You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To be fair, it’s been 8 months since they started so even PG&E could have gotten one ready in that timeframe.View attachment 965218Gotta love when PG&E isn’t involved…
I’m used to finished sites siting and waiting for 6+ months like Santa MariaTo be fair, it’s been 8 months since they started so even PG&E could have gotten one ready in that timeframe.
Usually painted in big orange letters on the front doors.Anyone know what KVA the transformer is?
Nope, full power would only require ~2000kVa. There are 6 V3 cabinets that can handle ~360kW each, for a total site power of 2,160kW. (There are some versions of the cabinets that can handle ~380kW/each, but I haven't seen many of them installed, but that would only be 2,280kW.)For full power they will need 3000kva but 2500kva wouldn’t surprise me.
I know we have discussed previously but I guess I struggle with the calculation for kVa vs the service at the site. There are two current 12 stall sites with 1600A service. 1600A service is 1330kVa. A 1000kVa transformer doesnt seem like it would support 1600A service. 1200A is 998kVa. Scaling, 3200A would be 2660kVa hence my comments on transformer size. I guess if the 600A breakers follow the 20% rule then 480A is 400kVa per cabinet which is still 2400kVa.Nope, full power would only require ~2000kVa. There are 6 V3 cabinets that can handle ~360kW each, for a total site power of 2,160kW. (There are some versions of the cabinets that can handle ~380kW/each, but I haven't seen many of them installed, but that would only be 2,280kW.)
In general Tesla gets a 1000kVa transformer for a 12 post site.
Evenly distributed is 83kw per stall.
Upping the transformer doesn't increase the AC->DC capabilities of the V3 cabinets. Here is a picture of the label on an older V3 cabinet that is limited to ~350kW, or ~88kW per stall.1600A service with the equivalent transformer gets you to 110kw average per car.
I know we have discussed previously but I guess I struggle with the calculation for kVa vs the service at the site. There are two current 12 stall sites with 1600A service. 1600A service is 1330kVa. A 1000kVa transformer doesnt seem like it would support 1600A service. 1200A is 998kVa. Scaling, 3200A would be 2660kVa hence my comments on transformer size. I guess if the 600A breakers follow the 20% rule then 480A is 400kVa per cabinet which is still 2400kVa.
I get their track record of 1000kVa transformers for 12 stalls but I guess my math mind is missing some of the steps in the calculation to squeeze that much power out of 1000kVa. If there is no loss in conversion from AC to DC, 1000kVa is 1000kW. That only takes 4 cars at full power to max the site out. Evenly distributed is 83kw per stall. 1600A service with the equivalent transformer gets you to 110kw average per car. I would still like to see a test of 8 or 12 cars plugging in below 20% to see where the charging rate maxes out.
It could also be that new sites are getting bigger transformers for when V4 is rolled out. Might just be switching of some internal circuitry to handle the higher voltage. Still speculation at this point but who knows?
Yep, most people don't understand this at all. But it really doesn't currently matter, as it is unlikely to have a site full of empty/preconditioned vehicles arrive at the same time and current Teslas can't maintain high charging rates for very long,
Upping the transformer doesn't increase the AC->DC capabilities of the V3 cabinets. Here is a picture of the label on an older V3 cabinet that is limited to ~350kW, or ~88kW per stall.
View attachment 965586
They have upped the capabilities a little in newer V3 cabinets. (I think they up full site power to just under 100kW per stall.)
Understand all this but why would you request 1600A service then get a 1000kVa transformer? Why not get 1200A service? I don't know what size service is actually being requested for this site but just posing questions based on other known sites.Tesla has more "stall power" than grid power and I think it's deliberate and way better financially and for customers (overall). I suspect the major hardware cost is in the cabinets and distribution rather than the stalls.
If a site gets very busy it slows down charging for new arrivals and will prompt Tesla to look to expand, either by adding more stalls and power or building another site.
That potential slowdown is bad for customers, but on the flip side, the high number of stalls is also good for customers, who are less likely to need to wait in line, and still have some chance of getting faster charging at a busy site as other people get to higher percentage state of charge and charging slows down.
People sometimes think of utilization rate as <charging time> / ( <number of stalls > x <number of hours> or <kWh sold> / ( <number of stalls> x <stall power> x <number of hours> ) but in the Tesla approach it's <kWh sold> / ( <transformer power> x <number of hours> ).
In the future, as battery costs fall we may see more deployment of batteries to help during the charging peaks.
Alternatively we may see EV batteries go to flatter charging curves, rather than beefing up their charging hardware, and upping the max power.
You see companies like Kempower in Europe taking the Tesla approach of separating the chargers from the stalls and I think it's the way to go.
AC input of 350, or 387, per cabinet. (There is also a 575kW DC input to share between cabinets.) Output is up to 250kW per port, and there are 4 ports.Something interesting about those nameplates: the AC input is 350 vs 387kVA but the DC output remains 250kW. I wonder if it's actually a labeling change rather than a hardware change.
Aha, that's why the word 'POST' is there. Makes sense.AC input of 350, or 387, per cabinet. (There is also a 575kW DC input to share between cabinets.) Output is up to 250kW per port, and there are 4 ports.