Salt Lake Community College is going green with its new electric car chargers.
The high-voltage charging stations can charge any type of electric vehicle at the Taylorsville Redwood and South City campuses. At the time of this writing, the chargers have earned $222.52 and helped eliminate 250KG of greenhouse gasses since they were installed back in June 2015.
“I think it is important to know that the college is very interested in sustainability,” says Rand Webb, environmental health and safety manager for SLCC. “We are willing to pay for no exhaust and saving gasoline and keeping the air clean. We really try to do our part.”
SLCC students and faculty can charge their vehicles for free for two hours and $10 each additional hour.
The chargers were paid for partially by a grant from the State Division for Air Quality. The grant also came with two Nissan Leafs for the school’s use.
Plans for more chargers
SLCC currently has three dual-headed chargers — two at Taylorsville Redwood and one at South — and would eventually like to have one at every campus.
According to Webb, the school faces two obstacles: securing funding for new chargers and digging up parking lots and other construction to get power to the chargers.
The Westpointe Center will most likely get the next charging station during one of its next construction projects, followed by the Miller and Jordan campuses.
“I think it’s great that the school is being supportive of the green movement and that eventually they will be a great resource for students and faculty,” says Brianna Vaughan, a student from the Taylorsville Redwood Campus.
The charging stations are used approximately three times a day. The most charges in a single day was 16 on August 27, 2015.
Interesting article for several reasons. As communications students and professionals we all are taught to learn from a good “critique.” With that said, let’s have at it.
This article is vague at best, with it’s ambiguous commentary and loosely-cited minimalistic stats. (sources/citations/etc??) There is no mention as to the voltage output of these stations, an important consideration. Using a 120v station, Chevy Volt recharges (from a depleted state) in 10 hours, Nissan Leaf in 20 hours. 240v stations produce better rates, Chevy @ 4 hrs, Nissan @ 8 hrs. With 120v station rates the approximate 4-8 E-cars on S.C. campus just might find themselves waiting in line for a plug, although it’s rare to see more than one car at the 2-plug station, if at all one vehicle.
This article would do well to mention the construction costs of installing a single station, as a reference point to consider. And just how much (percentage or monetarily otherwise) has SLCC spent on this particular green initiative? Can we compare that to DAQ’s efforts, including the 2 Nissans. What about the percentage of student/faculty that can and do benefit, 1-2-3 percent? Less? And, at what point does sustainability occur at $222.52 per…”to date,” monthly, weekly? Can we compare the cost of kilowatt hours used to garner $222.52, or just how long the stations have been in use? Can we realize a better frequency of use and/or need before spending even more of an already very tight budget on optimistic hopefulness?
I appreciate the efforts and concerns. Yes, we can change global perspectives, one mind at a time, but offer some food for thought. “Critical thinking” is part of every class and program as “student learning outcomes.” E-car costs range dramatically but the average is 25-40 thousand dollars.(I won’t mention Tesla, Porsche, etc.) Perhaps more realistic “sustainability” efforts can be emphasized. One could buy many transit passes, bicycles, etc. for that amount. Personally, I enjoy my $1200 motorcycle for the riding benefits; free-up parking, approx 60 MPG, very low emissions, easy to find a parking spot and cheaper parking fees. Now that’s good clean fun!
Additionally, I must say that the images used in this article do not support the article’s seeming intentions of flaunting these stations. Empty charging stalls at a 2-station site is not congruent to the article.(Redwood) Nor is the South City image with an obvious service van parked in the dedicated stall (other stall empty) that is within the faculty parking lot. If there is not an opportunity to photograph a vehicle plugged in then perhaps a close-up of the metering system and signage? The “Redwood” photo has so many tangents that without the narrow shadow and vibrant sign, shot at a distance, it simply flattens into the building behind it and is barely recognizable. And, I find it curious that the author’s name has a larger point size and is emboldened over the photo captions that should be of emphasis.
Just saying, with constraint.
Comments are closed.