German bill requires CCS and L2 plugs at every new fast charge point.

[evme]

That's not my impression. Tesla's advice about higher power for level 2 was heard, so I don't think SAE ignores Tesla's advice. It's just CCS wasn't going to be ready before the Model S came out (SAE only decided not to go with CHAdeMO for their standard in March 2012, Tesla started Model S delivery in June 2012).

Yes it was heard, after Tesla already gave up. And I agree, CCS was not ready but if Tesla felt like CCS was actually half decent, even in preliminary specs. Tesla could have easily worked something out. It is not uncommon for draft specifications to be used by manufacturers. Fact of the matter is, even if CCS was ready beack then I doubt Tesla would use it. they will of course make an adapter for it most likely.

So what? Complying with regulation is the cost of doing business. People here never complain when Tesla receives huge income from Californian regulation (not least through the dubious battery swapping rule), yet the very moment Tesla is requested to comply with less favourable regulation it's a big issue all of a sudden. Comply with the regulation or kindly take your business elsewhere.

Let us remember the options that California gives.

1 - You can make EVs

2 - You can buy ZEV credits

3 - You can pay the penalty fees

They have 3 options to chose from! Here Tesla gets an ultimatum. But lets clarify my position, I am not complaining about the regulation if you read my comment, actually your california example actually proves my overall point. I am saying Tesla should do the same thing that other auto manufacturers do in California. Make compliance adapters. To the point where no EV will bother using the CCS adaptors at the superchargers because it would be impractical.

The big question is can the Tesla connector do Vehicle to grid as well as CCS? It seems possible with both AC and DC pins CCS maybe be able to DC charge from solar/dc_converter and be grid tied at the same time. I would like Tesla to also enable vehicle to vehicle charging. Tesla (JB) has said vehicle to grid is still far off since no one will want their batteries "used" and degraded, but with next gen solid state cells that barely degrade, it will be stupid to have a 200kwh P200D or whatever not connected to the grid to do useful work when you wont be using it.

It does seem Tesla will be screwed in the near term but it is not their fault as CCS doesnt have the speed they need.

Why in the world would it matter if a DC adapter can do vehicle to grid? Vehicle to grid works best at destination charging. On Level 2 chargers. You are not going to be doing vehicle to grid at superchargers or any Level 3 charger as that is not their purpose.

I also would not be worried about solid state cells at this point, they are at least a decade away from commercialization.

 

[dogphlap]

Dear ScepticMatt (or anyone that knows what is going on with this bill),
As I write today's date in my part of the world is the 25th of January 2015.
As I understand it the 21st of January 2015 was a/the critical date for this bill.
So what happened in the German parliament re this bill 3 or 4 days ago ?
Best regards.

 

[ScepticMatt]

All I'm reporting are second-hand reports from the german Tesla forum TFF-forum.de.
The latest I heard is this:

According to TTF forum users there is a hearing with interest groups on Jan 26 or 27.

 

[dogphlap]

Many thanks.
I'll await developments.

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

Not true. Nov 18, 2017 is the EU wide deadline. The German ordinance bill could come into effect sometime after Jan 21,
and Tesla would have 3 months after that to build superchargers in Germany.
They also have to add CCS any time they want to update existing superchargers (e.g. more stalls, power increase)

If the German law making process is anything like the one in The Netherlands, which I suspect it is, it will probably still take some time before the law, if passed, takes effect. If there is a hearing of stakeholders at the end of this month, there is probably still a long way to go. Law making is a long process, including advice, discussion, more advice, voting and official publication.

 

[chickensevil]

Why is it crappy?

It reduces the expensive on board changeover contactors from the vehicles, making every EV cheaper to build, and guarantees isolation of DC from AC power.

The two negatives I can see are: 30% less capacity in the "minimum spec" and a bulkier connection. I'd put up with those draw backs when the nearest CCS point is 1 mile away, and the nearest SpC is 70 miles away. (Which is my case today)

How about this for an analogy.

You turn up at meeting/meal/friends/family/pub/shop and your phone is on it's last drop of battery. In the bad old days if you had a Nokia you were guaranteed not to be stuck, you could ask nicely for a charge and be almost 100% likely someone could help you out.

I remember when I first got an iPhone (early adopter again) you were stuck if you asked someone if you could borrow a charger.

Then iPhones got to be so popular you were back to being able to walk in anywhere and get an emergency charge (now if you have a Nokia you are stuck)

With advent of the iPhone 5, we went back to having to carry our chargers round with us.


TBH I've gone off iPhones into the world of Android, and the micro-usb is so common I can normally get a charge somewhere. It's still not as good as the old Nokia days though

Other than the kW being quite a bit slower? Yeah, no big deal. That is why it is crappy. Tesla has already said they could go up to at least 150. The highest anyone has demonstrated (not installed) is 90kW on CCS... But if you are lucky they install a CCS with 50kW which is more than half of what Tesla currently offers and 1/3 the top of what they have projected as possible.

This would be like 4G competing with 3G and the government says that everyone has to use 3G. Or dialup vs fiber... And the government says everyone MUST use dialup.

The Supercharger being 70 miles is perfect and exactly the right range for what you should need. Why would you ever use a supercharger that is 1 mile away unless you absolutely had to. You want to know why I know this to be true? Because I have a SuperCharger about 5 miles away from me and have used it maybe 5 times in the year I have owned the car and most of those were for events or me just happening to be wanting to stop there because there are some nice restaurants and the movie theater is there. Going there for a REAL charge is annoying and a complete waste of time.

 

[magnet]

Yes it was heard, after Tesla already gave up. And I agree, CCS was not ready but if Tesla felt like CCS was actually half decent, even in preliminary specs. Tesla could have easily worked something out. It is not uncommon for draft specifications to be used by manufacturers. Fact of the matter is, even if CCS was ready beack then I doubt Tesla would use it. they will of course make an adapter for it most likely.




Let us remember the options that California gives.

1 - You can make EVs

2 - You can buy ZEV credits

3 - You can pay the penalty fees

They have 3 options to chose from! Here Tesla gets an ultimatum. But lets clarify my position, I am not complaining about the regulation if you read my comment, actually your california example actually proves my overall point. I am saying Tesla should do the same thing that other auto manufacturers do in California. Make compliance adapters. To the point where no EV will bother using the CCS adaptors at the superchargers because it would be impractical.



Why in the world would it matter if a DC adapter can do vehicle to grid? Vehicle to grid works best at destination charging. On Level 2 chargers. You are not going to be doing vehicle to grid at superchargers or any Level 3 charger as that is not their purpose.

I also would not be worried about solid state cells at this point, they are at least a decade away from commercialization.

The iwatch is going to be released with a solid state battery very soon using a process developed at applied materials. Still too expensive for most applications but I'm guessing we will see solid state EV cells in about 4-5 years.

The gigafactory cell is going to be 4.9V max NCA with a 1/3rd the impedance of the current cells thank to berkeley lab freeze sintered nca (increases surface area) and army developed electrolyte additive (magic fairy dust even they dont no how it works they simply tried a billion things using robots). Telsa will only charge to 4.8 or 4.85 max to ensure long life. The lower impedance means they can build smaller 50kw packs for the model 3 yet still still make 800hp peak without damaging the pack

you are also assuming we wont have dc chargers at home or destination which is wrong because your home will also have a high rate battery bank. You can make money with an EV battery and with your home battery by providing grid storage yet be ready to go at any time in 10 minutes with a dc gigacharger. See peak shaving

 

[smac]

Other than the kW being quite a bit slower? Yeah, no big deal. That is why it is crappy. Tesla has already said they could go up to at least 150. The highest anyone has demonstrated (not installed) is 90kW on CCS... But if you are lucky they install a CCS with 50kW which is more than half of what Tesla currently offers and 1/3 the top of what they have projected as possible.

You are confusing implementation and standard. Here in the UK Tesla are using the physical standard (for DC Mid) just exceeding the capabilities. I like many others thought they'd change the pin depth. It seems not, and looks like using better materials to get from 70kW in the standards document up to 130kw.

There are no other Rapids that use DC Mid as far as I know, so it's likely a dead end branch of the standards evolution.

This would be like 4G competing with 3G and the government says that everyone has to use 3G. Or dialup vs fiber... And the government says everyone MUST use dialup.

That is not what's happening. It's more like saying everything must be able to fall back from 4G to 3G (to 2G). The government here certainly does enforce that, as part of the licensing agreement with the network operators. They can't just pick up high profit 4G data business, but must also provide mechanisms for people to make boring old regular phone calls.

The Supercharger being 70 miles is perfect and exactly the right range for what you should need. Why would you ever use a supercharger that is 1 mile away unless you absolutely had to. You want to know why I know this to be true? Because I have a SuperCharger about 5 miles away from me and have used it maybe 5 times in the year I have owned the car and most of those were for events or me just happening to be wanting to stop there because there are some nice restaurants and the movie theater is there. Going there for a REAL charge is annoying and a complete waste of time.

I agree 70 miles is perfect, if only the 70 miles was in all directions. I was merely trying to indicate the ubiquity. CCS is being rolled out by multiple networks here, and at a relatively decent pace. (There are 16 Supercharger sites in the UK in total, 140 CCS, and 345 CHAdeMO according to ZapMap.com)

The 70 mile away Supercharger only opened a month ago, and since it opened I've not needed it. The next nearest ones (London and Birmingham) are all slap bang in the middle of city centers and fighting traffic to get to them if you are not going to that city means you can be just as quick to take a partial 22kW AC charge.

I Have done plenty of other routes, that are well served by CCS/CHAdeMO, but I've needed to top-up on AC and it's a crappy way to travel, hanging round until you've just enough charge to get you where you are going. Here in the UK a 50 mile boost is often enough, places just aren't that far apart.. (I've also left my Tesla at home and taken the ICE, which is even worse, CCS adoption in the standard car (or even this mystical CHAdeMO adapter that was due out "soon") would have saved at least 3 ICE journeys in 6 months for me.)

 

[AnxietyRanger]

So what? Complying with regulation is the cost of doing business. People here never complain when Tesla receives huge income from Californian regulation (not least through the dubious battery swapping rule), yet the very moment Tesla is requested to comply with less favourable regulation it's a big issue all of a sudden. Comply with the regulation or kindly take your business elsewhere.

As true as that may be, discussing policy, politics and regulation should certainly be fair game. If one thinks Tesla positive legislation is good and negative is bad, that doesn't automatically make someone just a fan or somesuch, if they have arguments to support that position. If they only think that because Tesla is g-r-e-a-t, then, of course, that wouldn't be very constructive.

Legislation process certainly often isn't the whole truth and nothing but.

 

[Model 3]

http://insideevs.com/chademo-officially-accepted-european-dc-fast-charging-standard/

In late December, without fanfare, CHAdeMO was approved as an official DC fast charging standard in Europe.
CHAdeMO joins Combo2 as the only two DC fast charging standards officially recognized by CENELEC, a European standards organization.
This recognition of CHAdeMO as an official standard further supports the trend in Europe to install fast chargers capable of both CHAdeMO and Combo2.
For CHAdeMO, this is a major win. The standards battles over DC fast charging is now dead as Europe recognizes both CHAdeMO and Combo2 as being official standards.

 

[chickensevil]

http://insideevs.com/chademo-officially-accepted-european-dc-fast-charging-standard/

Then from the sound of it the law would make it just combo for Germany...

 

[VolkerP]

TFF users report the public hearing was scrapped. The reason given was "Too many submissions..." :wink:

 

[dogphlap]

Strange.
Does this mean another date will be set for the hearing and maybe a larger venue ?

 

[ScepticMatt]

Strange.
Does this mean another date will be set for the hearing and maybe a larger venue ?

not that I'm aware of. It doesn't sound good.

But there is a different hearing tomorrow, enabling non-cash incentives for plug-in electric and hydrogen cars.

Bevorrechtigungen
(2) (Note: which type or cars are allowed) Im Falle eines von außen aufladbaren Hybridelektrofahrzeuges (i.e. the following applies for plugins)
dürfen Bevorrechtigungen nur für ein Fahrzeug in Anspruch genommen werden, wenn sich aus der Übereinstimmungsbescheinigung nach Anhang IX
der Richtlinie 2007/46/EG oder aus der Übereinstimmungsbescheinigung nach Artikel 38 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 168/2013 ergibt, dass das Fahrzeug
1. eine Kohlendioxidemission von höchstens 50 Gramm je gefahrenen Kilometer hat oder (i.e. 50g/km maximum)
2. dessen Reichweite unter ausschließlicher Nutzung der elektrischen Antriebsmaschine mindestens 40 Kilometer beträgt. (i.e. 40 km range minimum)

(4) (Note: possible incentives) Bevorrechtigungen sind möglich
1. für das Parken auf öffentlichen Straßen oder Wegen (i.e. public parking),
2. bei der Nutzung von für besondere Zwecke bestimmten öffentlichen Straßen oder Wegen oder Teilen von diesen, (i.e. special lane access)
3. durch das Zulassen von Ausnahmen von Zufahrtbeschränkungen oder Durchfahrtverboten, (i.e. access and passage restriction excemptions)
4. im Hinblick auf das Erheben von Gebühren für das Parken auf öffentlichen Straßen oder Wegen. (i.e. special parking fee rules)

(5) (Note: means that details can be clarified later)In Rechtsverordnungen nach § 6 Absatz 1 des Straßenverkehrsgesetzes können
1. die Bevorrechtigungen näher bestimmt werden,
2. die Einzelheiten der Anforderungen an deren Inanspruchnahme festgelegt werden,
3. die erforderlichen straßenverkehrsrechtlichen Anordnungen, insbesondere Verkehrszeichen und Verkehrseinrichtungen, bestimmt werden.
Rechtsverordnungen mit Regelungen nach Satz 1 erlässt das Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur
gemeinsam mit dem Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit. § 6 Absatz
3 des Straßenverkehrsgesetzes ist auf eine Rechtsverordnung mit Regelungen nach Satz 1 nicht anzuwenden.

(6) (Note: means that fee exemptions can be clarified later) In Rechtsverordnungen nach § 6a Absatz 6 Satz 2, auch in Verbindung mit Satz 4, des Straßenverkehrsgesetzes
können als Bevorrechtigungen Ermäßigungen der Gebühren oder Befreiungen von der Gebührenpflicht
vorgesehen werden.

i.e. EV stickers for special parking space and road access rules for EVs (to be clarified later)

The hearing: Deutscher Bundestag - Öffentliche Sitzung des Ausschusses für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur
The bill: http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/18/034/1803418.pdf

 

[dogphlap]

Thank you ScepticMatt.
As someone who would like to see EVs eventually displace ICE vehicles I see the proposed legislation (which is the subject of this thread) as a huge threat.
I don't know if it is the product of an evil genius or just an ill considered scheme from well meaning the well meaning.
Then again perhaps I have it all wrong. I've been having a low key conversation on this matter with Green Car Reports but so far they don't have enough facts to consider doing an article on this.
I fear we will wake up one day to a fait accompli (a fear not reduced by the cancellation of a public hearing on the matter, with no hint of another).
Best regards.

 

[AustinPowers]

As someone who would like to see EVs eventually displace ICE vehicles I see the proposed legislation (which is the subject of this thread) as a huge threat.

Why on earth should it be a threat? It simply states that there has to be a standard charging plug at every charging station. Tesla uses a proprietary system that no one else can use. Is that good for EV adoption, knowing you can only use a Tesla SC if you buy a (luxury priced) Tesla? That way you won't be displacing ICEs on a broad scale. Some might say the chosen standard (CCS) is inferior. I don't have the tech expertise to judge that, but as always not every time the best standard prevails. Anyway, for the cause of EV adoption in general, having standards for all charging points that every EV driver (even one of an affordable EV) can rely on shouldn't be a bad thing, no?

 

[WarpedOne]

Tesla uses a proprietary system that no one else can use.

100% wrong.

Tesla uses a proprietary system that other car-makers DO NOT WANT you to use.
Go cry to BMW, Nissan etc and bug them why are they purposely building miserable EVs, that are not worth half a dingo's kidney.

Tesla is in no position to force others to make good cars. Others could if they really wanted to. But they don't.
Where exactly is Tesla's fault? By not cutting off their own balls while shooting themselves into both knees?

Is that good for EV adoption, knowing you can only use a Tesla SC if you buy a (luxury priced) Tesla?

Yes, it IS good for EV adoption. How it is bad if there exists a good EV with good charging options?
How it would be better if all EVs were miserable excuses for a car?

What is really bad for EV adoption is BMW's pathetic offering. I won't even mention Audi or VW.

Who stopped BMW from building a 2nd gen ActiveE with SuperCharger access?
You really thing it was Tesla?
It would cost less to build than a superplastic i3 does.
If would look worlds better than i3 does.
And it would already be in my garage. I3 not in 100 lifetimes.

 

[darthy001]

Why on earth should it be a threat? It simply states that there has to be a standard charging plug at every charging station. Tesla uses a proprietary system that no one else can use. Is that good for EV adoption, knowing you can only use a Tesla SC if you buy a (luxury priced) Tesla? That way you won't be displacing ICEs on a broad scale. Some might say the chosen standard (CCS) is inferior. I don't have the tech expertise to judge that, but as always not every time the best standard prevails. Anyway, for the cause of EV adoption in general, having standards for all charging points that every EV driver (even one of an affordable EV) can rely on shouldn't be a bad thing, no?

As warpedone already replied this is incorrect. A Tesla can charge from all standard type2-enabled chargers. When I get my Tesla soon I can actually charge it with my VW e-up charger now sitting in my garage without any modifications. CCS is clearly inferior both in design and in output so cheering for it to win is rather sad. Referring to old known cases of inferior standards winning isn't close to justifying CCS being the one to choose now just because VW and other giants have chosen it. I am afraid the outcome is already given, but that doesnt make it right.

I have CCS available on my e-up, but has never used it once. There are very few of them in existence to my knowledge here in Norway. Plenty of type2-chargers around, though I haven't used them either as I only charge at home.

Other companies not able to use the Tesla superchargers is their own choice.

 

[chickensevil]

Consider if back in the day it took 5 hours to refill a tank of gas... but the option existed to have the current dispenser in use but it was made by a proprietary standard that could be made available to others upon request. Now consider that everyone was choosing... nay, forcing, everyone to go the direction of the 5 hour dispenser... what would you say? That it was better that everyone have an equal (albiet far inferior) standard... or that maybe, just maybe... those companies didn't really care about fuel driven vehicles and maybe had ulterior motives in their decisions? And then, looking into it, you see that these companies already have a booming horse/buggy business that they are not inclined to replace any time soon. Oh, but think of how hard it is to refill your tank of gas, never knowing if you have the right adapter or plug type... so clearly the 5 hour dispensor is important to the business model! Oh, and just for added kicks these products that have adopted this vastly inferior technology hides behind that 5 hour veil by making a fuel tank that actually only takes 5 minutes to fill up so it seems like it isn't inferior.

This is pretty much the situation we find ourselves in today. I am not a fan of CCS or Chademo as it stands because it is terrible technology and not just in a betamax vs vhs kind of way, but in a dvd vs vhs kind of way. Imagine both DVD and VHS came out at the same time, even using the at the time current pricings for DVD manufacturing as when it was released compared to the well established VHS prices at the time (because to big autos vs Tesla that is basically what we are looking at here). Would you be championing VHS because it was "more accessible" to everyone? Would you willingly get behind legislation (that is very hard to repeal/change once passed) mandating that everyone *MUST* use VHS over DVD? From a charging stance, being forced to drop down to 50kW or... worse... 25kW might as well be the same thing. Good bye ever even trying to make a roadtrip anymore because I am not going to wait around for 4-5 hours every 200-300 miles for a recharge (Roughly what being stuck at a 25kW charger would equate to in a Tesla). My roadtrip worthy car, has now just become a city car because "big auto" has the consumer's "best interest" in mind by lobbying to pass this legislation.

- - - Updated - - -

As an addendum, to ward off the immediate response that CCS can go to 90kW output... show me a charger that is actually using this right now (or I would even take a plan to have one built). Theoretical limits and limits in practice are two totally different things. BMW is talking about how they are going to be rolling out 25 and 50kW chargers like this is somehow going to compete with Tesla using CCS.

In theory Tesla can go to at least 150kW on their charger (There have been comments from the company about this), and maybe possibly higher still. Tesla (Elon and JB) have both talked about hitting 5 minutes someday for recharge times on a Tesla. I cannot get behind a singular standard that is by itself inferior in every regard, and is backed by companies who have currently no desire to release a product that has more than 80-100 miles of range.

 

[dsm363]

They should simply force no special cards needed for access. Credit card or NFC phone payments should be all that is needed and let market decide which standard wins.