Better Place

BP is promising to have all the infrastructure in place before contracts are sold. That includes charge stations and swap stations. It is the swap stations that allow BP to sell the idea of EV driving without range limitations.

Lets say BP starts out by only building infrastructure in a large metro area like San Francisco or LA. A customer's BP equipped EV is only good for transportation in that city but not city to city. To drive to Vegas a customer would still need to own or rent a ICE car. So where is the advantage to a swappable battery vs a fixed battery.

I think BP could be very successful as a battery leasing company. People that don't want to pay the upfront cost for a battery could lease one by the mile from BP. BP could also set up charge stations and charge by the KW for non-BP users and offer free charging to BP customers. That is a sound business plan.

My objection to BP's plan is the grand idea of a huge network of battery swap stations that allow EV's to travel the entire country. In a country the size of the US or the EU as a whole that just isn't going to happen.

 

Oh no! Only the 95% of us that live in cities could benefit from BP's service.

Seriously though, at first only large metro areas will be served, but eventually interstate corridors between major centres up and down the east and west coasts will be supported too.

 

I don't know for sure yet, but I suspect the former.

 

Clearly BP is not going to create a new electrical grid - they're just adding the last ten feet with their charging point infrastructure.

But BP will only "buy" renewable energy. Typically the power industry has two rates for electricity - one for renewable and one for fossil fuel based power, BP would only pay the former. The electrons from both types of sources are all mashed up in the same grid.

 

The one-time infrastructure costs of "BPing" the entire USA would probably cost less than the money spent on foreign oil annually.

By 2025 we could all be driving at 2cents a mile (BP's goal) instead of 12-15 cents with gas.

Batteries and renewable power is only going to get cheaper while oil is going to do the opposite.

Despite the challenges, paying the EV infrastructure costs and ending the oil addiction are a hugely better deal for your nation.

It should be a moonshot style of project.

 

There is no benefit to BP's service if cities are not connected!

I live in a metro area and the only time I drive more than 100 miles in a day is to drive city to city. If BP's swap stations are initially confined to my metro area where is the advantage of swapping batteries? I wouldn't be able to use my EV to leave the city so I would still have to own or rent an ICE for those trips.

You say eventually BP will install the infrastructure to connect major cities. Why would a potential customer sign up for this service based on a corporation's promise to expand coverage in the future.

 

No doubt with a moonshot style budget BP's plan could be implemented. However, is that the best use of "moonshot" sized funds? I say NO. The car is still a very inefficient way to move people long distance. Instead of wasting money BPing the country we would be much better served as a nation by installing high-speed rail for city-to-city travel.

I agree that electricity is the future. I disagree that the personal automobile is. I see the EV as a short term solution. EV's do nothing to solve the problem of congestion in our cities.

 

Certainly, less reliance on the personal automobile would be a great thing, and big money should go into high-speed rail too, but we have to deal with the reality that people strongly desire personal transport and that it's going to continue to exist - long after we will have to get off oil for climate change reasons.

 

Green Car Congress: Better Place Demonstrates Battery Switch Technology

Some interesting technical stuff and a bunch of comments I think are lame... but some of you might feel bolstered by.

 

Here is something I never heard before: Recharged in 20 minutes. Hmmmm.... that should be good foddar for a couple of you... heh.

from Are swap shops the battery breakthrough? | The Car Tech blog - CNET Reviews

 

If they can charge the batteries in 20 minutes, why swap? After driving 300 miles, I'm ready for a 20-minute break.

Are you now convinced that (20-minute) fast charging is possible after all?

 

We don't have all the details yet and that's where the devil is.

But Agassi says he wants the experience to be more convenient than fueling up a gas car. 20 minutes doesn't fit that criteria.

Plus, a few battery swap stations every few miles or so could have the heavy hardware that we know must exist to allow fast charging - super heavy cables and connectors to take the heat - something that you wouldn't/couldn't install everywhere due to cost and other considerations.

Remember, the number of charging points will be orders of magnitude more numerous than the number of battery swap stations.

The problem with fast charging isn't that it's impossible, it's that if everyone did it - if it was the norm - it would drain the grid in no time during peak demand periods, nevermind the enormous costs of putting super heavy hardware in each charging point.

So it looks like they want to have some fast charging at the battery swap stations so that they don't have to have the extensive stock of batteries at the ready - something you described as too expensive and unfeasible.

BP is striking the most efficient balance in there system by utlizing both types of charging - relying most heavily on trickle charging and incorporating fast charging where it makes the most sense.

Pretty clever if you ask me.

 

I don't envision that fast charging would be the norm. I expect the majority of charging to be done at home, at night, at off-peak rates.

I expect that the majority of charge stations would low voltage and low amperage.

Fast charging will be used for distance travel the same way that Better Place envisions battery swapping. Instead of removing the battery to fast charge, one would simply leave it in the car. Stopping every 2 hours for 15 to 20 minutes should not be a problem.

EDIT: Fast charging also removes the biggest obstacle to acceptance of the BP business plan. With fast charging individual automotive manufacturers don't have to agree on one format for the battery. Instead each can use whatever type and layout of battery they want. All they need to agree on is the plug.

 

What you're describing is a road trip of more than 100 miles and then yes, you could easily see stopping for 20 minutes and fast charging while you eat or stretch your legs. [If you're lucky enough to find a fast charge station on your route. What corporation has announced plans to build them?]

But BP also wants you to be able to get a fresh battery quickly, in the city when you just decided to change plans and don't have the juice to get to the new destination.

 

First you say fast charging cannot work because of the grid. Then when I say BP would have to have too many batteries on hand, you respond that BP will use fast charging so they don't need to have all that stock.

So what's the difference to the grid if you fast-charge the battery in the car, or if BP fast-charges them in its swap stations?

Then when JSG correctly points out that most people will charge at home, and won't need to swap in town, suddenly the entire success of PB's plan seems to rest on people preferring to do a one-minute swap in town rather than an overnight charge at home.

Charging at home for in-town driving does not require any planning! It just requires plugging in the car when you get home! And fast-charge stations need not be any more numerous than swap stations. But fast-charge stations will be easier and cheaper to build because all you'll need are the chargers and wiring and electrical service: all things a swap station will need, but a charging station does not need the millions of dollars worth of automated swapping machinery.