Charging Station standards - Page 11

Kevin Harney · 04-20-2009, 08:41 AM

standard 400V supply - that is great news right ?

vfx · 04-20-2009, 10:30 AM

E-car industry agrees on one plug to rule them all : Cars General

400V <64 amps.

graham · 04-20-2009, 10:39 AM

From vfx' linked article:

Quote:

Electric car makers and power companies are to unveil this week a standard Europe-wide power plug to recharge the batteries of electric vehicles, the German newspaper Die Welt reported Sunday. The agreement avoids the plug-and-socket problems familiar to travellers who take small appliances such as hair-dryers abroad.
It will be announced at the five-day Hanover Fair, a big annual expo of industrial products which opens for business on Monday in Germany. Die Welt said the standard had been agreed by 20 big companies.

The connectors were designed for a 400-volt power supply with up to 63 amperes of current.

So is this a version of the J1772 standard, or something new?

Kevin Harney · 04-20-2009, 10:45 AM

400 V & 63A - will that fit the build of the Model S quick charger ? Does that mean it is DC ? Will the Roadsters be retrofitted or retrofitable ? Is TM on board with this decision ?

doug · 04-20-2009, 10:45 AM

If that works, how about we just adopt that. (The metric system too while we're at it.)

I'm curious what the signal protocol is for the SAE connector. Seems like something more for IEEE rather than SAE.

.

vfx · 04-20-2009, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graham

So is this a version of the J1772 standard, or something new?

I looked all over for an image or something about the company or the Event but nothing.

I humbly hand it over to our European searchers or the unmatchable TEG.

TEG · 04-20-2009, 11:52 AM

GM lobbies for electric car plug standardization

Coulomb Technologies Showcasing SAE J1772 Networked Charging Stations for Plug-in Vehicles | EcoSilly

Quote:

...

This new Yazaki coupler will, however, be able to deliver much more than the former Level II power limit (6.6 kW), perhaps as much as 16-19 kW. This medium power capability is necessary in order to obtain reasonable charge times with upcoming long-range BEVs. Tesla Motors will be shipping their Roadster in 2008 with a 52 kWhr battery. With the former Level II charge limits of 6.6 kW, charge times for a 52 kWhr battery would become unreasonably long, perhaps as much as 7-8 hours. This charge time duration would extend beyond preferred late-evening low-cost Utility rate schedules, while a medium-power 3-4 hour charge could be scheduled to “fit” better into these upcoming schedules.

It is assumed that high power capable EVs (50+ kW) would now make use of a separate on-vehicle higher-power inlet standard that is yet to be developed. Overall, the attractiveness of all PHEVs and BEVs making use of an consistent, almost worldwide J1772-Yazaki-based low-to-medium power connection standard more than outweighs the loss of potential high power capability with the former Avcon connector. The need for and attractiveness of higher “fast charge” power capability for EVs is not yet proven to be necessary to market BEVs...

http://www.geocities.com/evcharging/...level2plus.pdf

J1772

Quote:

...The J1772 standard specifies a specific 5-pin plug (two power, two signal, one ground) for single-phase supply up to 80A....

TEG · 04-20-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Harney

400 V & 63A - will that fit the build of the Model S quick charger ? Does that mean it is DC ? Will the Roadsters be retrofitted or retrofitable ? Is TM on board with this decision ?

I don't think so. I think J1772 is single phase AC only.

400V@63A is 25.2kW
If the 'S' has a >70kWh pack then that is still about 3 hours to recharge, not 45 minutes.

I think Tesla QuickCharge will be a different connector, probably like 480V@125amp (45 minutes to recharge 42kW 160 mile pack, 1 hour for 60kWh 230 mile pack, and 70 minutes for the 70kWh 300 mile pack).
^^^just guessing though^^^

EVnut · 04-20-2009, 12:08 PM

Yeah this wonder connector is still not capable of the "super fast" charging that Tesla is talking about. High voltage for sure, but not very high current. This is NOT J1772.

J1772 level two is single phase up to 80A. Quite a bit more umph than this will be capable of.

TEG · 04-20-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doug

I'm curious what the signal protocol is for the SAE connector. Seems like something more for IEEE rather than SAE.

I am not sure what they are doing with "new improved J1772", but some details of the original (somewhat low tech) standard can be found here.

Quote:

...The control box sends a 1 kHz 12 volt square wave through a 1000 ohm resistor
to the pilot pin. The duty cycle of the square wave is set to indicate how much current can be supplied
from the AC mains. In the AVCON box the duty cycle is fixed at 50% indicating that 30 Amps (RMS) is
available. Therefore the circuit must supply at least 30 Amps since some chargers measure the square
wave to determine how much current they can draw. An outlet which can only supply 20 amps will have
a square wave with a smaller duty cycle and one which can supply more a larger one. The return current
from the pilot pin is through a resistor and a diode in the EV to frame ground. If the frame ground
connection is ever broken the box will immediately open the contactor...

Apparently Better Place views this RWE/Daimler IEC 'standard' as competition, not standardization:

Quote:

...The alliance of more than 20 leading European suppliers and auto companies are working together on laying the foundation for widespread introduction of electric cars...
...
As Better Place was not invited to join this alliance it seems to be a strong competition at least in Europe.
I still hope that the alliance will work together with Better Place and not against.
But my concern is that the big corporations involved want to takeover the business model of providing mobility.
And as these big corporations first want to secure their business the alliance might become another
oligopoly in this area (like the opec countries) and this is for sure not the best for the consumer...