Tesla making HUGE mistake with Superchargers

[MP3Mike]

Even plugs at most of its v2 locations would qualify.

V2 Superchargers don't meet the minimum requirements of delivering at least 150kW to all plugs at the same time.

 

[Mockingbird]

There's no legal or competitive reason to take on the large costs of switching, as was the case in Europe.
There are already well over 1 million Teslas sold in the USA with a very large infrastructure based on Tesla's connector, both for DC and AC, which wasn't the case in Europe, where they only needed to add a much smaller number of DC cables and provide a much smaller number of DC adapters.
It can get government money by adding cables, which are only a fraction of the cost of installation.

The government is paying 80% of it, so Tesla might well

 

[bradtem]

You clearly haven't read the actual guideline.

Federal funding can be used to retrofit non-NEVI compliant charging stations and not having CCS is considered to be non-NEVI compliant.

Obviously, the fund has to be used to retrofit the charging stations.

That is what I said. The point is that the retrofit is quite cheap compared to building a new station. If you put in a new combo station, you get subsidies of the cost of the whole combo station. If you retrofit you get only a subsidy on the retrofit, which is a tiny fraction of the cost -- just adding a new cable, or an adapter, or at worst a new cable pillar with two cables. (Tesla chargers are as far as I can tell actually in the cabinets, not in the pillars.)

So while they can do both the effort is best rewarded in doing new stations. Tesla of late has also been putting in a lot of stations close to existing high use stations (I would rather they went to whole new areas.) However, when doing so, I would venture it makes more sense to do a new station with dual cables and keep the old station Tesla only to benefit Tesla drivers.

 

[RTPEV]

I keep up on all of that but I was surprised that he thought it would work on the SC. He's likely heard all of the talk about it coming and wanted to test it for himself. Personally I would hate having to lug that adapter around but I'm sure most wouldn't mind if that actually gave them access today. I'm curious to see Tesla's approach with the new stations.

Maybe he saw the news reports of the Tesla app being updated to allow for subscriptions and initiating charging sessions and figured that was the last piece of the puzzle he needed to get his TPC to J1772 adapter working at a Supercharger.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

V2 Superchargers don't meet the minimum requirements of delivering at least 150kW to all plugs at the same time.

Based on the wording, they'd be able to put 1 CCS cable on each pair in an 8 stall v2 and meet the rules for 4 cars charging simultaneously at 150kW.

 

[MP3Mike]

Based on the wording, they'd be able to put 1 CCS cable on each pair in an 8 stall v2 and meet the rules for 4 cars charging simultaneously at 150kW.

Only if they disabled the paired Supercharger stall when someone started using CCS. Just imagine the outrage at that; when a Tesla charging on 1A gets the charging shutoff when a non-Tesla plugs into 1B. (Or are you suggesting that they take half the stalls out and make an existing 8 stall site a 4 stall site?)

Even most V3 sites can't support 150kW on every stall at the same time.

 

[Big Earl]

Only if they disabled the paired Supercharger stall when someone started using CCS. Just imagine the outrage at that; when a Tesla charging on 1A gets the charging shutoff when a non-Tesla plugs into 1B. (Or are you suggesting that they take half the stalls out and make an existing 8 stall site a 4 stall site?)

Even most V3 sites can't support 150kW on every stall at the same time.

Exactly. Many (not all) V2 sites are on 500 kVA transformers. That's about 500 kW for 8 stalls. There is no way four cars are going to charge at 150 kW simultaneously under any condition at a V2 site on a 500 kVA transformer.

It's also worth noting that V2 sites are nominally 144 kW per charging cabinet, not 150 kW.

 

[SCTes1aMan]

Maybe he saw the news reports of the Tesla app being updated to allow for subscriptions and initiating charging sessions and figured that was the last piece of the puzzle he needed to get his TPC to J1772 adapter working at a Supercharger.

I think that's exactly what he was doing. He seemed very confident that it was going to work and then a little shocked that it didn't. He was likely embarrassed because many of us were watching.

 

[threeputts]

Even most V3 sites can't support 150kW on every stall at the same time.

Aren't the V3 cabinets 1mW? They should be able to support 250kW on all four stalls simultaneously, shouldn't they?

 

[MP3Mike]

Aren't the V3 cabinets 1mW?

Nope. Each cabinet only has a ~350kW AC input. (But they can also accept up to 575kW on the DC bus from other cabinets and/or battery storage, which few sites have.)

They should be able to support 250kW on all four stalls simultaneously, shouldn't they?

Nope. A maxed out V3 site, with no battery storage, can only support ~90kW per stall at the same time. If 4 stalls are maxed out and the rest of the 8 stall site is empty it maxes out at ~175kW per stall.

But it really doesn't matter, you don't charge for long at the >230kW level, and the chance that a lot of people roll in at a low SoC, fully preconditioned, at the same time and plug in is very low.

 

[Mockingbird]

That is what I said. The point is that the retrofit is quite cheap compared to building a new station. If you put in a new combo station, you get subsidies of the cost of the whole combo station. If you retrofit you get only a subsidy on the retrofit, which is a tiny fraction of the cost -- just adding a new cable, or an adapter, or at worst a new cable pillar with two cables. (Tesla chargers are as far as I can tell actually in the cabinets, not in the pillars.)

So while they can do both the effort is best rewarded in doing new stations. Tesla of late has also been putting in a lot of stations close to existing high use stations (I would rather they went to whole new areas.) However, when doing so, I would venture it makes more sense to do a new station with dual cables and keep the old station Tesla only to benefit Tesla drivers.

Tesla doesn't care about Tesla drivers.

Tesla only cares about Tesla.

Tesla drivers are just cows for Tesla to milk money from.

The real question is: Is the cost to retrofit existing Superchargers more or less than the money Tesla can get from non-Tesla drivers?

If the government is paying for the retrofit, Tesla can throw that question right out of the window.

Tesla gets more business while the government pays for it.

 

[Mockingbird]

V2 Superchargers don't meet the minimum requirements of delivering at least 150kW to all plugs at the same time.

Tesla would have to add more power cabinets.

 

[MP3Mike]

Tesla would have to add more power cabinets.

And more transformers, which currently have limited availability. And that is assuming the power company can even provide more power to the site. (Some sites can't be expanded because more power isn't available from the power company.)

But really even more power cabinets doesn't fix V2 sites. Doubling the cabinets only puts you at 144kW per stall. They would have to be completely rebuilt with new equipment. And as I have said V3 sites, as currently built, wouldn't even qualify.

This is part of why V3 sites are so much cheaper than competitors, because Tesla did the math and didn't over build them. Dedicating a lot of power to indivdual stalls that doesn't hardly ever get used. (Bjorn did a video on this with the chargers in Norway, how sites are overcrowded because Ionity will only build sites with a dedicated 350kW to each stall. If they doubled the number of stalls with the same total available power they would significantly increase throughput, and it would hardly ever impact anyone negatively.) The US requirement for 150kW/stall is much more reasonable, though obviously Tesla determined even that was more than necessary. (It will be interesting to see what Tesla comes up with for the V4 Superchargers.)

 

[Mockingbird]

And more transformers, which currently have limited availability. And that is assuming the power company can even provide more power to the site. (Some sites can't be expanded because more power isn't available from the power company.)

But really even more power cabinets doesn't fix V2 sites. Doubling the cabinets only puts you at 144kW per stall. They would have to be completely rebuilt with new equipment. And as I have said V3 sites, as currently built, wouldn't even qualify.

This is part of why V3 sites are so much cheaper than competitors, because Tesla did the math and didn't over build them. Dedicating a lot of power to indivdual stalls that doesn't hardly ever get used. (Bjorn did a video on this with the chargers in Norway, how sites are overcrowded because Ionity will only build sites with a dedicated 350kW to each stall. If they doubled the number of stalls with the same total available power they would significantly increase throughput, and it would hardly ever impact anyone negatively.) The US requirement for 150kW/stall is much more reasonable, though obviously Tesla determined even that was more than necessary. (It will be interesting to see what Tesla comes up with for the V4 Superchargers.)

NEVI guideline allows exceptions to be made on a case-by-case basis so as long the DOT signs off on it.

For example, not having enough power at the site would probably meet DOT's exception.

 

[bradtem]

NEVI guideline allows exceptions to be made on a case-by-case basis so as long the DOT signs off on it.

For example, not having enough power at the site would probably meet DOT's exception.

I haven't studied the regs that require 150K per station. Are these for the federal subsidies (which are for rural and low income areas) or from some of the state subsidies? Would appreciate pointers.

Super fast charging is vastly overrated, and mostly there for marketing so you can publish an impressive number about one particular charge or another. The reality is that fastest rate is only delivered at a low SoC, and so it only results in a much more modest decrease in total charge time above around 100kw. As it stands, a typical supercharge already takes less time than a meal unless you really rush the meal, and results in having to get up from your food to move your car.

In addition, right now I think the biggest need for fast charging is in rural areas where it is not yet practical to travel in an EV. The federal grants will help with that, but in many cases, these locations are better served by more, cheaper stations in the 50-100KW range than by fewer locations with 150kw or more.

 

[MP3Mike]

I haven't studied the regs that require 150K per station. Are these for the federal subsidies (which are for rural and low income areas) or from some of the state subsidies? Would appreciate pointers.

Yes, the NEVI program is federal subsidies, doled out to the states, where most states then dole it out to contractors. The goal is to have DC Fast Chargers available about every 50 miles on "major" highways.

The first ~4 years are already "planned" out. For example here is Oregon's plan:

They, in my opinion, still miss some "major" highways. For example Oregon Route 6, which is fairly heavily travelled, and not currently, or planned to be covered.

The other problem is that they take into account existing stations, like EA, that aren't currently up to NEVI reliability standards, so they aren't planning to put chargers in near those locations.

I'm not saying it is all bad, but they sure are taking their time. Plans were in by 8/1, they are supposed to be approved by 9/22, but Oregon doesn't think any construction will start until April, 2023 at the earliest. (Though Oregon is on a July-June fiscal year, so they are planning to have all the green installed by June 30, 2023.) I would have moved the coast route up a FY, but what do I know.

Note: they only asked for a single distance exception so far, that it will be 56 miles between two locations. (They do warn that they might need to request more exceptions based on the availability of power.)

 

[Mockingbird]

I haven't studied the regs that require 150K per station. Are these for the federal subsidies (which are for rural and low income areas) or from some of the state subsidies? Would appreciate pointers.

Super fast charging is vastly overrated, and mostly there for marketing so you can publish an impressive number about one particular charge or another. The reality is that fastest rate is only delivered at a low SoC, and so it only results in a much more modest decrease in total charge time above around 100kw. As it stands, a typical supercharge already takes less time than a meal unless you really rush the meal, and results in having to get up from your food to move your car.

In addition, right now I think the biggest need for fast charging is in rural areas where it is not yet practical to travel in an EV. The federal grants will help with that, but in many cases, these locations are better served by more, cheaper stations in the 50-100KW range than by fewer locations with 150kw or more.

NEVI stands for National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure.

The program itself is called the NEVI Formula Program.

So yes, it is a federal program.

 

[bradtem]

Yes, the NEVI program is federal subsidies, doled out to the states, where most states then dole it out to contractors. The goal is to have DC Fast Chargers available about every 50 miles on "major" highways.

The first ~4 years are already "planned" out. For example here is Oregon's plan:

View attachment 846845

They, in my opinion, still miss some "major" highways. For example Oregon Route 6, which is fairly heavily travelled, and not currently, or planned to be covered.

The other problem is that they take into account existing stations, like EA, that aren't currently up to NEVI reliability standards, so they aren't planning to put chargers in near those locations.

I'm not saying it is all bad, but they sure are taking their time. Plans were in by 8/1, they are supposed to be approved by 9/22, but Oregon doesn't think any construction will start until April, 2023 at the earliest. (Though Oregon is on a July-June fiscal year, so they are planning to have all the green installed by June 30, 2023.) I would have moved the coast route up a FY, but what do I know.

Note: they only asked for a single distance exception so far, that it will be 56 miles between two locations. (They do warn that they might need to request more exceptions based on the availability of power.)

That's a shame. Looks like the highways I can already drive. I was hoping to get charging in the remote roads, to eventually reach a point that there's nowhere you can't conveniently go in a 200 mile range EV.

 

[Mockingbird]

That's a shame. Looks like the highways I can already drive. I was hoping to get charging in the remote roads, to eventually reach a point that there's nowhere you can't conveniently go in a 200 mile range EV.

You have to remember that the NEVI Formula Program is not just about building new charging stations. It is also about setting a minimal expectation, that is, four 150 kW chargers every 50 miles and non-proprietary.

Many existing charging stations doesn’t meet this minimal expectation.

 

[Rocky_H]

The one that's really needed, U.S. 95, is last on the list for FY25. *facepalm*