-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
And Rivian falls (to adopt NACS from 2024)
- Thread starter moa999
- Start date
I'm sure opening up superchargers will all work out and more and more stalls will be made available. I know the Navigation now is capable of re routing you to a less crowded location. My concern is that the stall count is accurate enough to account for a non tesla vehicle charging in the incorrect lane. I can see where a non tesla pulled in, with charge port is on front left side. When they go to the right of a stall, that will not allow a tesla vehicle to use that spot for normal charging, and also the other spot to the left due to their charger being used by the non tesla.
Exelion
Member
The best short-term solution is an adapter with an attached cable so that doesn't happen. Yeah, its not going to be a very elegant looking cable, it might be chunky, and probably even heavy, but it's better than the alternative you stated. The long term solution is obviously NACS charging ports either on the left side rear, or right side front of the car (or both!)
Right side front doesn't work for the pull through trailer friendly stalls Tesla has put in...
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
srs5694
Active Member
Another long-term solution is for Tesla to increase their cable lengths. This idea seems to be part of what's behind the V4 Supercharger. Here's a video of somebody in Europe charging a Kia EV6 on the (AFAIK, only) Supercharger with this physical design (taller pedestal, longer cable, new pedestal placement):
srs5694
Active Member
While having more companies jump over to NACS seems great, I see some serious problems:
1. Tesla has more total ports, but fewer locations than CCS. In rural Nevada, that already manifests itself on several highways, where only CCS chargers are available (or slow level 2 chargers). TESLA WOULD ROUTE SOMEONE 340 miles out of way to get charged on an interstate.
2. Many western states have provided incentives for more charging, but only if they had CCS ports.
3. The Inflation Reduction act provides incentives for charging infrastructure, but only if CCS ports are provided.
4. There will be less use of CCS charging with so many EVs switching to NACS.
5. With more cars using NACS, wait times may go up dramatically.
For 2 and 3, clearly the answer is to change the rules. But government moves slowly And these bills have already been passed. Market forces will eventually catch up, but the market will go after cities and interstates, not rural areas.
The competing standards remind me of VHS vs Beta. Chademo has already fallen; I suspect CCS (in North America) will too! But the transition will be painful for those of us in the rural west.
1. Tesla has more total ports, but fewer locations than CCS. In rural Nevada, that already manifests itself on several highways, where only CCS chargers are available (or slow level 2 chargers). TESLA WOULD ROUTE SOMEONE 340 miles out of way to get charged on an interstate.
2. Many western states have provided incentives for more charging, but only if they had CCS ports.
3. The Inflation Reduction act provides incentives for charging infrastructure, but only if CCS ports are provided.
4. There will be less use of CCS charging with so many EVs switching to NACS.
5. With more cars using NACS, wait times may go up dramatically.
For 2 and 3, clearly the answer is to change the rules. But government moves slowly And these bills have already been passed. Market forces will eventually catch up, but the market will go after cities and interstates, not rural areas.
The competing standards remind me of VHS vs Beta. Chademo has already fallen; I suspect CCS (in North America) will too! But the transition will be painful for those of us in the rural west.
looking at the supercharger map... Tesla could cover all those charging deserts with strategically adding maybe 15 new supercharger locations... hardly impossible but their priority right now appears to add the 13th metropolitan charging locations than finally adding something like Marathon /Texas or Roswell / New Mexico...
Wouldn’t be that hard, except that the power grid in some of those areas might not have enough capacity for 150-250 kw chargers. On highway 50, the few CCS chargers are 50kw, pretty pathetic.
yeah. Tesla should consider doing 72kw urban chargers in those locations with a powerbank as buffering. I don't need 24x V3s in a place like Marathon/ Texas or Roswell / NM.... 4 would suffice... so I can make it to Ruidoso or Big Bend NP ...
srs5694
Active Member
Tesla's routing already does that, but this is irrelevant. Although some details remain unclear, the announcements to date have been pretty clear that Tesla's network is being added to (not replacing) the existing network of CCS chargers used by the navigation in Ford, GM, and Rivian vehicles. Thus, the sparsity of Superchargers compared to CCS stations in some areas shouldn't be a problem, with the caveat that we don't know what sort of options the navigation software will provide, particularly after third parties start producing native NACS vehicles. If drivers can select an option (as they can in PlugShare or ABRP) to limit the navigation to use only Tesla Superchargers, then those drivers might be routed inefficiently. Of course, I'd expect them to reconsider their settings once they see an inefficient route, but I'm sure some people would fail to do so. Still, overall I doubt if this will be a major problem.
Note that these regulations specify that CCS must be present, but they do not say that NACS is excluded. (At least, on the Federal level; I can't say I'm familiar with what every state is doing.) Given that several big networks, including both ChargePoint and EVgo, have said that they'll be adding NACS plugs, I think it's likely that we'll see a lot of dual-port (CCS+NACS) stations appearing starting next year.
Also, both Texas and Washington State have said they'll be mandating NACS, in addition to CCS, for all charge stations built with NEVI funding in their states. It's likely that more states will follow suit, but it's still early days, so I can't be sure of that.
True.
I disagree. For one thing, with both the number of vehicles on the road and the number of chargers in the ground increasing, it's unlikely that the ratio of NACS cars to NACS chargers will go up simply because a higher percentage of NACS cars will be made. Among other things, Tesla could go on a burst of Supercharger deployments, improving the plug-to-car ratio over the next year, two years, or five years. What's more, with third parties certain to be installing NACS plugs, they must be considered, too.
More importantly, if the end state will be that all new EVs have NACS ports in a few years, and all new DC fast chargers have NACS plugs, then statistically speaking, that end state will be superior to an end state in which we have segregated systems (separate CCS and NACS infrastructures), assuming an otherwise equal number of vehicles and chargers. This follows from the law of large numbers. In this context, one larger meta-network (of all NACS chargers) is better able to absorb the random variability in demand that will occur locally (and across the entire continent, for instance around Thanksgiving) than would two smaller networks (of CCS and NACS). Consider, for instance, a town along a highway with an 8-stall Supercharger and a 4-stall EA station, both co-located in one parking lot. The total DC fast charging capacity in that town is 12 cars; but if ten Teslas and two CCS vehicles arrive, two of the Teslas will have to wait in the segregated world. If, OTOH, all the cars have NACS ports and all the stalls support NACS, then those last two Teslas can go charge at the EA station. This is obviously an idealized thought experiment -- it assumes that nobody has adapters, that all the stalls are operating, that the two charging stations are close enough that drivers can quickly move from one to the other, etc. The scenario can be made more complex with such extra variables in play, and the standardized network will come out equal to or better than the segregated network every time.
The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program was authorized by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), aka the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). It's important, though, to understand that NEVI and BIL/IIJA aren't the same thing. In particular, the language of the BIL/IIJA does not explicitly mention CCS. It's the regulations in the Department of Transportation's (DOT's) interpretation of the BIL/IIJA that explicitly mention CCS. This is typical of Federal programs -- the law, complex as it may be, leaves a lot of implementation details to the relevant executive-branch agencies.
This is important because changing the CCS requirement will not require going back to Congress; it can be done by bureaucratic processes at the DOT. These processes won't occur quickly or automatically, but they'll likely be easier to implement than getting Congress to change the law.
That is, if it matters at all. IMHO, it doesn't. Ford, GM, and Rivian have all announced the start of production of NACS-equipped cars in (presumably calendar year) 2025. Rivian has explicitly said that they'll switch both the R1T and R1S to NACS at that time, and that their R2-series vehicles will begin life with NACS. Ford and GM have been less explicit about the fate of their current models, and even those that are coming to market in the next year or so. It could well be that the Ford Mustang Mach-E, Cadillac Lyriq, and others will continue using CCS for another couple of years, until they are redesigned. This would be consistent with how legacy automakers work, and there's precedent: Currently, Nissan is selling both the CHAdeMO-based Leaf and the CCS-based Ariya, despite the fact that CHAdeMO is universally understood to be a failed standard in North America. There's also the question of what happens with other automakers. Although I think it's unlikely, it's possible that no more automakers will convert to NACS; and even if more do announce, it's entirely possible that there will be one or more holdouts for years to come. The point being that there are likely to be new CCS cars being sold until 2028 or later -- and funding for NEVI will last for only five years, so it'll be winding down around then. Thus, a requirement to provide a CCS plug is not entirely unreasonable over that time period, so long as NACS plugs are also permitted -- which they are. State mandates, as well as market forces, can ensure that most stations deployed with NEVI funds, particularly starting in a year or two, have both CCS and NACS plugs. We'd probably see more-or-less the same thing even if the CCS mandate were removed.
The transition will be painful, but IMHO the pain will come more in the form of consumer confusion and frustration over things like V2 Superchargers not working with non-Tesla vehicles; non-Tesla NACS chargers not working with older (non-CCS-enabled) Teslas; vehicles from holdout manufacturers (if there are any) not working with Superchargers, even with an adapter; and higher prices because providers will have to include two cable types on most stalls. IMHO, the concerns you've raised are based on mistaken assumptions; I don't think the problems you foresee will materialize, or if they do, they'll be very minor at worst.
There are companies, like Freewire, that already produce DC fast chargers with integrated batteries. These chargers connect to the grid using ordinary 208-240v AC power lines to charge their batteries, and then deliver higher-power DC outputs for fast charging. Once an EV finishes, the charger can recharge its battery over however many minutes or hours it takes. This has advantages for avoiding peak pricing, balancing grid demand, and enabling the installation of chargers in areas that are far from high-capacity power lines. Freewire, FWIW, has already announced that they plan to offer NACS plugs. How important such solutions will be in the long term remains to be seen, but they are at least a possible solution to grid-tie problems for use in some rural (and also urban) areas.
Why would they put 4 72kW urban chargers in? That requires ~288kW of supply. Why not just one pre-built V3 Supercharger module? Requires ~360kW of supply at full power, but could be limited to the same total power output, but if there is only one vehicle they can get 250kW instead of just 72kW.
I think what they need for some of these remote locations is a pre-built V3 module with an included Powerpack. (There are some charging hardware companies that build systems like that, you can just drop them anywhere and hook them to just about any lower power grid connection.)
Last edited:
I know! I've seen that these exist, and they are what would very usefully solve these issues. The problem is no one is installing them.
RayK
Active Member
It took a few weeks but....
Nissan to adopt Tesla's EV charging standard from 2025
Japanese automaker's decision could sway compatriot carmakers
asia.nikkei.com
Similar threads
- Poll
- Article
