Supercharger Situation in 3-5 Years?

[Larry Chanin]

It is also worth noting that while the battery temperature is indeed controlled and cooled/heated as necessary - if you are concerned about decreasing range over the years, supercharging every day is likely to accelerate that effect. Slower, overnight charging is better for the battery, and - as far as I know - keeping the charge between 20 and 80 % when possible.

I wonder what would happen to the battery of a Model S if you exclusively charged it with superchargers. How would the range of that car be after 8 years, compared to a car which was mainly charged overnight at home or work? If Tesla Motors are sufficiently smart, they will be logging which car charges when (in superchargers), to gather more knowledge on this over the years. If warranty issues start coming in over the years, before the 8 years are up, they could look back at the cars charging data and see if extensive supercharging was the cause. Superchargers were never intended as a daily charging solution - I wonder if there is any small print somewhere about this, to void the warranty or at least use it when people complain after 7 years and 11 months that they no longer get the range they paid for initially. I could imagine Tesla Motors using individual supercharging usage historical data in certain cases to explain a car owner why he only has - say - 80% range after 8 years and 200K miles.

As I have stated I am not in favor of charging daily at a Supercharger, but this has more to do with personal convenience and charging etiquette rather than battery degradation. In my conversations with Tesla on this subject they point out that the Superchargers are designed to taper off the charging current as the battery reaches a full charge. It is not Supercharging that leads to battery degradation, but rather doing maximum range charges regardless of whether it is at home or via a Supercharger. I haven't studied this recently, but early on the charging taper for Superchargers decreased the charge rate down to the rate of an HPWC when at high states of charge. I suspect that hasn't changed much if at all as the new Superchargers have been rolled out. Therefore, I believe charging daily with a Supercharger, especially at low states of charge, have no more effect on battery degradation than charging with an HPWC.

Having said that I still think it is still poor charging etiquette to charge daily at a Supercharger.

Larry

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

An unknown is whether or not BMW, Nissan and others might join the Supercharging party. If they do, a much more rapid expansion of the network is very much on the cards.

Also, Tesla has mastered putting up "pop-up" Superchargers (recently installed at Hawthorne and now at Barstow, not counting Laguna Seca). That variety may be the norm in some areas thus allowing for rapid, need-based expansion if there's congestion and such. Was once told by a Tesla veteran that "if there's a lamppost nearby, we can put up an SC stall there" - it's apparently that simple in many ways.

 

[ZBB]

...and a 60 can eventually charge to 200 rated miles

Hey, don't be so hard on us 60 drivers... We just completed a 4,250 mile road trip that included 34 supercharger visits. We took the car up to 200 miles a few times (most charges stopped between 160 and 190RM). It takes just over an hour to go from 40-60 miles to 200 (1h 8m from 41RM on one charge and 1h 4m from 58RM on another). The last 10 miles takes ~16 minutes...

- - - Updated - - -

An unknown is whether or not BMW, Nissan and others might join the Supercharging party. If they do, a much more rapid expansion of the network is very much on the cards.

Also, Tesla has mastered putting up "pop-up" Superchargers (recently installed at Hawthorne and now at Barstow, not counting Laguna Seca). That variety may be the norm in some areas thus allowing for rapid, need-based expansion if there's congestion and such. Was once told by a Tesla veteran that "if there's a lamppost nearby, we can put up an SC stall there" - it's apparently that simple in many ways.

I'm wondering if we'll start to see more pop-up Superchargers on a near permanent basis. There's some in MD and CO also. 2 pop-up units (so 4 stalls) would take 6 parking spaces, and may be able to plug into an existing transformer.

 

[Cottonwood]

Also, Tesla has mastered putting up "pop-up" Superchargers (recently installed at Hawthorne and now at Barstow, not counting Laguna Seca). That variety may be the norm in some areas thus allowing for rapid, need-based expansion if there's congestion and such. Was once told by a Tesla veteran that "if there's a lamppost nearby, we can put up an SC stall there" - it's apparently that simple in many ways.

Well, almost that simple, but...

Tesla calls these Mobile Superchargers. The term Mobile is used like a Mobile Home. You can drive it up to the site, but it still takes a few days to get the utilities hooked up.

In the case of utilities, it's a little more than a light post, but within reason. To get 90 kW of power, you need 280 Amps of 208 Volt 3-Phase power or 120 Amps of 480 Volt, 3-Phase, to get 120 kW, you need 160 Amps of 480 Volt, 3-Phase power, and to get 135 kW, you need 180 Amps of 480 Volt, 3-Phase power. For regular breakers up all those current numbers by 25% to get the 80% continuous use requirement; Tesla uses fancy 100% continuous rated breakers in their Distribution Centers. These are not outrageous requirements in a commercial location, but relatively, it's like finding the power for a 100-Amp circuit breaker in a home; most have room, but many do not.

I have often thought that the clever addition to the Mobile Supercharger would be energy storage. This could be HUGE and Tesla has all the pieces. Just lowering the peak draw needed would open up many possible Mobile Supercharger locations. Asking for 280 Amp (really at 350 Amp breaker), 208 Volt, 3-Phase is a lot, but how about reducing this by about 2 and only asking for a 150-Amp breaker; that's a lot easier for the host site. That's almost 45 kW, and as long as Teslas don't show up too fast, you can keep filling the local storage at that 45 kW rate. As Teslas show up sporadically, you can use the stored energy to Supercharge them rapidly. Obviously, the average charge rate is limited to the 45 kW input in this example, but a few Teslas worth of batteries could go a long way in providing fast charging for random arrival rates. If the local storage runs dry, there is still the 45 kW input to use, and that's way better than nothing.

 

[Larry Chanin]

An unknown is whether or not BMW, Nissan and others might join the Supercharging party. If they do, a much more rapid expansion of the network is very much on the cards.

Yes, obviously Tesla's relaxation of its policy on patents is designed to encourage others to adopt Tesla's superior charging technology. However, I see little motivation until others start producing longer distance EVs. Since Elon wouldn't offer Supercharging to the 40 kWh Model Ss, I think that it is unlikely he will permit non-Tesla EVs with batteries much smaller than 60 kWh. However, when another manufacturer does develop a legitimate longer distance EV it makes a lot of sense to adopt Tesla's technology.

After Tesla starts producing hundreds of thousands of EV per year it will become the de facto DC fast charging standard. Others developing long distance EVs would be foolish not to partner with Tesla to gain access to the network. The price of admission will promote faster expansion of the network.

Also, Tesla has mastered putting up "pop-up" Superchargers (recently installed at Hawthorne and now at Barstow, not counting Laguna Seca). That variety may be the norm in some areas thus allowing for rapid, need-based expansion if there's congestion and such. Was once told by a Tesla veteran that "if there's a lamppost nearby, we can put up an SC stall there" - it's apparently that simple in many ways.

I think that we can be pretty sure that in the not too distant future most Tesla service centers will have these pallet mounted Superchargers to support their operations and an occasional visiting Tesla owner. I don't think that they will be connecting them to any lamposts. :biggrin:

Larry

 

[ThortsMD]

An unknown is whether or not BMW, Nissan and others might join the Supercharging party. If they do, a much more rapid expansion of the network is very much on the cards.

In talking with Josh from the Palo Alto HQ, he confirmed my impression: It will take a redesign of the other manufacture's battery (to accept DC directly...all but the Leaf convert AC to DC as part of charging up, and they will have to have different batteries that can handle rapid charging), charge port redesign, and share the cost of the SuperChargers. It's a bigger technical challenge than it appears on the surface. It will be a while before R&D catch up to the SuperChargers...

 

[Zarwin]

I've noticed that some superchargers are built with plans for expansion. This one is a 4 stall SC in Lumberton, NC. Looks like it is built to be expanded to 6 or 8 stalls in the future.

 

[iffatall]

Why do you think this? Certainly Tesla is overbuilding (capacity terms) the Supercharger network to meet a small geographical requirement currently. But why wouldn't they fill in supercharger stations in new routes or along current routes as people buy more cars?

I would assume this is what most of the $2000 for Supercharge access is going towards.


I imagine a world where (other than urban areas) superchargers are as common as fuel stations.

As much as I want to believe what you are saying, it seems like that is not the case. What I mean is - I do not see the number of new superchargers added being proportional to the number of cars sold.

For example, I would say it is safe to assume that the US sales in 2015 will be higher than that in 2014. The projection map (which I would assume is an optimistic estimate, as all Tesla projections) shows the planned SCs to be added in 2015 to be fewer than those added in 2014.

Of course, I do understand there are recurring expenses Tesla takes care of, that will rise as the number of SCs rise, but still I do not think that will offset the SC fund that much, given the rise in sales.

 

[ElSupreme]

As much as I want to believe what you are saying, it seems like that is not the case. What I mean is - I do not see the number of new superchargers added being proportional to the number of cars sold.

For example, I would say it is safe to assume that the US sales in 2015 will be higher than that in 2014. The projection map (which I would assume is an optimistic estimate, as all Tesla projections) shows the planned SCs to be added in 2015 to be fewer than those added in 2014.

Of course, I do understand there are recurring expenses Tesla takes care of, that will rise as the number of SCs rise, but still I do not think that will offset the SC fund that much, given the rise in sales.

There are already way more supercharger stations active than Tesla's first map of superchargers that went through 2015. They will add superchargers not on the map. And the rate will slow down but should be fairly constant once large major 'coverage' routes are completed.

They will probably use data from superchargers to place new ones places people want to go.

 

[RDoc]

I'm hoping that once the main travel routes have been completed they will start working on more out of the way places such as the National Parks, ski areas, etc.

 

[TexasEV]

I'm hoping that once the main travel routes have been completed they will start working on more out of the way places such as the National Parks, ski areas, etc.

National parks and ski areas should work on themselves with destination charging. Those are places the cars are parked for hours when they could be charging. No reason to have an orders of magnitude more expensive installation there when a few thousand dollars worth of HPWCs or high amp J1772s would do.

 

[DiversifiedOne]

I'm hoping that once the main travel routes have been completed they will start working on more out of the way places such as the National Parks, ski areas, etc.

Yes, I would hope once major (possibly minor) travel routes are covered, Tesla sets its sites on popular destinations, as some have already mentioned. However, as I alluded in the original post, as the number of Teslas grows, it will still be a priority to maintain adequate capacity on the existing network going forward, either by adding stalls to existing installations or new SCs.

 

[TonyWilliams]

An unknown is whether or not BMW, Nissan and others might join the Supercharging party. If they do, a much more rapid expansion of the network is very much on the cards.

In talking with Josh from the Palo Alto HQ, he confirmed my impression: It will take a redesign of the other manufacture's battery (to accept DC directly...all but the Leaf convert AC to DC as part of charging up, and they will have to have different batteries that can handle rapid charging), charge port redesign, and share the cost of the SuperChargers. It's a bigger technical challenge than it appears on the surface. It will be a while before R&D catch up to the SuperChargers...

I think there must be some confusion here. If the car takes DC fast charge, it can accept a Supercharger (provided the battery is within the 410 volt DC maximum of the Supercharger). All batteries... ALL BATTERIES... are DC.

This comes up a LOT of the forum, and even the factory tour included this inaccurate information. The car ALWAYS controls the charge rate, not the Supercharger. So, if a car is nearly full of electrons, the car communicates with the Supercharger to slow the charge rate.

If the Supercharger (or CHAdeMO) can and does slow for a current Tesla car, it can slow for a Nissan LEAF. The only battery redesign needed is a bigger battery to be able to reach between Superchargers.

Obviously, there needs to be a Supercharger port on the car and the respective manufacturers would have to pitch in for cash to support the system, or build and install their own Superchargers.

 

[JKerensky]

I'm concerned that not all the major routes are on the map. I 55 from Chicago to New Orleans isn't there other than plans for St Louis and Memphis and they aren't close to each other. And as was mentioned earlier, it's great that there would be a charger within 200 miles of anywhere, but I can't reasonably get from my house near St Louis to one of my plants in Cape Girardeau and back in the same day without that, and it isn't showing planned through 2015. In other words, yes I can easily get there but then I have to spend at least a few hours at an RV park before I can get home. And that park isn't really near any hotels, so now I'm camping or hiking as well.

Now, the other side of that is that they are showing a charger going up in near the lake in the Ozarks, so you can drive to the end of your battery to get there, then charge up and get back at the end of your vacation. And that location wasn't there very long ago. So hopefully, the same happens all along I-55 before the end of 2015 as well.

 

[RDoc]

National parks and ski areas should work on themselves with destination charging. Those are places the cars are parked for hours when they could be charging. No reason to have an orders of magnitude more expensive installation there when a few thousand dollars worth of HPWCs or high amp J1772s would do.

Well there is the problem that in a lot of National Parks there isn't enough electrical infrastructure to support widespread charging in most areas of the park. It doesn't do any good to have a charging point at the ranger station when the campground is 3 miles away. Most campgrounds I've stayed in have very limited power, generally only at the toilets, enough for a few lights. The trailheads generally don't have any power at all. Given the National Park funding issues I can't imagine someplace like Glacier adding hundreds of level 2 chargers, and it's even less likely that the smaller Provincial and BLM camping areas would.

I also question the whole distributed destination charging vs centralized Supercharging paradigm for many vacation regions with widely distributed guest accomodations. A single Supercharger location with 8 - 12 bays could easily take the place of thousands of individual hotel, cabin, inn, etc. chargers since cars needing a charge simply drive to it and charge for 30-45 minutes. Destination chargers would have to be at every location where a car could be parked overnight even though most of them would be empty almost every night. For day trips it doesn't really work well at all. If you're parked at a ski area for 6 hours on a 30 amp charger at 20F, that's not a lot of miles. Then there's the question of why would all those landlords go to the expense of putting in a charger when it would likely only be used a few times during it's lifetime.

IMHO, if BEV's are going to really penetrate the market in a significant way it's got to be reasonable to drive pretty much anywhere an ICE could reasonably go. I realize that there are hundreds of people that have no problem charging for a couple of days on an 120V circuit to drive 200 miles, but I doubt that the vast majority of people would find that an attractive requirement.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I think there must be some confusion here. If the car takes DC fast charge, it can accept a Supercharger (provided the battery is within the 410 volt DC maximum of the Supercharger). All batteries... ALL BATTERIES... are DC.

This comes up a LOT of the forum, and even the factory tour included this inaccurate information. The car ALWAYS controls the charge rate, not the Supercharger. So, if a car is nearly full of electrons, the car communicates with the Supercharger to slow the charge rate.

If the Supercharger (or CHAdeMO) can and does slow for a current Tesla car, it can slow for a Nissan LEAF. The only battery redesign needed is a bigger battery to be able to reach between Superchargers.

Obviously, there needs to be a Supercharger port on the car and the respective manufacturers would have to pitch in for cash to support the system, or build and install their own Superchargers.

It's the contention effect that matters, rather than the range, although charging speed and chance of needing to charge are linked to battery capacity. So I'd expect a minimum requirement for charging speed and range and a formula for contribution based on those.

 

[TexasEV]

I also question the whole distributed destination charging vs centralized Supercharging paradigm for many vacation regions with widely distributed guest accomodations. A single Supercharger location with 8 - 12 bays could easily take the place of thousands of individual hotel, cabin, inn, etc. chargers since cars needing a charge simply drive to it and charge for 30-45 minutes. Destination chargers would have to be at every location where a car could be parked overnight even though most of them would be empty almost every night. For day trips it doesn't really work well at all. If you're parked at a ski area for 6 hours on a 30 amp charger at 20F, that's not a lot of miles. Then there's the question of why would all those landlords go to the expense of putting in a charger when it would likely only be used a few times during it's lifetime.

IMHO, if BEV's are going to really penetrate the market in a significant way it's got to be reasonable to drive pretty much anywhere an ICE could reasonably go. I realize that there are hundreds of people that have no problem charging for a couple of days on an 120V circuit to drive 200 miles, but I doubt that the vast majority of people would find that an attractive requirement.

I don't expect all or even most hotel/resort/ski lodge/whatever to install charging stations, but the ones that do will attract the growing Tesla community. The extra business should make it worthwhile for them, especially as they are promoted on sites like this and the new destination charging listing on the Tesla site. But you're right they should't be 30A, they should be HPWCs or if they want to go with J1772 then use 40A minimum. B&Bs are installing 14-50 outlets and that's usually a minimal cost.

 

[jerry33]

I also question the whole distributed destination charging vs centralized Supercharging paradigm for many vacation regions with widely distributed guest accomodations. A single Supercharger location with 8 - 12 bays could easily take the place of thousands of individual hotel, cabin, inn, etc. chargers since cars needing a charge simply drive to it and charge for 30-45 minutes.

For EVs to become accepted by the majority of people, they need to be more convenient than ICE cars. This means a minimum of a 30 amp charger at destinations so that folks don't have to start off with a 30-45 minute wait. Superchargers alone won't cut it. When I stay at my favorite B&B, the car is full in the morning just like at home. If I had to drive 20 minutes to a Supercharger and then wait another 30-45 minutes for charging it wouldn't be acceptable. I can deal with RV parks until Superchargers are installed because they're part of the trip, but at the destination I want the same convenience that I have at home.

 

[trigga71]

I think the superchargers should be about 50 miles apart. Right now if you get to a supercharger and its totally down or ICED then your probably stuck. At 50 miles this helps for situations like that as well as degradation of the battery. And future Tesla vehicles such like Model 3 or trucks/SUVs that may have a large load

 

[invisik]

For EVs to become accepted by the majority of people, they need to be more convenient than ICE cars. This means a minimum of a 30 amp charger at destinations so that folks don't have to start off with a 30-45 minute wait. Superchargers alone won't cut it. When I stay at my favorite B&B, the car is full in the morning just like at home. If I had to drive 20 minutes to a Supercharger and then wait another 30-45 minutes for charging it wouldn't be acceptable. I can deal with RV parks until Superchargers are installed because they're part of the trip, but at the destination I want the same convenience that I have at home.

Simply +1000

The car is only ever really doing 2 things--travelling somewhere or parked. Gas cars can only be fueled while travelling (you have to drive to a gas station)--EV's have the advantage here. And if you're travelling 150-200 miles each way, you're big time ahead with a full battery in the morning--no stops at all. (in contrast, my S500 gets about 300 miles per tank, I'd be filling up twice)

I recently did a trip from Minneapolis to Nashville. I stayed overnight in Indianapolis at a hotel as close to the Indianapolis Tesla Store as possible, as they have multiple 24-hours HPWC's (in a mall parking ramp). I was travelling by myself (and I geek out on all this) so it wasn't a big deal, but I did have to bring the car from the hotel to the HPWC's and then walk back at night, and walk there and drive back in the morning. Fortunately it wasn't raining, 10ft snow, etc. The general public isn't going to want this hassle.

-m