SF-LA trip in a Bolt- Is it viable on I5 yet?

With the "238" mile range of the Bolt, it seems like we are on the brink of viable EV trips from SF to LA on I5, where you only goal is to cover the distance, and not take a leisurely stroll down 101.

While the range makes it seem like a single stop in Kettleman City for a Quick Charge would get you to the doorstep, the speed travelled on I5 was slightly more than "optimal" EV range speeds. I have not made this trip in quite awhile, but as we look to replace an ICE car with an EV, this, and the quick trip up to Tahoe/Yosemite are 2 of the ones which I try to figure out if I would be comfortable attempting.

I initially thought that it was crazy there were not already Fast chargers at Kettleman City until I realized that there has not been an EV with the range to get you there from the Bay yet, so it is totally a chicken and the egg. It would be a good -mid-point, but if you do not have coverage at the quarter mark, no one could make it to the mid point.

Hopefully the Bolt and BMW i3 REX and other EV's with about 200 mile range will become prevalent and a company would feel that they could market it for a big splash to add another route to the "West Coast EV Highway".

p.s. What do you long range drivers use to plan a route? I have viewed Plugshare, and typically use Waze/GoogleMaps for route/traffic info, but have not found an all in one which plans the route with charge stations as integral automatic stops.

May be, definitely on 101hwy, check plugshare, a bunch of charging stations were added recently as the result of dieselgate. Some stations have Chamedo only so best to check. Wish there is an adaptor CCS<>Chamedo

Route planning, see http://www.mychevybolt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4889#p8998

Driving I-5 is not realistic yet due to the near total lack of DC chargers but grant contracts have already been approved by the California Energy Commission for new chargers that will be installed in the next couple of years.

In the meantime, US-101 should be good. If I were doing that trip starting from SF I would probably charge at the EVgo stations in Salinas and San Luis Obispo.

Driving to Tahoe is also easy now due to a new 4 stall EVgo DC site in El Dorado Hills that just opened plus other DC sites in Tahoe and along I-80 in Auburn and Truckee. For Yosemite, you can get a DC charge in Fresno but you probably need some time on one of only 2 J1772 sites in Yosemite to get enough charge for the trip back.

It is easy for you to judge for yourself: just look at http://www.plugshare.com/

The short answer (for me at least) is NO. I use the NRG stations (dual CCS + CHAdeMO) along 101 (Salinas, SLO, etc.).

The CEC did fund several DC CCS stations along I5 that have been deployed by The US Green Vehicle Council, but they are slow (limited to 24 kW), expensive, non-redundant, and not very reliable. It looks like the CEC has selected better options in response to their N-S corridor solicitation last year: http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/GFO-15-601_NOPA.pdf

Those awards were made in the spring of 2016, so hopefully the new stations will start materializing next year sometime.

Also, there is ZERO (as in 0, absolutely none) EV charging infrastructure currently deployed or in construction with "dieselgate" funds. Let's stick to factual information here; my car finds real charging stations more valuable than post-truth ones.

VW (i.e., Audi for their e-tron quattro) will be installing those 150kW DCFCs as well pretty darn soon. Audi (which is owned by VW) because they have announced it, and VW because of their diesel fraud fiasco and their settlement will be installing DCFC infrastructure. The settlement was agreed to about a month ago - how do you expect anything to have happened yet?

Are they there yet? No. Will they be? Yes. When? Nobody knows. Remember that NRG's CA network is there because of a settlement as well (NRG's parent company 'allegedly' defrauded CA electric consumers in the 2000's by fixing electricity prices, and as part of the settlement, they had to install charging stations - the settlement/network STILL isn't fully complete over 10 years later.)

Good responses so far. For posterity, here are the CCS stations as of Dec 2016 per PlugShare.

tgreene said:

It looks like the CEC has selected better options in response to their N-S corridor solicitation last year: http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/GFO-15-601_NOPA.pdf

Those awards were made in the spring of 2016, so hopefully the new stations will start materializing next year sometime.

Click to expand...

Also, additional locations were selected this fall for E-W corridors:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/GFO-15-603_NOPA.pdf

Also, 50 DRIVETheARC/EVgo stations at 20 locations are being installed between now and March, 2017 between Monterey and Tahoe.

This interactive Google map overlay shows the new planned CEC station locations but not the DRIVEtheARC stations:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1VEJLK0-wcAhWV8Q0MirTLULd5mg&ll=34.69568825600552%2C-119.11231046875002&z=7

tgreene said:

Also, there is ZERO (as in 0, absolutely none) EV charging infrastructure currently deployed or in construction with "dieselgate" funds. Let's stick to factual information here; my car finds real charging stations more valuable than post-truth ones.

Click to expand...

That's true but the planned CEC stations don't exist either. VW will submit their initial plan by February 22, it will likely be approved by April. The first 2.5 year plan would end in late 2019. VW has a ~125 mile range e-Golf for 2017 and plans to introduce a 200+ mile range Audi in 2018. They need charging infrastructure to help them compete against Tesla so they have an economic incentive to construct their new stations quickly.

tgreene said:

It looks like the CEC has selected better options in response to their N-S corridor solicitation last year: http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/GFO-15-601_NOPA.pdf

Those awards were made in the spring of 2016, so hopefully the new stations will start materializing next year sometime.

Click to expand...

When the 50kW Buttonwillow, Harris Ranch, and Gustine CCS stations are installed, my preliminary models show that Bolt EV should be able to drive the 380 miles from downtown LA to downtown SF in just over 7 hours including stopping at those three stations for a total of ~2 hrs. An ICE car or Model S 100D could do it in less than 6 hours with one stop. A new Model S 60 can do it is with 3 stops in around 6.5 hours. The trip is possible with fewer stops for the S 60 and Bolt EV but the resulting trip duration grows due to DC charge tapering at higher SoC.

When 150kW CCS stations are installed along this corridor, I expect the Bolt EV charging times to fall marginally based on the user manual reference to 80kW power levels. The total charging time might decrease by ~10 minutes (from 1.9 hrs to ~1.7 hrs).

PG & E have a proposal in front of the PUC for installing 7500 charge stations in their area, of which 100 would be fast charge stations. But the PUC have nixed the 100 fast chargers, which is strange. The next hearing at which time they will vote on the proposal is in a few months. I am going to find out how to contact the PUC and suggest they reinstate the 100 fast chargers. If anyone has any more information or ideas about this I would like hear them.

It is important for EV newbies to understand that range is much more speed dependent than for ICE cars. The idea of getting the 238 mi range blasting along at 70 MPH is not realistic. For my LEAF there is a 17% loss of range from 60 MPH to 70 MPH. From data I seen the rated range of 84 mi would be at a continuous speed of 59 MPH. So at 70 MPH the range is 69 mi.

Touring in the LEAF is still a motoring adventure. Unfortunately, the L3 charging stations are not very reliable, are rarely spaced conveniently and are sometimes in use. I have not arrived at an L3 station to find it not operational, but I rarely stop at one without readings the checkins on Plugshare first. I believe the range of the Bolt will make touring much more viable than with the LEAF. But understand there are many factors reducing the maximum jump between stations other than speed. If you are unable to take much risk in your schedule, then you can't depend on a single L3 station being available and operational. Even with a loose schedule you must save enough range to reach the next L2 station to avoid a big problem. And once I needed that reserve when I found the exit closed and I had to go to the next exit and circle back.

Battery temperature management is another big advantage the Bolt has over the LEAF. When touring in the hot summer, the LEAF battery heats up to alarming temperatures and takes overnight to cool back down. And the range in very cold temperatures is terrible.

like2bike said:

It is important for EV newbies to understand that range is much more speed dependent than for ICE cars.

Click to expand...

Actually the range of ICE cars is affected just as much, but people don't worry about it because they don't have to plan ahead for refueling. They just pull in at a gas station whenever the gauge gets low. You can't do that in an EV because the "gas stations" are so few and far between, especially if you're looking for a DC fast charger.

Well actually...like2bike is correct. ICE vehicles use transmissions that allow better ICE efficiency at higher speeds resulting in a flatter efficiency curve. Generally, ICEVs will have similar efficiency across a band around 45-60 mph. Whereas EVs have a peak efficiency around 25 mph, with a larger falloff as speed increases.

This post has a few helpful graphs: http://teslablitherings.com/wp/2016/09/05/the-ice-vs-evs/

Zoomit said:

Well actually...like2bike is correct. ICE vehicles use transmissions that allow better ICE efficiency at higher speeds resulting in a flatter efficiency curve. Generally, ICEVs will have similar efficiency across a band around 45-60 mph. Whereas EVs have a peak efficiency around 25 mph, with a larger falloff as speed increases.

This post has a few helpful graphs: http://teslablitherings.com/wp/2016/09/05/the-ice-vs-evs/

Click to expand...

This article is a bit misleading. First, the ICE efficiencies mentioned are a bit dated. The Prius ICE efficiency is cited as:

In 2014 Toyota claimed to be working on an engine to be used in hybrids that will be capable of 37% efficiency, the best ever seen in a gasoline engine.

Click to expand...

That's wrong. The Toyota Prius has had a 37% efficient ICE since at least 2004 and 38.5% since 2010. The newest Prius introduced this year has a 40% efficient engine as does the Honda Accord hybrid ICE and the new Hyundai Ioniq hybrid. GM hasn't stayed the efficiency of the Malibu hybrid ICE but I'm guessing it is at least 37%.

The reference above is likely not really about a Toyota engine to be used in a hybrid, as stated, but is probably about this press release about new engines to be used in non-hybrids:

http://newsroom.toyota.co.jp/en/detail/1693527

In the real world, he says Atkinson gas engines get "up to" 30% efficiency but if that were true that would imply implausibly low Wh per mile for Prius cars getting routine average 50+ mpg in real world driving. Finally, he says production Diesel engines outside the lab can get up to 40% efficiency but Cummins is introducing a line of 50% efficient diesel truck engines today.

In any case, efficiency in conventional ICE cars is poor at lower speeds because an engine sized to do well at higher speeds and to accelerated adequately cannot run as efficiently at lower power output. So, it's not really about gearing it's about power output. If the car only needs 5-6 HP to drive at low speed a typical 70-100 HP ICE cannot efficiently deliver it. This is one of the reasons why hybrids get better mpg at city speeds. Aside from recapturing braking energy, they can run the engine at efficient power output levels part-time and then turn off the engine and use the excess power generated into the battery earlier to just run the electric motor at times.

The speed vs mpg graph shown for the Prius at that article is misleading. It's likely taken from road studies that calculate average mpg at different speeds from logging data and that is misleading because "average mpg at 25 mph" probably includes accelerating through 25 mph during city driving and braking losses. That graph looks similar, for example, to graph data reported by the Idaho national lab for a 2010 Prius where those test cars are typically handed off to parcel delivery service drivers to gather long-term daily usage.

The BEV speed vs efficiency graph shown in that article is likely not derived in the same way but is a steady-state efficiency graph.

The inherent engine efficiency at different speeds is better measured on a dynamometer which is something INL started doing around 2012 (after their most recent regular Prius testing in 2010).

But, we can look at results from other similar hybrids. They typically show 80-90 mpg at 15-30 mph falling to 70-75 mpg at 45 mph and 50-60 mpg at 60 mph where a similarly tested conventional ICE might show 30 mpg at 15 mph and 40-50 mpg at 30-50 mph which then falls at higher speeds. This is very unlike the article's Prius graph showing 35 mpg at 20 mph and 60 mpg at 40 mph.

So, at steady speeds a Prius-like ICE hybrid will have its peak efficiency at 15-20 mph just like a BEV even though all of the energy is coming from a gasoline ICE.

For example, see the steady-state energy consumption table on page 2 for this Prius-like Ford hybrid:

https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/hev/fact2013fordc-maxhybrid.pdf

Versus this "conventional" Chevy bi-fuel
E85 model:

https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/ice/fact2015chevroletimpalabifuel.pdf