Faster A/C charging?

[Big Earl]

???? Why???? I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that if someone wants faster charging and to save electricity there are easy ways to do it... and they would save ~$12k on their electric bill over 10 years. CTs to control a HPWC would add ~$50. You just need something measuring current and telling the HPWC to reduce the charge rate. Exactly what Gen 3 HPWCs do now except instead of another HPWC reporting current it's the CTs.

What exactly is your point? That 80A of charging is impractical for 'most' residential services? That's not true, and couldn't be less true if cost effective measures are taken. I've designed a lot of residential PV systems.... ~95% of the services I've seen could easily support 80A of EV charging and the remaining 5% could if they swapped out their tankless water heater or resistance heating. Granted all these services were 200A or more but the vast majority of new services are 200A.

I will say that around us, 20 kW of EV charging can be a bit of a stretch. In our neighborhood, despite houses having "200A service," one 50 kVA transformer serves seven houses. My in-laws in Michigan have two 200A panels - one for the house and another for the shop/barn - but the whole property is fed from a 25 kVA transformer. These are situations where homeowners might need to pay for an upgrade. My father in Washington had to pay extra for a 50 kVA transformer when he built his all-electric house because the standard option was only 25 kVA... some older houses in their community are even smaller than that.

I think this illustrates the importance of power companies planning for EV charging and proactively upgrading their infrastructure. Sadly, the back part of our neighborhood (not our street) just had the power lines buried and the power company did not increase the transformer size when they installed the new transformers. Seems like a wasted opportunity to me, as well as significantly increased costs for anyone who wants to upgrade in the future.

 

[qdeathstar]

???? Why???? I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that if someone wants faster charging and to save electricity there are easy ways to do it... and they would save ~$12k on their electric bill over 10 years. CTs to control a HPWC would add ~$50. You just need something measuring current and telling the HPWC to reduce the charge rate. Exactly what Gen 3 HPWCs do now except instead of another HPWC reporting current it's the CTs.

What exactly is your point? That 80A of charging is impractical for 'most' residential services? That's not true, and couldn't be less true if cost effective measures are taken. I've designed a lot of residential PV systems.... ~95% of the services I've seen could easily support 80A of EV charging and the remaining 5% could if they swapped out their tankless water heater or resistance heating. Granted all these services were 200A or more but the vast majority of new services are 200A.

I didn’t say it was impossible, I said it was impractical. There’s a difference.

Where are you getting 50 dollars for the CTs from? Electricians ain’t doing it for free. Where would the CTs go? Are you suggesting Tesla add power monitoring to their chargers?

sounds impractical.

 

[nwdiver]

I didn’t say it was impossible, I said it was impractical. There’s a difference.

Where are you getting 50 dollars for the CTs from? Electricians ain’t doing it for free. Where would the CTs go? Are you suggesting Tesla add power monitoring to their chargers?

sounds impractical.

??? So adding $50 to an installation that likely already costs >$1k to ~double charge rate is 'impractical'???

Really?

And Tesla already has power monitoring on Gen 3 HPWCs....

 

[qdeathstar]

??? So adding $50 to an installation that likely already costs >$1k to ~double charge rate is 'impractical'???

View attachment 684855

Really?

And Tesla already has power monitoring on Gen 3 HPWCs....

You are making crap up. Explain to me where you came up with the 50 dollars. You haven’t addressee any thing I’ve said, just posting random images.

 

[nwdiver]

You are making crap up. Explain to me where you came up with the 50 dollars. You haven’t addressee any thing I’ve said, just posting random images.

$50... and this is retail. No doubt if Tesla wanted to add the function to a HPWC it would cost far less. Not complicated. Just make sure incoming current doesn't exceed for example 160A. Then you can charge your car with any surplus ampacity. No reason existing G3 HPWC can't do this now... they just need the data.

 

[qdeathstar]

$50... and this is retail. No doubt if Tesla wanted to add the function to a HPWC it would cost far less. Not complicated. Just make sure incoming current doesn't exceed for example 160A. Then you can charge your car with any surplus ampacity. No reason existing G3 HPWC can't do this now... they just need the data.

View attachment 684934

And what do you plug it into? And who plugs it in? How does it exit the panel?

 

[nwdiver]

And what do you plug it into? And who plugs it in? How does it exit the panel?

Some reason it can't talk to a HPWC the same way a HPWC currently talks to a HPWC?

If we're talking about bringing back 80A charging and supposedly residential ampacity is a YUGE issue (it's really not) no reason we can't just make it smart. In the rare edge case that there isn't enough peak capacity there's certainly going to be plenty of 'smart' capacity. If balancing up to 16 48A HPWC on a circuit that might only support 200A is 'practical' then why wouldn't balancing 80A of charging on a home circuit that only supports 160A be 'practical'?

AND.... anyone with a PW gateway would already have the CTs installed.

Y'all need to stop starting with a conclusion and working backward.... makes ya look silly.

 

[qdeathstar]

Some reason it can't talk to a HPWC the same way a HPWC currently talks to a HPWC?

If we're talking about bringing back 80A charging and supposedly residential ampacity is a YUGE issue (it's really not) no reason we can't just make it smart. In the rare edge case that there isn't enough peak capacity there's certainly going to be plenty of 'smart' capacity. If balancing up to 16 48A HPWC on a circuit that might only support 200A is 'practical' then why wouldn't balancing 80A of charging on a home circuit that only supports 160A be 'practical'?

AND.... anyone with a PW gateway would already have the CTs installed.

View attachment 684938

Y'all need to stop starting with a conclusion and working backward.... makes ya look silly.

your demanding Tesla redesign their charger, people replace their heating systems, and install a power management system.

That’s what’s ridiculous. That’s what’s impractical.

 

[nwdiver]

your demanding Tesla redesign their charger, people replace their heating systems, and install a power management system.

That’s what’s ridiculous. That’s what’s impractical.

Wouldn't a different charger be needed anyway? Kinda hard to charge at 80A with a 48A HPWC because.... numbers. And there's no 'redesign'. A G3 HPWC can already reduce the rate of charge based on a wifi signal.... just needs to do that. Just need a 80A version.

If you're using resistive heating you SHOULD replace that with a heat pump... even if you don't want to charge fast. And no 'power management system' is needed... just information on incoming current. Information that is already readily available to anyone with a power wall.

You're attempting to portray delivering fairly easily obtainable information (in many cases already available) to a HPWC so it can do what it's already capable of doing... regulating the rate of charge as 'impractical'... that's what's ridiculous.

 

[qdeathstar]

Wouldn't a different charger be needed anyway? Kinda hard to charge at 80A with a 48A HPWC because.... numbers. And there's no 'redesign'. A G3 HPWC can already reduce the rate of charge based on a wifi signal.... just needs to do that. Just need a 80A version.

If you're using resistive heating you SHOULD replace that with a heat pump... even if you don't want to charge fast. And no 'power management system' is needed... just information on incoming current. Information that is already readily available to anyone with a power wall.

You're attempting to portray delivering fairly easily obtainable information (in many cases already available) to a HPWC so it can do what it's already capable of doing... regulating the rate of charge as 'impractical'... that's what's ridiculous.

Impractical, but also rediculous!

 

[nwdiver]

Impractical, but also rediculous!

Is this also 'impractical and ridiculous'?

 

[qdeathstar]

Is this also 'impractical and ridiculous'?

View attachment 684962

Now your just bring ridiculous and pointless.

 

[nwdiver]

Now your just bring ridiculous and pointless.

No... simple question. Is power sharing between HPWC 'impractical and ridiculous'?

 

[qdeathstar]

No... simple question. Is power sharing between HPWC 'impractical and ridiculous'?

Can I ask you a simple question, do oranges and apples make babies?

 

[Earl]

I've lived, with an EV, in 3 different houses that had 70 amp charging stations. It did involve upgrading the service entrance to 2 of them but that was still under $3K each. Luckily, there was adequate transformer capacity on the streets.
As far as 70 amp charging: It isn't the total range of the car that matters, its the charging speed in mph that matters. A CT won't be getting 250 Wh/mi like a Model 3, especially if it is loaded and you drive around much. Therefore, in order to charge as fast, you may want faster charging for your daily use.
Just as I find that charging a Model 3 at 15 amps is fine most of the time. Sometimes it is more convenient to charge at 30 amps if I'm driving a lot and, on very rare occasions (maybe twice in 3.5 years, 105K miles), I'll plug into our 70amp EVSE to get 40 amps. For the CT, that will translate to 30 amp charging being fine most of the time but 60+ will be more convenient.
It won't surprise me at all if Tesla brings back 70-80 amp charging with the CT, at least as an option. It won't surprise me if they don't either.
Folks with houses that don't support it will still be charging at lower rates, just as they do today. Those who wish to invest in a little luxury (and I don't mean the interior furniture or audio entertainment), will probably pay for more power supply or less unnecessary consumption (Heat Pumps) in order to get more convenience.

 

[Darmie]

A 200 kWh Cybertruck (my guess for the tri motor) would take 17.5 hours to fully charge at 48 amps, 240 volts. Increase it to 72 amps and the charge time is reduced to just under 12 hours. Charging at 32 amps on a gen 2 mobile connector is in excess of 24 hours.

That's a long time to charge at 32 amps. Here's hoping Tesla will use some magic somewhere and this won't be the case.

 

[roblab]

I will say that around us, 20 kW of EV charging can be a bit of a stretch. In our neighborhood, despite houses having "200A service," one 50 kVA transformer serves seven houses. My in-laws in Michigan have two 200A panels - one for the house and another for the shop/barn - but the whole property is fed from a 25 kVA transformer. These are situations where homeowners might need to pay for an upgrade. My father in Washington had to pay extra for a 50 kVA transformer when he built his all-electric house because the standard option was only 25 kVA... some older houses in their community are even smaller than that.

I think this illustrates the importance of power companies planning for EV charging and proactively upgrading their infrastructure. Sadly, the back part of our neighborhood (not our street) just had the power lines buried and the power company did not increase the transformer size when they installed the new transformers. Seems like a wasted opportunity to me, as well as significantly increased costs for anyone who wants to upgrade in the future.

Everywhere I've seen where power lines are buried, the transformers are put inside an underground box where they are easily available. I can't imagine that any power company would just bury the transformer. One placed in a box can easily be worked on or upgraded.

 

[Earl]

That's a long time to charge at 32 amps. Here's hoping Tesla will use some magic somewhere and this won't be the case.

Its just basic physics. It will take more power to charge faster. Hoping won't help. There's no way around it.
Fortunately, on 32 amps, you'll still get about 100 miles of range after 8 hours of charging -- enough for most people's daily commute and driving the next day if you arrive home empty from a trip.
Remember max range for the CT is over 500 miles.

 

[Big Earl]

Yep. Personally, I'd like to see 72 amp on-board charging and a Gen 3+ Wall Connector spec'd at 72 amps (90 amp circuit). I don't buy the "that ship has sailed" argument with regard to the current Wall Connector and 48 amp on-board charging. Nothing is stopping Tesla from releasing a new, larger Wall Connector for the Cybertruck along with more powerful on-board charging.

 

[Big Earl]

Everywhere I've seen where power lines are buried, the transformers are put inside an underground box where they are easily available. I can't imagine that any power company would just bury the transformer. One placed in a box can easily be worked on or upgraded.

The upgrades to our neighbors' power involved buried underground cable with ugly green transformer boxes in every sixth (or so) front yard. The transformer boxes are ground mounted rather than buried in vaults.

The big question is whether they oversized the underground lines in preparation for future transformer upgrades (unlikely). Replacing the transformers is the easy part. Running new underground lines is the tricky part - and more labor intensive (i.e., expensive) than replacing overhead lines.