Tooney
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2021
- Threads
- 333
- Messages
- 2,206
- Reaction score
- 1,736
- Location
- Ohio
- Vehicles
- 2022 Taycan 4S
- Thread starter
- #1
Note: Link to Forbes article worked for free once, then may prompt for subscription
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradte...ly-usedwhats-up-with-non-tesla-fast-charging/
Excerpts:
Electrify America reported they conducted 1.45 million charging sessions in 2021. They announce that with pride, but it’s worth noting that they had around 3,500 charging stalls at the end of 2021, and around 2,300 at the start, for an average of just under 3,000. So that works out to a rough average of around 1.25 charging sessions a day per stall, a shockingly low number. They began the year with just 0.5 sessions per day and grew to the larger number by the end of the year.
Of course, as an average, some stalls would see far more and some less, and they would see more on some days and less on others. As such many stalls would not see use on many days, while others might get a line at certain times.
EA charges 31 cents/kWh if you pay their $4/month membership fee, and 43 cents otherwise in most locations.
According to EA, they distributed 41 gigawatt-hours in 2021 in this 1.45 million sessions, for an average session of around 28 kWh — which amounts to 80 to 120 miles of range per session, much less than the capacity of most modern cars. In addition, even if they earned the full 43 cents for each kWh, this implies revenue of around 17 million dollars. At the USA average price of 13 cents/kWh this suggests roughly 12M of gross margin.
These small numbers are surprising because Electrify America is the largest of the non-Tesla charging network (though a fairly distant 2nd to Tesla.) It’s unlikely any of the others are doing much better. The number is certainly not enough to support the cost of a charging station, though today that cost is handled by government subsidies, and particularly in the case of EA, due to the large penalty VW had to pay over the dieselgate scandal, which is what got EA started. Based on data from subsidy applications in California and Texas, installation costs anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000 per stall, while Tesla manages a much lower price.
There are a variety of possible reasons for this low usage:
• A large fraction of EV buyers are homeowners. That’s because EVs are perceived as expensive (mostly false) and because owning an EV is a much nicer experience if you can install charging at home (very true.) Those who have charging at home only use fast charging stations when on intercity road trips, and thus they make up only a small fraction of charging.
• It appears that non-Tesla cars don’t do too many EV road trips. Casual observation of fast charging stations (both Tesla and non-Tesla) and non-urban locations shows that non-Tesla cars are much less frequently observed outside the cities. They were barely observed at all before EA. Tesla has worked very hard to establish their cars as the best (and sometimes) only cars which are easy to road trip in, and while this is changing, things are taking time to change with it. (In fact, now that many Tesla drivers have adapters, it turns out that at some stations, Teslas are now the most common car to visit! That was definitely true for some time with CHAdeMO stations, as that’s what Tesla’s first adapter supported.)
• Another reason may be that non-Tesla stations have earned a (deserved) reputation for low reliability. Without reliability, drivers are more afraid to take road trips where they might get stranded.
....
All network operators need to get rid of their reputation for low reliability. EA’s inspectors are just the start. Stations should get better at detecting any problems. If they can’t detect them each station should have a button in its UA for a driver to report a problem. Repairs should be dispatched more quickly. Sadly, one reason they aren’t is the low revenue numbers for the stations. Selling electricity to EVs is not yet a business, and it may have trouble ever becoming one. It’s not funded on revenue but on grants and penalties — or in the case of Tesla, because it sells cars, not electricity. This creates a risk that there is less motive to keep stations in good order. (Hard numbers on Tesla usage are not available, Tesla does not respond to press inquiries.)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradte...ly-usedwhats-up-with-non-tesla-fast-charging/
Excerpts:
Electrify America reported they conducted 1.45 million charging sessions in 2021. They announce that with pride, but it’s worth noting that they had around 3,500 charging stalls at the end of 2021, and around 2,300 at the start, for an average of just under 3,000. So that works out to a rough average of around 1.25 charging sessions a day per stall, a shockingly low number. They began the year with just 0.5 sessions per day and grew to the larger number by the end of the year.
Of course, as an average, some stalls would see far more and some less, and they would see more on some days and less on others. As such many stalls would not see use on many days, while others might get a line at certain times.
EA charges 31 cents/kWh if you pay their $4/month membership fee, and 43 cents otherwise in most locations.
According to EA, they distributed 41 gigawatt-hours in 2021 in this 1.45 million sessions, for an average session of around 28 kWh — which amounts to 80 to 120 miles of range per session, much less than the capacity of most modern cars. In addition, even if they earned the full 43 cents for each kWh, this implies revenue of around 17 million dollars. At the USA average price of 13 cents/kWh this suggests roughly 12M of gross margin.
These small numbers are surprising because Electrify America is the largest of the non-Tesla charging network (though a fairly distant 2nd to Tesla.) It’s unlikely any of the others are doing much better. The number is certainly not enough to support the cost of a charging station, though today that cost is handled by government subsidies, and particularly in the case of EA, due to the large penalty VW had to pay over the dieselgate scandal, which is what got EA started. Based on data from subsidy applications in California and Texas, installation costs anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000 per stall, while Tesla manages a much lower price.
There are a variety of possible reasons for this low usage:
• A large fraction of EV buyers are homeowners. That’s because EVs are perceived as expensive (mostly false) and because owning an EV is a much nicer experience if you can install charging at home (very true.) Those who have charging at home only use fast charging stations when on intercity road trips, and thus they make up only a small fraction of charging.
• It appears that non-Tesla cars don’t do too many EV road trips. Casual observation of fast charging stations (both Tesla and non-Tesla) and non-urban locations shows that non-Tesla cars are much less frequently observed outside the cities. They were barely observed at all before EA. Tesla has worked very hard to establish their cars as the best (and sometimes) only cars which are easy to road trip in, and while this is changing, things are taking time to change with it. (In fact, now that many Tesla drivers have adapters, it turns out that at some stations, Teslas are now the most common car to visit! That was definitely true for some time with CHAdeMO stations, as that’s what Tesla’s first adapter supported.)
• Another reason may be that non-Tesla stations have earned a (deserved) reputation for low reliability. Without reliability, drivers are more afraid to take road trips where they might get stranded.
....
All network operators need to get rid of their reputation for low reliability. EA’s inspectors are just the start. Stations should get better at detecting any problems. If they can’t detect them each station should have a button in its UA for a driver to report a problem. Repairs should be dispatched more quickly. Sadly, one reason they aren’t is the low revenue numbers for the stations. Selling electricity to EVs is not yet a business, and it may have trouble ever becoming one. It’s not funded on revenue but on grants and penalties — or in the case of Tesla, because it sells cars, not electricity. This creates a risk that there is less motive to keep stations in good order. (Hard numbers on Tesla usage are not available, Tesla does not respond to press inquiries.)
Sponsored
Last edited: