150 Mile Nissan LEAF Survey – Question Regarding DC Quick Charging

FEB 10 2014 BY ERIC LOVEDAY 80

Answers Include a Range From $0 to $50

Selectable Answers Range From $0 to $50

As a follow-up to our 150-mile Nissan LEAF survey question post, we present this question from the same survey:

“How much do you expect to pay (in dollars) for a public charging station that takes 29 minutes to gain 80% charge?”

As Nissan notes, we should assume that the vehicle being charged is a “Nissan LEAF with an average range of 150 miles EPA.”

The selectable answers for Nissan’s quick-charge question range from $0 to $50.

Again, this survey question doesn’t guarantee that a 150-mile Nissan LEAF is coming, but we’re fairly certain that work is already underway on such a vehicle.

So, what would you pay to quick charge it?  And when do you think the 150-mile Nissan LEAF will launch?

Categories: Charging, Nissan

Tags:

Leave a Reply

80 Comments on "150 Mile Nissan LEAF Survey – Question Regarding DC Quick Charging"

newest oldest most voted

The more interesting thing I gain from this question has to do with the 29 minutes. I mean, right now it takes about that amount of time to quick-charge a regular Nissan Leaf. Does this mean they’ll be bumping the chademo chargers to a higher amperage for the 150-mile range version?

Absolutely. CHAdeMO can go much higher still.

Put a ChadeMo at every nissan dealership. And if you out one at every McDonalds, i could drive anywhere in my multi state region with a 150 mile BEV.

The standard has room for up to a doubling (up to 100kW with 500V@200A, 80kW at the Leaf’s current charging voltage of ~400V@200A). Will need a connector and socket upgrade though (current CHAdeMO sockets/connectors only support 125A), although the form factor will stay the same

Anything above 100kW will probably need a completely different form factor (larger or deeper power pins) that may not be compatible with the current socket.

I do not think they will have to cross the 100kW barrier …

Adding 120 mile range (80% of 150) probably means 35kWh added. And if that is done in halt an hour, the average rate is 70kW, so I guess they are planning to starting at 200A and then reducing the rate as the battery fills up.

Of course the existing chargers that run at 100A will be slower, but probably take around 45 minutes, not double the time.

200A is the current at which the existing geometry could be used as is, continuously, with no special material or precaution.

Going higher, say 250A+, should be possible if either limited in duration, with temperature monitoring, better cooling (which the connector has provision for) and/or fancy connectors contacts (silver alloys etc). It’s basically what Tesla is already doing.

Deeper pins could fit in the same layout: that’s how Tesla manages to make its SC inlet for Europe also accept regular “type 2”.

The cable for a Chademo is a huge monster compared to the Tesla Supercharger cable. Tesla manage much higher charge rates with a smaller diameter cable and much smaller vehicle connector. Something is not right somewhere with Chademo if it requires an upgrade already.

Er, no, the cables are about the same diameter, and I have no idea what makes you think one needs an upgrade. (except, yes, the old Yasaki connector with the funky handle, for which half a dozen replacement models exist already).

The same laws of physics apply to both: copper can only carry so much current for a given safety margin, and unless one wants to hire guards at every charging station, using large quantities of more expensive metals is probably not an option.

One design is much more conservative than the other, and with it comes more potential for growth too; see my previous comment.

My only remaining q now is:

How come I never got this questionnaire? I keep getting junk email from Nissan, but I searched my inbox high and low and couldn’t find the survey.

Was it hiding in plain sight?

I ran a calculation of the cost of gas to drive 150 miles at 30 miles a gallon and for electric to equal half that cost it would have to be between 5 dollars and 8 dollars.

Since most journeys in a Leaf would continue to be from home charging, then they could probably get away with more than half the normal electricity price for the occasional longer journey.
So anything up to the price of petrol might be something the customers will stand.

I based it off half the cost of oil.

Yep, that was what I was responding to.
I think they can charge at least as much as petrol would cost.

I think it’s very, very important that the cost undercut that of a used beater 50MPG Prius, so your “half whatever 30MPG gas costs per mile” is great. Anything between the actual wholesale cost of power and the cost per mile of the best non-EV vehicle out there is acceptable. Well, zero is acceptable too!

I agree with DaveMart. In the case of a quick charger, I suspect this will not be a daily-use thing for most drivers, rather an occasional use. As such, I’m perfectly happy to pay a premium on electricity for those times I need the convenience.

A premium on the price of electricity, yes, but only up to a point. I think if they go over the equivalent dollars per mile of a Prius–even though it’s not apples to apples, what with the first 120 miles of any trip coming from residential priced power from the LEAF owner’s house–they are throwing away a marketing advantage. That should be their upper limit!

Nissan can only set pricing for the quick-chargers they operate. At present, it’s 0$, and I hope they raise this price, or at least find a way to track or deter abuse.

I like “expensive” QC actually. Say, 20c to 1$ per minute (ideally) and/or kW*h.
Why?

* I charge at home 95% of the time, so for the rare occasions I need it, QC being available is much more important to me than it being cheap.
First, it could be 10x the price of gas, I still come out ahead anyway. Next, in a pinch, even at an insane 5$/minute, I’d still QC over requesting a tow. Faster, more convenient.

* A somewhat high, per-minute fee deters people from hogging the station for longer than they truly need.
The current CarCharging flat session fee encourages people to QC to 100%, even though the last portion slows down to L2 rates; totally uncool when someone else needs to charge.

* Making QCs profitable entices 3rd-parties (CarCharging, eVgo, Chargepoint, Aerovironment etc) to install more charging stations, and at attractive locations. Diversity is good.

I think that the 150 mile Leaf will launch no later than this summer, or there would be no point in the survey, which might make buyers delay buying a new Leaf in the expectation that more range will be available.

Offering a higher density battery pack tomorrow would not be too soon.

Before we can settle on a price for fast charging, we need to know the limitations of fast charging. I can assure you there are limitations just as there is now on the current battery pack.

Nissan are being pretty specific about what charging rates they intend offering, which are in the region of double the present rate.

According to their 2009 info, they in common with most others were working on a NMC battery, as that has around double the energy density of their present LMO batteries.

Fortunately it tends in many formulations, and we have to be careful there as there are many different ones, to have rather longer cycle life than LMO and that, together with the bigger pack sizes which mean more miles per cycle and the possibility of getting clever about how the fast charge is handled in the big pack means that the hit to cycle life under fast charging is very tolerable.

I meant to link this guide to characteristics of LMO and NMC battery chemistries:
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion

Hmm, isn’t the current Leaf using NMC already?

Nope.
This is from September 2013:

‘Currently, the main market for manganese batteries is the hybrid/electric vehicle. “Lithium-manganese oxide batteries are being used right now in the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf,” stated Lee, adding, “One of the major benefits of using these batteries is cost. Manganese is a fairly inexpensive metal, which keep down cost.”

Prototype manganese batteries

There are other types of batteries utilizing manganese that are still in a developmental phase. “The other type of battery using manganese is the lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt battery. This is potentially the next generation and the Argonne National Laboratory is working on these,” stated Lee.

The Argonne lab has stated that manganese batteries far outperform traditional lithium-ion systems. “[Manganese composite batteries] demonstrate outstanding cycling stability and can be charged and discharged at high rates, making them excellent candidates to replace [lithium-cobalt] for consumer electronic applications and hybrid electric vehicles,” stated Argonne National Laboratory’

http://manganeseinvestingnews.com/1569/manganese-battery-technology/

I should add that NMC is not nearly as experimental as the article I linked would have you believe.
Dow Kokam for one off the top of my head has been producing them in small volume in pouch format for years.
Nissan has been testing them for mass production since at least 2009, and had done the basic development work prior to that.

Aside from the survey, what makes you think it could be as soon as this Summer? Considering how little publicity this has gotten, why couldn’t it be late 2015 as a 2016 model instead? Nobody is aware of any of this, which means no Osbourne effect. Not yet anyway.

Renault have been dropping hints that there are surprises in store for 2014 too. As I posted before Nissan have been readying this battery since 2009, and even at that time gave around 2015 as the date to put it in cars. When the Zoe came out there had been rumours originating from Renault Spain that they were going to give it a bigger pack. They didn’t, but have made it clear that they want more range just like Nissan. The basic answer to your question is that I think that they are ready to go. If that is the case, would they do it now, or wait for the new model year? The reason I think that they will execute as soon as they possibly can is that they have the factories geared up for a much higher volume than they are currently selling, and will miss their sales targets by a country mile. I don’t have the figures off hand for the Nissan Leaf, although I know they were expecting many times as many sales, but I do for the Zoe. They thought they would sell 50,000 in the first year. They sold 10,000. That is not the… Read more »

Sales has rebounded, although not enough: Over 20K/year in the US, perhaps a shade more abroad. In the meantime, the big bogey is this: Tesla said 2016 for a 200 mile car at $40K or less. It got delayed until 2017, or at least so Tesla says. Therefore, those in the industry who care probably determined that they needed to be in the market with their competitive car no later than first half of 2016. So, if this is the case, why not continue to hone the product until at least late 2015 which is when everyone (GM and others) seem to ready to hit with their 2.0 products (Volt plus whatever else). I certainly see a mid-2014 launch as possible, but no more likely than any other time between then and the end of 2015. How would they able to keep such a thing a secret?

As I indicated, they are not going to hang around any longer than they have to, as they have factories to amortise which were built on the premise that they would be selling several times the number of cars that they are, both in the US and Europe.

As for secrecy, they haven’t been particularly secretive about it, with cars racing using 48kwh.

Sticking different batteries into test vehicles is anyway a very different matter to testing new cars, where the bodies give it away.
How would anyone know if a Leaf or a Zoe had different batteries in if they don’t alter the needed space?

A battery production line also does not exactly shout that they are using a different chemistry to the usual one.

So, I think that Nissan/Renault at pretty well ready to go, and I am quite sure that they won’t delay any more than they have to.

Delay would cost them money for no good purpose.

Actually I think that the release of the Zoe in the Norwegian market is delayed as it is to have the new battery, and that that is the cold weather pack they were talking about.

You make very good points. I like the way you think. That said, I’m still not convinced that we will see some version of a new LEAF (or whatever it would be called) as soon as this Summer, in US dealerships, with a 150 mile range. It could just as well be a year later. If you hear of any more evidence as to timing or other details, I’m all ears.

I’ve been wondering the same thing for a while. There could be 48Kwh test Leafs driving all around us but because they look exactly like the regular Leaf, nobody would notice or pay any attention. No need to camouflage the car.

While I respect your insight, when I see things like “I think that…” and “my guess is that…” I have to take your words as an opinion.

I want this new battery to be true, and I want it to appear in 2014, but realistically I don’t have any solid reason to believe it will.

It is an opinion.

I hope my phraseology made that clear.

We won’t know for sure of course until we get an official announcement.

I am not in the habit though of predicting large increases in battery capacity, and have been unmoved by umpteen supposed breakthroughs over the last few years!

I’d probably go as high as $20, since it would only be a few trips (~12) a year I’d really need it and I’d otherwise still harvest enormous $$ savings, by not using gas the rest of the year.

Anything from $0 to the cost per mile of gas for a Prius. Period. That’s a wrap. No one can feel slighted at that price. And the first 125 miles from your launch point (your house) will be at residential retail, so that *really* leaves no room for complaint.

Go back and look at the survey again please. I recall it asking about 15 MINUTES of time to reach %80 charge. I can’t check because it won’t let me back into the survey. However, I recall the 15 minute figure to have been used several times in the survey.

80% of 150 miles is 120 miles. A Prius could get around 7-8 cents per mile at today’s gas prices. So that’s about $9 for the QC session.

But that’s only half the story. You presumably drove the first half of your trip on electricity from home, and will likely have access to destination charging. If you took a 270 mile trip in a Prius, it might cost you $20. In a Leaf, it might cost you $5 to charge at home, and then the cost of a quick charge on the road. To break even, it would be $15 for the quick charge.

And yet there’s more to the story. And as pjwood points out, with proper infrastructure, you can ditch the Prius altogether and just own a Leaf. Therefore, I would happily pay more than $15 for the session. $50 is absurdly high, though. For me, $30 is probably the max.

I’d pay $30 too, but it had better be a lot more juice than the 44kw chargers that Nissan is installing now. 2C for a 48kWh battery would be 96kw. As long as it’s over 80kW (which no DC fast charge currently is, except Tesla), I’ll pay a lot. A 44kw charger is going to take 40+ minutes, though. That’s fine if you’re grabbing a bite to eat, but I don’t want to sit in my car that long.

120 miles, compare to 30 mpg car, $4 gas, would put it at $16 for that charge.

I have asked several people I know who have a LEAF if they got this survey. So far, nothing. Is this a hoax? I mean, anyone can figure out that Nissan is working on all of this stuff. As are other auto makers. But when can we expect it to hit the market? The 150 mile “real US EPA” car? (not the Euro/Japanese definition of 150 miles, aka 75) Any new investment in public chargers? (not tiny investment, but $100 million or more)

Funny, same here.

Sure, everyone can reasonably expect newer models to be incrementally better, but only so much. Fabricating rumors about the possibly imminent availability of a double-range Leaf would be a nice and easy way to chill sales of the current model…

This is one of the trickiest threads as there is sometimes information out there, but not necessarily that can be passed on and still be friends/have access to the OEM…as it was in the old days with the Chevy Volt.

That being said there is no full redesign for 2014/2015 , but that doesn’t necessarily mean that significant battery improvements are still not en route in that timeframe.

Someone who knows someone at Nissan might want to ask them why they are making such an ugly car, and with only 85 miles of range, when they could sell ten times as many of them if it was a good-looking car with 150 miles of range. Or perhaps that’s too radical of an idea.

I think often the ‘greater good’ of the company over shadows the success (or optimization) of one particular offering – especially when that one model is potentially so disruptive to the whole lineup. So, it ends up being incremental steps from the baseline, as one company moves the bar just a touch higher than the other, then the other competes in response.

But now everyone in the industry have been given a seven-year heads-up from Tesla as to what they have in mind for 2017 (used to be 2016, possibly even 2015 at some point). So… it’s a layup, no? Having studied the questions and answers to the test half a decade in advance, how could you miss?

Nudge, nudge! 😉

That is simply not the way it works in batteries.
Different chemistries can have radically different properties to the old ones.

Witness the energy density of the NMiH batteries in the Prius, which was doubled as soon as the lithium ones in the Leaf and Volt came out.

Batteries tend to change in steps rather than increments.

I got the survey, it is not a hoax.

I will pay $0. Completely redesign that hideous exterior and maybe i’ll reconsider.

What makes you think Nissan isn’t going to completely redesign the LEAF in favor of something that doesn’t look so horrific? Maybe there will be two bodies — one for the 85 mile battery, and the other for the 150 mile car?

Just guessing, but Nissan might first introduce the bigger battery in the e-NV200, and only update the Leaf later. My reasons are
– it needs extra range even more than the Leaf does
– it might be able to accommodate a more bulky battery

Maybe. But I have yet to see Nissan mention a 150 mile eNV200. They mentioned the Leaf specifically.

Additionally, Nissan had a modified LEAF with a double-capacity battery at a race. (See an earlier article on this site.) They probably have a higher-density battery chemistry available rather than the battery taking more space.

Aaron

I am aware of the 48kWh LEAF.

I am speculating, just like you, because neither of us has seen that car, especially the back seats of that car, and the back windows are dark. At the time there was a rumor that the battery is bigger than usual and takes up some passenger space.

But it is also possible that Nissan found a way to double capacity in the same space as you are suggesting

EV charging should be based on KW used, and not a flat rate. So whether it’s flowing faster or slower, it should not change the price. It’s how consumers have always bought electricity.

Faster flowing electricity benefits the supplier, allowing service to more customers at the same pump/plug. Instead of one EV sitting for 3 hours buying the same electricity that could be sold in :30 minutes.

Charging more for quick charging is like a gas station charging more per gallon to use a new faster pump than the older slower pump.

Yes and no. There are demand charges when the electricity flows too quickly. A sudden, large, load can cause trouble on the local grid.

I agree that one should pay based on kWh taken, and not time. But I would also be willing to pay more for a higher charge rate.

Then again, I am assuming you misspoke when you typed “kW” instead of “kWh”. If you really meant that we should pay by kW (i.e. charge rate), then I agree!

I expect the charge to be free (prepaid in the price of the car actually) and to be 100% net-powered by solar and wind energy.

Tesla set the benchmark, and Nissan should either be prepared to compete head-to-head with the Supercharger network, or they should be talking directly with Tesla to make their cars compatible with the Supercharger network. Tesla has already indicated in the past that they would be willing to work with other car makers if they are willing to help build out the Supercharger network.

Of course that would probably require Nissan to bump up to 200 miles of range, so it would have the range required to make it between all the Supercharger stations.

But I don’t set the market, the market itself determines where the market will go.

Bumping up the range from 150 miles to 200 miles would mean a complete redesign of the body.
Its obvious that they have managed to around double the energy density of the present Leaf battery, but a body redesign to go beyond that is non-trivial.

What if they started planning a whole new body (perhaps an additional one to complement the 85 mile car) already in 2011? A body style that were acceptable to the non greenie person? Whether one or two bodies, if they started this engineering in 2011, it should be ready for production by the end of 2015.

The Leaf is getting a bit long in the tooth.

Other Nissan offerings (Altima, Sentra, Maxima, Infiniti G’s, Infiniti M’s, Z cars, etc) have approx 3-6 year cycles between generational redesigns. After just minor updates through each of the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 MY Leafs, I would fully expect to see a generational change in the Leaf within the next few years. At least by 2017 when the GEN III Tesla may first arrive.

If I were in Nissan’s EV department, my whole world would revolve around how Nissan EV’s would plan to compete with the eventual release of the GEN III Tesla. Tesla just has that much buzz. Sometimes joining them is easier than beating them. I’d be working with Tesla to use their supercharger network, and to expand the supercharger network, riding the waves of Tesla’s momentum.

I think you are agreeing 100% with my thoughts, based on what you wrote here. Why not a whole new body in production no later than early 2016? Why not two different cars, one smaller, one larger — at least one of which significantly less weird-looking? One with 90 mile range; the other with 150?

Allowing for the normal ‘Musk factor’ between the price he floats and what he eventually arrives at, and his usual date slippage, I would not be too concerned about Tesla and Gen III if I were Nissan.

Whenever the Gen III arrives it should be well above the price of ‘Leaf II’ perhaps by around $10k, and with 200 miles of range as against 150 miles.

So they are likely to be in different markets.

For Infiniti things are different, and Tesla is the reason why they cancelled building a BEV in my view, as the competition was too hot, and close in price..

Anton — yes, we are making a very similar point. I don’t know about 2 cars at the same time. That would be very unusual in the automotive world. And if they are just asking questions now about what consumers want, it is way too late for being engineered into 2015 models. Typical for the automotive industry, production for 2015 models will likely start in mid summer, just a few months from now. They should be wrapping up any changes they had in mind, not beginning market research.

Damn, screwed up my last post, should have been in reply to Anton.

Anyways, Dave — The Model S actually came out on time, and on price. Remember the bet that Elon made with the reporter as to whether that would happen? Elon won. He donated $1 Million to doctors without borders, even though he won. (I actually predicted that way back when the bet was first announced…)

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/elon-musk-wins-model-s-bet-journalist-donates-1-million-charity-anyway.html

So I wouldn’t bet on big delays.

As far as the price difference goes, if Nissan manages to increase their sales of the Leaf by just 5,000 units per year, Nissan will run out of Federal $7,500 tax incentives by the end of 2017. Nissan increased their sales numbers by 13,000 units last year over the year before, more than doubling sales. With fleet buyers finally saying they will start investing in electrics, this is a very real possibility.

If the GEN III is still eligible for the full $7,500, the price gap you talked about will quickly evaporate.

If there is that small an increase in Nissan’s sales, then they could have trouble hitting cost targets.
They are aiming though to get near to their original targets for production, so that for instance the Zoe would go up to more like 50,000 a year from 10,000 this year.

With something like full scale mass production costs can be taken out fast enough, they hope, to counter the loss of the subsidy.

You picked a target Musk hit.
There are plenty he didn’t, and there are people who post on this very forum who had to pay $20k more for their Roadsters than Musk projected, and we should have had several models of Tesla on the road by now according to some of the things he has said, I believe.

I am not unduly blaming him for a bit of salesmanship, and Ghosn has had some big misses on electric car targets.
It comes with the territory of being a pioneer.

Still, the point of the Gen III is that it is supposed to still be pretty upmarket, and I would expect that to cost money.

The Leaf is targeted firmly at the middle price bracket.

Dave, I definitely didn’t mean to predict low sales. That was just a quick exercise in my mind of what the lowest increases in sales would be for them to hit the 200K limit for the tax credit. It is just to illustrate that risk, and isn’t an actual prediction. Are you predicting a price difference of around $17,500 for a 150 mile range Leaf vs a GEN III, without taking into account any incentives? I suppose that could be possible depending on contenting for options on each car. Elon did indeed say some things before the 2008 global economic crash that might have been possible if the economy hadn’t crumbled, that never came true. But I’m not sure I would bet against Elon Musk or Tesla in the future based upon things that happened under former Tesla CEO Martin Eberhard almost a decade ago. They blew a price estimate back in 2006 on their first vehicle. That’s ancient history, why would that be a better predictor of the future than what they’ve just done recently? As for delays for releasing cars in the auto industry. Well, that comes with the business. It is like thinking a software release will… Read more »

Elon Musk also said that each generation of Tesla cars would cost half of the previous one or less, that the Model S would be half the price of the Roadster.
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20100427/GREEN/100429837

That is, it should have been 55k$, not 70k$+.

The same promise has being made again, this time about the Model E.
Fool me once…

The price of the base Model S started at $57,495 (before tax credit). Are you really complaining about less than $2,500 dollars?

You and anyone else who wanted to buy one could have put a deposit down and bought one at that price. The vast majority of buyers didn’t. Only 4% of buyers had chosen it, so it didn’t make sense to build them. These 4% ended up getting a 60 for the price of a 40 instead.

If you didn’t get your Model S for $49,995 after federal tax rebate, blame yourself, don’t blame Elon Musk. All you had to do was put down that $5K deposit. Don’t be bitter that you blew it.

By the way, I had a $6000 dollar state incentive available at that time. I do still kick myself for blowing the chance at getting a Model S for $43K after rebates. But I own my own mistake.

My point was, Tesla never produced the about-50k$ Model S Musk once promised.

That some early reservation holders got a discount on another model, with software tweaks to make it act a bit the same (range-limited, more power compensating for the extra weight), doesn’t change this.

Tesla’s “benchmark” is totally different. They are only installing chargers between major cities for the purposes of long distance travel. They are not provided for the purpose of giving Tesla owners free electricity for their daily commutes. As such, I doubt you’ll ever see free superchargers in large cities like you see Chademo installations. I also suspect once they are done with all the major highways, that will be it. In fact, I wonder at some point if a 3rd party will step up and start providing a supercharger compatible station around city centers and charge money for use. Either that, or Tesla owners will wind up using the Chademo adapters.

1½ to 2 times the electricity cost at home. And I would never pay for a charging where you pay a sum no matter how long time/how many kWh you get.

Either a flat rate á la Tesla with a one time payment or per kWh. I would not pay $30, that’s more than 5 times what I pay for my electricity at home.

I would accept a higher factor for a 100+ kW charger than a 50+ kW charger.

What makes anyone to think this 150 miles LEAF is coming?

If Nissan can’t even ramp up the so called battery production to meet the “hot demand” on current LEAF ( I think that is a lie), then what makes you think they can ramp up enough production in battery supplies to meet the so called 150 miles LEAF demand (that would require at least 2x the battery size)?

It is obvious it is coming because that is what Nissan must do to sell future LEAF models including a sports car (Blade glider), a SUV (think new Rogue BEV) and the the car Infiniti dealers are asking for. I would expect the 2015 model year LEAF to be so equipped.

P.S. You don’t have to double the battery size, just double the density. That also makes most sense because then it can be installed in current model LEAFs.

Unless they are going with the Tesla battery chemistry, I don’t see how it is double the density.

And if you do go there, then you would also need a thermal management system for it which will add cost and weight and complexity to the existing LEAF platform….

I would prefer the Tesla model of charging like others have mentioned, build it into the price of the car and develop that network! If we are stuck in today’s charging world of charging, then I am fully on-board with the comments about pricing must be less than the per mile cost of fuel for a Prius, so $3.50/50 MPG = $.07 per real miles, so 150 mile EPA Rating * 80% charge level * 85% of those miles to get a more realistic estimate of what you might get = 102 miles, so about $7.00 assuming a full 80% charge. If someone has a longer range EV and a Prius – if the fast chargers exceed the cost of traditional fuel they will be more likely to take the Prius on the longer trip unless they are a hard core EV person. Next point – flat rate charging is an absolute “NO-GO!” – I am never going to pull into a quick charge station with 0% charge remaining, and I want the flexibility to use a quick charger and get a good value wherever I may stop that has one, whether that’s stopping and charging up when I am… Read more »

Very good points. I hope you Nissan has retained you to advise it on its future product offerings.

Skimming through the responses, I haven’t seen any mention of the ‘inconvenience’ of waiting a half hour for your vehicle to charge. Until or unless an 80% charge comes in the 5-7 minute range, I would be unwilling to pay much at a public charger. Probably $5 tops.

If it takes only 5-7 minutes, how will I have time to finish my restaurant meal or do my shopping? Or finish my business meeting?

If I’m shopping or eating a meal, then I would expect that the mall/store/restaurant would take on the cost of my charge, in exchange for the business I am giving them. In this instance, I would change my answer to “I would be willing to pay $0”.

Many businesses are finding out that if you offer this service to customers, sales can and do go up.

As for business meetings, I can’t relate, as a poor schlub working in manufacturing. 🙂

Surely there are instances (such as your business meeting) where a fee for charging over an extended period on private property would make sense. I was merely speaking on my personal experiences.