What @Earl is saying makes sense, numbers don't lie. We'll need better options. I couldn't even think about using 110V charging for the cyber truck.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Faster A/C charging?
- Thread starter Terryaki
- Start date
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
You're saying that power sharing between house loads and a HPWC is 'impractical and ridiculous'; Is all power sharing 'impractical and ridiculous'? This is power sharing vs power sharing not oranges and apples
You're saying that power sharing between house loads and a HPWC is 'impractical and ridiculous'; Is all power sharing 'impractical and ridiculous'? This is power sharing vs power sharing not oranges and apples
No, I said it adds significant costs which makes in impractical due to limited benefit.
Now youre just being impractical and tedious .
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Is power sharing between multiple HPWC 'impractical and ridiculous'?
Well, sort of. But also no? And even irrelevant since power sharing won’t give you 80a charging. Which makes it impractical.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Why wouldn't it? If 160A total is available and home loads average < 40A even for a high consumption home why can't you take 80A when it's available by power sharing with home loads?
For anyone with Tesla solar this wouldn't even require any additional equipment. Not that adding monitoring would be cost prohibitive. AND... you'd even have 160A PLUS whatever the solar is producing since 160A is the limit from the grid not the total limit.
Because if you are installing multiple chargers you are expecting more then one car to be charging otherwise installing multiple networked charges for one Tesla would be impractical.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Why would power sharing with home loads be any different than power sharing with another HPWC?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
??? How? If 160A is available and 120A is being consumed by home loads the HPWC can deliver 40A. If 120A is being consumed by other HPWC the HPWC can deliver 40A. How is that different?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
You need to read you some NEC hard like. That's the whole purpose of the 120% rule. If you have a 200A panel you can get 160A incoming from the grid PLUS 32A from solar for 192A total.
So if it's noon on a sunny day you'll have another 32A available to power share to get to 80A of charging power
Nope. What is the rating of the bus bar in a 200 amp panel?You need to read you some NEC hard like. That's the whole purpose of the 120% rule. If you have a 200A panel you can get 160A incoming from the grid PLUS 32A from solar for 192A total.
So if it's noon on a sunny day you'll have another 32A available to power share to get to 80A of charging power
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
You need to read you some NEC hard like.... That's why it's required that the solar breaker is the 'most remote'. No part of the bus bar will exceed 160A continuous even if you have 192A flowing total. 160A from the top and 32A from the bottom.
“Where two sources, one a primary power source and the other another power source, are located at opposite ends of a busbar that contains loads, the sum of 125 percent of the power source(s) output circuit current and the rating of the overcurrent device protecting the busbar shall not exceed 120 percent of the ampacity of the busbar”
There have been 40 posts back and forth about whether or not 80 amps of EV charging is practical for modern residential installations. Can you guys please take this to private message or agree to disagree?
Yes, that is saying you cannot, no matter what, exceed 120 percent of the bus rating for over current protection. It doesn’t say you can use 120 percent of the bus bar rating.
Similar threads
