U.S. Adds 200 EV Charging Stations in April

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,400
A growing number of public electric vehicle charging stations all across the US is signaling a shift in acceptance by private businesses and municipalities alike. Businesses are beginning to see the upside of free vehicle charging while shopping as an incentive to shoppers.

In total, the U.S. now has 5,865 public EV charging stations, up from 5,678 at the beginning of April, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
 
I doubt that an average of 4 stations per state will do much to spark a mass exodus from fossil fuels. Adding another zero to that figure might get people thinking a little more about it, though adding two zeros might actually change something.
 
Maybe in a several decades there will be enough to make EVs realistic.
 
Awesome, did not even realize there was actual EVs in the hands of consumers other than hybrids. I see them on TV all the time but never see them actually publicly available.

I'm sure the government will put a stop to it if they actually do get too popular though. They'll find some BS reason to do so "for the children".
 
Awesome, did not even realize there was actual EVs in the hands of consumers other than hybrids. I see them on TV all the time but never see them actually publicly available.

I'm sure the government will put a stop to it if they actually do get too popular though. They'll find some BS reason to do so "for the children".

Really? No Nissan Leafs where you live? See a lot of those, plus like 15-20 Tesla S a day. Our Fred Meyers have charging stations, bunch of little towns have put them in to.I'm in western Washington though. It's not normal here.
 
Really? No Nissan Leafs where you live? See a lot of those, plus like 15-20 Tesla S a day. Our Fred Meyers have charging stations, bunch of little towns have put them in to.I'm in western Washington though. It's not normal here.

Completely not normal.

Out here, zero charging stations...and your odds of seeing an EV are almost as good as being struck by lightning.
 
So what do you do, drive you Leaf 40 miles on flat ground, and if you can find a charger wait a minimum of 4 hours to get another 40 miles. That is if the charger is 220v. If it is 110v maybe 8 hours. Sister in-law bought a Plugin Prius. She makes it 10 miles up the hills to her house. Has to charge it overnight to get another 10 miles. And they want 25k to put 12 solar panels on my roof. 12 250W from China.
 
I doubt that an average of 4 stations per state will do much to spark a mass exodus from fossil fuels. Adding another zero to that figure might get people thinking a little more about it, though adding two zeros might actually change something.

Uh, how is burning dirty heavily polluting coal not using "fossil fuels"?

It amazes me how little people understand about how electricity is generated, and how the idea of an electric car is just as bad as one with a gasoline burning internal combustion engine, from an environmental standpoint.
 
Some naysayers in this thread (as expected) but the EV is the future. When Oil companies are starting to look towards other natural resources to invest in for the next 30+ years , you can easily understand that fossil fuel in the form of crude oil is on its way out in the more developed parts of the world. I still think Oil has a very active and bright future (considering so many products are made from refining it that we couldn't hope to replace them all over the next 20-30 years) but for pure vehicle use its dropping end over end each year except in developing countries where its still the cheapest way to get around.

I can also imagine people balking at Gas stations when the started to appear all over the country as well.

We all know the EV needs to improve but hell the first mass produced car the Ford Model T had only around 13–21 mpg under the best circumstances and that was well before Gas stations were common place. History repeating its-self it seems. Once you can drive an EV around 225 miles per charge I'll be happy to stand in line and buy one.
 
Some naysayers in this thread (as expected) but the EV is the future. When Oil companies are starting to look towards other natural resources to invest in for the next 30+ years , you can easily understand that fossil fuel in the form of crude oil is on its way out in the more developed parts of the world. I still think Oil has a very active and bright future (considering so many products are made from refining it that we couldn't hope to replace them all over the next 20-30 years) but for pure vehicle use its dropping end over end each year except in developing countries where its still the cheapest way to get around.

I can also imagine people balking at Gas stations when the started to appear all over the country as well.

We all know the EV needs to improve but hell the first mass produced car the Ford Model T had only around 13–21 mpg under the best circumstances and that was well before Gas stations were common place. History repeating its-self it seems. Once you can drive an EV around 225 miles per charge I'll be happy to stand in line and buy one.

13-21 MPG is actually pretty impressive for such an early & crude low compression engine.

EVs wont help much in the grand scheme of things if you are trading one fossil fuel for another (environmentally). However, politically & economically they might be far more important. Reducing dependence on foreign oil is a very good thing.
 
Uh, how is burning dirty heavily polluting coal not using "fossil fuels"?

It amazes me how little people understand about how electricity is generated, and how the idea of an electric car is just as bad as one with a gasoline burning internal combustion engine, from an environmental standpoint.

Well not everywhere is in the 18th century and still running on coal. For example here it's all hydro electric and I think some natural gas (which is still fossil fuel, but much cleaner than coal or gasoline). Large scale production is also always more efficient. So if you're going to burn fossil fuel do it large scale to produce electricity for all the small scale stuff.

To me EVs are a step in the right direction for stopping pollution and climate change, but definitely need to move power production off fossil fuel too. Perhaps use nuclear as a stepping stone until better renewable sources are developed. But people are so scared of nuclear, even though oil is much more dangerous and worse for the environment.

Of course this is never going to happen though. It cost money and money is more important than saving the planet, sadly.
 
Uh, how is burning dirty heavily polluting coal not using "fossil fuels"?

It amazes me how little people understand about how electricity is generated, and how the idea of an electric car is just as bad as one with a gasoline burning internal combustion engine, from an environmental standpoint.

This is not to say that EV's are any more "green" than gasoline powered vehicles, but coal power plants are a holw lot cleaner than they used to be. They do not spew out pollutants near as much as most people think.
 
13-21 MPG is actually pretty impressive for such an early & crude low compression engine.

EVs wont help much in the grand scheme of things if you are trading one fossil fuel for another (environmentally). However, politically & economically they might be far more important. Reducing dependence on foreign oil is a very good thing.

Already been doing that through Bakkan and Eagle Ford. Thanks to those two places, we've dropped foreign imports by 5% or so. I could be wrong. Our highest import percentage was 61% and now we're around 40%. The EIA estimates that by 2035, we'll eliminate foreign imports. Now it's 2013. I remember the whole goddamn ANWR debate about how it'll take us a fucking decade to get those producing any oil and that debate was in 2002.
 
This is not to say that EV's are any more "green" than gasoline powered vehicles, but coal power plants are a holw lot cleaner than they used to be. They do not spew out pollutants near as much as most people think.

If you believe there is such a thing as "clean" coal then I've got a bridge to sell you...

Seriously "Clean" Coal is a fantasy , its been poured over by just about everyone and such a thing has yet to exist. Cramming all your pollution into pool "run off" and hoping it doesn't fall apart and flood local towns with sludge is not "clean" at all.

In 20 years the only country that will still be using coal power for just about everything will be China and we all know how great that is going so far..

 
This is not to say that EV's are any more "green" than gasoline powered vehicles, but coal power plants are a holw lot cleaner than they used to be. They do not spew out pollutants near as much as most people think.

Here are a few fun facts for you:

The dirty coal power plants are still around because they were grandfathered into the Clear Skies Act. As long as they don't add capacity, they never have to meet the new stricter rule (at least until we pass a law changing this).

Coal causes more radiation than nuclear power plants, even including all the accidents that have happened so far. Coal power plants are spreading around particulate matter that contains radioactive materials, like thorium, that are mixed in with the coal naturally. This gets carried by the wind and falls on our crop fields and our waterways. We're eating and drinking this every day.

Coal causes far more healthcare costs than any other energy source. And it's not just from the burning of coal, it's also from the mining where it runs off into the water sources that we rely on for drinking.

Coal produces twice the amount of carbon dioxide as either gasoline or natural gas. When you add in the inefficiencies of producing electricity from coal, transmitting it, then storing it in batteries, electric cars are less energy efficient and therefore use more coal per mile than a comparably sized combustion car uses gasoline per mile.
 
Uh, how is burning dirty heavily polluting coal not using "fossil fuels"?

It amazes me how little people understand about how electricity is generated, and how the idea of an electric car is just as bad as one with a gasoline burning internal combustion engine, from an environmental standpoint.
I know that "green" vehicles are FAR from actually being green, and that they just relocate the point where the fuels are burned. I've never really bought into the whole electric car thing, and don't think it's the right progression for vehicles, more of a novelty than anything.

I was merely commenting that this isn't exactly what I'd call a huge step forward towards pushing their misdirected dream of streets filled with electric vehicles.
 
Seems every 3 months we read about some "amazing new battery tech" that will solve all our problems... been reading things like that for the past 5 years. Where the hell is this tech they keep talking about?

I think solar power is awesome -- but it's cost prohibitive. I'm not a hippy or eco nut at all (hell I drive a sports car with a 7 Liter engine) mmm 427 cubed Z06.

I'd love to have a solar array on my future house what's the point though if I'm going to get nickle and dimed every step of the way?

I've seen one Tesla here in Dallas/Fort Worth -- big whoop. Car wise - make something that's 25k and under. minimum range of 350 miles in ALL conditions without having 1000lbs of batteries strapped to your back. And I'd better be able to get a 50% charge in just a few hours. Some nights I'm only home for 5 or 6 hours before I'm back out for work/play/whatever.
 
Uh, how is burning dirty heavily polluting coal not using "fossil fuels"?

It amazes me how little people understand about how electricity is generated, and how the idea of an electric car is just as bad as one with a gasoline burning internal combustion engine, from an environmental standpoint.
Because a powerplant generates energy more efficiently than car IC engine. Very inherent to the type of power cycle and temperatures you can use in a powerplant vs. what is practical for a car.

Then add that not all US power is generated by coal or natural gas, but nuclear and hydro. And we should have a lot more nuclear really.

Then there's the added benefit of using any alternate to gasoline which then would drive down the price of gasoline which has basically been a blatant gouging situation now for over 8 years or so. It would be nice to give those guys some external competitors since they don't compete with each other.
 
Because a powerplant generates energy more efficiently than car IC engine. Very inherent to the type of power cycle and temperatures you can use in a powerplant vs. what is practical for a car.

Then add that not all US power is generated by coal or natural gas, but nuclear and hydro. And we should have a lot more nuclear really.

Then there's the added benefit of using any alternate to gasoline which then would drive down the price of gasoline which has basically been a blatant gouging situation now for over 8 years or so. It would be nice to give those guys some external competitors since they don't compete with each other.

But where we are now, most of the US plant capacity is in coal. Nice, dirty, old, coal. Factor in the pollution not only from direct burning but coal fuel shipping, the efficiency negation of power-line transmission...and you're probably not going to be much ahead of a fleet of cars.
 
bastage: Yeah I thought 25k for 12 solar panels was a little steep, but then that is in the SF Bay area.

We purchased a 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid. Thought is was pretty good, NiCd Battery cut out of the electric mode at 43 MPH. On flat ground it got about 45 avg mpg. We just bought another one, a 2013 Fusion Hybrid. It uses Lithium Ion and cuts out of electric after 63 MPH. Running from Burlingame over the mountain to Half Moon Bay it averages 65 MPG. Admittedly the down hill side is where you get it. On flat ground, stop and start it will get about 50.So technology has come a long way in just three years. Obviously all electric has a way to go
 
But where we are now, most of the US plant capacity is in coal. Nice, dirty, old, coal. Factor in the pollution not only from direct burning but coal fuel shipping, the efficiency negation of power-line transmission...and you're probably not going to be much ahead of a fleet of cars.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/capacity/ ... according to this, coal is only about 30% of the USA power generation ... in China that would be a different story ... but for many countries the power grid is definitely more efficient and environmentally friendly than internal combustion of gasoline ;)
 
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/capacity/ ... according to this, coal is only about 30% of the USA power generation ... in China that would be a different story ... but for many countries the power grid is definitely more efficient and environmentally friendly than internal combustion of gasoline ;)

In most other countries....they don't have millions of 50 year old wooden utility poles all rotting apart that aren't being replaced.

Most countries also aren't shipping the ridiculous amounts of coal the distance that we need to by freight train.
 
bastage: Yeah I thought 25k for 12 solar panels was a little steep, but then that is in the SF Bay area.
Pretty close to what the price was for me for 3.26kW , granted with the city, state and gov't kickbacks it ended up costing about $3500 which is why I have solar now.


As to the coal is dirty argument, not all places use coal to make electricity, those places that do use coal tend to also not have many electric cars (or cars that are efficient at all) those states/areas with a larger percentage of electric cars tend to have cleaner electrical generation. Those who get solar panels are usually the type who would go electric too (I don't have an electric car, I have a large saltwater reef tank that pollutes the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow :D)
 
Pretty close to what the price was for me for 3.26kW , granted with the city, state and gov't kickbacks it ended up costing about $3500 which is why I have solar now.


As to the coal is dirty argument, not all places use coal to make electricity, those places that do use coal tend to also not have many electric cars (or cars that are efficient at all) those states/areas with a larger percentage of electric cars tend to have cleaner electrical generation. Those who get solar panels are usually the type who would go electric too (I don't have an electric car, I have a large saltwater reef tank that pollutes the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow :D)

Those places that don't have a large amount of coal generators, I'll wager, probably by spare kWhrs from places that do because they don't have the generating capacity for summer air conditioning without it.
 
EV cars only work if you don't have to drive any normal distance. Doesn't and wouldn't work where I live in Houston. I'd rather burn gasoline in a newer/cleaner engine than dump toxic batteries, and burn coal. Electric cars may have their place some day, but it isn't this generation and I wish people would stop trying to shove it down my throat.
 
EV cars only work if you don't have to drive any normal distance. Doesn't and wouldn't work where I live in Houston.

And what is defined as any "normal distance" depends upon where you live. In some areas that weren't already crowded, I'm guessing suburban sprawl (where you live in Houston?) has increased that definition of "normal" considerably. Around if you drove 80 miles round trip for work, that ain't normal... people do it, but it's not normal. If you take into account how far people drive per day as an average, I think it's something like 40 miles per day total. Granted you couldn't take road trips, and those sorts of things, but then again on average families in the US have more than 2 cars, so maybe you have a commuter car and a driving far car ;)
 
Those places that don't have a large amount of coal generators, I'll wager, probably by spare kWhrs from places that do because they don't have the generating capacity for summer air conditioning without it.

Possibly, however often where they buy from is counted in state reports for total electrical generation when you look at those inserts on your power bill and what not. Besides electrical transmission does have a finite usable range, most of the coal burning in the US is the eastern half of the country, California where I'm guessing EVs would be big doesn't get electricity from that far away.
 
EV cars only work if you don't have to drive any normal distance. Doesn't and wouldn't work where I live in Houston. I'd rather burn gasoline in a newer/cleaner engine than dump toxic batteries, and burn coal. Electric cars may have their place some day, but it isn't this generation and I wish people would stop trying to shove it down my throat.

I just picked a random zip code in Houston and I can see that there's at least 30-50 stations in the Houston metro. Would you may have to modify your route if you are the type that drive 100 miles a day? yes, but stop assuming that since you haven't seen any obvious chargers then you can't drive a 'normal' distance, but since you said it's being shoved down your throat I know where you got your misinformation from. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/locator/...e&ev_dc_fast=true&radius=true&radius_miles=50
 
But where we are now, most of the US plant capacity is in coal. Nice, dirty, old, coal. Factor in the pollution not only from direct burning but coal fuel shipping, the efficiency negation of power-line transmission...and you're probably not going to be much ahead of a fleet of cars.
Yeah and they don't expend any energy making gasoline and shipping it. It magically transforms from crude to refined gasoline and appears in the pumps the moment its pumped from the ground.

Seriously I'm pretty sick and tired of people comparing everything involved in producing an alternate against gasoline as it comes out of the pump. There is considerable energy overhead producing gasoline and some pollution as well, but when anything is compared to gasoline, those are conveniently ignored.

That tiny rant being said, from being stationary and large scale, a powerplant is capable of doing considerably more to scrub emissions than can car can. This isn't China or the 1930's. But regardless the flavor of the decade for "pollution" is CO2 production. So how 'dirty' coal is doesn't really drive policy anymore. CO2 emissions which has a strong correlation to energy generation. So energy efficiency is where its at. The one exception is that long chain hydrocarbons like liquids and coal are skewed to carbon. Natural gas which is the key energy source in the country now and likely more in the future produces less C02 for the same energy production.

As for transmission line loss, its varies wildly but its probably 5% at most in most cases. The efficiency of powerplant can offset that. Where electric cars' energy efficiency could be hurt is in battery charge and discharge efficiency. Not that long ago it was in 80% range and show the loses were immense. But now there are claims of being in the 90's somewhere which changes that considerably. (20% twice is almost 40% while now its around 15% give or take).

Regardless the only thing I care about is that energy from the wall socket is considerably cheaper because I'm not be gouged. That carries immense appeal to me and the minute there is a practical range battery, an electric car becomes a viable consideration for me.
 
Businesses are beginning to see the upside of free vehicle charging while shopping as an incentive to shoppers.

The business covers the cost of the electrical charging? How in the world does that make good business sense?
 
The business covers the cost of the electrical charging? How in the world does that make good business sense?

Maybe people will shop at grocery store A instead of grocery store B if they value the convenience of having some of their battery recharged while they shop? Depends how much the businesses really spend on charging people's cars, and how many people would actually choose to shop at one store vs another because of charging stations I guess.
 
That tiny rant being said, from being stationary and large scale, a powerplant is capable of doing considerably more to scrub emissions than can car can.
not to play devils advocate here, but what do power plants to do to clean the air? and how does that compare to say a catalytic converter? I know cats don't do much of anything for CO2, however they do scrub out a quite a few of the actual health hazardous materials (carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, etc).
 
Yeah and they don't expend any energy making gasoline and shipping it. It magically transforms from crude to refined gasoline and appears in the pumps the moment its pumped from the ground.

Seriously I'm pretty sick and tired of people comparing everything involved in producing an alternate against gasoline as it comes out of the pump. There is considerable energy overhead producing gasoline and some pollution as well, but when anything is compared to gasoline, those are conveniently ignored.

That tiny rant being said, from being stationary and large scale, a powerplant is capable of doing considerably more to scrub emissions than can car can. This isn't China or the 1930's. But regardless the flavor of the decade for "pollution" is CO2 production. So how 'dirty' coal is doesn't really drive policy anymore. CO2 emissions which has a strong correlation to energy generation. So energy efficiency is where its at. The one exception is that long chain hydrocarbons like liquids and coal are skewed to carbon. Natural gas which is the key energy source in the country now and likely more in the future produces less C02 for the same energy production.

As for transmission line loss, its varies wildly but its probably 5% at most in most cases. The efficiency of powerplant can offset that. Where electric cars' energy efficiency could be hurt is in battery charge and discharge efficiency. Not that long ago it was in 80% range and show the loses were immense. But now there are claims of being in the 90's somewhere which changes that considerably. (20% twice is almost 40% while now its around 15% give or take).

Regardless the only thing I care about is that energy from the wall socket is considerably cheaper because I'm not be gouged. That carries immense appeal to me and the minute there is a practical range battery, an electric car becomes a viable consideration for me.

not to play devils advocate here, but what do power plants to do to clean the air? and how does that compare to say a catalytic converter? I know cats don't do much of anything for CO2, however they do scrub out a quite a few of the actual health hazardous materials (carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, etc).

Hell, coal dust has all sorts of shit in it...and CO2 ain't the worst shit a coal fire power plant spews out by a mile. The (relative) trace amounts of thorium and uranium in a coal car probably carries more energy if thrown in a nuclear reactor than if all the coal was burned in a coal power plant...and then the Coal power plant spews the radioisotopes out the chimney to drift downwind.
 
The business covers the cost of the electrical charging? How in the world does that make good business sense?

Because it only costs them $1-2 an hour. And with federal grants installation can be extremely cheap. A bar near where I live had 3 chargers recently installed and they stated that in the end it costs them around $500 a piece. They don't cover the cost for the charge though, it's $1 a hour.
 
I am going to call bull on the OP stats. In the Interior of Alaska most every single parking spot has a standard 120V/30A outlet that you can plug stuff in all day long. If I had to estimate I'd say that there are approximately 30k parking spaces with plug-ins.

Then again, doesn't surprise me that they don't count Alaska as being part of the U.S., happens all the time.
 
Back
Top