-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Supercharger - Ashland, OR (LIVE 1 Sep 2023, 24 V3 stalls)
- Thread starter Ml007
- Start date
-
- Tags
- oregon supercharger
ninerbynature
Member
Mrbrock
Active Member
To be fair, it’s been 8 months since they started so even PG&E could have gotten one ready in that timeframe.
ninerbynature
Member
I’m used to finished sites siting and waiting for 6+ months like Santa Maria
Mrbrock
Active Member
Usually painted in big orange letters on the front doors.
For full power they will need 3000kva but 2500kva wouldn’t surprise me.
Nope, full power would only require ~2000kVa. There are 6 V3 cabinets that can handle ~360kW each, for a total site power of 2,160kW. (There are some versions of the cabinets that can handle ~380kW/each, but I haven't seen many of them installed, but that would only be 2,280kW.)
In general Tesla gets a 1000kVa transformer for a 12 post site.
ninerbynature
Member
I will check the transformer next time I stop by. They are waiting on the city to approve them pouring the concrete entrance. Making them jump through hoops and get flaggers to control traffic in and out of Caldera. There will be a ribbon cutting ceremony of some sort so a hard date for opening will be known soon
Mrbrock
Active Member
I know we have discussed previously but I guess I struggle with the calculation for kVa vs the service at the site. There are two current 12 stall sites with 1600A service. 1600A service is 1330kVa. A 1000kVa transformer doesnt seem like it would support 1600A service. 1200A is 998kVa. Scaling, 3200A would be 2660kVa hence my comments on transformer size. I guess if the 600A breakers follow the 20% rule then 480A is 400kVa per cabinet which is still 2400kVa.
I get their track record of 1000kVa transformers for 12 stalls but I guess my math mind is missing some of the steps in the calculation to squeeze that much power out of 1000kVa. If there is no loss in conversion from AC to DC, 1000kVa is 1000kW. That only takes 4 cars at full power to max the site out. Evenly distributed is 83kw per stall. 1600A service with the equivalent transformer gets you to 110kw average per car. I would still like to see a test of 8 or 12 cars plugging in below 20% to see where the charging rate maxes out.
It could also be that new sites are getting bigger transformers for when V4 is rolled out. Might just be switching of some internal circuitry to handle the higher voltage. Still speculation at this point but who knows?
Yep, most people don't understand this at all. But it really doesn't currently matter, as it is unlikely to have a site full of empty/preconditioned vehicles arrive at the same time and current Teslas can't maintain high charging rates for very long,
Upping the transformer doesn't increase the AC->DC capabilities of the V3 cabinets. Here is a picture of the label on an older V3 cabinet that is limited to ~350kW, or ~88kW per stall.
They have upped the capabilities a little in newer V3 cabinets. (I think they up full site power to just under 100kW per stall.)
Tesla has more "stall power" than grid power and I think it's deliberate and way better financially and for customers (overall). I suspect the major hardware cost is in the cabinets and distribution rather than the stalls.
If a site gets very busy it slows down charging for new arrivals and will prompt Tesla to look to expand, either by adding more stalls and power or building another site.
That potential slowdown is bad for customers, but on the flip side, the high number of stalls is also good for customers, who are less likely to need to wait in line, and still have some chance of getting faster charging at a busy site as other people get to higher percentage state of charge and charging slows down.
People sometimes think of utilization rate as <charging time> / ( <number of stalls > x <number of hours> or <kWh sold> / ( <number of stalls> x <stall power> x <number of hours> ) but in the Tesla approach it's <kWh sold> / ( <transformer power> x <number of hours> ).
In the future, as battery costs fall we may see more deployment of batteries to help during the charging peaks.
Alternatively we may see EV batteries go to flatter charging curves, rather than beefing up their charging hardware, and upping the max power.
You see companies like Kempower in Europe taking the Tesla approach of separating the chargers from the stalls and I think it's the way to go.
Mrbrock
Active Member
Understand all this but why would you request 1600A service then get a 1000kVa transformer? Why not get 1200A service? I don't know what size service is actually being requested for this site but just posing questions based on other known sites.
Another example that doesnt fit is Pasco. 8 stalls so should be 600-700kVa transformer but its only 500kVa. And it is set up to be expanded to 12 stalls at some point.
Right. New V3 cabinets are 387 kVA AC input. Tesla has several sites around the country that are "oversubscribed" for the transformer size. I've come across at least one 12-stall V3 site on a 500 kVA transformer. In these situations, Tesla simply sets a maximum site limit in software, so the site doesn't exceed the transformer's capability. Typical large transformer sizes are 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500 and 3000 kVA. Being neither an EE nor an expert in electrical code, I can't say why the main breakers don't always align with the transformer size. I suspect that Supercharger cabinets are considered branch circuits, and must follow the 125% rule. 80% of a 600 amp breaker is 480 amps, which is 399 kVA at 480v 3-phase. This matches nicely with the 387 kVA cabinet rating.
AC input of 350, or 387, per cabinet. (There is also a 575kW DC input to share between cabinets.) Output is up to 250kW per port, and there are 4 ports.
ninerbynature
Member
Similar threads
