I'm impressed with nrg eVgo

[Dave EV]

At 100x, the amount of energy one can reasonably, cost effectively load into BEVs with DC charging infrastructure is very, very small. The congestion would be tremendous. At 5x to 10x the number of plugs and emphasizing home charging or workplace charging is the only way to bring 10% of the fleet to BEVs.

I completely agree that home and workplace charging is the way to go. In fact, this is already the way that most people get 90% of their electricity.

True that the next generation of BEVs coming from the various non-Tesla automakers in 2016/2017 will not likely outrun 200A L2 DC charging. Most will likely have around 40-50 kWh of battery capacity and utilize the 65-75 kW L2 DC EVSE's that are nominally 100 kW. However, so few 100 kW CHAdeMO/CCS EVSEs are deployed. The cost for upgrade is substantial. In the meantime, public money is being spent to deploy 50/62 kW Combo DC. Complete waste of money.

Well, there aren't any 100 kW QCs out there except Tesla SuperChargers. And it appears that even Tesla SuperChargers are too slow leading to congestion. Would you also call the SuperCharger network a waste of money?

The destination charging network is going to have to be AC to have 4 or 20 or 50 plugs at a location.

I agree that destination charging needs to be vastly expanded. But I don't see anyone deploying anything but 30A L2 stations in any significant numbers.

Manufacturers will be forced to include a sufficient on-board AC charger to charge the vehicle in 7-8 hours.

The 90 kWh takes longer than 7-8 hours to charge from near empty on the standard 40A L2, but yet it's the exception rather than the rule that people get the 2nd onboard charger to enable 80A L2 charging.

 

[Oba]

What about wall mounted L1 DC like the 24kW chargers BMW is installing? The installation costs should be closer to a 80A L2 AC EVSE and you offload the onboard charger costs onto the site. I believe a huge part of the cost of L2 DC is because they are floor mounted and the electrical requirements are high.

When the number of cars greatly outnumber the number of chargers, DC charging starts to make sense in terms of cost (when you also consider the cost of the onboard charger).

I think my "no onboard AC powered charger" wasn't very clear.

If if you buy that 2025 Nissan LEAFER without an onboard charger, the car will likely be $1000-$2500 cheaper than with an onboard charger. Obviously, by then, many folks will have already owned a string of EVs, and won't need a new charge station at home.

But, if they did, the $1000-$2500 that they saved with the car will most certainly buy an adequate DC charger capable of an overnight charge (a 50-60kWh car could be overnight charged on about 8kW).

An 8-10kW DC charger hanging on the wall will use EXACTLY the same 50 amp circuit powering your existing AC charger (HPWC / J1772 / UMC) at 40 amps continous.

So, again, I don't expect onboard AC charging to survive. The lowest cost cars, in particular, will not even offer on onboard charger. Just like the GM EV-1.

 

[rolosrevenge]

No... no.. no!

DC is a waste of money in this manner. It doesn't make financial sense at all. The waste is tremendous.

It's one thing to spend on DC to support long distance travel. These are not built out in that manner. A strong destination charging program is necessary to have a future where BEV's are even 5% or 10% of the vehicles on the road. You can't get there with DC. Every level 2 DC EVSE being built is 5-10 level 2 AC EVSE's not being built. If you multiply it out, you can't get to supporting millions of EV's on the road with DC EVSE's for local travel. The numbers don't work. Seriously... take the $50,000 per DC EVSE plug and multiply it out by the number of EVSE's necessary to support local travel of Nissan Leaf's. It rivals hydrogen fueling infrastructure.

Plus, DC Level 2 EVSE's means the ultimate in inconvenience. Imagine a hotel where they spend $100,000 on EV charging. They could install 2 x 50 kW dual standard DC level 2 EVSE's or 20x 10kW AC Level 2 EVSE's. So 2 plugs versus 20. If you go the 2 plug route, are you getting out of bed at 2am to move your car from the plug? Are you moving your car after it is done at 3 am? Or would it make sense to have 20 plugs where cars sip juice all night?

On the other hand, Level 2 EVSE's aren't fast enough. They don't get you much range in 5 or 10 minutes. So you don't really want to stand next to them and wait. So people go away. The don't come back in time. So you have plugs at a location for $100,000 and the amount of time they spend blocked with vehicles done charging is high. You therefore can't rely on the infrastructure because the congestion levels are too high.

The only reason why there is this build out of local DC EVSE's is because of these low range EV's like the Nissan Leaf and the BMW i3. They don't have enough range to cover 95% of local travel each day for enough people, so people need local charging using idiotic CHAdeMO or CCS Level 2. In 2-3 years with the new battery chemistry coming and therefore the range of these vehicles doubles, the demand for charging points increases and the range required to add per day for local travel drops to almost zero for most people. So these DC EVSE's do not have a reason to exist, as they charge too fast or too slow for too much money and the total number of plugs doesn't increase fast enough. The solution isn't more DC EVSE's, it's 5x to 10x more plugs of AC EVSEs at 40A+ (10 kW+).

BTW, the comparison with Tesla Superchargers is this:
Tesla spends about $300,000 to install 3-4x Superchargers at 135 kW each. The site has 400-500kW with 6-8 plugs.
NRG spends about $75,000 to 100,000 to install 2 DC Level 2 combo EVSE's at 62 kW each. The site has 130 kW with 2 plugs.

I believe NRG gets substantially more government money to do what they are doing.

This.

 

[Rocky_H]

I'm not talking about home use, primarily for public charging infrastructure, where there would be way more than one car using it, where offboard charger costs are offset by reduced onboard charger costs spread across multiple cars.

This does not make sense because you are thinking of it as if it is all one person experiencing both sides of this, when you say this offsets that. It is actually two different groups experiencing the infrastructure build versus the EV owning and driving, so there is no “offsetting” anything. Each side experiences only one of those. Businesses would much rather prefer to install AC chargers because they are much cheaper. They don’t care if EV drivers pay more or less for their cars because they’re not paying for that.

 

[ZBB]

Has anyone that lives outside NRG EVgo's geographic territories been able to sign up for their pay-by-the drink/non-contract plans? What about crossing boundaries -- is charging just in the geography you live in, or full network?

I really don't understand their geography-based sign-up process (or at least offering a "other" on the list for those of us looking for destination charging options off the Supercharger network...)

 

[smilepak]

Has anyone that lives outside NRG EVgo's geographic territories been able to sign up for their pay-by-the drink/non-contract plans? What about crossing boundaries -- is charging just in the geography you live in, or full network?

I really don't understand their geography-based sign-up process (or at least offering a "other" on the list for those of us looking for destination charging options off the Supercharger network...)

I think it's the rate difference, I'm interested in knowing as well

 

[Rocky_H]

2) Elimination of onboard chargers altogether, whereby your destination / home / overnight / workplace charging station would actually be 3-20kW DC chargers. It's just dumb to carry around the weight and expense of chargers on millions of cars.

3) Widespread, ubiquitous public DC charging, where 50kW is considered extremely slow, 100kW is the norm, and 150-250kW are available.

Wow, this is one of the worst EV ideas I’ve heard in a long time.

I think my "no onboard AC powered charger" wasn't very clear.

If if you buy that 2025 Nissan LEAFER without an onboard charger, the car will likely be $1000-$2500 cheaper than with an onboard charger. Obviously, by then, many folks will have already owned a string of EVs, and won't need a new charge station at home.

But, if they did, the $1000-$2500 that they saved with the car will most certainly buy an adequate DC charger capable of an overnight charge (a 50-60kWh car could be overnight charged on about 8kW).

An 8-10kW DC charger hanging on the wall will use EXACTLY the same 50 amp circuit powering your existing AC charger (HPWC / J1772 / UMC) at 40 amps continous.

So, again, I don't expect onboard AC charging to survive. The lowest cost cars, in particular, will not even offer on onboard charger. Just like the GM EV-1.

Yeah, that addresses home charging, but it still sounds just as bad for away from home. There are two main problems with this, and they go hand in hand--infrastructure build cost and EV ownership flexibility.

You are talking about a “ubiquitous” build-out of public DC charging. That is not going to happen. That is such an obvious case of big city urban environment tunnel vision. It requires expensive installation of things that may not get much use. Places are not going to want to do that. AC infrastructure is already in place in every building everywhere, and it’s cheap and easy to access.

Now this relates to the ownership flexibility of where you can go. I live in Idaho. If I’m going to McCall, or Riggins, or Stanley, none of those places see enough EV traffic for any business in the town to foot the bill for $10K+ or whatever for a DC charging station—not in the next few decades. But you know what is already there? 208V AC power. You know what is also already there? RV parks with rows and rows of parking spots with 14-50 outlets: 10kW AC charging! So I can already drive an electric car to those places and have AC charging without anyone having to build or install anything. And even if someone was going to install something, here’s a real example of how that worked. There was a Tesla owner who was going to be staying at Shore Lodge in McCall. He mentioned to them about charging possibilities, and that same day within a few hours, they put in a 14-50 outlet for him to use and as an amenity for future guests or just day trippers in town. They did that because it was easy and cheap. That would not have been the case with a DC charging station.

 

[David99]

Let's drop the L1/2/3 DC charging terms. They make no sense and no one uses them. They confuse the established terms.

DC charging and L2 AC charging are two very different animals. It's not one or the other, both will have it's place in the future. About 90% of all charging is done at home and work. Both are perfectly fine for AC charging. In both places you park your car for a long time, enough to charging it slow. Hotels also count.

Everywhere else we do not spend a lot of time, thus L2 charging is to slow. On board AC chargers will not get more powerful. It's a waste of money and size and weight inside the car and you have to deal with the heat they produce inside the car. They are also not needed. All the onboard charger needs to be able to handle is your daily driving range. Even a simple 7 kW charger provides 250 miles with a normal overnight charge. That's more than plenty for daily driving. It would be a huge waste of money to build in faster AC chargers into every car when only 1% would need it because they drive more than 250 miles a day. That's exactly where DC chargers are much better. Once they are literally every few miles, people can drive an EV without having to waste a single thought about charging. They know, everywhere they can fill up quickly. And quickly is the key. They can fill up in 30 min. That's reasonable. Knowing there are 5 L2 chargers won't do you any good. You can't wait 4 hours to fill up.

If places like Walgreen or shopping malls installs 5 L2 chargers instead of one DC, they need to provide 5 times the parking spots (which in many places isn't practical) and those 5 cars all need to wait 5 times as long to be charged. How is 5 cars waiting 5 times longer needing 5 times the space a better solution?

Also think about all the people in apartments without parking and no home charging. They have no time to spend hours on L2 charging. They need something fast and they need it in many places. L3 (DC) is the only way to go.

I agree, 45 kW isn't going to be enough in the future, but at this point, (other than the Model S) no car can take more. So for now it makes perfect sense to not waste money on higher power rates when the majority of EV have no advantage. The Model 3 and Chevy Bolt and next gen Leaf will hopefully sell in large enough numbers and then NRG can upgrade.

 

[smilepak]

The whole charging thing isn't thought out. Why the hell would you put a 30a L2 charger at Walgreens and CVS where no one spend more than 30 mins there. These places should have DC charger like eVgo CHAdeMo.
At the malls, they should have at least 5-10% parking spaces be L2 because ppl will hog that space for hrs. So we need many of them. It make no sense to have one or two in a sea of parking spaces. Ideal is to partner with Starbucks, have DC chargers!

 

[techmaven]

Well, there aren't any 100 kW QCs out there except Tesla SuperChargers. And it appears that even Tesla SuperChargers are too slow leading to congestion. Would you also call the SuperCharger network a waste of money?

Kia Installs First 100 kW CHAdeMO DC Fast Chargers In Europe
NRG eVgo Electric-Car Fast Chargers Future-Proofed To 100 KW

CHAdeMO is available at 100 kW. I was trying to draw the distinction between Tesla Superchargers and these CHAdeMO 100 kW stations. On a Tesla 120 kW or 135 kW Supercharger, a Model S 85 kWh pack can draw 120 kW peak rate.

On a CHAdeMO 100 kW station, no existing EV can charge at 100 kW. The maximum amperage is 200 amps and pack voltage is usually 300-400v, so the actual real world rate tops out at 80 kW. NRG eVgo talks about 100 kW, but reality, owners would actually charge around 65-75 kW and rarely even see 80 kW depending on the EV.

At even 80 kW, the long distance travel cadence is poor. Basically, at anything under a 100 kW real world rate, it would be difficult to raise the overall support for BEVs as all around vehicles. We would likely then see a larger percentage of PHEVs for a longer time. More people would choose Volt like vehicles versus Bolt/Model 3 like vehicles.

My argument is that Tesla is spending private funds to implement 370 amp, 135 kW L3 DC charging. Even this is a stepping stone to 150 kW. But Tesla is taking on this upgrade burden - for example, it's Tesla's burden to replace the 90 kW Superchargers with faster ones, but the demand to do so is very different than replacing a 50 kW version. Public money should be carefully spent, and 40-80 amp J1772 destination charging infrastructure *must* exist for widespread BEV adoption. No way around it to get real adoption numbers in the U.S. - we're talking millions of vehicles. If public money is going into EV charging infrastructure, it should be for the L2 AC charging infrastructure at 40+ amps that will exist for 20 more years. For apartment dwellers and those w/o garages, the answer still isn't crappy and extremely expensive DC charging with standards and equipment that has a very short lifespan. Again, CHAdeMO and CCS as they exist today will not exist soon in this form, and even if the next versions are backwards compatible, who wants to visit the slow DC charger in 2018? As a charging business, DC charging using existing standards is a dead end. Tesla doesn't treat the charging portion of the infrastructure as a profit generating business. The right answer for those without garages is a mix of laws that allow for the installation of L2 AC charging where it is being actively blocked and the widespread proliferation of AC charging at various places where cars are parked overnight.

If you care about the carbon footprint part of this equation, DC charging is also much worse than AC charging due to the charging patterns, especially for those without dedicated garages/parking spaces.. It's one thing to have some DC charging that supports long distance travel which stresses the peaker plants during the day. But adding a million EV's on the road, it would be far better to add that charging load overnight at super-off peak. You don't have to build out the electricity grid the same level, as you can take advantage of the trough that is super-off peak. Further, it would help justify continued investments in wind energy (sometimes the spot price overnight goes negative since there isn't enough demand) as well as maintaining baseload generation. We are taking nuclear power plants offline due to insufficient baseload as compared to peaking demand. And since DC charging means charge right now, now, now, now, as a system, it can't even be matched with solar very well in a future smart grid scenario where the charging is grid controlled - that requires many plugs over time, not a few that want to charge now now now. Promoting crappy DC charging for those w/o dedicated parking and therefore overnight AC charging is to make the electrical grid problems worse.

Anyone still thinking that it will be possible to remove the on-board AC charger from a BEV hasn't really though it through.

As for the sizing of the on-board AC charger, it must be big enough to charge overnight. An BEV manufacturer must allow for the situation where you arrive with a near empty pack at a hotel with 40-80 amp J1772 and be able to charge up to full before you leave in the morning. Anyone that doesn't offer that will be punished in the marketplace. You can choose to install a $400 EVSE or a $50 14-50 at home if you want, but the forcing function will be 7-8 hours overnight. So in 2020, with a 110-125 kWh pack, it must be possible to charge that from empty to full overnight.

 

[TexasEV]

Everywhere else we do not spend a lot of time, thus L2 charging is to slow. On board AC chargers will not get more powerful. It's a waste of money and size and weight inside the car and you have to deal with the heat they produce inside the car. They are also not needed. All the onboard charger needs to be able to handle is your daily driving range. Even a simple 7 kW charger provides 250 miles with a normal overnight charge. That's more than plenty for daily driving. It would be a huge waste of money to build in faster AC chargers into every car when only 1% would need it because they drive more than 250 miles a day. That's exactly where DC chargers are much better. Once they are literally every few miles, people can drive an EV without having to waste a single thought about charging. They know, everywhere they can fill up quickly. And quickly is the key. They can fill up in 30 min. That's reasonable. Knowing there are 5 L2 chargers won't do you any good. You can't wait 4 hours to fill up.

I just don't understand your logic. If the onboard charger handles your daily driving range, why do we need DC charging stations every few miles? And if they're mostly for the 1% of people traveling out of town, who would pay to install these very expensive units every few miles where they would get infrequent use because the locals get their charge overnight at home?

 

[techmaven]

Let's drop the L1/2/3 DC charging terms. They make no sense and no one uses them. They confuse the established terms.

No, there are very real differences. L1 DC charging is absurd. L2 DC charging needs to be eradicated, and at the very least, we need to stop pouring precious public resources into them. L3 DC charging is what is necessary to promote BEVs and the transformation to electricity for personal transportation.

All the onboard charger needs to be able to handle is your daily driving range. Even a simple 7 kW charger provides 250 miles with a normal overnight charge. That's more than plenty for daily driving. It would be a huge waste of money to build in faster AC chargers into every car when only 1% would need it because they drive more than 250 miles a day. That's exactly where DC chargers are much better. Once they are literally every few miles, people can drive an EV without having to waste a single thought about charging. They know, everywhere they can fill up quickly. And quickly is the key. They can fill up in 30 min. That's reasonable. Knowing there are 5 L2 chargers won't do you any good. You can't wait 4 hours to fill up.

Have you done a lot of road trips in your Model S? If you hopped to the next town, say 200 miles away for an overnight stay. Would it make more sense to charge to 95% percent overnight, hop in the car, drive to the destination, eventually find your way to the hotel, plug in overnight. Charge overnight. Then drive home. No DC charging at all. Or, would it make more sense to find a DC charger and wait around for 45 minutes or 1.25 hours? Or even 20 minutes out and 20 minute back? I say not waiting for the car to charge wins every single time.

Will you buy a car that can't charge overnight at a hotel?

Will hotels spend $200,000 per hotel to install even just 4 DC plugs? Examine the congestion models for charging. Widespread BEV adoption can't happen without addressing the congestion problems.

If places like Walgreen or shopping malls installs 5 L2 chargers instead of one DC, they need to provide 5 times the parking spots (which in many places isn't practical) and those 5 cars all need to wait 5 times as long to be charged. How is 5 cars waiting 5 times longer needing 5 times the space a better solution?

The parking spots are already provided. No one discusses destination charging as adding parking spots. We're talking about an overall reduction in the car fleet in the U.S., but with an increasing percentage of BEVs. Walgreens doesn't need charging at all. It's idiotic. If they want to provide it, then fine on their dime. But it's a waste. Energy transfer needs to happen where the car sits the longest. Then the next longest. And the next longest. Going for where the car barely sits around is idiotic and belies an ICE mentality.

Again, think it through. 28x more BEVs to even scratch the surface of adoption levels. The car is going to sit for many hours a day. Charge it there. We cannot support 28x or 50x the number of cars with DC chargers, much less DC chargers at Walgreens or grocery stores. It's only if that Walgreens happens to be at a junction point that supports long distance travel does it makes sense to have a DC charger at a Walgreens.

I agree, 45 kW isn't going to be enough in the future, but at this point, (other than the Model S) no car can take more. So for now it makes perfect sense to not waste money on higher power rates when the majority of EV have no advantage. The Model 3 and Chevy Bolt and next gen Leaf will hopefully sell in large enough numbers and then NRG can upgrade.

Therefore the logical conclusion isn't to spend money on more wasteful DC, it's to spend money on AC charging that is going to be around for a long time. Let the car manufacturers get around to being serious about BEVs so that they can sort out L3 charging before spending another public dime on it. The fact that SAE CCS Combo connector was finally set, after Tesla already deployed L3 DC charging and doesn't support L3 DC charging gives you an idea of where the car industry really is with regards to BEVs.

Matter of fact, if you take the money that Nissan has spent on CHAdeMO in the U.S., they would likely have been able to outfit every Nissan Leaf with 80A J1772 instead. And lots of Leafs don't even have CHAdeMO. The initial wave of CHAdeMO EVSE's were all 25 kW, which is barely better than 80A J1772. The difference isn't enough to change the use case for them.

 

[Galve2000]

The subscription plan is $14.95 / mo + $0.10 / minute for QC. If you use them 2 times a month or more, the subscription is worth it.

how many miles do you get with L2 (AC) charge on nag eVgo L2 charger? are these 6.6 kW stations giving 18 miles/hr? even then, at $1/hr it is much cheaper than gas.

if they can somehow give 9.6 kW in an hour they become even more cost effective vs gas.

For those who have this plan, how much are your typical session fees? do you plug in for 1 hr at a time? are we talking $5-6 and how many rated miles/ kWh are you getting in exchange for this fee?

as much as i agree with @techmaven about the cost-benefit analysis of L3 (DC) vs L2(AC), the 1st time I plugged in my 85D at a Tesla destination charger, I was surprised to be disappointed at the partly 30 miles per hr of charge gained from their 16 kW HPWC (208 V @ 64 amps max) it seriously felt like I was charging my old Chevy Volt on a L1 120 V outlet -- 8 hrs to get 40 miles of EV range.

I don't have a garage in my primary residence and park at a public garage in my neighborhood (with a Tesla Destination Charger) once a week where I am "guaranteed" only 6 hrs of charging, although I have often gotten as much as 8 or 9 hours of charging depending on the needs of the garage. Charging is free but I do pay $25 for 12 hours of parking at this location so I do not consider it a free charge per se, although I would be stuck paying for parking and charging at any other non-"destination charger" location run by Beam/Chargepoint/Blink et al.

I have in the past few months decided that L3 (DC) is the way of the future, even at 25 kW max. I have not yet splurged on a Tesla to Chademo adapter b/c there are none in the area that I frequent. I kind of dread the day that I 1st have to use a Chademo adapter -- it feels so big and cumbersome to me -- and i have a hard enough time with the Tesla-to-J1772 adapter that I use in my summer home. (I have limited mobility and a bit of an issue with balance so yanking out the J1772 adapter using my left (weaker) hand while holding the J1772 plug I have at home with my right hand sometimes produces an *interesting* outcome.) Still, I don't regret splurging for a Clipper Creek CS-100 instead of a HPWC. the CS-100 is built like a tank and is worth every penny. and the good state of New York covered 50% of the cost to purchase and install same.

Deep down I wish Tesla would offer a built in Chademo port b/c the Chademo adapter is a bit of a monstrosity. I'm sure when the time comes, with time I will "get the hang of it" but it is something I would like to avoid all together.

even at the comparatively astronomical costs of installing DC vs L2 AC I think that people want to see that they are getting their batteries replenished quickly and would be willing to pay for the privilege. I have not worked out the math in my head, and even $1.50/hr for L2 AC charging is still cheaper than gas even if you only get 6.6 kW every hour. But 30 miles per hr gained at a 40 amp level 2 "feels" too slow even though it is obviously more than enough for overnight charging. even partly 25 KW DC would give you better than 60 miles per hr which is one hr a minute. still not nearly as fast as the what you get "at the pump," but ok for quick jaunts around town. and not all of us have a garage at home with which to replenish our daily driving.

 

[TexasEV]

@Galve2000, it sounds like you would benefit from dual chargers if you have limited access to a 64A HPWC and no home charging.

 

[David99]

No, there are very real differences. L1 DC charging is absurd. L2 DC charging needs to be eradicated, and at the very least, we need to stop pouring precious public resources into them. L3 DC charging is what is necessary to promote BEVs and the transformation to electricity for personal transportation.

I rest my case, you have your opinion and that's fine. I'm just glad the people who make decisions on what chargers are installed and where are not thinking the way you do.

 

[techmaven]

I rest my case, you have your opinion and that's fine. I'm just glad the people who make decisions on what chargers are installed and where are not thinking the way you do.

Do the math.

Look, I completely understand the desire for more, faster, more convenient. It's natural. I felt that way. i feel that way when I'm looking to charge my Model S.

However, in my research, I started looking at charging business models. I looked at sustainable transport. At energy production and consumption. At what needs to happen to convert to 1,000,000 BEVs on the road and more. I defended BEVs against various critics, including those that don't believe in AGW, those that believe in hydrogen, and that electrification is crony capitalism and so forth. In analyzing all of this together, I realized that DC charging at 40-70 kW is a boondoggle. Worse, it actually is detrimental to the overall effort to sustainable transport. That Nissan should have known better.

Calculate it out, and you'll easily come to the same conclusions.

The answer to better and more destination charging is better and more destination charging, not crutching with unsustainable DC L2 charging. The answer to better support for long distance charging is better support for long distance travel. L2 DC is neither - too expensive for destination charging, too slow for supporting long distance travel. It diverts funds and effort from doing either/both destination charging and long distance travel infrastructure. The fact that we don't have a non-Tesla answer for long distance travel is terrible and lays at the feet of the automakers. Therefore, the only place to put public money in the near term that makes sense is to help support the real destination charging network - which is 10-19 kW J1772 AC charging in the U.S.

 

[Dave EV]

*** whoosh! ***

I still don't fully understand what L2 DC is, perhaps because it's not an official term. But by reading between the lines, it seems to be QC that's too slow for highway travel. In which case, that also includes Tesla Superchargers, which really need to be twice as fast to really enable highway travel. As I stated before, Tesla has the biggest and fastest QC network worldwide, yet it's still inadequate in higher highway traffic areas like I5 in California.

Does that mean that Tesla should just give up and install HPWCs at hotels and workplaces until 250 kw charging becomes viable?

 

[techmaven]

*** whoosh! ***

I still don't fully understand what L2 DC is, perhaps because it's not an official term. But by reading between the lines, it seems to be QC that's too slow for highway travel. In which case, that also includes Tesla Superchargers, which really need to be twice as fast to really enable highway travel. As I stated before, Tesla has the biggest and fastest QC network worldwide, yet it's still inadequate in higher highway traffic areas like I5 in California.

Does that mean that Tesla should just give up and install HPWCs at hotels and workplaces until 250 kw charging becomes viable?

Tesla has the only L3 (> 200amp) DC charging network - and they are using their own money to do it. Given the limitations of batteries, we will approach a limit of battery capacity, which, based on c-rate also means a limit in charging capability. Further, the amount of copper/aluminum wiring as well as the thickness of cable becomes limiting factors. So between 100 and 200 kW is about the realistic limits in the foreseeable future. Tesla is already in that ballpark. Nissan/GM/CHAdeMO/CCS is not.

As for official terms:

http://www.sae.org/smartgrid/chargingspeeds.pdf

Tesla is installing HPWC's as part of their destination charging program at hotels.

 

[vdiv]

techmaven is right and is doing a great job explaining why the current crop of DCFC stations are not good. Anyone who has been following eVgo and the reception reflected in PlugShare, especially last winter when half of the stations were down with no spare parts available, has a very good idea. We are seeing many unhappy and disgruntled LEAF owners, some do not even bother charging in public, others have entirely given up on their EV and drive a guzzler now. Maybe eVgo can and will do better, install multiple stations per location, simplify activation and monitoring, improve trouble response and resolution, but quite a bit of damage has already been done. Simple AC points do not require nearly that amount of money nor effort.

On the comment earlier that there are "ZERO" 80A (18kW) J1772 stations, they should come and observe the stations deployed by the University of Delaware. Too bad that only Tesla-made onboard chargers can take the full advantage of them, charging at 30 to 60 mph on 240V AC. That gives the EV driver plenty of time to get a boost while enjoying Rehoboth Beach for example.

 

[Dave EV]

Tesla has the only L3 (> 200amp) DC charging network - and they are using their own money to do it. Given the limitations of batteries, we will approach a limit of battery capacity, which, based on c-rate also means a limit in charging capability. Further, the amount of copper/aluminum wiring as well as the thickness of cable becomes limiting factors. So between 100 and 200 kW is about the realistic limits in the foreseeable future. Tesla is already in that ballpark. Nissan/GM/CHAdeMO/CCS is not.

As for official terms:

http://www.sae.org/smartgrid/chargingspeeds.pdf

If you want to use those "official" terms, nearly all QCs are DC L2 (>80A and <200A), including all the QCs on the eVgo network. DC L1 is the exception, not the rule.

Anyone who has been following eVgo and the reception reflected in PlugShare, especially last winter when half of the stations were down with no spare parts available, has a very good idea.

But that doesn't have anything to do with techmaven's argument. Of course, charging stations should have uptimes in the 99.9% range or better.