Rivian Adventure Network (RAN) info / article by TechCrunch

[jimcgov3]

https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/08/r...ng-network-but-with-an-adventurous-twist/amp/

Definitely looking forward to where we will see these first stations pop up!!

Advertisement

 

[Whmorken]

https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/08/r...ng-network-but-with-an-adventurous-twist/amp/

Definitely looking forward to where we will see these first stations pop up!!

Waiting on tip-toes for news on charger locations.

 

[RivianXpress]

Rivian - great stuff!

Please see the other thread suggesting charging locations - please...
please.

 

[Rhidan]

Hmmm . . . “dozens” of RAN charging stations erected in 2021 with “dense” coverage by 2023 or 2024

 

[davrow_R1T]

Hmmm . . . “dozens” of RAN charging stations erected in 2021 with “dense” coverage by 2023 or 2024

Sounds perfect. As long as those 'dozens' are in the locations I will be needing them.

 

[ajdelange]

Hmmm . . . “dozens” of RAN charging stations erected in 2021 with “dense” coverage by 2023 or 2024

There is only one way Rivian can get to a "dense" network and that is to go into the charging business in competition with EvGO, EA etc. i.e. to build chargers where those people don't (answering to the "adventure" market) and allow other OEMs cars/trucks to use them. A fairly hefty charger with 3 hoses (CCS, CHAdeMO and Tesla) would allow them to earn revenue from every BEV on the road in the US today and is the only way I can see them covering the huge capital costs of a "dense" network.

 

[DucRider]

A fairly hefty charger with 3 hoses (CCS, CHAdeMO and Tesla) would allow them to earn revenue from every BEV on the road in the US today and is the only way I can see them covering the huge capital costs of a "dense" network.

If it were me, I'd skip the expense of the CHAdeMO. Nissan was the last holdout, and they are going with CCS starting with the Ariya.
Tesla owners can use them (if they purchase a $600 an adapter), but only at up to 50 kW. I suspect the ROI on installing CHAdeMO chargers is non-existent at this point.

I'd also probably skip the Tesla hose as they would be competing with subsidized Superchargers. Tesla rolled the cost of the infrastructure into their vehicles, and sell electricity at close to cost. If they are looking to earn revenue, they will need to amortize the cost of the system in electricity sales.

 

[ajdelange]

My thought was that these would go in places where there were no Tesla chargers hence no competition. As for CHAdeMO - it's definitely on the way out but there are still a bunch of cars out there that use it and they are potential revenue sources.

I would envision these things as modular. 10 kW (say) modules for the DC and slots for interface boards. An installed unit would have 10 dC modules for, as an example, a 100 kW unit, a slot with a master board and a couple of slots for interface boards. Were one to put one of these at, say Baie St. Paul it might be populated with CHAdeMO and CCS but not Tesla as there is already a Tesla SC there (which, from all appearances would NEVER be full). In Bennnington VT they might put a 150 kW CCS and Tesla combo as there is currently A 50 kW CHAdeMO or CCS charger there but no Tesla. Etc. A crazy idea I"m sure but it has the potential to accelerate BEV acceptance and, at the same time, allow Rivian to get $ from Tesla and CHAdeMO drivers.

I note with interest that EvGO is now putting Tesla connectors on their stations (instead of CHAdeMO?). They are willing to take the Tesla Driver's money.

Aside: The Tesla CHAdeMo adapter is now $450. Think it used to be $500 the point being that the logic that interfaces between automobile and the charger is probably the cheapest part of a station whatever format the car uses.

 

[Moonjock]

Does anyone have an idea on break even costs? I'm asking because I was told EA has no plans for charging stations in Alaska due to our low population. So I'm guessing Rivian will not put anything up here either. I sure hope I'm wrong.

 

[ajdelange]

There is a huge difference between the EA network on one hand and the Tesla and Rivian networks on the other. The former exists to make money directly i.e. to sell you a kWh of electricity at a price that exceeds their cost. For the latter two the charging network exists to lure people into buying the manufacturer's car. Thus the latter two can (and in the case of Tesla apparently do) operate at a loss which loss is considered a marketing expense.

Another thing to keep in mind is that just as government has one way or another pushed industry to supply electricity, telephone and internet to rural locations it may very well do the same with charging,

As I don't think Rivian's view of "adventure" includes driving an expensive new truck through the "wrong" parts of DC on Saturday night I think it safe to assume that adventures will, by and large, take place in remote (low population) areas. Low population density may not turn out to be the disadvantage you re thinking it might be.

 

[DucRider]

My thought was that these would go in places where there were no Tesla chargers hence no competition. As for CHAdeMO - it's definitely on the way out but there are still a bunch of cars out there that use it and they are potential revenue sources.

Aside: The Tesla CHAdeMo adapter is now $450. Think it used to be $500 the point being that the logic that interfaces between automobile and the charger probably the cheapest part of a station whatever format the car uses.

The vast majority of CHAdeMO equiped vehicles are in the ~100 mile range zone and less likely to be used for distance travel. The shortish range and slow DCFC were great when that was the only option - not so much now.

For some reason Google pulls up the Canadian page for the adapter cost

Does anyone have an idea on break even costs? I'm asking because I was told EA has no plans for charging stations in Alaska due to our low population. So I'm guessing Rivian will not put anything up here either. I sure hope I'm wrong.

Break even without subsidy is nonexistent for a complete network. If you could cherry pick sites, some might be slightly profitable, but installing to allow "full coverage" will likely not ever be. EA is able to do it because VW was required to spend the money as part of the Dieselgate penalty.
Between equipment costs, installation costs, maintenance, payment processing, and demand charges the added cost over that of electricity alone is daunting.
A DCFC station will cost $75K to $150K to install with the lower figure usually requiring multiple units in a single location. Amortizing the cost of an 8 charger station over 5 years would result in a cost of close to $500/day. That's if nothing ever needs serviceing, no csutomer support staff, etc.
Demand charges can bring the cost of electricity up to $2/kWh (https://www.researchgate.net/public...ct_Current_Fast_Charging_in_the_United_States)

Not a business I would want to go into looking to make a profit, hence the reason it will likely need to be subsidized in some form in order to be built. Manufacturers of vehicles have a vested interest in having a robust charging network that allows their vehicles to be used in the fashion their customers a desire. Once installed, operating costs are manageable.

 

[Moonjock]

Sad part is Alaska has been sitting on settlement money from VW for a couple of years and still hasn't moved on any projects. My frustrations have to do with living 300+ miles from Anchorage with no real charging in-between. My Rivian may just be a daily commuter for a few years.

 

[Whmorken]

There is a huge difference between the EA network on one hand and the Tesla and Rivian networks on the other. The former exists to make money directly i.e. to sell you a kWh of electricity at a price that exceeds their cost. For the latter two the charging network exists to lure people into buying the manufacturer's car. Thus the latter two can (and in the case of Tesla apparently do) operate at a loss which loss is considered a marketing expense.

Another thing to keep in mind is that just as government has one way or another pushed industry to supply electricity, telephone and internet to rural locations it may very well do the same with charging,

As I don't think Rivian's view of "adventure" includes driving an expensive new truck through the "wrong" parts of DC on Saturday night I think it safe to assume that adventures will, by and large, take place in remote (low population) areas. Low population density may not turn out to be the disadvantage you re thinking it might be.

Excellent points, all three, but remember only some low population areas, a minority of them, are also adventure destinations. Lot’s of unknowns ahead.

 

[electruck]

https://arkvalleyvoice.com/salida-c...ransfer-of-property-to-chaffee-housing-trust/

Council will also discuss an ordinance approving a lease of property located at 232 G Street from Salida to Rivian LLC, authorizing the execution of a charging station lease agreement. Rivian LLC manufactures electric vehicles and approached the City of Salida about leasing a portion of property to install an electric vehicle charging station as part of Rivian’s new adventure network.

If approved, Rivian will construct eight charging stations within the lease area. Four will be level three chargers which are capable of quickly charging electric vehicles in an hour. The remaining four will be level two charging stations which require more time to charge.

The level two chargers will be open to use by any electric vehicle driver of any type electric vehicle. Rivian will pay the city $50,0000 for leasing the site along with $2,700 for the purpose of installing six trees along the Monarch Spur Trail.

 

[Whmorken]

https://arkvalleyvoice.com/salida-c...ransfer-of-property-to-chaffee-housing-trust/

https://arkvalleyvoice.com/salida-c...ransfer-of-property-to-chaffee-housing-trust/

Big news. Love the specifics. Go level 3.