Ha ha but perhaps not relying on Waze or ABRP and sticking with your 'trusty' PCM might avoid some disappointment with occupied stalls on arrival ?
Not sure that would work out well or even motivate others to do so.
I think what @DerekS mean is to make all chargers identical, and load share the total capacity. So, rather than having 3x350KW and 6x150KW, you'd have 9 350KW capable chargers but all sharing a total of 1950KW (so is all 9 were low SoC Taycans, each would get 216 KW).
).
Isn't the logical solution to make all EVs charge at the max say 350kWh given the charger is in the car and not the EVSE.
If you got to the charger at >35% SoC and all but 350KW were taken, would you wait or start charging, What if a 150KW became available, would stick around watching and make sure you move your car as soon as 150KW becomes available? Now imagine a 350KW capable EV, do you stop charging and let them have it while you wait for the 150KW to free up?
Sure, in an ideal world, or perhaps MMT (or as I call it Mad Money Theory) left wing world where the government just prints as much money as they feel they need. In the real world however, money matters and budgets need to add up. Making all chargers 350KW capable would be more expensive to install, so even less charging stalls for the same budget. Even if you ignore the fact that 350KW charger itself will be more expensive than a 150KW one, remember, 350KW is like ~10 single family homes, so a 10 stall charger would require a 3.5GW "feed" and capacity from the local power plant akin to as 100 single family homes - actually probably higher typical homes almost never draw the max power sustained, while EV chargers do. Load balancing might be a good compromise, still cost more than split 350/150 deployments, but cheaper than all 350 deployment. The higher the cost, the less total chargers we get, and given that even with Taycans on the roads, it is very unlikely all stations would be running 350KW at the same time, it makes even more sense to save money by load balancing.
Again, costs come into play. EV's which can charge at 350KW cost more - batteries and charging electronics cost more money. Not everyone is willing to pay. Remember that most people with garages almost never need to charge outside of their homes. My wife has been driving Model S's since 2016, she only ever charged out of the home once, and even then it was a "just in case" on a longer trip (probably could have made it without that 15 minute supercharge).
On the contrary, economies of scale and the simplification would drive down the costs for all so I don't buy that part of the discussion.
Indeed but where there's a will there's always a way.
You are getting a cost reduction if you end up charging slower, simply because you get charged per KWh, not per time spent at the charger. This is why my suggested solution is to start charging per time based on max available charge rate and let the market sort it out, i.e. if you want to pay 2x the money to charge your Mach-E at a 350KW charger, sure, but most drivers will probably prefer to charge at a 150KW station.
Sounds like you have plenty of open Porsche UK chargers to use, so it worked, for the network which implemented charging based on time per max capacity.
I mentioned earlier that in UK Porsche 350kWh EVSEs charge per kWh and time spent 75p or so compared to the same at Ionity (EA) who only charge for the juice. 35p.
If only!Sounds like you have plenty of open Porsche UK chargers to use, so it worked, for the network which implemented charging based on time per max capacity.
I think that while your complaints have some validity the real issue is that EA and the other providers are not installing enough chargers to keep up with the explosion of EVs hitting the road.
You're absolutely correct. I got a glimpse of our future in EV-heavy California, the EA's I visited were generally full and I even had to wait for a turn once.
