Future Charging for Model S 1-phase or 3-phase ?

[EVNow]

Discussions among Leaf owners have shown that they are much more interested in DC fast charging than in additional Level 2 stations. So while my argument above is targeted at Tesla's situation (and its upcoming mass-market Bluestar in 2015/2016), similar arguments apply to EVs such as the Leaf.

Let me put the Leaf situation in context.

Leaf has only a 3.3kW charger - so while L2 charging is much better than L1 - for "long" trips to be feasible we need a QC network. Afterall we were promised one and most of us bought the QC option. There is even a $200M govt grant to build the network. But, for various reasons the QC network is still to get off the ground.

A 20kW or so AC charging, if Leaf were to be able to take advantage of it, would be great too. Ofcourse, we prefer 50kW of QC, which is already present in Leaf.

 

[Norbert]

You are twisting words to support your American-centric opinion on this.

The Renault cars have decided to use three phase only (instead of off-board DC facility). For whatever reason they have decided to start with 3kW single phase chargers on the first two models followed by 44kW later next year on the ZOE. 44kW is adequate for highway use, but Renault think their market for the Kangoo van is urban deliveries and the Fluence is designed for Better Place (and time will tell if other markets take to it), so their argument is that these two vehicles do not need high power chargers.

This doesn't have anything to do with the discussion which took place. Widodh was writing about using 3x32A (=22kW) instead of DC charging, and presenting that as a good thing. I wasn't discussing Renault's (future) plans or anything having to do with 44 kW or the ZOE, or Better Place.

No twisting.

I do think that 90 kW charging is *much* more useful than 50kW for highway travel, but that's not what was discussed there.

However, no-one is saying that this is the answer for highway charging for long distance use.

Not in that form, but it's been repeatedly said and suggested that with 3-phase you don't need higher-speed fast-charging. You are getting a bit close to saying that yourself, above, by saying "44kW is adequate for highway use" without further qualification around that sentence (but then you add the "for long distance use" thing later on, so that's already different) . Most Leaf owners say that 50 kW does allow them to make longer trips, and they appreciate it very much, but it's more a compromise to allow for the possibility, more that than an good solution. You can't conveniently go too far that way, unless you have lots of time.

Most European manufacturers have signed up to the 100 kW DC IEC combo connector for that. But they are also supporting 22kW three phase AC for medium power charging opportunities, as that is so cheap to deploy in offices or car parks or hotels. That is all we are asking Tesla for.

We've had many messages of support from your fellow countrymen both on here and for Wido's letter. I'm not sure why whenever this topic comes up you argue so vehemently with the proponents, even though it doesn't affect you.

There are lots of 3-phase statements and even whole threads about 3-phase that don't receive any response from me. The statements that do are those that push Level 2 charging at the expense of DC fast charging. The discussion Level 2 vs DC fast charging is a global discussion. There is a number of people also in the US who think fast charging isn't important, and think that it's all about having Level 2 chargers at any place you could possibly spend more than 15 minutes. I've been discussing their statements as well, if not even more so. Actually, even more so. There is certainly a market and usefulness for EVs which have nothing else than a 6.6 kW charger, but this I don't see as advancing the EV future even nearly as much as EVs with 90 kW charging.

Then you should take a chill pill and actually read what is being said.

I did (well not a pill). The message I wrote was specifically and explicitly regarding his use of the word "instead". Here is another quote from Widodh:

Let me shed some light on my situation, as a European. I drive a lot, long distances through different countries. I'm convinced it is possible with a Model S without DC charging (although I really like 50/90kW charging!). When I'm driving around I usually have various stops of multiple hours.

DC charging won't be needed, but higher power L2 will.

The parts that I am disagreeing with is "DC charging won't be needed". And "Both cars will not support DC charging, but instead they will use 'medium' power AC charging" followed by "this is a move I like".

I don't want to mention similar statements from others at this point. The discussion about the importance of different charging speeds is a global discussion, we have the options of 3.3 kW charging, close to 20 kW (not far from 22 kW), and 50 kW (not far from 44 kW) here in the US as well, and the traffic situation in the more populated parts of CA isn't that different from Europe, which I know from experience since I lived and travelled in Europe, and also visit Europe.

In fact I travelled more than 700 km in Europe, by car, just a few months ago. I would have liked that to be with an electric car.

 

[Norbert]

A 20kW or so AC charging, if Leaf were to be able to take advantage of it, would be great too. Ofcourse, we prefer 50kW of QC, which is already present in Leaf.

Exactly. That's all. :smile:

Maybe some don't understand that they are actually saying something else than that.

 

[dpeilow]

The parts that I am disagreeing with is "DC charging won't be needed". And "Both cars will not support DC charging, but instead they will use 'medium' power AC charging" followed by "this is a move I like".

Which is totally selective quoting. Wido said he likes Renault including higher power chargers than the puny 3kW they have today.

We are all saying that we want at least 22kW three phase charging in conjunction with the ~100kW DC.

You are saying you want 20kW 240V in conjunction with the DC charging option.


We seem to be in agreement. Including Wido so please stop quoting him out of context.

 

[Norbert]

I agree on that!

Good, it seems to me that you may have changed your position a bit, or the way you express it.

I personally never said I do NOT want DC charging, it is the other way around, I see a big potential for fast (DC) charging, but it does NOT mutually exclude medium (~20kW) power AC charging.

Neither did I say that I do NOT want 3-phase. And I don't think that you don't want fast charging. However you did say that DC fast charging isn't needed, and presented using 22 kW 3-phase *instead* of DC fast charging as a good thing. (See my message to dpeilow above). That's conveying a sense of non-importance which I disagree with. I think 22 kW (or even 44 kW) 3-phase is far less important than 90 kW charging, even though in specific cases that may be different (perhaps yours, people who travel frequently to meetings which require more than 160-300 mile round trip but not much more).

 

[Norbert]

Which is totally selective quoting. Wido said he likes Renault including higher power chargers than the puny 3kW they have today.

In my original message I quoted his whole message. This later shorter quote was done for emphasis. Whatever he may have really meant, the last "move" he mentioned before saying that he likes it, was to mention that it uses 22 KW 3-phase "instead" of DC. You are implying that he meant "at least", but he didn't write that. I consider 50 kW (or maybe 44 kW) the minimum a car should support at least as an option. Anything else may be less painful, but not like-able. Of course for some people even 110 V charging is fine, and I don't mind if there are cars for these people, but I don't see that as a good thing on the larger scale of things.

We are all saying that we want at least 22kW three phase charging in conjunction with the ~100kW DC.

You are saying you want 20kW 240V in conjunction with the DC charging option.

There is a difference between what we want (everything) and what we consider most important.

I personally do not want 20 kW 240V, I'm not going to order the second 10 KW charger option. 10 kW is enough for me personally. I also don't think the 20 kW option is very important in general, even if for a few people.

We seem to be in agreement. Including Wido so please stop quoting him out of context.

There is something we agree on, but also something we disagree on. Cars with 22 kW charging max, and no option for more, are not a move that I welcome, not even as being better than 3 kW. Especially since Renault has the same CEO as Nissan. Even if there may be a good number of people who find that enough for their personal situation, and who will buy the car. Although in a sense I'm happy about any additional electric car that makes it into the market and survives. I just don't see that as something that brings us forward enough.

 

[Norbert]

Wrong. Utilities love to sell electricity. They also love customers who want a steady stream of it, instead of a huge amount all at once from time to time. That's because all of the utility's production equipment has to be dimensioned to handle the maximum load, and if maximum load is much higher than the base load then utilization of their expensive gear will be poor.

Utilization is directly linked to return on investment, and communication between charge point and transformer is a simple and effective way to increase utilization without limiting maximum power per charge point.

This is a financial argument, not a technical difficulty. In the US this is addressed with so-called "demand charges" which depend on the max power supported, even if not used all the time. Although they seem bit high to me.

 

[widodh]

Good, it seems to me that you may have changed your position a bit, or the way you express it.

I think it is the last

Could be that because English is not my native language some things don't come through the way I want them to.

What I wanted to say is that a lot of journeys I take could be done without DC charging, one those journeys just 22kW AC charging would be sufficient. I personally don't think that I'll be using the fast charging that much, since 11kW or 22kW charging would be sufficient for 90% of the driving I do. I however do not want a car that can NOT use the 50 ~ 100kW charging, since it will prove itself useful during various trips.

I went to Paris (well, a bit south of..) last weekend, a trip of 400km from my house. I stayed there in a hotel and on the parking lot of the hotel I saw multiple 3-phase 32A outlets. I could have charged my Model S there over night. The next day I played a tournament and drove back home again. 800km round-trip in less then 24 hours which COULD be done without DC fast charging.

I just want the 20kW AC charging the "US" version of the Model S is getting, but with 3-phase support instead of 1-phase

About Renault, I was just happy to see a EV with 22kW AC charging from 3-phases, that's all.

 

[Norbert]

This is a financial argument, not a technical difficulty. In the US this is addressed with so-called "demand charges" which depend on the max power supported, even if not used all the time. Although they seem bit high to me.

I think my point here needs to be made more clearly: based on my somewhat limited information (seemed to be difficult to obtain), my current understanding is that the peak demand of a fast charger is in the same order of magnitude as a fast food restaurant.

The fact that it doesn't use that power all the time (depending on much it is used, though), for (possibly) the same peak demand, shouldn't increase the total cost (for the utility), it lowers it, even if some part of the cost is caused by the peak demand.

 

[Norbert]

What I wanted to say is that a lot of journeys I take could be done without DC charging, one those journeys just 22kW AC charging would be sufficient. I personally don't think that I'll be using the fast charging that much, since 11kW or 22kW charging would be sufficient for 90% of the driving I do. I however do not want a car that can NOT use the 50 ~ 100kW charging, since it will prove itself useful during various trips.

With journeys, do you mean trips beyond the range of the battery?

And when you say 90% of your driving, is that 90% of all driving, or of journeys? The general assumption seems to be that people will be able to do more than 90% just with home charging, on average (without considering longer range batteries such as Tesla's).

 

[widodh]

With journeys, do you mean trips beyond the range of the battery?

And when you say 90% of your driving, is that 90% of all driving, or of journeys? The general assumption seems to be that people will be able to do more than 90% just with home charging, on average (without considering longer range batteries such as Tesla's).

Yes, I mean trips beyond the range of the battery. Most of the time there is enough idle-time for my car, so I could use that to charge.

With the 90% I mean all my driving could be done without DC charging, but you are probably right, it could be closer to 98%. I live in a 'remote' area in the Netherlands, so all my trips involve at least a 300km round-trip.

However, I do think that when DC charging (50 ~ 100kW) does become available I'll be using it to make even longer trips.

For the last year, when I go on a tournament in Europe (12 weekends a year) I always look for charging possibilities, just to prove to myself that all those trips are doable with a Model S.

 

[Norbert]

With the 90% I mean all my driving could be done without DC charging, but you are probably right, it could be closer to 98%. I live in a 'remote' area in the Netherlands, so all my trips involve at least a 300km round-trip.

Why not 100%? I mean, it just requires chargers at a distance shorter than the battery range.

 

[widodh]

Why not 100%? I mean, it just requires chargers at a distance shorter than the battery range.

Since I don't want to wait for my car to charge. If I want to drive to a destination about 500 ~ 600km from my home without a overnight charge I'll need fast DC-charging.

 

[eledille]

I think my point here needs to be made more clearly: based on my somewhat limited information (seemed to be difficult to obtain), my current understanding is that the peak demand of a fast charger is in the same order of magnitude as a fast food restaurant.

The fact that it doesn't use that power all the time (depending on much it is used, though), for (possibly) the same peak demand, shouldn't increase the total cost (for the utility), it lowers it, even if some part of the cost is caused by the peak demand.

You are correct that the cost would be the same, it's the income that would be lower, since it doesn't consume power more or less continuously like the fast-food restaurant does. Equal cost and less income is exactly the symptoms of low utilization.

There is no question at all that the high and variable demand from charge points is very undesirable from the utilities' point of view. This is discussed in several presentations posted in this forum earlier and in the interim report of the German infrastructure workgroup.

 

[Norbert]

You are correct that the cost would be the same, it's the income that would be lower, since it doesn't consume power more or less continuously like the fast-food restaurant does. Equal cost and less income is exactly the symptoms of low utilization.

No, the total cost should be lower, since only one part depends on peak demand, while the other part depends on actual consumption. The utilization should be higher as the fast-charger gets used by more cars, of course.

There is no question at all that the high and variable demand from charge points is very undesirable from the utilities' point of view. This is discussed in several presentations posted in this forum earlier and in the interim report of the German infrastructure workgroup.

First, I agree that eventually a smart-grid will be a good thing, as it should be a good thing anyway, for example also with things like air conditioning (here in the US a big problem for utilities).

But why undesirable? Can't they have a price structure that addresses this situation, and allows them to make lots of money? Perhaps less convenient for the utility than cars smoothly charging over many hours, but this is not for the utility to decide. Almost everyone (in the mainstream) says that next to battery cost and range, the ability to recharge quickly is the biggest factor for EV adoption.

Specifically in the beginning, there won't be that many fast chargers, perhaps a few (less than 10, if even that) for a mid-sized town. Compare that to a situation where you have lots of 22 kW chargers, "at each corner", and when there is an event, *all* of them will be used. Since for the 22 kW concept to work, they need to be in lots of places where their average utilization is far lower than that of fast-charger (which concentrates demand to a single point), you should easily have a situation where their peak demand is orders of magnitude above that of all fast-chargers being used at the same time.

The upside of electric cars is that they can charge overnight, and balance the total consumption over the 24-hour cycle. And that will be most of the charging, perhaps 95%.

A fast-food restaurant, and consumption in general, poses a similar kind of problem in that it doesn't use electricity over night (or not as much, or at least a regular restaurant doesn't). Electric cars can alleviate that by charging overnight.

There should already be a lot of industries that are using electricity in a fluctuating way (or just turn on and off for business hours). Just this little electric garage heater for $235 consumes 5 kW:

NewAir G73 Electric Garage Heater

Or just think of

- electric trains
- electric buses
- trams
- subways

All of these, and there are lots in each city, not only stop at each station, but then also stop for a while at the end of their route. And have an irregular demand when they get re-arranged in their storage or parking facilities.

- Airport utility vehicles that operate only when a flight arrives
- Elevators that operate only when there is guest
- Flood lighting for football stadiums. Ice skating stadiums. Concert halls.
- Air Conditioning for large buildings and meeting/exhibition centers
- peak demand from restaurants, microwaves, etc at lunch and dinner time in business districts

Someone make a list of all these things.

My main point is, utilities should see themselves as a service in this regard, and not try to mastermind the future of the electric car. They should offer solutions for what the customer wants, not problems or directions, and not act as if each little fast charger will blow up the city's circuits.

 

[Norbert]

Since I don't want to wait for my car to charge. If I want to drive to a destination about 500 ~ 600km from my home without a overnight charge I'll need fast DC-charging.

Ok, so non-DC public charging is *only* for the situations where you can charge at the place where you stay. But I'm not getting the picture yet.

My current understanding is that hotels are able to install overnight charging for the Roadster, at least in Germany, which should also be sufficient for the Model S, for overnight charging (I get that from the map, and related announcements, which were posted recently). And you mentioned that at least some of your journeys involve staying at hotels.

And it sounds almost as if 90% of your driving is journeys where you need some kind of public (or hotel) charging. Which would mean almost none around home, close to 0% with home charging only?

 

[widodh]

Ok, so non-DC public charging is *only* for the situations where you can charge at the place where you stay. But I'm not getting the picture yet.

My current understanding is that hotels are able to install overnight charging for the Roadster, at least in Germany, which should also be sufficient for the Model S, for overnight charging (I get that from the map, and related announcements, which were posted recently). And you mentioned that at least some of your journeys involve staying at hotels.

No, on a single-phase you won't get a overnight charger with the Model S, not even with the Roadster.

On most locations 16A is the limit per phase. 32A is possible, but the investment is much higher. The density of 3x16A outlets (11kW) is much higher then 3x32A (22kW), although the last ones can be found (like I did last weekend).

A 'overnight charge' for me is <10 hours. Neither 1x16A of 1x32A at 230V charges at 85kWh pack in less then 10 hours. So you'll need 3-phase power to do so.

And it sounds almost as if 90% of your driving is journeys where you need some kind of public (or hotel) charging. Which would mean almost none around home, close to 0% with home charging only?

Oh no, you mis understood me there.

With the 90% I mean whenever I go on a trip where charging is needed to do the round-trip AC charging (3-phase!) will be enough to make the round-trip. Ofcourse, DC could also do the job, but it isn't mandatory. On most places I'll be idle for a couple of hours, enough time for the AC to charge. I don't want to wait 45 minutes at a quickcharger when I don't have to.

Still, the density of 3-phase outlets will always be higher then the availability of DC chargers.

All I'm saying, I want 10/20kW AC charging in the Model S, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[EV_de]

All I'm saying, I want 10/20kW AC charging in the Model S, nothing more, nothing less.

+100

" Tertium non datur" ....

 

[Norbert]

No, on a single-phase you won't get a overnight charger with the Model S, not even with the Roadster.

On most locations 16A is the limit per phase. 32A is possible, but the investment is much higher. The density of 3x16A outlets (11kW) is much higher then 3x32A (22kW), although the last ones can be found (like I did last weekend).

A 'overnight charge' for me is <10 hours. Neither 1x16A of 1x32A at 230V charges at 85kWh pack in less then 10 hours. So you'll need 3-phase power to do so.

All I'm saying, I want 10/20kW AC charging in the Model S, nothing more, nothing less.

HPC chargers at hotels and otherwise available for travelling, in Germany and UK are 60A - 70A, see this thread:
Supercharger plans for Germany

Especially this page:
Supercharger plans for Germany

That's more than enough for <10 hours charging for even the 300 mile pack. Not sure though in how many places this will be available, though. The map shows a few for the german area, but surely more than those are possible. Maybe a rather common possibility for hotels?

With the 90% I mean whenever I go on a trip where charging is needed to do the round-trip AC charging (3-phase!) will be enough to make the round-trip. Ofcourse, DC could also do the job, but it isn't mandatory. On most places I'll be idle for a couple of hours, enough time for the AC to charge. I don't want to wait 45 minutes at a quickcharger when I don't have to.

Looking back at your previous messages, is this then mainly 12 times a year? (+ additional journeys, of course)

 

[dpeilow]

The UK grid is different and it is easier to install a high single phase load without paperwork. It is still a major PITA to find that much free on a hotel fuseboard. Electricians still suck air through their teeth and talk about imbalance.

In Germany it requires lots of exemptions from utilities etc. In Italy we have seen they had to install three HPCs to be allowed to do it.

On the other hand no one thinks twice about installing a 32A three phase outlet in these places. It is easier from a practical and no paperwork point of view.