-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Growth of Superchargers vs Teslas/EVs in Australia
- Thread starter gazpachopolice
- Start date
Don't worry. I am an experienced EV driver with a Zoe for almost 6yrs and the 3LR for over two years and over 50,000kms driven in EVs so I do know where things are.
Bathurst and Orange are not on the route. Lithgow is a last resort at the moment because one of the two NRMA chargers has been out of action for weeks and no ETA on a fix. The other one is heavily used, sometimes by a couple of AirBNBs who hog the (still) free charging. So I'll be charging to 95% and will happily explain to anyone who objects. I'll probably tie up a Supercharger for max 30mins. Hopefully sometime Lithgow will get fixed which will again make it a suitable stopover, but unlikely before Christmas given NRMA does not seem to know when. Tritium might know...... I used to use Lithgow quite frequently but not at the moment, having missed out (long queuing time) a number of times. Many people do not use Plugshare at Lithgow and the AirBNBs stuff things up.
It is extremely rare that I would charge to 100% but just trying to point out that it is sometimes necessary, particularly off the beaten track. Earlier this year, we went Sydney-Barossa-return (plus side trips to Canberra) and that was the last time we needed 100% (in order to cover a 400km stretch).
Last edited:
They would not know what SoC you are at
Not on a supercharger but they would on other DCFCs which display your SoC and charge rate. I had a stranger manually terminate my Evie charging session once because they unilaterally deemed my charge rate to be unacceptably low and SoC to be sufficiently high.
Correct, though I think Doggy1 was referring to charging to 95% at the Blaxland SC in the context of Tesla SC stopping charging at 80% unless there is driver intervention.
I nearly had that happen to me in Wollongong NRMA from a PS driver. I offered to swop the 350kW I was using for the 50kW even though my charging rate was approx 80kW
Yes, absolutely correct re Blaxland. That's good you did the charger swap. Probably didn't take too much extra time and lots of good will in evidence. We had similar in Hay this year with the single NRMA charger. It kept stopping every 10mins but then a desperate EV driver rolled up from SA, wanting to get to a family event in Sydney so we gave it to him and instead charged up overnight at a nearby hotel. Poor guy ended up having to hang around and keep restarting every 10-20mins. He said he'd had a nightmare trip until then with lack of chargers and chargers not working. Said he would not do the trip again and go via Victoria and up through NSW even though a huge distance extra.
There is still a long way to go with Regional charging and unfortunately you really do need to charge to 100% sometimes even though it can be time consuming and inefficient for everyone. Also, these days, single DC chargers really do not "cut the mustard".
There lots of 3phase 32A power points at various rural Showgrounds. Lithgow for example. Unfortunately not leveraged for EV charging. While not DC, there is enough power at these places to have a 25kW DC charger. Just a matter of who spends the capital and how to monetise it
I organised Lithgow with the Council, once. It took two weeks of back and forth negotiations and finally a "yes, we'll leave box xyz unlocked for you" on that morning. They did leave it open and it worked and we were happy.
I suspect from Plugshare comments that most people using it do so without permission by checking and finding the occasional unlocked power box. From talking with the Council staff, they take a very dim view of that.
Most people should take a dim view of theft…
You've mentioned this a few times and I have to admit, I don't see the connection between AirBNB and car charging.
There are a couple of local cars using those chargers as their own because they are free. They have the name of the local AirB&Bs decorating the sides of the cars. Of course in some other locations local people have done this, even when they have solar on their roof simply because the charging is free and close but it has been less easy to identify. Nothing illegal in that but it means that travellers have to queue. It's much worse when there is only one working charger.
I received advice from NRMA two hours ago that charging is now billed at the Lithgow site. That's good news because it makes it more likely the freeloaders will ease up. However, NRMA also advised that there is still no ETA on fixing the second charger and "their provider is working on it". Presumably that could be Tritium.
It is a very convenient site but the last two times I tried to charge there it was unavailable due to heavy usage & one charger out of action so it is a no-go for me at the moment because the strong likelihood is that there would be a 1-2hr delay to access it.
One charger has been dead for well over a month now.
I received advice from NRMA two hours ago that charging is now billed at the Lithgow site. That's good news because it makes it more likely the freeloaders will ease up. However, NRMA also advised that there is still no ETA on fixing the second charger and "their provider is working on it". Presumably that could be Tritium.
It is a very convenient site but the last two times I tried to charge there it was unavailable due to heavy usage & one charger out of action so it is a no-go for me at the moment because the strong likelihood is that there would be a 1-2hr delay to access it.
One charger has been dead for well over a month now.
YAnthony
Member
Charging to 100% before i start my Christmas commute this year for sure.. doubt i'll need it.. But keen to avoid charging delays if i must.
Ahh I see, so just local people using it as their daily charge, but easy to identify because of the advertising on the car.
Motivated by the conversation here, I produced this graph showing the per-stall efficiency gains compared to a 2-stall site, for different probabilities of blocking (1% to 10%).
What this chart means, for example, is that a 20-stall site with 10% chance of blocking is 3 times more efficient on a per-stall basis than a 2-stall site with the same 10% chance of blocking. So the 20 stall site is 10x bigger than the 2-stall site, with 3x better per-stall efficiency, meaning overall it could cope with 30x the rate of car arrivals as a 2-stall site and still achieve 10% blocking.
It's a bit counter-intuitive that dimensioning to a lower level of blocking means the rate of efficiency improvement with more stalls grows even faster than at higher blocking levels.
But that doesn't mean DCFC providers should design for 1% blocking because the rate of car arrivals will dictate how many stalls they need to achieve that 1% blocking. The lower the blocking percentage target, the number of stalls required to serve a given rate of car arrivals will blow out exponentially (well, Erlang-ly
). So the amount of money needed to achieve lower and lower blocking percentages escalates rapidly.
You can see from this chart that as sites become very large (> 30 stalls) the growth in efficiency per stall starts to become fairly linear and asymptotes. So lots of bang per buck to expand sites beyond 2 stalls if the rate of arrivals demands it, but not to go from 30 to 60 stalls.
This chart is based on the Erlang-B formula, which assumes any request not immediately served (blocked) is lost forever (i.e. driver just leaves) and there is no queuing. Erlang-C formula is used to model arrivals with queuing.
What this chart means, for example, is that a 20-stall site with 10% chance of blocking is 3 times more efficient on a per-stall basis than a 2-stall site with the same 10% chance of blocking. So the 20 stall site is 10x bigger than the 2-stall site, with 3x better per-stall efficiency, meaning overall it could cope with 30x the rate of car arrivals as a 2-stall site and still achieve 10% blocking.
It's a bit counter-intuitive that dimensioning to a lower level of blocking means the rate of efficiency improvement with more stalls grows even faster than at higher blocking levels.
But that doesn't mean DCFC providers should design for 1% blocking because the rate of car arrivals will dictate how many stalls they need to achieve that 1% blocking. The lower the blocking percentage target, the number of stalls required to serve a given rate of car arrivals will blow out exponentially (well, Erlang-ly
). So the amount of money needed to achieve lower and lower blocking percentages escalates rapidly.You can see from this chart that as sites become very large (> 30 stalls) the growth in efficiency per stall starts to become fairly linear and asymptotes. So lots of bang per buck to expand sites beyond 2 stalls if the rate of arrivals demands it, but not to go from 30 to 60 stalls.
This chart is based on the Erlang-B formula, which assumes any request not immediately served (blocked) is lost forever (i.e. driver just leaves) and there is no queuing. Erlang-C formula is used to model arrivals with queuing.
Last edited:
Given the spate of openings after Dec 15th, I've rerun the numbers to see if they've moved the needle. (Raw data here.)
- 488 SCs (+67%), up from 447 (+53%)
- 190 Teslas per SC (was 208)
- 369 EVs per SC (was 403)
- 100 MW power (+95%), up from 51 MW (+76%)
- 1.08 kW/Tesla (was 0.97)
- 0.56 kW/Tesla (was 0.50)
Chuq
Active Member
Readers of this thread may be interested in these graphs:
From https://public.tableau.com/app/prof...rchargingCompetition/SuperchargerGrowthGraphs
It goes without saying, the uptick this year is very obvious!
The data comes from supercharge.info and I believe takes into account closed sites, etc.
From https://public.tableau.com/app/prof...rchargingCompetition/SuperchargerGrowthGraphs
It goes without saying, the uptick this year is very obvious!
The data comes from supercharge.info and I believe takes into account closed sites, etc.
Similar threads
- Article
