It's cooler than you think. There is a gray rounded door (like a tiny darkroom door) to the entire cable storage space. A button on the right opens the door and closes it. If no one closes it a timer does. I'm guessing 30 seconds later. I saw others taking video of it. Jason?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Supercharger network
- Thread starter dsm363
- Start date
That's Britain. And obviously quite old because we haven't had those prices for about 6 years.
- - - Updated - - -
Just noticed the 216/225A and 365V here. I presume that 225A is maximum current? In which case max power is 82.1kW.
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
The distinction here is that the 1-2% guidance is likely referring to *range mode* supercharging. The guidance that provides no limit refers to *standard mode* supercharging.
- - - Updated - - -
That's Britain. And obviously quite old because we haven't had those prices for about 6 years.
- - - Updated - - -
Just noticed the 216/225A and 365V here. I presume that 225A is maximum current? In which case max power is 82.1kW.
Not sure that 365 V is the maximum voltage though.
You wouldn't expect it to be. If the onboard chargers are bypassed, the charger voltage is the voltage applied directly to the battery and so will rise during charging.
With this photo showing the car roughly half-charged, that suggests the 365V is around the middle of the charger's range (being set by the battery chemistry). However, we don't know how the charging algorithm varies the current with state-of-charge or other factors. One wild guess might be that for the bulk phase of the supercharging it keeps the power constant - so the 225A shown on the display is what it would be doing to a fully-discharged battery, which would be 350V on this theory. But it might be something altogether different - like constant current, with the difference between 216/225A explained by temperature.
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
They're both Tesla's (mfg) cars. Pretty sure the one on the left is a durability tester that's continuously getting supercharges. Not sure of the one on the right.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Cottonwood
Roadster#433, Model S#S37
Maybe, Tesla should start giving HPWC's to interested motels and restaurants. If Tesla is selling the HPWC for $1,300, its cost to produce is probably less than $1,000. If Tesla gives away the HPWC and the motel/restaurant pays for the install (limits requests), this could get a lot of good overnight/food stops in place between superchargers. This is not a supercharger network, but could fill in the gaps quickly...
The one thing that is clear to me is that this is a very important distinction that shouldn't be left to word of mouth communications. I assume its spelled out in the full owners manual, but it also needs to be on the Facts web page, the Quick Guide for Owners, etc. Normal owners that do not frequent these forums may not be aware that in addition to derating the published range (which assumes Range Mode charging) by factoring in actual driving speed, they need to also take off 10% of useable range if they expect to minimize battery degradation.
Larry
erha
Member
I've probably just overlooked something, but I just can't find the answer. Will the supercharger stations have a huge battery at the station or will everything go through the grid? The battery will definitely make it more expensive, while it requires less power from the grid. It can charge the battery slowly from the grid if there are no cars there.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
At this point they are not using batteries at the supercharge stations. The grid connection has to be able to provide full power.
Kipernicus
Model S Res#P1440
Just imagine someone driving back and forth between Harris Ranch and Lebec all day long!
116 miles each way, burn 400W per mile at 80 MPH. 46.4kWH is just over half the pack, perfect for the supercharger.
Yes but at 80 mph it will not be for free. You are likely to get a ticket or two along the way!
erha
Member
It really depends on how hard it is to get a supply to any given location. 500kVA is not small and nor are transformers of that size cheap. There is one location in the UK where even 50 kVA has not been economic.
We have been discussing that idea for a while. Along with being able to use a lower powered grid connection (since it is unlikely that cars will be lined up constantly using the Supercharger, at least for a while), it would also have the ability to reduce peak power demand which can incur "demand charges" from some power utilities which tack on extra fees based on highest momentary load. So far Tesla hasn't said much about this idea, although it is known that they are doing battery box research projects with Solar City, and will probably do something like that if it makes sense financially.
strider
Active Member
A supercharger station will use about as much grid power as a fast-food restaurant so it's not like they'll need to drop in a power sub-station to service the supercharger. Tesla will do what nearly everyone does with solar and use the grid as its battery. The solar cells on the supercharger will push power into the grid during the day and when someone charges it will pull power from the grid. Elon stated that they expect superchargers to be net generators of power into the grid. No batteries needed.
- - - Updated - - -
But wouldn't peak grid demand coincide w/ peak solar efficiency and so the supercharger wouldn't need as much grid power when the solar cells are humming?
We have too many Supercharger threads. Some of this is discussed elsewhere now.
But:
Solar is great because it puts in power when the grid is most heavily used (during the middle of the day when A/Cs can be on, factories are working, etc.) ... But... Many utilities charge demand fees based on highest peak "demand" load during the day/night. So lets say all your Supercharger got used only once during the month by a Model S Supercharging at night, or during a very cloudy day (when solar output is low), then you get dinged with a demand charge for the whole month that wasn't helped by your solar. Sure you will get some money credits for the solar trickling back to the grid during the day but it might not even cover that one demand charge from the one time you peaked your grid load. Sucky billing tactic used by many utilities which means that local battery buffering could be beneficial.
Further, if you had cheap enough battery cells you could do power "arbitrage" by charging your pack cheaply at night and just putting battery power back into the grid during the day when they pay you more for it (because they need more power then.) So far I think the battery costs makes this uneconomical, but someday in the future it may be a business opportunity. (Although the utility might get their own batteries first and start to normalize the day/night rates more.)
Cottonwood
Roadster#433, Model S#S37
They are using the grid and not local batteries. Using the grid as your virtual battery is way cheaper both in initial capital and long term maintenance than real batteries.
Seegem
Member
Sorry to break the thread, but does anyone know where the exact locations for the SC's will be? For example, I live in NYC, where will the SC station be? (near a bbq place? oh yes please! 
Sorry to break the thread, but does anyone know where the exact locations for the SC's will be? For example, I live in NYC, where will the SC station be? (near a bbq place? oh yes please!
I don't think the exact locations outside the few in California are know yet. People can guess at the locations from the dots on the map but I think that's it so far.
Similar threads
- Poll
