DC fast charger

[gpsman]

If you're going through a cost exercise like this and assume a usage rate of $.25 then you should subtract your house usage rate of the top, you're not charging at home for free, the national average (America) is $.12

I have visited about 2 dozen DCFC locations. All in California.

Of ChargePoint: 50% are $0.25 per kwh. 25% are $0.35 per kwh. 25% are $0.50 per kwh.

Of EVGo, 75% are flat fee of $10 per 30 min. No matter how much power you use. But it is only possible to get 20 to 21 kwh into your car in 30 minutes, best case senario. 25% are flat fee of $6 plus $0.35 per kwh.

I beleive my cost estimates were on the low end of what is realistic to expect.

 

[redpoint5]

If you're going through a cost exercise like this and assume a usage rate of $.25 then you should subtract your house usage rate of the top, you're not charging at home for free, the national average (America) is $.12

That's not how financial arithmetic works. You don't subtract the cost of the kWhs you "saved" by not charging at home, just as you don't subtract the kWhs saved by pumping gasoline into a regular vehicle.

The fuel cost per mile is calculated by taking the incremental cost of the energy and dividing it by the number of miles that are traveled.

Incremental cost is important because you wouldn't include the fixed monthly cost of just having electric service when determining the cost per mile to charge from home.

Examples:

Conventional car
30 MPG car, fuel cost $3/gallon
$3 gal / 30MPG = 10 cents per mile

Charge from home
4 miles per KwH car, incremental home electric rate $0.08/kWh
$0.08 kWh / 4 miles = 2 cents per mile

DCFC
4 miles per KwH car, $10 per 30 min DCFC (20 kWh)
$10 / (4 M/kWh * 20 kWh) = 12.5 cents per mile

 

[IMAdolt]

If you're going through a cost exercise like this and assume a usage rate of $.25 then you should subtract your house usage rate of the top, you're not charging at home for free, the national average (America) is $.12

That's not how financial arithmetic works. You don't subtract the cost of the kWhs you "saved" by not charging at home, just as you don't subtract the kWhs saved by pumping gasoline into a regular vehicle.

The fuel cost per mile is calculated by taking the incremental cost of the energy and dividing it by the number of miles that are traveled.

Incremental cost is important because you wouldn't include the fixed monthly cost of just having electric service when determining the cost per mile to charge from home.

Examples:

Conventional car
30 MPG car, fuel cost $3/gallon
$3 gal / 30MPG = 10 cents per mile

Charge from home
4 miles per KwH car, incremental home electric rate $0.08/kWh
$0.08 kWh / 4 miles = 2 cents per mile

DCFC
4 miles per KwH car, $10 per 30 min DCFC (20 kWh)
$10 / (4 M/kWh * 20 kWh) = 12.5 cents per mile

Don't see what that has to do with a cost exercise, nowhere was it a case of "cost per mile" or even a comparison to ICE fuel costs, it was an exercise to show how expensive the use of DCFC is.

Quantifying the use of DCFC vs the cost of the option was the point. If you're quantifying you're out of pocket expense of DCFC you would need to subtract the alternative cost (at home) to be accurate, what rates are used where aside, If you come up with a charge rate of $.25 and say it factors in an average charge rate DCFC of $.37 - $.12 then fine perhaps .25 is on the low end I'm not arguing it isn't.

End of the day it's for piece of mind and resale value and no one thinks it'll ever "save you money" that's something a crazy person would think. It has to cost you money to use DCFC otherwise no one aside form tesla and government driven green initiatives would be building the charging stations.

**Edit note - It's no different from fuel in the sense you pay the majority of your fuel costs is taxes duties transport enviro fees and other crap, if you were say running off hydrogen or methanol and fueling up at a station I could bet you might be able to make that hydrogen or methanol at home for 80% or whatever the costs? Guess what that means the "real cost" of going to the fuel station (not the cost of fueling) as apposed to fueling at home is that 20% of whatever the hell the cost is.

 

[devbolt]

The hope is that the cost of a long-distance trip in the Bolt using the available DCFC network out there would be price competitive with that of driving a traditional ICE vehicle for the same trip. A 900 mile trip that we recently did would've cost $95 if we had taken our hybrid SUV which gets about 26 MPG and if gas cost $2.75 a gallon. In the Bolt, it ended up being $83, plus the $19.95 EVGO monthly charge. So basically a wash with a slight advantage on the SUV's part. If I had a slightly higher-MPG vehicle to use for the trip, then the Bolt definitely loses.

But I didn't buy the Bolt with the DCFC option to be a substitute for the SUV for long distance trips. I bought the Bolt to not have to spend money on gas for day to day driving needs. Getting it with DCFC gives me the flexibility to use it for a trip if I want to, or if it is practical to do so. The amount of money I'm saving monthly by not having to buy gas for my day to day driving needs more than makes up for whatever slight increase a long distance trip might cost me. We have solar on our roof, and excess money credits at the end of each true-up cycle, so charging the Bolt right now costs nothing. Latest true-up billing statement showed we walked away from about $165 in monetary credits. Or about a thousand kWh's that could've gone into the Bolt's battery. About 4K miles worth of free travel.

 

[oilerlord]

We have solar on our roof, and excess money credits at the end of each true-up cycle, so charging the Bolt right now costs nothing.

As someone that also has solar, I used to think that way too, but it isn't quite correct. There is value to those kWh's regardless if you buy them, or your poco pays you for them. So, if the market price is 10 cents per kWh - a full charge on your Bolt is worth $6.00. That's $6.00 in your pocket, or $6.00 stored in your Bolt's battery.

 

[gpsman]

Not quite right.

You did not factor in the cost of the DCFC option.
Which is my point.

Everyone here questions why it is optional.
It is optional because it is expensive.
And some people don't want to pay that expense.

I applaud Chevy for making it an option.

The hope is that the cost of a long-distance trip in the Bolt using the available DCFC network out there would be price competitive with that of driving a traditional ICE vehicle for the same trip. A 900 mile trip that we recently did would've cost $95 if we had taken our hybrid SUV which gets about 26 MPG and if gas cost $2.75 a gallon. In the Bolt, it ended up being $83, plus the $19.95 EVGO monthly charge. So basically a wash with a slight advantage on the SUV's part. If I had a slightly higher-MPG vehicle to use for the trip, then the Bolt definitely loses.

But I didn't buy the Bolt with the DCFC option to be a substitute for the SUV for long distance trips. I bought the Bolt to not have to spend money on gas for day to day driving needs. Getting it with DCFC gives me the flexibility to use it for a trip if I want to, or if it is practical to do so. The amount of money I'm saving monthly by not having to buy gas for my day to day driving needs more than makes up for whatever slight increase a long distance trip might cost me. We have solar on our roof, and excess money credits at the end of each true-up cycle, so charging the Bolt right now costs nothing. Latest true-up billing statement showed we walked away from about $165 in monetary credits. Or about a thousand kWh's that could've gone into the Bolt's battery. About 4K miles worth of free travel.

 

[Anonymous]

It is optional because it is expensive.
And some people don't want to pay that expense.

I applaud Chevy for making it an option.

The only reason it is an option is so GM marketing can sell it as $29,995 car after the $7,500 federal tax credit pure and simple!

You applause would make more sense if you, like everyone else, hadn't been forced to purchase it as an $700 option!

 

[devbolt]

We have solar on our roof, and excess money credits at the end of each true-up cycle, so charging the Bolt right now costs nothing.

As someone that also has solar, I used to think that way too, but it isn't quite correct. There is value to those kWh's regardless if you buy them, or your poco pays you for them. So, if the market price is 10 cents per kWh - a full charge on your Bolt is worth $6.00. That's $6.00 in your pocket, or $6.00 stored in your Bolt's battery.

The excess monetary credits are gone at the end of the true-up period. It's a use it or lose proposition. You only get paid for excess production, not excess accumulation of credits. My point was that so far owning the Bolt hasn't increased our electricity bill in any significant way. My out of pocket costs to operate the vehicle are nil. Last year we had a similar excess of monetary credits, too.

 

[devbolt]

Not quite right.

You did not factor in the cost of the DCFC option.
Which is my point.

Everyone here questions why it is optional.
It is optional because it is expensive.
And some people don't want to pay that expense.

I applaud Chevy for making it an option.

The hope is that the cost of a long-distance trip in the Bolt using the available DCFC network out there would be price competitive with that of driving a traditional ICE vehicle for the same trip. A 900 mile trip that we recently did would've cost $95 if we had taken our hybrid SUV which gets about 26 MPG and if gas cost $2.75 a gallon. In the Bolt, it ended up being $83, plus the $19.95 EVGO monthly charge. So basically a wash with a slight advantage on the SUV's part. If I had a slightly higher-MPG vehicle to use for the trip, then the Bolt definitely loses.

But I didn't buy the Bolt with the DCFC option to be a substitute for the SUV for long distance trips. I bought the Bolt to not have to spend money on gas for day to day driving needs. Getting it with DCFC gives me the flexibility to use it for a trip if I want to, or if it is practical to do so. The amount of money I'm saving monthly by not having to buy gas for my day to day driving needs more than makes up for whatever slight increase a long distance trip might cost me. We have solar on our roof, and excess money credits at the end of each true-up cycle, so charging the Bolt right now costs nothing. Latest true-up billing statement showed we walked away from about $165 in monetary credits. Or about a thousand kWh's that could've gone into the Bolt's battery. About 4K miles worth of free travel.

I'm not factoring it in because it's just another optional package like the Infotainment Package or the Driver Condidence II package that gives me additional functionality. I don't amortize the use of the better stereo or the automatic emergency braking over the course of the Bolt's lifetime. Why would I do it for DCFC option?

However, I get the point you are driving at which appears to be that using DC fast charging to travel long distances right now in the Bolt is not necessarily cheaper than driving a 30 MPG vehicle for the same trip, especially when you have to pay an extra $750 to be able to DC fast charge in the first place. Eventually the more you travel and use DC fast charging, the cheaper that option becomes. And as the CCS network expands and competition drives down the per-session charges, it also helps make it cheaper to travel using the Bolt instead of a 30 MPG vehicle.

 

[oilerlord]

The excess monetary credits are gone at the end of the true-up period. It's a use it or lose proposition. You only get paid for excess production, not excess accumulation of credits. My point was that so far owning the Bolt hasn't increased our electricity bill in any significant way. My out of pocket costs to operate the vehicle are nil. Last year we had a similar excess of monetary credits, too.

Fair enough, I suppose then you could consider that $6.00 value a lost opportunity cost caused by the way your poco sets the rules. The kWh's have value, you just may not be able to collect on it. Sort of like having a gift card you know will expire before you get to use it. Sounds like your solar is oversized based on your consumption, and your poco has a cap on your exports and/or doesn't carry them forward long enough for you to use them.

We have an opposite problem where we live. Our poco pays us every month - only for the base kWh rate on exports. It's a bad deal because at night (and when conditions are such that generation doesn't cover our consumption), we pay base rate + fees - even though we may have exported 40 kWh during the day. You and I take advantage of the battery storage to stick it back to the man, just in slightly different ways.

 

[oilerlord]

Everyone here questions why it is optional.
It is optional because it is expensive.
And some people don't want to pay that expense.

I applaud Chevy for making it an option.

One of the biggest issues is that dealers don't even know what it is, and some customers find out that it may have come in handy after it's too late. I'm a big fan of having choices, but that's not a great outcome either.

It's interesting that Chevy decided to make DCFC standard equipment in Canada. There may not be a DCFC station within 1000km, but you're getting it anyway...which is dumb in itself. Some of us pay for equipment that we can't use.. We have exactly ZERO DCFC stations in Alberta. While that could change sometime down the road, it won't during the period of a 3 year lease, and to your point, I may not use it anyway so DCFC being optional gives me the option of saving money.

 

[IMAdolt]

The excess monetary credits are gone at the end of the true-up period. It's a use it or lose proposition. You only get paid for excess production, not excess accumulation of credits. My point was that so far owning the Bolt hasn't increased our electricity bill in any significant way. My out of pocket costs to operate the vehicle are nil. Last year we had a similar excess of monetary credits, too.

Fair enough, I suppose then you could consider that $6.00 value a lost opportunity cost caused by the way your poco sets the rules. The kWh's have value, you just may not be able to collect on it. Sort of like having a gift card you know will expire before you get to use it. Sounds like your solar is oversized based on your consumption, and your poco has a cap on your exports and/or doesn't carry them forward long enough for you to use them.

We have an opposite problem where we live. Our poco pays us every month - only for the base kWh rate on exports. It's a bad deal because at night (and when conditions are such that generation doesn't cover our consumption), we pay base rate + fees - even though we may have exported 40 kWh during the day. You and I take advantage of the battery storage to stick it back to the man, just in slightly different ways.

In BC it's a credit per month then a payout annually of residual credit, and the rate is $.10 for exporting which is great considering were at $.08 low rate and .12 high rate, which you wold never reach if you were an oversized exporter, so grid storage makes all the sense here if you can have grid tie.

A good point about using up waist power if not able to export it fully but there's still a value attached to the generation and initial principal cost of the power used and I would imagine you'd use up that access if you even marginally use you're EV, whatever it is, unless you accidently built a solar farm.

 

[oilerlord]

A good point about using up waist power if not able to export it fully but there's still a value attached to the generation and initial principal cost of the power used and I would imagine you'd use up that access if you even marginally use you're EV, whatever it is, unless you accidently built a solar farm.

Yeah, it's why I brought it up. There's value to a kWh regardless if you use it, or you don't, but if his monthly bill didn't change after charging up his car, you could argue it doesn't cost anything. Semantics, I suppose. Perhaps he does have a solar farm, or huge amount of PV because I've never heard of anyone driving a 60kWh EV, and it not having an impact on their monthly power bill.

 

[IMAdolt]

Semantics indeed, the flip side of that logic is that when you waist power you're simply paying a higher rate then you should have been, maybe your monthly bill stays the same but an appropriate sized PV system would have been cheaper so you're monthly bill should have been lower then it has been up to that point ("monthly bill" including your initial investment into the system over life cycle).

Of course grid tie should solve that under or over sized and I have a hard time accepting a power company that credits someone then deletes the surplus at year end rather then carry forward or pay out the user, surplus helps the power company more then it hurts them, it aint right.

 

[Anonymous]

Everyone here questions why it is optional.
It is optional because it is expensive.
And some people don't want to pay that expense.

I applaud Chevy for making it an option.

It's interesting that Chevy decided to make DCFC standard equipment in Canada.

There is no federal tax credit of $7,500 in Canada; hence, GM cannot market the Bolt EV as a $29,995 car in Canada like it can in the US, so there is no point keeping the DCFC off of every Bolt EV in Canada!

And once GM provides it as non-optional equipment, its per unit cost to manufacture drops significantly! I wonder how GM passes that savings down to the consumer in Canada?

 

[TimBolt]

I selected the DCFC option because it allows me to use my Bolt on longer road trips.

The Bolt is my only car, so this option was important to me. As the EV market matures fast charging will probably become standard, as will faster charge times and longer range.

If you don't intend to take any 200+ mile trips with your Bolt skipping the DCFC option seems like an easy way to save $750.

 

[Anonymous]

I selected the DCFC option because it allows me to use my Bolt on longer road trips.

The Bolt is my only car, so this option was important to me. As the EV market matures fast charging will probably become standard, as will faster charge times and longer range.

If you don't intend to take any 200+ mile trips with your Bolt skipping the DCFC option seems like an easy way to save $750.

Don't take this the wrong way, Tim, but anyone who gets the DCFC option and then recommends to someone else not to get it, his opinion is worthless!

I can think of a half a dozen reasons to get one even if he does not intend to take any 200+ mile trips, all of which you are covered for, because you got the option!

For example, the power failed in my community once, so after my drive home for the day, I picked up some dinner and drove the 4 miles over to my Chevy dealer and used their 50 KWh DCFC for the 1 hour to completely charge my Bolt EV while eating dinner and their freshly baked cookies.

I was then able to commence my drive that night for a social visit to a friends house, and still have enough range left for the drive needed the next day and another evening social visit, without any problem caused by the power failure!

How often do these problems happen? Not very often, but you have the DCFC option, like I do!

 

[redpoint5]

As the EV market matures fast charging will probably become standard, as will faster charge times and longer range.

I agree that DCFC will likely become standard, and that the chargers will become more powerful over time. However, I doubt that range will increase much more than what is offered today. Sure, there will be some extreme long range options made available, but most people won't buy it.

The most expensive component in an EV like the Bolt is the battery. If the typical trip consumes just 10% of the capacity, then most of the time the battery is just extra weight and expense along for the ride.

Extending the range of EVs becomes even less important as the number of DCFC stations increases along with how quickly it can deliver a charge. If my vehicle can be recharged relatively quickly, then why pay for the expense and lug around the weight of a 400 mile range battery when the 200 mile range will get me to the destination just about as quickly?

As much as people dismiss my Prius plug-in as being worthless, it makes sense to fully utilize the battery on almost every trip. The battery is small, so it isn't too costly, and is almost never unnecessary weight.

The Bolt battery capacity is just about at the sweet spot for range, power, price, and weight.

 

[Anonymous]

As much as people dismiss my Prius plug-in as being worthless, it makes sense to fully utilize the battery on almost every trip. The battery is small, so it isn't too costly, and is almost never unnecessary weight.

I would like to get the Prius plug-ins out of the HOV lanes in California. With a 9 mile battery range, they do not deserve to be there!

Most of the plug-in Prius owners I know in California, never plug them in! They just use them as an excuse to get the green HOV stickers ...

 

[redpoint5]

If you don't intend to take any 200+ mile trips with your Bolt skipping the DCFC option seems like an easy way to save $750.

Don't take this the wrong way, Tim, but anyone who gets the DCFC option and then recommends to someone else not to get it, his opinion is worthless!

...How often do these problems happen? Not very often, but you have the DCFC option, like I do!

In what other way should we take your comment, other than you lobbing an ad hominem at Tim, saying his opinion is worthless?

The scenario in which you describe can be solved with a couple Uber rides. How many Uber rides can one get for $750?

We know you are a champion of DCFC being standard equipment, and I am too, but there are plenty of people who would benefit more from having an extra $750 in their pocket than the ability to fast charge. Heck, I have no use for it since I would take my Prius on any trip that would require me to DCFC. If I moved long distance, I would put the Bolt on a trailer attached to the moving truck. If we lost power, I'd likely have plenty of range to go a few days for around town driving, and I have other ICE vehicles ready to stand in.

Then there is the resale value argument. Options never get their full value back on a used vehicle. When I go to sell the car when it has a value of $2,000, nobody is going to pay an extra $750 on top of that to get DCFC.

I'd be curious to know how much extra it costs Chevy to install DCFC capability, but I bet it's something like an extra $100. It should be standard equipment, but if Chevy is going to charge $750 for it, then it's a good thing people have the option to skip it.

I would like to get the Prius plug-ins out of the HOV lanes in California. With a 9 mile battery range, they do not deserve to be there!

Most of the plug-in Prius owners I know in California, never plug them in! They just use them as an excuse to get the green HOV stickers ...

Agreed.

The HOV access thing is a fraud. Why are we putting the most efficient vehicles in the HOV lanes in the first place? If the purpose of HOV is ultimately to reduce our impact on the environment, then it should be semi trucks, Hummers, Suburbans, and all the other large vehicles that consume relatively large quantities of fuel stopping and going, and idling at a standstill, that should be free flowing lanes of traffic.

I'm not actually arguing that we encourage people to buy Hummers so they can get HOV access, rather pointing out how useless the idea is at solving the issue of traffic congestion and pollution.

If the goal is to reduce both, then increasing taxation on fuel is the smartest approach. No administrative overhead, no crowding the HOV lane with vehicles capable of being very efficient in stop and go congestion, and no funny business between government officials and lobbyists.

... and I average 13 miles of range in my Prius. From a low of 11 in the winter to a high of 17 in the summer. It's not much, but it allows me to average 75 MPG compared to the 50 MPG standard Prius drivers get.