Tesla Supercharger network

[LuckyLuke]

List of kWh delivered by Site as of 2013-12-21:
1) Fremont
2) Hawthorne
3) Gilroy
4) Coalinga (Harris Ranch)
5) Lebec (Tejon Ranch)
6) Oosterhout
7) Folsom
8) Atascadero
9) Darien
10) Barstow
11) Buellton
12) Zevenaar
13) Newark
14) Lillehammer
15) Cinderella
16) Burlington
17) Milford
18) Corning
19) *XXXXXXXXXX
20) *XXXXXXXX
21) Port St. Lucie
22) Woodburn
23) *XXXX XXXX
24) Fort Myers
25) Lyngdal
26) Mt. Shasta
27) Gol
Can someone fill in the unknowns?
Thanks to MikeC for filling in some of the unknowns.

 

[Discoducky]

All the I5 chargers deliver 120 from Centralia to Hawthorne

 

[MikeC]

I tried reading the board to make a list of kWh delivered by Site:
1) Fremont
2) Hawthorne
3) Gilroy
4) *XXXXXXXXX
5) *XXXXX
6) Oosterhout
7) Folsom
8) Atascadero
9) Darien
10) Barstow
11) Buellton
12) Zevenaar
13) Newark
14) Lillehammer
15) Cinderella
16) Burlington
17) Milford
18) Corning
19) *XXXXXXXXXX
20) *XXXXXXXX
21) Port St. Lucie
22) Woodburn
23) *XXXX XXXX
24) Fort Myers
25) Lyngdal
26) Mt. Shasta
27) Gol
Can someone fill in the unknowns?

4) Coalinga (Harris Ranch)
5) Lebec (Tejon Ranch)

 

[Treading water]

That sucks. If anyone from Tesla is reading this, and you need help with this project, I'm a registered electrical engineering PE and I work with the Ventura office of SCE all the time designing utility services. I would be happy to assist in getting this resolved.

- - - Updated - - -

That sucks. If anyone from Tesla is reading this, and you need help with this project, I'm a registered electrical engineering PE and I work with the Ventura office of SCE all the time designing utility services. I would be happy to assist in getting this resolved.

Sorry for the lack of reference quote. I was replying to the news that the Oxnard supercharger is delayed because they need to bring in a new service from SCE. I'd be happy to help with the design if they need it. Actually two of the largest electrical engineering consultants covering the Oxnard area are Tesla drivers who would love to get this one up and running. I was surprised to read they planned on pulling power from the sign. I would have thought they always had their own meters to take advantage of the dramatically lower EV power rates from SCE. It's around $0.08 per kWh vs $0.20.

 

[772]

List of kWh delivered by Site as of 2013-12-21:
1) Fremont
2) Hawthorne
3) Gilroy
4) Coalinga (Harris Ranch)
5) Lebec (Tejon Ranch)
6) Oosterhout
7) Folsom
8) Atascadero
9) Darien
10) Barstow
11) Buellton
12) Zevenaar
13) Newark
14) Lillehammer
15) Cinderella
16) Burlington
17) Milford
18) Corning
19) *XXXXXXXXXX
20) *XXXXXXXX
21) Port St. Lucie
22) Woodburn
23) *XXXX XXXX
24) Fort Myers
25) Lyngdal
26) Mt. Shasta
27) Gol
Can someone fill in the unknowns?
Thanks to MikeC for filling in some of the unknowns.

My best guesses

19) Rockford (IL)
20) San Marcos (TX)
23) Glen Allen (VA)

 

[jkirkebo]

List of kWh delivered by Site as of 2013-12-21:
14) Lillehammer
15) Cinderella

I think it's cool these two norwegian ones are so high on the list, considering there are about 15 times as many TMS running around in the US compared to Norway

 

[X-RAY]

How about the dutch ones?
Oosterhout and zevenaar. They only opened a few weeks ago.
The dutch people love their superchargers!
The first trips to Austria have just been succesfully completed!

 

[Pasinger]

List of kWh delivered by Site as of 2013-12-21:
1) Fremont
2) Hawthorne
3) Gilroy
4) Coalinga (Harris Ranch)
5) Lebec (Tejon Ranch)
6) Oosterhout
7) Folsom
8) Atascadero
9) Darien
10) Barstow
11) Buellton
12) Zevenaar
13) Newark
14) Lillehammer
15) Cinderella
16) Burlington
17) Milford
18) Corning
19) *XXXXXXXXXX
20) *XXXXXXXX
21) Port St. Lucie
22) Woodburn
23) *XXXX XXXX
24) Fort Myers
25) Lyngdal
26) Mt. Shasta
27) Gol
Can someone fill in the unknowns?
Thanks to MikeC for filling in some of the unknowns.

I compared with a picture posted here 3 weeks ago. Most probably they are:

15. Centralia
19. Bellmead (= Waco)
20. Sundebru (= Cinderella, Norway)
23. Glen Allen

 

[Lump]

What did he say?

Mostly small talk, I didn't want to take up his time & ask a lot of questions, guard said they were going to be on vacation so he was probably finishing up a few things. Super nice guy!

- - - Updated - - -

On the dashboard, do the numbers change in real time? If so, it may be possible to discover the IP address. Maybe it's just anonymous and not encrypted. My guess would be that the data resides on an internal (private) Tesla network, but it wouldn't be that hard for them to push it out to a public IP.

The dashboard was refreshing every 15-30 seconds or so.

 

[caddieo]

List of kWh delivered by Site as of 2013-12-21:
1) Fremont
2) Hawthorne
3) Gilroy
4) Coalinga (Harris Ranch)
5) Lebec (Tejon Ranch)
6) Oosterhout
7) Folsom
8) Atascadero
9) Darien
10) Barstow
11) Buellton
12) Zevenaar
13) Newark
14) Lillehammer
15) Cinderella
16) Burlington
17) Milford
18) Corning
19) *XXXXXXXXXX
20) *XXXXXXXX
21) Port St. Lucie
22) Woodburn
23) *XXXX XXXX
24) Fort Myers
25) Lyngdal
26) Mt. Shasta
27) Gol
Can someone fill in the unknowns?
Thanks to MikeC for filling in some of the unknowns.

#19 - Port Orange

 

[PhilBa]

That is true for your modest, rolling hills, but does not work for 10-30 mile, 4-8,000 ft climbs and descents in Colorado; CC works better. When I have time, I will do a little write up on when its better to store the energy in the battery or in the kinetic energy car.

Here is the quick summary. For little hills, the loss to increased aerodynamic drag from freewheeling through the valley is small compared to the losses in and out of the battery. For long, big hills, its the other way around; there is less loss putting energy into the battery and taking it back out than the extended loss to aerodynamic drag from long stretches at high speed.

You could well be right. I'd like to see your write up. However, there is a lot of loss regen'ing into the battery. With a local hill - 250 ft of gain over 1.5 miles, I spend approx 1.1KWH going up and gain about 200 WH coming back down (net at the bottom after round trip is 900 WH). This is at a pretty constant speed of 25 mph so not a huge amount of aero loss. Clearly, at higher speeds the regen gain would be less. The cost of going up the hill dominates so minimizing that helps a lot - this why letting your speed bleed off on the up hill helps. I think it would a very interesting experiment to try several different approaches on much longer runs. Maybe when I get a free day I'll run up to Snoqualmie Summit to try it.

 

[Cottonwood]

You could well be right. I'd like to see your write up. However, there is a lot of loss regen'ing into the battery. With a local hill - 250 ft of gain over 1.5 miles, I spend approx 1.1KWH going up and gain about 200 WH coming back down (net at the bottom after round trip is 900 WH). This is at a pretty constant speed of 25 mph so not a huge amount of aero loss. Clearly, at higher speeds the regen gain would be less. The cost of going up the hill dominates so minimizing that helps a lot - this why letting your speed bleed off on the up hill helps. I think it would a very interesting experiment to try several different approaches on much longer runs. Maybe when I get a free day I'll run up to Snoqualmie Summit to try it.

Here is an extreme example, heading west on I-70 out of the Eisenhower Tunnel, down to Silverthorne, CO, a loss of about 2,500 feet.

If I come out of the Eisenhower Tunnel going west in Colorado, and let the car roll with no regen (0 power), I will hit speeds of 90+ mph on the descent to Silverthorne and have added no miles (kW-hr) to the battery. If I descend at 50 mph, I will add about 6 miles (2 kWh) to the battery. I have done the regen part of this comparison, but I am not sure I want to do this experiment from a safety point of view to see how much I save on the uphill heading towards Vail Pass, but let's calculate it. Kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^1. 90mph=>510 W-hr and 65mph=>266mph for a 5,000 lb car. That is a difference of 244 W-hr or almost 1 rated mile. That means that regening down into Silverthorne at 50 mph, I can have 6 miles of extra energy in the battery descending at 50 mph or ~1 mile of kinetic energy descending at 90+ mph. I'll take the 6 miles of battery energy (especially if if I am going to pull off at Silverthorne to Supercharge...:wink

In reality, because the MS does not show any extra miles until you have accumulated 1 kW-hr (3-4 miles rated range), it is best to look at this stuff in kW-hr on the trip screen.

 

[Nathan Smith]

Ok,

Just so I am catching what you are saying, cottonwood... The loses due to aerodynaic drag and ground friction is greater than the loses of putting energy back into the battery? I know I have seen elsewhere on this forum that coasting down a hill is better than trying to regen the battery.

 

[Cottonwood]

Ok,

Just so I am catching what you are saying, cottonwood... The loses due to aerodynaic drag and ground friction is greater than the loses of putting energy back into the battery? I know I have seen elsewhere on this forum that coasting down a hill is better than trying to regen the battery.

As they say, it all depends.

Transfers of energy from potential to kinetic and back are lossless, and it costs about 10% in losses to put energy into the battery and another 10% to take it back out for a net 19% loss; we will round that to 20% in our gross, hand-waving level of precision. The penalty for speeding up on down hills and using that kinetic energy on up hills is that you are traveling for some period of time at a faster speed and losing extra energy to aerodynamic drag. There are many losses for the MS, but the part that goes to pushing all of that air out of the way (aerodynamic drag) scales with the square of velocity.

If you are doing a little "whoosh" through a small valley, then you are not at speed very long and the aerodynamic losses are small relative to the 20% or so losses putting energy into and then taking it out of the battery. So for small rolling hills, its better to let the car roll, convert potential energy (altitude) to kinetic energy (speed) and back.

The situation changes when you have very long descents with big altitude changes. My Eisenhower tunnel to Silverthorne, CO example was a good one. On big, long hills, the car accelerates to terminal velocity. Once at terminal velocity, all of the that great potential energy is just being converted to heat in the air as aerodynamic drag, and no more energy is being added to the kinetic bucket. Those aerodynamic losses just goes on and on...until you reach the bottom of the hill. So for the long, mountain descent case, even with the 20% round-trip loss to and fro the battery, its better to regen than modestly heating up that mountain air. So on long, big descents its better to use CC, regen, and put something into the battery.

Where is the tradeoff, break-even point? I don't know. It would be a great analysis that I may do some day.

 

[jerry33]

I know I have seen elsewhere on this forum that coasting down a hill is better than trying to regen the battery.

But it appears to depend on the speed. That is there should be a crossover speed where the aerodynamic resistance is equal to or greater than the loss from energy conversion during regen. Of course, if you get a speeding ticket then that trumps any energy gains

 

[purplewalt]

List of kWh delivered by Site as of 2013-12-21:
1) Fremont
2) Hawthorne
3) Gilroy
4) Coalinga (Harris Ranch)
5) Lebec (Tejon Ranch)
6) Oosterhout
7) Folsom
8) Atascadero
9) Darien
10) Barstow
11) Buellton
12) Zevenaar
13) Newark
14) Lillehammer
15) Cinderella
16) Burlington
17) Milford
18) Corning
19) *XXXXXXXXXX
20) *XXXXXXXX
21) Port St. Lucie
22) Woodburn
23) *XXXX XXXX
24) Fort Myers
25) Lyngdal
26) Mt. Shasta
27) Gol
Can someone fill in the unknowns?
Thanks to MikeC for filling in some of the unknowns.

I compared with a picture posted here 3 weeks ago. Most probably they are:

15. Centralia
19. Bellmead (= Waco)
20. Sundebru (= Cinderella, Norway)
23. Glen Allen

I think you have correctly solved the riddle.
I can actually make out the words (now knowing what they are...)

 

[Cottonwood]

But it appears to depend on the speed. That is there should be a crossover speed where the aerodynamic resistance is equal to or greater than the loss from energy conversion during regen. Of course, if you get a speeding ticket then that trumps any energy gains

Actually time at speed... Happy optimizing! :biggrin:

 

[Nathan Smith]

As they say, it all depends.

Where is the tradeoff, break-even point? I don't know. It would be a great analysis that I may do some day.

Since for some reason I don't want to study for a certificaton test..., I was thinking the break-even point would be termial velocity. So you're coming down said looooong hill and you free roll it until the car no longer accelerates - at which point you start regen, but just enough to keep you right at terminal velocity.

 

[abasile]

Since for some reason I don't want to study for a certificaton test..., I was thinking the break-even point would be termial velocity. So you're coming down said looooong hill and you free roll it until the car no longer accelerates - at which point you start regen, but just enough to keep you right at terminal velocity.

Maintaining terminal velocity, no energy can be gained by regen; by definition, it's all lost to drag. If you want to put energy into the battery pack, you'll need to maintain a speed reasonably below terminal velocity. I think the best energy maximization strategy is to maintain a comparatively slow speed for most of the downhill, then back off on the regen and speed up near the bottom.

Of course, some of us need regen to keep from flying off the mountain. This is a particular point of frustration with my LEAF right now, as it seems to be limiting regen more than necessary on my 4900' descents. Looking forward to eventually getting into a Tesla (S or X with AWD) with better regen...

 

[Cottonwood]

Maintaining terminal velocity, no energy can be gained by regen; by definition, it's all lost to drag. If you want to put energy into the battery pack, you'll need to maintain a speed reasonably below terminal velocity. I think the best energy maximization strategy is to maintain a comparatively slow speed for most of the downhill, then back off on the regen and speed up near the bottom.

+1 Sounds like a good empirical plan to me. :wink: