DC fast charger

[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.

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!

I'm glad you have access to DCFC charger four miles away, that's not the case for many Bolt owners. Since some owners don't intend to use their Bolt for longer trips, it may be prudent for them to skip the DCFC option. This is a decision best left to the purchaser, as each has a unique set of circumstances.

I don't consider anyone's opinion to be worthless, and I also appreciate common courtesy on public forums.

I do appreciate your opinion, which I certainly don't think is without value.

 

[Anonymous]

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?

A season ticket holder to Dodger games recommends that you not buy tickets to see the Dodgers.

A subscriber to DirecTV recommends that you "cut the cable" and watch all free services on your computer or iPhone.

A driver of a luxury car recommends that you purchase an economy car and save the money for "a rainy day!"

It is not ad hominem to see that all of these recommendations are worthless!

So far every purchaser/leasee of a Bolt EV without the DCFC option that has come on this board has said it was a mistake on their part, due primarily to their lack of understanding of how EVs work and are charged.

Now when a purchaser/leasee of a Bolt EV without the DCFC option comes on this board and says that it was the best purchase decision that person ever made, that advice has some value! But the reality is, we won't really know how valuable of a decision it is until years from now...

UPDATE TO TIM: I am sorry if you were offended by my verbage. But you purchased the DCFC option, which really negates the value of your opinion! Where will you be the date someone relies on your opinion and realizes he made a mistake and needs the DCFC option he didn't buy because he relied on your opinion and that you have access to???

 

[Anonymous]

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

And lastly, since you like to use name calling, where do you get the "arrogance" to purchase a DCFC option yet presume to know every possible scenario that may befall another purchaser who accepts your advice not to purchase one during the lifetime of his purchase and is on the side of the road for a 9 hour Level 2 charge due to some unanticipated catastrophe, while you drive by after your 1.5 hour DCFC charge!?!

And apparently, you don't even have an EV that is a "long range" EV with the ability to have a DCFC option!!! So where is the basis of your advice coming from? Wikipedia???

So let me restate my statement since you drive a plug in Prius:

And lastly, since you like to use name calling, where do you get the "arrogance" to purchase a gas/EV hybrid yet presume to know every possible scenario that may befall another purchaser who accepts your advice not to purchase a DCFC option on his electric ONLY EV during the lifetime of his purchase and is on the side of the road for a 9 hour Level 2 charge due to some unanticipated catastrophe, while you drive by while burning gasoline!?!

 

[TimBolt]

Michael,

I'm sure that there are Bolt owners who skipped the DCFC and have no regrets, this forum represents a very small sample of Bolt owners.

If I also owned an ICE vehicle I would have skipped the DCFC option.

I would hope that anyone purchasing a Bolt, or any car, considers which options are important based on their own circumstances.

Some members of this forum may have been unaware that the DCFC was optional, or didn't fully understand the difference between level-1-2-3 charging, and they now realize that the DCFC would have been worthwhile.

While unfortunate, that's not the same as making an informed decision.

I would never assume that the decisions I've made based on my needs are a good fit for everyone else.

 

[Anonymous]

I would never assume that the decisions I've made based on my needs are a good fit for everyone else.

In Canada, no Bolt purchaser skipped the DCFC option, because it is NOT an option, as it was included in every Bolt as it should be!

It was an option in the USA, simply because GM wanted to market the Bolt EV as a $29,995 car after the $7,500 federal tax credit pure and simple! Then every Bolt purchaser had to purchase a $700 option that would have been a fraction of that cost if it had been included in every USA car, as it should have been!

You are defending a "freedom" that cost every one of us needless money!

 

[TimBolt]

Michael,

I would imagine that pretty much every vehicle option would be less costly if included in the base price.

I also think that some type of fast charger will become standard in every EV as the market matures and the electronic component costs come down.

You're probably right about GM wanting to hit the "under $30k" price target, and offering the DCFC as an option certainly lowers cost.

Competitive pressure may cause GM to rethink their strategy in future models, or when they get around to a refresh for the Bolt. A recent article indicated there may be a Buick "Bolt" soon, which will probably have a higher level of standard features at a higher MSRP. I'll need to check that out in mid-2020.

 

[TimBolt]

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.

I agree that lugging around a half-ton battery that costs around $10k is not ideal, but these are very early days for EV technology.

In a few years the cost should come down considerably, while energy density will also improve. I don't think it's out of the question that EV's will surpass ICE cars in range in the next decade, as the battery shrinks to a more manageable size.

The upcoming Tesla Model 3 range is over 300 miles, there's really no reason not to expect EV range to improve to 400 or 500 miles in the near future. Fast charging will also improve time needed to recharge, there are chargers being developed that will be able to add hundreds of kilowatts per hour to an EV battery.

As for a Prius plug-in being worthless, if it works for you it's certainly not worthless. It's truly a transition vehicle that provides excellent fuel economy and a decent electric range.

 

[EldRick]

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.

Exactly. And in my case, it will probably have been used twice. Calling a car without DCFC "fraud" means one is either ignorant of the meaning of the word, or thinks that absurd hyperbole helps convince others of a senseless point of view.

 

[nautilus]

A season ticket holder to Dodger games recommends that you not buy tickets to see the Dodgers.

I might think that person was in a unique position to know about the actual value of the season tickets he bought and I would treat his recommendation with more weight because of his experience.

 

[Anonymous]

A season ticket holder to Dodger games recommends that you not buy tickets to see the Dodgers.

I might think that person was in a unique position to know about the actual value of the season tickets he bought and I would treat his recommendation with more weight because of his experience.

The Los Angeles Dodgers are currently 75-32, first in the National League West Division, leading the 2nd place Arizona Diamondbacks by 14 games!

They are on pace to possibly become the first team to win as many games as the 1906 Chicago Cubs did: 110 games!

If an LA Dodgers season ticket holder recommends that you not buy tickets to see the Dodgers, offer to buy his remaining season tickets and make a killing in the play-offs!!!

 

[Anonymous]

Michael,

I'm sure that there are Bolt owners who skipped the DCFC and have no regrets, this forum represents a very small sample of Bolt owners.

If they exist, which I strongly doubt, they are much better prepared to recommend to other to buy a Bolt EV without a DCFC, not you!

If I also owned an ICE vehicle I would have skipped the DCFC option.

But you didn't skip the DCFC option

I would hope that anyone purchasing a Bolt, or any car, considers which options are important based on their own circumstances.

Some members of this forum may have been unaware that the DCFC was optional, or didn't fully understand the difference between level-1-2-3 charging, and they now realize that the DCFC would have been worthwhile.

While unfortunate, that's not the same as making an informed decision.

I would never assume that the decisions I've made based on my needs are a good fit for everyone else.

Yet, you presume to offer advice to someone who wears different shoes than you!

Better to leave that advice to those who have chosen to purchase a Bolt EV without the DCFC option!

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Exactly. And in my case, it will probably have been used twice. Calling a car without DCFC "fraud" means one is either ignorant of the meaning of the word, or thinks that absurd hyperbole helps convince others of a senseless point of view.

Someone on a forum similar to this one complained about leasing the Bolt EV and finding the seats uncomfortable and you immediately replied with incorrect advice to seek out an attorney about their 3 day right of rescission, which you now acknowledge on this forum was wrong advice (did you acknowledge that on the original thread?)

Did anyone accuse you of hyperbole and a senseless point of view?

Another member of this forum leased a Bolt EV and complained that they explained their situation in detail to the salesman, yet were given a model without the DCFC and I gave them advice that they should seek out an attorney and/or push to get the dealer to refund or swap the Bolt based on fraud.

I also detailed a specific situation I personally had regarding a 1996 Toyota 4-Runner than I purchased where a different one was delivered to me than the one I test drove and after six week of haggling the dealer gave me a full refund!.

You now know my credentials; what are yours for which you continue to make unwarranted attacks upon my point of view?

Who is attempting to help an aggrieved Bolt EV leasee here and who is boosting his ego with flashy attack words?

I think you only continue to embarrass yourself needlessly by continuing your attacks on me but have at it!

I will continue to support my point of view, the correct one and the aggrieved Bolt EV leasee!

 

[oilerlord]

Hey Tim,

Found this funny (I only read it because it was requoted):

"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!"

Well, at least he told you not to take it the "wrong" way...which begs the question: Exactly what is the right way to take it? Perhaps it was a compliment.



Good for a laugh, but way too soon to take the guy off my ignore list.

 

[Anonymous]

Oilerford is upset with me because I have exposed him as being compensated for his giving negative posts about Bolt EVs here on this forum!

Ask him and watch him sidestep the issue!

 

[devbolt]

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.

We're not oversized in the sense that we have excess kWh production at the end of the true-up period. There's no cap on how much we can export during the day. Since we're on a time of use plan that has higher rates during the day and lower during the night, excess kWh exported during the day are credited at that higher rate than what we consume at night. I might earn 40 cents a kWh during the day, but only get charged 20 cents a kWh at night.

$120 of the $165 credit we had to walk away from is from the mandatory monthly minimums we have to pay regardless of actual consumption. Everyone who gets power from the utility has to pay this. The other $45 was from unused monetary credits we had earned. If our consumption goes up from more charging of the car, any charges would come out of the mandatory monthly minimum we're paying and excess monetary credits we've generated.

The utility doesn't set the rules on how credits are applied. The state's Public Utility Commision sets the rules on how solar users are "compensated" for their excess kWh production, TOU rates, net metering rules, and associated minimum bill amounts, etc. The utility gets to make cases for why they should be paid more, or solar customers get less favorable rates, but so far the PUC has been telling them to go pound sand for the most part.

At the time we had the system installed, we had 4 adults living here, one of whom worked from from home, and the other worked the night shift, so daytime usage was higher. The first year we actually had to pay the utility $90 above and beyond whatever mandatory bill minimums there were. The following year it dropped to owing them $5, and after that one person moved out and another person started working days, so daytime usage dropped and we started accumulating monetary credits. I suspect when I start working again, our usage will go up since I will be driving and charging the car more often.

 

[devbolt]

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.

My monthly bill didn't go up since right around the time I bought my car I lost my job. No job to go to means no need to drive a lot. I've only put about ~4500 miles on the car in 6 months, whereas I used to put 2000 miles a month commuting to my job. The only reason I have that much mileage on the car in the first place is because I took a trip Los Angeles and back which added ~1300 miles to the car.

Our setup is a 4.94 kW system. It was sized at the time to cover about 70% of our electrical needs and take us out of the higher tiers that we were paying. At the time, there were 4 tiers, with each tier getting progressively more expensive as we exceeded our baseline amount. They've now collapsed it it to just two tiers for the majority of most consumers. There's a special expensive higher third tier for people who are excessive in their consumption, but most people don't fall into that.

 

[devbolt]

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.

We do it to reward people for investing in an emerging technology that greatly reduces emissions and pollution. The more quickly the new technology is adopted, the cheaper it becomes. And as it becomes cheaper it ends up in more vehicles over time. The more vehicles using this technology, the cleaner the air gets. It's a long term strategy.

The purpose of the HOV lane way back in the day was a multifaceted one: reduce congestion by taking cars off of the road, reduce idling of cars (see congestion) , and reduce overall emissions from cars (see congestion and idling). Allowing plug-in hybrids and EVs into the HOV lanes continues to further those goals.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

A season ticket holder to Dodger games recommends that you not buy tickets to see the Dodgers.

A season ticket holder to Dodger games recommends that you not buy tickets to see the Dodgers if you are an Angels fan.

A subscriber to DirecTV recommends that you "cut the cable" and watch all free services on your computer or iPhone.

A subscriber to DirecTV recommends that you "cut the cable" and watch all free services on your computer or iPhone if you have no interest in DirecTV's particular unique content.

A driver of a luxury car recommends that you purchase an economy car and save the money for "a rainy day!"

A driver of a luxury car recommends that you purchase an economy car and save the money for "a rainy day!" if you view a car purely as utilitarian A-to-B transportation

I'm sorry, Michael, but recognizing that someone else's situation may be different from his does not invalidate Tim's opinion.

 

[oilerlord]

$120 of the $165 credit we had to walk away from is from the mandatory monthly minimums we have to pay regardless of actual consumption. Everyone who gets power from the utility has to pay this. The other $45 was from unused monetary credits we had earned. If our consumption goes up from more charging of the car, any charges would come out of the mandatory monthly minimum we're paying and excess monetary credits we've generated.

The utility doesn't set the rules on how credits are applied. The state's Public Utility Commision sets the rules on how solar users are "compensated" for their excess kWh production, TOU rates, net metering rules, and associated minimum bill amounts, etc. The utility gets to make cases for why they should be paid more, or solar customers get less favorable rates, but so far the PUC has been telling them to go pound sand for the most part.

I understand. We have a similar authority - the Alberta Utilities Commission that sets the rules. I'm currently lobbying for them to change the microgeneration rules so electricity retailers are required to credit kWh's, not the base kWh rate. That way, we'd be able to use exported kWh's at night - in a way, turning our poco into a UPS battery.

While we don't have mandatory minimums or TOU plans, the fact is we pay a lot of consumption-based fees. Our microgeneration rules were last amended in 2008. If our government really does want Albertans to embrace solar, it's time to change rules that were clearly written to the benefit of the retailer, and not the homeowner.

 

[SeanNelson]

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.

HOV access for "green" cars is an incentive, just like the US $7500 tax credit. The reason its widespread is because it's pretty much free for the government to offer it, since the lanes are already there. You can't give fuel hogs free reign to the HOV lanes because there are so many of them that they would swamp the lanes and eliminate their benefit.

The day will come (and perhaps is already there in some areas) when there will be too many green cars to make HOV access a viable incentive too. But that's a good thing, because it means that green cars have become a significant percentage of the fleet, and that means the fleet is less dirty than it would otherwise be.