Supercharger Event 2012/9/24

[TEG]

I am assuming new cells, at least in the 85kWh based on this video interview:
Panasonic CES 2011 Kurt Kelty - YouTube

I am also guessing that they may have decided to start using the new cells in the 60kWh as well.

 

[sublimaze1]

Kinda interesting following this thread - as we each fit into at least one of the following "groups"

(1) Desire to drive long distances / cross country
(2) Desire to drive within your state (or similar) and need just a bit over 300 mile range
(3) Desire not to destroy your battery.

I am reasonably sure that the company has installed software / safety checks to precent #3 from happening in the absence of negligence and or individual malfeasance. I fit into number 2, as - being in Texas - I would like to drive 6-8 hours, and require such a device to allow said travel.

For now, and while I get to learn the car and its perks and nuances, I will be happy (when I get the vehicle in Dec) to simply drive locally in the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex. Maybe down to Baylor (my daughter is looking to attend) and up to Oklahoma to see the mother in law. Okay, maybe not that far. Maybe not there.

Nonetheless, A station at Buc-ee's in Madisonville on I-45 would just about make my day. And there is a red dot at just about that location.

WJ
McKinney.

 

[qwk]

Yes, we've been told that all Model S packs use "automotive grade cells". Press release is HERE.

My point was that we still dont know if all of the packs will use the same cells. Are there different mah cells that are "automotive grade"? If there are, they wouldnt necessarily have the same degredation curve. "Automotive grade" is a very vague term. Until we know the exact number of cells in the three different packs, we will not know for sure.

 

[WarpedOne]

But in a half-hour, it only charges 50%, so that's 1C charging

Yes, 50% charge in half an hour is 1C but even this 1C is way harder than 0.2C with dual chargers.
Remember the warranty tesla offers - 8 years, unlimited miles.
Those cells might be automotive grade - we do not know what exactly has changed but we know what is different in a tesla car: there is active thermal management, active thermal runaway protection, active input/output power management depending on temperature etc. Because there is lots of capacity, cells may be relatively low power (comparing to say A123 cells) but have to provide as much Ah as possible (per unit of weight) - range, range range.

I don't believe just because these cells are 'automotive grade' they are radically different or better to other Lithiums. I bet they are even more unforgiving to environment fluctuations and mishandling (high power charging / discharging, overheating, etc). Laptop cells are intended for much less controlled environments, hence they need to be safer by design.

 

[vfx]

I
Is this the "supercharging hurts the battery" issue?...

Tesla has repeatedly said the the Model S software is designed to protect the car from unlimited DC Supercharging.

- - - Updated - - -
Some context.
The first one is sculpture that lights the way to free transportation energy.

Every time you visit the second one the numbers on it get bigger and your wallet gets lighter.

 

[iridium]

Did anyone notice this in the NYT blog today?

Khyati Shah, a spokeswoman for SolarCity, wrote in an e-mail that two of the six Superchargers already installed had solar capability, with the others running off of grid power. One solar unit is 24 kilowatts and the other is 26.

So it sounds like not all of the units are solar powered yet. That's fine, but how does a 26kwh solar array provide enough electricity to charge the car? Sounds like the initial deployments must be grid+solar at best.

 

[spatterso911]

I thought Elon said during the presentation that 60Kwh would have some sort of an "incremental" charge for supercharger access...the hardware is included per the Tesla website.

View attachment 10127

Did they say that both the 60 & 85 would be completely free to charge during the Q&A? This would seem to contradict what he said during the actual presentation...

Both the 60 (supercharger capable) and 85 kWh batteries can supercharge for free. The fee suggests that the 60 kWh cars must pay to make them capable of handling the supercharger connection. This has been discussed in previous posts, and although I didn't ask the question specifically as it relates to a "per use charge" or a fee to "unlock" the supercharger hardware (software upgrade), I take it to mean the latter, not the former.

I went back and viewed the Vimeo video, and its clear to me that the small incremental charge Elon refers to is the charge to activate the supercharger hardware. He then goes on to say that both the 85 and 60 so-equipped will be able to supercharge for free, forever.

 

[jerry33]

3) Making charges free - big mistake. I may not speak for everyone, but given the price of the car, I'd wouldn't mind paying for the charge (even if it was the same amount as a full tank of gas) especially if it means that there will be more supercharging stations available.

Not at all. Besides the points that others have made, and given the riots over the ridiculously high maintenance costs, free supercharging makes the maintenance fee much easier to swallow. I just hope the rollout is quicker than the car rollout.

 

[Citizen-T]

Did anyone notice this in the NYT blog today?



So it sounds like not all of the units are solar powered yet. That's fine, but how does a 26kwh solar array provide enough electricity to charge the car? Sounds like the initial deployments must be grid+solar at best.

Yeah, there is a video of a Tesla rep clarifying this. The superchargers are connected to the grid, and the solar only supplements the draw from the grid to charge the car. However, the solar is collecting energy all day long and running the meter backwards, while the cars are only there charging for part of the day. They are designed such that the meter will spin backwards more than it spins forward over the course of a year.

Just like a home install: You charge the car during the night, so you aren't really running your EV on solar power; but, as long as your array is big enough that you produce as much energy as your car consumes, you're net positive on the driving.

 

[TEG]

...
So it sounds like not all of the units are solar powered yet. That's fine, but how does a 26kwh solar array provide enough electricity to charge the car? Sounds like the initial deployments must be grid+solar at best.

I gather solar is being done only optionally for locations that have room and permitting to allow it. Some locations may not get any solar from what I can tell. Also, I think every location will be grid tied. When they say "enough energy to power the car", I think they mean average... Such as if it is feeding the grid most daylight with no one charging, it saves up enough "energy budget" to be able to afford to quick charge a Model S now and then. I suppose that is fair to say as long as charger usage is light, which it will be at first, but once they have enough Model S on the road they might need to add more solar to continue to claim that they are capturing enough light energy to cover all the charging being done. Basically total input versus total output averaged over time... I suppose we will have to take their word for it that they will "audit the energy books for the whole supercharger network" to make sure they are net positive on energy going to the grid compared to energy taken from the grid.

- - - Updated - - -

Edit: I now see Citizen-T answered the same question...

 

[olanmills]

I thought Elon said during the presentation that 60Kwh would have some sort of an "incremental" charge for supercharger access...the hardware is included per the Tesla website.

Well the existing units don't even seem to have any kind of payment console, so I don't think that's the case. I'm assuming that there is authentication provided by data connection to detect the Tesla supercharging hardware in the car (and there's no reason that Tesla couldn't sell this to other manufacturer's later, if they decided it was good business).

I think at some point, they planned on having the supercharger hardware (and/or activation) in the 60kWh car as priced option, but later decided to include it for "free". I don't think there is going to be a charge for 60kWh customers to activate, at least for now, because it makes for a better "story". I do think that in future Tesla cars, supercharger hardware will either be a paid option or the cost will be built into the price of battery upgrades.

In order for it to be sustainable, the marketing value of having the superchargers available (less objection to ownership, more car sales), potential profit on selling supercharger hardware with the car, and the value of the generated electricity put back into the grid just has to offset both the cost of building and maintaining the stations and the cost of any electricity drawn from the grid to charge cars.

So it sounds like not all of the units are solar powered yet. That's fine, but how does a 26kwh solar array provide enough electricity to charge the car? Sounds like the initial deployments must be grid+solar at best.

As long as the total electricity produced by all Tesla superchargers exceeds the total usage by customers, then these will be "energy profitable" and perhaps $$ profit too. Even if they're not "profitable", there is still the immense marketing value in having good supercharger coverage.

 

[FalconNinetyD]

Did anyone notice this in the NYT blog today?

So it sounds like not all of the units are solar powered yet. That's fine, but how does a 26kwh solar array provide enough electricity to charge the car? Sounds like the initial deployments must be grid+solar at best.

(Back of the napkin calculations)

Our 7.6 kwh array (33 * 230w panels) makes about 11,800 kwh per year, so something 3.3x larger, and more inland from where we live will make about 42,000 kwh per year. If each charge uses about 60 kwh, then the station would be able to make about 700 charges in a year, or a little less than 2 per day, to consider it as adding more power to the grid than it's using.

 

[Lloyd]

(Back of the napkin calculations)

Our 7.6 kwh array (33 * 230w panels) makes about 11,800 kwh per year, so something 3.3x larger, and more inland from where we live will make about 42,000 kwh per year. If each charge uses about 60 kwh, then the station would be able to make about 700 charges in a year, or a little less than 2 per day, to consider it as adding more power to the grid than it's using.

Yes, I was doing this also during the presentation, only the other way calculating the footprint of the solar aray that would be needed to charge say 20 vehicles per day, and it was not making sense, or corresponding to the carport cover we were showing from Laval (Tehon Ranch). From what we were seeing, short by a factor of 10?? Others may verify.

 

[Doug_G]

Yes, I was doing this also during the presentation, only the other way calculating the footprint of the solar aray that would be needed to charge say 20 vehicles per day, and it was not making sense, or corresponding to the carport cover we were showing from Laval (Tehon Ranch). From what we were seeing, short by a factor of 10?? Others may verify.

While they really do provide some power, I'd expect that the solar carports are mostly window dressing. More likely the majority of the solar "offset" cells will be located at a larger facility somewhere. Heck, there's a lot of space at Fremont.

 

[FalconNinetyD]

More math: a 26kwh system would be about 100 panels. Each of our panels are approximately 2.5' x 4', or 10 square feet each. I believe this is a somewhat standard size, though I seem to remember that SunPower offered some that were 3' x 5'.

 

[kendallpb]

+1 yah no harm to the battery is a game changer. I do seem to remember Elon speaking of an even more robust charging rate in distant past when speaking of possible degredation to the battery cells. For ppl living near these stations i would honestly just use these superchargers for normal charging.

YES! I was skeptical of claims of how game changing this is, but reading the "no harm in standard mode" makes me realize, WOW, this is game changing. Outstanding!

The recommendation's to plug in/top off nightly, no? So depending on location, stopping by a supercharger regularly probably won't make sense; but any time I'm near one, yeah, I'll stop by to top off. Hmm, I wonder how fast it charges the last, say, 25% of standard mode. . . .

 

[smorgasbord]

At one point Elon mentioned that the Supercharger could go as high as 120kW, even tho it's at 90kW today.

Let me be the first to go on record saying that Model X will have at least a 100kWh battery, probably more like 105kWh. That extra juice will be needed for the heavier and way less aerodynamic Model X to have the same range as Model S.

 

[jeffhre]

I meant as a beacon of light shining the way towards a brighter future

(good recovery, good recovery)

I'm reading those words and contemplating the object in question at the same time, LOL. All I can say is you guys have a supercharged sense of humor

 

[dsm363]

At one point Elon mentioned that the Supercharger could go as high as 120kW, even tho it's at 90kW today.

Let me be the first to go on record saying that Model X will have at least a 100kWh battery, probably more like 105kWh. That extra juice will be needed for the heavier and way less aerodynamic Model X to have the same range as Model S.

That will finally get it to where The Detroit Bureau said it would be all along with the 'pad'. I bet you are right.

 

[Todd Burch]

I think it's cool that cars can finally advance like technology...there is a race to get the next car out with the latest digital features or 20 additional miles of range. While this obviously has drawbacks (your car "feels" more outdated more quickly), it also makes the advances forward more visible then, say, an improvement in 2 MPG in fuel economy. At least that's how I see it.