Megawatt charging makes sense for a lot of use cases, and to future proof the standard, but certainly isn't necessary for every case. Take that the current Model X/S are supposed to be capable of ~300kW charging once Tesla updates the Superchargers, then look at the long range Cybertruck which will likely have double the battery capacity. That means it will be capable of at least 600kW, and at 600kW the charging time would be the same as the charging time for the Model X/S. (And things like towing make it so you would need to charge just as often as an X/S, even with double the battery capacity.)
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla belatedly tries to make their connector a North American standard
- Thread starter Cosmacelf
- Start date
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Just looking at the watts (note MW should be capitalized to mean Megawatt, mW means milliwatt) can be misleading.
A lot of CCS cars need to be at 800V to reach 350 kW, so they need the 1000V version to reach that power. The 500V version would lower their power to more like 150kW-200kW.
That is likely the primary reason to create the 1000V version, not necessarily to support 1MW in power.
Evpowerdan
Member
The EU standardize on one plug not too long ago. America can do so too. We one have one type of AC wall plug, one size gas nozzle and etc. It oblivious Tesla’s technology in charging port communication is way above the rest. Just license the tech to others and take royalty fee from each charger profits.
Actually we had at least the sizes of gas nozzles. One for regular, one for unleaded, and another for diesel. Not to mention at least 10 different AC wall outlets...
Evpowerdan
Member
One inside 3 prong outlet. Yes, diesel and unleaded. EV charging - Let’s get to ONE - for scale, reliability and effectiveness.
Nope, 5-15, 5-20, 6-15, 6-20, 6-50, 10-30, etc. All three prong, all inside.
Evpowerdan
Member
Correct, but you have zippo clue which outlets have different amperage unless you take everyone out of the wall. 99.9% of consumers just want to plug in the home appliance or car to a level 2 or 3 and just work. So let’s go to just a three pong in the USA - similar to EV charging stations and vehicles with 400 or 800 architecture can charge on the systems without any changes by the end user.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Staying at a motel now with two Tesla wall chargers.
There's a guy with a Ford Lightning trying to use one of the Tesla chargers. He has some kind of adapter but it's not working.
Physical connector works but the protocol is messed up. Tesla wall connector thinks it's charging but the Lightning isn't getting it.
There's a guy with a Ford Lightning trying to use one of the Tesla chargers. He has some kind of adapter but it's not working.
Physical connector works but the protocol is messed up. Tesla wall connector thinks it's charging but the Lightning isn't getting it.
So to be clear re salvage vehicles that have been cut for SC you’re saying that a SC station with a CCS1 connector plugged in to Tesla’s CCS1-Tesla adapter that’s then plugged into a shame branded vehicle the car will still recognize it as a SC station and yell “Nein!”
Yep, the adapter is passive so neither end would likely see it any different than directly plugged in.
Game Changer?
A new post on the Tesla website reiterates Musk's words from eight years ago. "In pursuit of our mission to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy, today we are opening our EV connector design to the world," states the company. "We invite charging network operators and vehicle manufacturers to put the Tesla charging connector and charge port, now called the North American Charging Standard (NACS), on their equipment and vehicles."....
....It's ingenious to drop the Tesla brand off and name it the North American Charging Standard. It will make it much easier for competing brands to swallow their pride and use superior technology. The system is the most tested EV charger in the world, and the company reports it has "20 billion EV charging miles to its name." It is also far better than the Combined Charging System (CCS 1), offering twice the power in half the size.
Full Story Here: Tesla Opens up Its EV Charging Connector to the World
Tesla Opens up Its EV Charging Connector to the World
November 12, 2022A new post on the Tesla website reiterates Musk's words from eight years ago. "In pursuit of our mission to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy, today we are opening our EV connector design to the world," states the company. "We invite charging network operators and vehicle manufacturers to put the Tesla charging connector and charge port, now called the North American Charging Standard (NACS), on their equipment and vehicles."....
....It's ingenious to drop the Tesla brand off and name it the North American Charging Standard. It will make it much easier for competing brands to swallow their pride and use superior technology. The system is the most tested EV charger in the world, and the company reports it has "20 billion EV charging miles to its name." It is also far better than the Combined Charging System (CCS 1), offering twice the power in half the size.
Full Story Here: Tesla Opens up Its EV Charging Connector to the World
Watts_Up
Well-Known Member
This NACS vs CCS discussion reminds me the JVC vs Betamax, or Thunderbolt vs USB-C standard fights.
It occured that the key deciding was not the best technological system but the most common one.
Almost always the case. And it's really politics/corporate decision/alignment that makes these decisions, not best technology.
I remember being stunned when Betamax was left in the dustbowl of history. Clearly superior.
Olle
Active Member
Vehicle to X in DC mode is a slam dunk for the NACS.
How about AC? Is it even relevant?
Here is why I think it is:
With the latest price/performance improvements in power electronics, it seems to be cost effective to rectify and voltage convert in the same step. See IEEE article regarding this trend.
This means that an on board vehicle bidirectional charger should approach cost parity with a uni directional charger.
If that is true, Vehicle to X would naturally be more cost effective in AC mode, since the house inverter could be omitted.
How would the NACS support residential split phase AC then, with NACS having only three pins for power and ground?
My thought is that the whole package, including the vehicle via the NACS through its connection with the panelboard, is listed as an appliance, the inside of which doesn't need to follow code. System specific GFI. Additional L1 L2 auto fuse based on Amps through gnd/neutral, for the case that the load is unbalanced and overtaxes that thinner connector. Alternatively de rate the whole system to the ampacity of the ground connection. One drawback is it could only be installed at the main service panel since that is the only place where ground and neutral are allowed to meet.
Would be interested to hear what people experienced with code and UL listings say about this idea.
Last edited:
Wrong. You can tell by looking at the outlet in almost all cases. (Assuming that they have been installed to code.)
israndy
Supercharger Hunter
Perhaps some of them know how to write this stuff up so the NON experienced can understand what they're saying
bradtem
Robocar consultant
While you could have an AC "inverter" in your car (and there is one in the F150 -- Tesla considered and rejected putting one in its cars) But it's another story to do V2G with it. Grid intertie requires phase synchronization, pure sine wave but most of all a cutoff switch so it doesn't feed power to the grid during a grid outage. If you had a suitable transfer switch in your house, you could power your home from your car with the right circuit, but it can't just be circuits in the car. The F150 just has sockets you can plug devices into, I think, not the house.
Now, if you want a two-way converter, you could propose a switch. Today all cars come with an AC charger so they can plug into level 1 and 2. But there are far more cars than public chargers, so it would be more economical, total-fleet-wise, to put AC chargers only in the homes and public chargers, and leave them out of the car. However, since we started with AC (which was necessary) it's hard to switch!
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The Tesla connector is the equivalent to the J1772 connector. I don't see why it would be an issue if V2X works in J1772. In a V2L application (120V), it'll just output directly like the Hyundai adapter.
For 240V, for the Ford Lightning it just is installed like a solar inverter (the car outputs DC to a grid-tie inverter):
Grid Transfer Switch and Critical Loads Panel For...
There is no way it is allowed in code just plug it in like an appliance and then feed power into your home or the grid! At minimum there is need for a transfer switch (like a plug for a generator) to ensure the two sources are never on at the same time. I know some people use "suicide cords" to backfeed their home with a generator, but that is a big no-no under code.
I haven't seen any V2H implementations however that propose to connect to a transfer switch for a generator. That would be the simplest and least expensive to implement, but doesn't seem like there is interest.
bradtem
Robocar consultant
I actually think there would be strong interest, but the problem is so few cars will output high current AC to feed into the transfer switch. If more cars had a port to do that, there would be transfer switches designed for that and cables on the market.The Tesla connector is the equivalent to the J1772 connector. I don't see why it would be an issue if V2X works in J1772. In a V2L application (120V), it'll just output directly like the Hyundai adapter.
For 240V, for the Ford Lightning it just is installed like a solar inverter (the car outputs DC to a grid-tie inverter):
Grid Transfer Switch and Critical Loads Panel For...
There is no way it is allowed in code just plug it in like an appliance and then feed power into your home or the grid! At minimum there is need for a transfer switch (like a plug for a generator) to ensure the two sources are never on at the same time. I know some people use "suicide cords" to backfeed their home with a generator, but that is a big no-no under code.
I haven't seen any V2H implementations however that propose to connect to a transfer switch for a generator. That would be the simplest and least expensive to implement, but doesn't seem like there is interest.
However, it depends how frequent outages are at your home. It's a lot of cost if they are very rare as they are for most people in cities. For those who have rare outages, it would be easier just to get a long cord to a power distro box into which you can plug your essentials -- fridge, plug-in lamps, computer or TV (if on antenna) and others. Sure, it might take you 20 minutes to plug everything in and out and put it back, but you are doing it once every few years. Once with a planned 5 hour outage I set up to draw 140w from my cig lighter to run my computer so I could work.
In the old days of POTS and DSL, your internet would stay up during a long outage. Today, typical fiber and cable internet service will shut down after about an hour's power outage, sadly. Your mobile phone as a hotspot will stay up, though, unless it's really bad. And so would Starlink or wireless ISPs.
You have to ask the question, will you have frequent outages and do you want your home to run everything like normal? Then you would buy a fancy system. If instead you have rare outages and can survive only running the essentials, it is easier and cheaper to keep it simple.
Olle
Active Member
Excellent idea. I apologize if I didn't.
The F150 has separate inverter from the charger for V2L. What I am referring to is a bi directional charging, using the charge connector.
Indeed, for good reason. Tesla wouldn't exist if they would have dabbled in V2X and other "nice to have" stuff in the early days.
Exactly! That's what's opening up with a beefy bidirectional charger, or more correctly, converter.
Phase sync and transfer switches are 100 year old tech. Trivial for Tesla, and many others. the've been producing similar functionality for a long time in their energy division.
Exactly my point.
Yes J1772 has the same problem as NACS, there is no provision for center tap.The Tesla connector is the equivalent to the J1772 connector. I don't see why it would be an issue if V2X works in J1772. In a V2L application (120V), it'll just output directly like the Hyundai adapter.
You didn't read this part: "the whole package, including the vehicle via the NACS through its connection with the panelboard, is listed as an appliance"
Yes of course. I am talking a serious set up, not suicide cords and stuff.
Yes, but like I wrote, if you don't have ground and neutral separated, your are not allowed to connect in anywhere else than the service panel, which excludes generator inlets.
I think so too, maybe. At least there is a lot of noise about V2X.
Similar threads
