Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Charging Standards and Infrastructure' started by dsm363, May 25, 2012.
At some point in the future even local yokels in Timbuktu will have a Tesla. Then the travel spots will be packed. We have to come up with a term for that. Yokeld?
Hey... just because I still have to climb a pole to answer my telephone calls doesn't mean I'm not entitled to charge my flying carpet too!
Just remember that some of us "local yokels" already have Teslas.
If they are at Tesla facilities, they're almost certainly in a business zoned area, plus it would be trivial to make sure that only boni fide travelers use them, at least during business hours.
Anyway, not building them because they might get used seems an odd trade off. The cost to build them is low at existing facilities, so it's not a zero sum game where adding one to a service center subtracts one from a highway rest stop.
If they put HPC, asside Superchargers, people can choose fast or fastest charge! ;-)
Would 4 hpc cost more than 4 superchargers?
I guess once the basics of a supercharger are installed, adding berths will cost +/- same as adding a hpc! no?
Some of the most strategic locations would be near major interstate intersections which are also in metropolitan areas. This way they can cover multiple routes with one facility. I think as supercharger locations become more congested they could add additional chargers in same location quicker and cheaper than leasing/buying new locations.
There is the problem that most of these locations would most likely need a larger power feed than they currently have. This service upgrade can be VERY expensive.
I bet a lot of their Supercharger location requirements is nearby large power feed to tap off of.
Actually I believe Superchargers are all Solar powered.
That's one of the potentially clever things with Tesla's plan for solar power: put in a big enough solar array that it needs the hefty grid connection to take the generated power, then you have it available in the reverse direction when the sun's not shining. And with the various incentives for solar power, that side of the setup can pay for itself, leaving the marginal cost for the supercharger quite low. Probably not quite as good as that since the solar array would be too big (at least with the 'canopy' approach), but if it offsets part of the cost it's still a nice win.
Not sure it works quite as well in places with less sunshine than California - maybe in Norway they will place the superchargers in locations suited to hydro rather than solar?
No. In fact even the ones with solar panels don't supply the full power from the panels but draw from the grid, the panels just supplement and feed power back to the grid when no one is charging.
Well they have solar panels on them. They are all grid powered. But the thought is the solar panels will generate more aggregate power than the superchargers put out over a period of time (probably a year, to average out summer and winter). But if they were solar powered then you wouldn't be able to charge at night, when it was cloudy. That would not we very convenient.
Agreed. I used a online solar PV system calculator to estimate the size of a system that could generate ~90KW, at peak, in California, and its about 9,500 sq-ft. This would only supercharge one car, and only at peak time of day. Given that many of the supercharger locations have 2 or 4 or perhaps more charging spots in the future, they would have to cover many more parking spots than just the ones reserved for supercharging if they wanted to power the whole system from solar. The same problem exists for the idea that the grid connection would be the same capacity for grid to charger as it is the other way from solar panels to grid.
It is possible to cover the entire parking lot or the roofs on all the surrounding buildings but I don't think the plan is to do all that.
wasn't there mention that those superchargers would be connected to a battery?
then they would not need high-power connection to the grid!
But since they already are in commercial establishments, particularly the service centers, they likely already have 3 phase power, a parking area, and a building so they're well on the way. A green field Supercharger installation has to start from scratch, buy or lease land, put in a new service, and construct the facility.
It still seems to me that the marginal cost of adding one to an existing Tesla facility would be significantly less than building one from scratch.
At a sales facility, I'd also think that potential customers seeing and talking to owners charging there would make them feel better and existing owners might wander through the showroom and think about another car or an upgrade.
As far as completely solar powering a Supercharger, that would seriously not work in many areas of the country, e.g. New England. After the first few days of overcast weather with intermittent sleet I don't think there'd be much charging going on.
There was talk of that, but so far none are, and it would raise the cost of the system.
The real problem is whether or not their copper is fat enough. A single supercharger will pull about as much power as 20-40 houses (wolfram alpha). 100kW is a TON of power to pull instantaneously. Most commercial places won't have thick enough copper.
In fact you aren't going to bring in that much power on 480 3phase anyway it requires too much copper, you are going to bring in much higher voltage and step down near the supercharge units.
For that matter, I think it would be advantageous for all if one used the supercharger to the point where the charge rate dropped and then go to the HPC to top off while the supercharger would then be available for the next user.
Pretty sure all high voltage lines use aluminum, not copper.
Yep, aluminium wrapped steel lines.
I'd like a response from someone with AC transmission/subtransmission knowledge, but I believe if they used intermediate feed voltage of 3-4kV, the current would be much lower, and this is a standard industrial feed voltage.