EA decides to shut down chargers along nearly 500 miles of I-95 over long holiday weekend to perform upgrades

OP
electruck

electruck

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
475
Location
Dallas, TX
Vehicles
2018 Volvo XC60
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #16
Keep in mind that you will not be able to charge your Rivian at 350 kW even though you are at a 350 kW capable charger. Those can charge 800 V vehicles at 350 kW but not 400V ones until their manufacturers implement a series/parallel capability like the one Rivian has patented or install DC/DC converters (unlikely IMO). I believe the most CCS allows for is 500 A which, for a 400 V battery means a maximum of 200 kW. In addition to that the car will taper the charge rate as the battery SoC gets higher so it takes longer to add 1 kWh at the end of charge than at the beginning. Be sure to take this into account when comparing the two schemes.

Per kWh charging is much fairer in the sense that one is not charged for power he can't take nor is he penalized for the peculiarities of his cars taper algorithm. What is not so fair is that people in states where electricity is much cheaper than average pay the same as states where it is more expensive.
Yes, well aware of all that. Notice I never said anything about charging at 350 kW, only paying for the 350 kW price tier which Rivian would fall in even if power is tapered off from the originally advertised 160 kW peak.

I am however assuming that EA's price tier is based on peak power and that they would not drop you into a lower price tier if you dropped below 90 kW due to taper during the charging session. That may not be a correct assumption. We also don't know just exactly how Rivan will manage power during a charge to know if that detail is even relevant to this discussion.

The basis of my cost comparison relies on charge times supplied by Rivian (as reported by MT here) so that I don't have to make my own assumptions about actual peaks and taper curves. Rivian stated early on that a 5-80% charge could be completed in about 50 minutes for the 180 kWh pack. Also assuming no EA subscription.

50 minutes @ $0.32 = $16
180 kWh * 75% * $0.43 = $58.05

Looks to me like per minute is far cheaper than per kWh in this scenario.
 

ohmman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Aug 22, 2020
Messages
71
Reaction score
147
Location
Sonoma, California
First Name
Mark
Vehicles
2016 Model X 90D, 2014 Model S P85
I am however assuming that EA's price tier is based on peak power and that they would not drop you into a lower price tier if you dropped below 90 kW due to taper during the charging session. That may not be a correct assumption.
My understanding is that your assumption is correct. You are charged based on capability, not on taper consumption. I've read a few posts elsewhere complaining about this.

This could put a damper on my enthusiasm for an R1T. I plan to tow with it, so consumption will be high and charging could become rapidly expensive compared to just using my Model X, which would mean that I'd almost never choose to tow with the Rivian.
 
OP
electruck

electruck

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
475
Location
Dallas, TX
Vehicles
2018 Volvo XC60
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #18
My understanding is that your assumption is correct. You are charged based on capability, not on taper consumption. I've read a few posts elsewhere complaining about this.

This could put a damper on my enthusiasm for an R1T. I plan to tow with it, so consumption will be high and charging could become rapidly expensive compared to just using my Model X, which would mean that I'd almost never choose to tow with the Rivian.
That is where it will be interesting to see exactly what kind of pricing deal Rivian is able to strike and with which network(s).
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
655
Reaction score
284
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
That is where it will be interesting to see exactly what kind of pricing deal Rivian is able to strike and with which network(s).
That's not what's important. What's important is what kind of deal Rivian strikes with you. Every one is fully aware that the huge competitive advantage Tesla has over Rivian is the SC network. Rivian is well aware of this. They can wash a lot of that advantage away by offering you charging at Tesla rates or can best Tesla in this regard by giving you free charging either in perpetuity or for some initial period of time. IOW they would subsidize your charging at EA (and or on other networks). Doing this would probably not even cost them that much as 85% of charging will be done at home. I estimate the benefit to me of free charging on my X comes to about $124/year.
 

DucRider

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
286
Reaction score
256
Location
rRegon
First Name
Gary
Vehicles
Clarity Electric
In the past, EA pricing tier was based on the highest power the car could accept. At the beginning of the charge session, the vehicle reports it's capabilities and the price tier is established at that point regardless of the actual charge session power (even before taper). This ticked off Hyundai/Kia owners that had their vehicles report 77 kW capability (one of the tier steps was 75 kW) and the car would never draw that much even at peak.

The Rivians will be able to charge at 300 kW peak, so the cost differential in the "by the kWh" states is substantial.

I would be OK with paying the equivalent of gas prices for the occasional long trip. High speed charging stations are expensive to install and maintain, and that has to be

If you are traveling often, the $4/mo subscription becomes a bargain.
50 minutes @ $0.32 = $16
180 kWh * 75% * $0.43 = $58.05
That $58 session becomes $42 at the $.31 rate. It is likely that Rivian owners will get a free subscription and the lower rates at a minimum
 
OP
electruck

electruck

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
475
Location
Dallas, TX
Vehicles
2018 Volvo XC60
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #21
That $58 session becomes $42 at the $.31 rate.
At the lower rates the cost differential between per-minute and per-kWh changes to roughly $12 vs $42. The magnitudes change but my observation that the per-minute pricing is far cheaper is still valid.
 

skyote

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
864
Reaction score
783
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
Jeeps & 2500HD Duramax
What would you guys think about the option to prepurchase a certain amount of kWh that could be used over time? Possibly usable with multiple providers?
 
OP
electruck

electruck

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
475
Location
Dallas, TX
Vehicles
2018 Volvo XC60
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #23
What would you guys think about the option to prepurchase a certain amount of kWh that could be used over time? Possibly usable with multiple providers?
Not sure about the pre-purchase thing unless perhaps it enabled a very significant cost savings but even then pre-purchasing isn't in my nature. Perhaps it would be different if I were a road warrior and made extensive use of DCFC.
 

skyote

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
864
Reaction score
783
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
Jeeps & 2500HD Duramax
Not sure about the pre-purchase thing unless perhaps it enabled a very significant cost savings but even then pre-purchasing isn't in my nature. Perhaps it would be different if I were a road warrior and made extensive use of DCFC.
That's exactly why I asked. I don't expect to be doing too much DCFC either, but was curious to collect feedback.

I'm guessing DCFC will be limited for many of us, and probably better to just use/pay on an as needed basis.
 

Moonjock

Member
First Name
Scott
Joined
Jun 9, 2020
Messages
24
Reaction score
23
Location
Alaska
First Name
Scott
Vehicles
2002 Chevrolet Avalanche
Occupation
Lab Tech
No I wouldn't since there is currently no DCFC available on the roads I would travel. Alaska is way behind on charging sites.
 

ohmman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Aug 22, 2020
Messages
71
Reaction score
147
Location
Sonoma, California
First Name
Mark
Vehicles
2016 Model X 90D, 2014 Model S P85
Also remember that to date, DCFC should be used on an only-as-needed basis, as it does degrade the batteries more than slower charging. This, despite what Tesla advised early on. We have seen that older Tesla packs have been getting capped DCFC rates to preserve the packs through Tesla's warranty period.

DCFC is a convenience/durability tradeoff to some degree, which is fine, but should be understood.
 

trickflow

Member
First Name
Andreas
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
13
Reaction score
10
Location
Simi Valley, CA
First Name
Andreas
Vehicles
Tesla Model 3 performance, Toyota 4runner
This article is about EA changing their pricing structure to a kWh-based model in 23 states, beginning today.


https://electrek.co/2020/09/16/electrify-america-updates-pricing-fairer-kwh-model-lower-prices/
And this is where I disagree with RJ when I spoke with him, as did many others about doing their own charging network. The cost is WAY more expensive than the supercharger network as well as the BS about having it cheaper with a $4 monthly subscription. I HATE that. Most people will charge at home, like myself and then do a few road trips a year. Why should I have to either pay more or pay them $4 a month? Rivian should have just built out it's own or partnered with Tesla. EA is a hot mess between being expensive, not working all the time and them shutting down a whole section of the country at once. And since EA doesn't have skin in the game via needing to sell cars based upon this convenience, it will never be a great experience.
 

jjwolf120

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
151
Reaction score
117
Location
Arcadia
First Name
John
Vehicles
Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Occupation
TPA
And this is where I disagree with RJ when I spoke with him, as did many others about doing their own charging network.
They have announced that they are doing their own network, it just isn't clear how ambitious it is going to be. I am hopeful that they will put in some Rivian branded stations in most of the major corridors. They could also go the Lucid route and give us free charging on the EA network for some period of time.
 

DucRider

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
286
Reaction score
256
Location
rRegon
First Name
Gary
Vehicles
Clarity Electric
And this is where I disagree with RJ when I spoke with him, as did many others about doing their own charging network. The cost is WAY more expensive than the supercharger network as well as the BS about having it cheaper with a $4 monthly subscription. I HATE that. Most people will charge at home, like myself and then do a few road trips a year. Why should I have to either pay more or pay them $4 a month? Rivian should have just built out it's own or partnered with Tesla. EA is a hot mess between being expensive, not working all the time and them shutting down a whole section of the country at once. And since EA doesn't have skin in the game via needing to sell cars based upon this convenience, it will never be a great experience.
InsideEVs article today says Tesla averages $.28/kWh, and this is supported by other sources. If you add in the additional fee that Tesla would likely charge other brands (if they are even willing to do so given they have overcrowding issues in some areas), it wouldn't be any cheaper. And it would be slower since it is 400V.

The break even on the $4 fee is 33 kWh, or less than one charge session. Not sure why it is BS - the occasional user pays a little more, and you can bounce between the plans as you see fit. If you are going on a road trip, sign up for a month then revert back afterwards - no big deal. But I think it likely that Rivian owners will get the Pass+ membership free and possibly even a further discount or free charging for a time period (3 years?).

If Rivian set out to create their own charging network, it would take years and many, many millions of dollars before long distance travel was an option.

Comparing a 2k mile trip:
Assuming 2.5 m/kWh, you would need 800 kWh
Tesla Supercharger @ $.28/kWh = $224
Rivian/EA @ $.31/kWh + $4 = $252

Using the EA network, peak charging would be 300 kW, vs 150 kW (assuming there was an adapter available)

They have announced that they are doing their own network, it just isn't clear how ambitious it is going to be. I am hopeful that they will put in some Rivian branded stations in most of the major corridors. They could also go the Lucid route and give us free charging on the EA network for some period of time.
Rivian was fairly clear in that their stations would be for "Adventure" locations and not to build travel corridors (they may need to "fill in the gaps" to get to/from some locations
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
655
Reaction score
284
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
Seems like much ado about nothing. Most of us will charge at home most of the time at 13¢/kWh equivalent to 5.2 ¢/mi. When we do go on a road trip we are going to have to pay more but does anyone really care whether it is 11.2 ¢/mi or 12.6? Apparently some do. Anyway, it is what it is. Rivian isn't going to join the Tesla network and as time passes it seems that the advantages of doing so are waning pretty fast. Yes, EA still has some problems to work out and shutting down form maintenance during a period of anticipated heavy use cannot be considered too cool a move.

The current charging time picture seems more interesting than the cost situation. A video was referenced here in which RJ, when asked how fast the trucks would charge looked really uncomfortable and mumbled something incomprehensible but when the interviewer said "So up to 300 kW" he clearly said "Yes" so that says that their series/parallel patent's capabilities will be implemented in the early delivery cars. Great! Most of the chargers on the Tesla net are 150 kW and clearly it would take twice as long to pick up a given number of kWh from a 150 kW charger than it will if 300 kW is available. But not all of EA's chargers are the 350 kW units and Tesla has several 250 kW (V3) chargers on line and more coming. Comparing 300 to 250 means a relative reduction in charge time of 17%. A 75% charge of a Rivian battery at 300 kW would take 27 minutes. At 250 kW it would take 32.4. Note that times for either option will be longer than that because of taper. I thought it interesting the amount of emphasis RJ put on that aspect of it in the video interview.

It's also worth noting that I think it pretty likely that the CT will be able to charge this same 135 kWh (ignoring taper) in 16 minutes. So much for the argument that the EA charger is faster because it is 800 V. It is faster because it is 350 kW. It really doesn't matter whether it gets its higher power from increased voltage or current or both. The Rivian is a 400 V truck and the CT will be too. Of course the vehicle and charger architectures must be compatible. Rivian gets to 800 V compatibility by splitting the batteries. Tesla, if they implement the higher charging rate as I expect they must, will do it by doubling up on the chargers (which they do for the Semi).
 
Top