What (to you) is an EV-Ready Corridor?

[MM in SouthTX]

The DOE has defined an EV-Ready Corridor as a highway that has 4 fast chargers per 50 miles. My question: How does that compare to a gas-ready corridor? If we were to shift to all-EV's, how many fast chargers do you think we would need on highways to "make EV travel as stress-free and reliable as we’ve come to expect from gasoline-powered cars and trucks?"

From the DOE:

To qualify as ready, a major road must have at least four DC fast chargers every 50 miles. Each station must have at least four chargers, all of which can simultaneously deliver 150 kW of power to charge four vehicles at once. That’s enough power to charge many EVs – depending on battery software and other variables – from around 10% to 80% in a half hour or so.

Sponsored

 

[Pioneer74]

4 chargers aren't going to cut it anymore. They need 8 or 12.

 

[chrislightningnc]

That's a start. No where near enough for the 2035 goals. Density doesn't need to equal gas with home charging, but, eventually, if most cars are electric, it will need to be at least 25% of gas frequency, my guess.

 

[Newton]

250 KW should be the minimum. I know that it doesn't help the Ford (yet?) but if a Kia or Hyundai is in front of you, they will be out in 18 minutes max on a hyper fast charger. It helps throughput.

 

[VTbuckeye]

4 working chargers every 50 miles that add 150ish miles to a car in 30 minutes. So the infrastructure would accommodate 24 cars per hour and the drivers would need to charge for 30 minutes out of each 2.5ish your block of time. This would mean that no more than 60 ideally spaced EVs could travel that corridor in parallel. This does not sound like enough based on future EV adoption goals.

 

[Newton]

The government is always behind the times. Nobody expects to road trip a 2010 Leaf and any decent long range car has at least 250 miles of range. (I speak as an SR Lightning owner.) What we want is consistancy. I would rather have a 99% chance that my planned trip will work without excessive delay or worry than a trip that works in theory but actually has dead chargers every 50 miles.

In my opinion, road tripping is the wrong focus. It accounts for a tiny percentage of personal vehicle usage and Tesla has it pretty well covered. To expand EV adoption we need more reliable charging and a lot more charging opportunities where people live. Uber drivers are an urgent issue that needs to be thought about, they are overwhelming even Tesla's network in places.

 

[Newton]

You are thinking like a Lightning owner The EV6 will put in over 200 miles in 18 minutes. Faster charging cars is what we need, a Taychan at a 350 kw charger was in and out in less than five minutes the other day near me.

 

[mrau]

If they had a DC Fast Charger at every "Dollar" store then I think our troubles would be over.

 

[Maquis]

If they had a DC Fast Charger at every "Dollar" store then I think our troubles would be over.

 

[MM in SouthTX]

I’m just thinking there must be some sort of a plan. I mean the government harvests a lot of data. They know what our interstate traffic volumes are. They know how many gas pumps there are and how much fuel they deliver. They know how long it takes to fuel a vehicle with gas or electricity.

Surely they have calculated what is needed to replace all the gas pumps on interstates (after adjusting for a local use factor). Is their conclusion really that we need four 150kW chargers every 50 miles?

 

[roadhouse]

Is their conclusion really that we need four 150kW chargers every 50 miles?

Half-joke answer: Half of all US states would probably ban EVs if they could. Why would you assume there's a master plan?

But for real, from a government perspective in the US, government financial incentives for private industry to cover a minimum service level are pretty standard, with the idea that gaps where private industry (e.g. consumers) will find more value will be naturally filled (yay capitalism!).

I think it's too early to understand (both from a technology and consumer behavior perspective) to truly identify where the gaps are. Literally in the last 6 months we've seen basically an entire industry commit to switching charging standards.

 

[MM in SouthTX]

This is about the government’s definition of an “EV-Ready Corridor.” I just find their conclusion to be quite far from what an actual needs assessment would reflect. (Trying to be polite here.)

Does anyone know if an actual needs assessment has been done? Anyone care to take a crack at it? The traffic volume data is out there on the interweb. Make a few assumptions and give it a go.

 

[Danface]

Existence is a game of up and down and EV adoption is part of existence and that's fine. The system will adjust and adapt over time because of money whether it be federal or private. Hang on for the ride ... At least the ride is quiet and there are folks along the way who understand and are willing to help out (that's all!!)

 

[Pioneer74]

I’m just thinking there must be some sort of a plan. I mean the government harvests a lot of data.

You put too much faith in our government.

 

[MM in SouthTX]

I looked up some rural I-40 traffic counts as a starting point. (Edit--postulating a shift to all of them being EV's.) Let’s use 40,000 vehicles a day and say 80% of those don’t need to charge while on the road. (Probably high, but I need a starting point.) Then spread out the 8,000/day that do need to charge over a 300 mile stretch of road. (The 300 comes from a generous estimate of highway range.) Then assume 7,500 of the 8,000 travel during the hours of 7am to 10 pm.

So, 7,500 vehicles spread evenly over 15 hours is 500 vehicles per hour that need to charge on the 300 mile stretch.

Next assumption: Each connection can handle the needs of 3 vehicles per hour. (Again, generous, but accounting for improvements in charging efficiency.) So, excluding gaps, we need a minimum of 167 individual charging connections in that 300 mile stretch. If we space them 50 miles apart (6 stations), that’s about 26 connections per station. I would add at least a 50% increase to account for the fact that the number of people trying to charge over that time period is not evenly spaced. Probably a 100% increase would be appropriate given how traffic rises and falls during the day. So somewhere between 40 and 50 connections every 50 miles. Roughly 10x what the DOE is saying.

I’m trying to develop an understanding of the logistics of going all electric. I welcome other viewpoints and data crunching.

Sponsored