Are the urban superchargers less efficient than regular ones?

[AMPd]

For larger sites 20+ stalls, wouldn’t the regular load sharing superchargers be more efficient in serving more cars?

The odds of 10 empty vehicles showing up at once and using up most of the available capacity are low. So you can have cars coming in and charging at a higher rate and leaving sooner.

Rather than having a bunch of empty stalls with 70+kw of energy not being utilized

 

[Derek Kessler]

It's not like the stalls are drawing 100% power at all times. The power draw of an inactive Supercharger is incredibly low: some Leads and regularly communicating its status back to HQ.

The point of urban Superchargers is that they're cheaper to manufacture, easier to install, and installed someplace you expect people to spend at least a bit of time whilst charging.

 

[ewoodrick]

While what you mention can indeed make sense, I believe the answer to be no. The sites are built to handle the max number of users charging all at once.
Head down to one of the Bay Area or LA area superchargers that cars waiting in line and I think that you will understand.
This also ties into the idle charges that Tesla now charges at Superchargers, if you aren't drawing current, get out of the space.

I was visiting a 12 spot urban charger today, it indeed only had 3 cars charging, but they are built to handle the number of cars a few years into the future. They are expensive to expand and they already are expending some. Cheaper to build with excess to begin with.

The load of larger Superchargers is significant on the power grid and I suspect that in some installations, the power company has to upgrade some facilities. These aren't cheap to do and they won't do it if you only want to add 4 more chargers. Therefore it is most more efficient to build bigger than needed.

 

[ljbad4life]

The Urban chargers are for places that are heavily congested. A congested supercharger will put out exactly what an urban charger will if both the a and b stalls are occupied. The difference is that it's split evenly at the urban charger. Superchargers will give full power to the first car to plug in and basically trickle charge the second until the first car charging tapers off. Urban chargers are split right at ~72kw, basically no matter what. If the B is not occupied Supercharging is always fastest. If I have the choice between a packed supercharger or an urban charger, I'll gladly take the urban charger: A steady charge is easier to project the end of than a wildly varying charge.

 

[gaswalla]

The 20 spots in San Clemete have all been filled and the new location in Carlsbad will probably have same experience. Definitely, more than half are filled majority of the time during the day - the urban chargers ensure you'll at least get 72kw. Personally like knowing that I don't have to have a strategy in choosing a stall

 

[AMPd]

It's not like the stalls are drawing 100% power at all times. The power draw of an inactive Supercharger is incredibly low: some Leads and regularly communicating its status back to HQ.

The point of urban Superchargers is that they're cheaper to manufacture, easier to install, and installed someplace you expect people to spend at least a bit of time whilst charging.

I think you misunderstood what this thread is about.

 

[cpa]

Personally like knowing that I don't have to have a strategy in choosing a stall

Exactly. When I pull into a 12-stall Supercharger, and there are five vacancies that are all paired, which one do I select?

I suspect that urban-style Superchargers will not be prevalent on the open highway. But for metropolitan areas where more locals are charging, these make a heckuva lot of sense. Arden Fair Mall is a type of destination for locals to charge while shopping or eating. And if a traveler passing through wants to get some juice, he/she is welcome as well.

And, if they are less expensive that the traditional ones, all the better for the cash flow in Palo Alto.

 

[SigNC]

I wonder how that will work for pay per use charging in states that pay by the minute as currently the tiers are under 60kW and over 60kW. Are you still going to pay 2x as much for 72kW as you would for 59kW or will urban SCs have a differing pay scale since all should provide 72kW?

 

[Rocky_H]

I wonder how that will work for pay per use charging in states that pay by the minute as currently the tiers are under 60kW and over 60kW. Are you still going to pay 2x as much for 72kW as you would for 59kW or will urban SCs have a differing pay scale since all should provide 72kW?

The power level continually changes as your car fills up and the power level goes down at any kind of Supercharger, so there's not going to be all that much difference. Even on a regular full power Supercharger, it still charges the higher tier rate as the power level comes down through 75kW, 72, 70, 68, 65, etc. They will use the same two-tiered billing system.

 

[SigNC]

yeah but my point is you are paying for the 2x tier when you are really barely ever getting into it. I know the price difference is minimal but still paying 2x for 115kW is decently less than paying 2x for 72kW. Probably just splitting hairs though.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Tesla can also get more stations in the same amount of space by using the Urban design.

Would much rather pull into an Urban station with empty slots than need to wait in line for a popular Supercharger with a slightly faster charging.

 

[ljbad4life]

yeah but my point is you are paying for the 2x tier when you are really barely ever getting into it. I know the price difference is minimal but still paying 2x for 115kW is decently less than paying 2x for 72kW. Probably just splitting hairs though.

I have a feeling that once enough Urban chargers come online, Tesla will end up addressing the price disparity. I think they will end up separating or distinguishing the urban chargers on the map. Perhaps with a different color for the icon.