all along either route I took. Without the superchargers it would take about 20 days to drive that distance roundtrip in a Tesla - more than twice what it took me in a gasoline car.

The good news is that they actually did anticipate my driving pattern from back when I lived near SF. They appear to have a charger for driving to Lake Tahoe/Reno and several for going down the LA/San Diego. So at least it's possible to do those trips now, which it wouldn't be at all without the superchargers - driving to San Diego would take three days instead of one if you had to use wall-power based chargers.

(I currently live near Manhattan and don't own a car. Had a 1999 New Beetle the last time I did.)

In other words, the Tesla isn't for people who go on road trips constantly. Oddly enough, this was the original claim.

Batteries degrade overtime so consumers wouldn't want to swap out their battery for one with unknown usage.

I think you have it backwards: if consumers constantly swap out their batteries, they unload the uncertainty of pricing the battery's degradation onto the experts. Charging stations will retire decrepit batteries and replace them with new tech. If today's batteries last 50% longer than expected or 50% shorter than expected, the consumer doesn't have to worry -- they will always have a battery that works OK and they will never get slapped with a massive unplanned repair charge. They won't have to worry about upgrading their batteries or choosing between high capacity and low capacity batteries since they can just do that at the swap station. They also don't have to worry about recycling since the station will handle it for them.

We have a program like this for BBQ gas bottles in melbourne (possibly nation wide, I've never checked). Works well - you swap your empty bottle with a full one, pay and take it home.

No filling up and you know you have a safe bottle that has been checked (in Australia you cannot use one that is older than 10 years). Funnily enough you also get less precious about its "performance" - as long as it works, users tend to lover look the appearance.

Car batteries are a different matter but I think there are some valid parallels here.

The company doing the battery swap stations is called Better Place -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place

The good news is you never have to go to the gas station for day to day usage.

For most people this will mean dramatically less time "filling up."

I think this is under appreciated. Its impossible to install fuel stations near the office, its easy to install plugs. I'm waiting for the City to figure out that charging 25c a kW for charging in their parking garages is a net win for them. People plug in when they are at home (usually, our CTO is in an apartment without an easy to reach plug). In that scenario, most of the time, perhaps 90 - 95% of the time you never are 'waiting to fill up' the car is just always ready.

.25 a kW is a hell of a bargain if you are plugged in for 8 hours.

That's the thing, the last time it came up in the news it seemed San Jose had a contract with PG&E where they paid a fixed rate for power at 0.12/kWh in their facilities. If they re-sold that power for 0.25/kWh to people parking their electric vehicles, for every kWh sold the city recovers the cost of one kWh they have used. City garages get preferred by folks with electric cars (better occupancy, more revenue) and its a win.

Now as this 'win' becomes more obvious we'll see sharks come in as 'contractors', bidding to 'run the garages' for $X where that number is padded by money they will make selling charge to vehicle owners.

Today, this is silly since the number of electric only cars on the market is vanishingly small, but eventually it will be the norm. Having a parking meter design on the shelf that can charge for parking and supply electricity is probably good preparation for that time.

Wow. I pay .01 per kWh in Chicago with time of day metering between noon-6am.

I wish someone had a good answer for apartments. The last time I had somewhere to charge my car overnight was in my parents' garage around 1990.

I think if we can figure out how to get 40% efficiency solar panels (which have been made in labs, but not mass produced) embedded in electric cars' paint, we're looking at about 1 mph of range added per square foot of solar panel (400 wh per mile / 400 watts per sq foot), and that may work out to 30-40 miles per day of added range just by parking in direct sunlight, which may cover many people's commute, especially for apartment dwellers who probably live closer to work than people who have space for conventionally inefficient solar panels.

That should have been 1 mph of range added per square meter, not per square foot.

I think you are underestimating the investment needed to provide charging power to dozens of vehicles. Yeah one or two novelty "EV" spaces with a charging outlet is easy, but scaling up will get expensive, not just more wire and conduit, but new utility substations needed to handle the load.

This is what kills me. People in the tech community seem to think that electric outlets grow on trees or something. Apparently an electric car takes about as much power as a TV set or PS3, electricity will always be readily available at a fraction of the cost of gasoline or diesel, and we can all have a pony when we grow up.

It's great that we're starting to take alternative energy seriously in the US, but the fact that no one is looking at distribution and load-management issues -- up to and including the mandatory standardization of swappable battery modules for EVs -- is really disconcerting.

We're patting ourselves on the back for looking ahead, but we're not looking far enough.

That is certainly possible. If you want to make every space in a parking garage a 'recharger' space then you're going to rebuild the garage anyway. Tesla 'slow' chargers are 10kW [1] so a 300 space garage would be at a maximum of 3MW if every space was used and charging. That is a larger load than some commercial buildings but not exceptionally so (the NetApp building 3 used to draw 1.5MW from the lines) It certainly isn't 'new substation' level of load.

[1] http://www.teslamotors.com/charging#/basics

Elon hinted an upcoming announcement that will make refueling a Tesla car as fast as a gasoline one. It's probably along the lines of this.

Link: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/332516435488280577

It's going to be spectacular to see this in action. Literally.

Yep- Thats absolutely the way this should be. Its likely because of a liability issue- The cost of the batteries is so high, there is a real risk of someone swapping in a dead/fake/old one and then tesla accruing the huge loss of a potentially new battery ( 25k ? )

I think the best solution is the 'pre charged' liquid fillup-

http://www.laptopsforlessblog.com/batteries/cambridge-crude-...

http://www.greenbang.com/a-new-way-to-charge-electric-cars-f...

I could definitely see that as a design challenge. Charged liquid seems like a good idea. Anything to get charge times down to what gasoline is.

The problem is that the battery is rather larger than you think. In a Model S, it runs from the front wheel base to the rear one. Removing and exchanging it would be rather a lot of work.

It would be a lot of work on the Tesla, but not necessarily a lot of work on a car designed with this in mind. Would require industry standard battery packs, as well.

I see your point, and I'm sure the technology will improve, but if I had to choose between "being annoyed for 5 minutes", and getting free charging for my car forever, I think the option I'd choose is obvious.

You're doing it wrong at 5-10 minutes. It's not good to fill up all the way. Half a tank is better. Less weight means better gas mileage.

Full tank means fewer trips to the gas station. My time is way more valuable than the mpg savings of the half tank approach.

More trips to the gas station means more fuel burned going to the gas station. Do you have evidence that the savings from carrying less weight outweighs this?

> Half a tank is better. Less weight means better gas mileage.

Half a tank is the weight of a child (gas weighs ~0.7kg/L). The mileage improvement is pretty much non-existent. Your repeated trips to gas stations probably waste more gas than this retarded scheme saves, even ignoring the time wasted.

At the track, sure, but I try to never let my car get below half a tank in case of earthquake, personal emergency, power outage, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com