Tesla tech talk Boston

[AndrewBissell]

Norbert, default Mennekes is AC single or 3-phase up to 70A (17kW) single phase or 63A 3-phase (43kW).

The proposal is to add the ability (not the requirement) to run DC faster charge (up to 70kW) via the same pins and connector.

This is smart and friendly to the user. One port on the car supports everything from plugging in with a portable EVSE at "grandma's house" at 10A single phase (2kW) up to an autobahn station fast charge (70kW).

The cost-effective nature of the 3-phase charging options in most of Europe remain valid under this proposal.

So I am not sure what you mean by "this probably removes any cost advantage on the DC end".

EDIT I guess in the penultimate sentence of your post you also meant DC Level 2 not AC Level 2?

 

[Norbert]

So I am not sure what you mean by "this probably removes any cost advantage on the DC end".

There have been thoughts that Mennekes might be less expensive than a DC charger by using 3-phase AC directly. But 3-phase AC goes up to 43 kW only (though that's quite good already), whereas the Leaf uses 50kW for fast charging, and Model S might use even more. If above 43 kW Mennekes will also use DC, then above 43 kW I would expect that in principle it will have a similar cost as other DC fast charging equipment (such as CHAdeMO). The advantage of Mennekes in Europe, of course, is that it can directly offer existing 3-phase infrastructure for charging EVs, up to 43 kW.

EDIT I guess in the last sentence of your post you also meant DC not AC?

I actually did mean AC, since so-called J1772 Level 2 usually refers to "AC Level 2" (240V, up to 80A, single phase). Both the Leaf and the Volt use J1772 AC Level 2 as their standard charging method, including for home-charging equipment. (And also support 110V Level 1). So it seems that in the US (and I guess in Japan) the standard method for non-fast charging will be J1772 Level 2, not 3-phase as perhaps in Europe.

The J1772 DC fast charging standard is compatible with J1772 AC Level 2, in so far as a single plug on the EV will be able to support all three J1772 charging methods: J1772 AC Level 1, AC Level 2, and DC fast charging equipment. Therefore I expect that when the time comes for the US to choose a fast-charging standard, it would choose J1772 DC fast charging over Mennekes (unless CHAdeMO will become the de-facto standard, or unless J1772 DC and CHAdeMO will coexist).

 

[AndrewBissell]

Thanks for the clarifications. I agree that the US will logically move up the J-curve to have a single connector on the car. I also feel that logically Europe would move along a Mennekes pathway. This will be fine since:
1. Very few cars will ever drive from North America to Europe
2. Major OEMs (even Tesla) make different versions of their cars for European and North American homologation (even different between US and Canada).
3. Electric and control systems will be likely identical (J1772 US and Mennekes single phase are, I guess J-DC an M-DC may adopt/extend CHAdeMO signalling and electrical standard) even though the connectors differ.

Then there is the question of 3-phase. It's a big deal that you can get nearly to the power of CHAdeMO DC (50kW) with a 3-phase EVSE. The former needs a very large piece of equipment that costs >>$10,000. The latter needs very little equipment (not really any more than a Tesla UMC) as it does no power conversion. This means that it could cost a few hundred dollars, certainly no more than 10% of the DC equipment. It fits really well with the way the grid really works (3-phase after all was pioneered by Nikola Tesla and won the battle a century plus ago). Therefore there is a great prospect for medium-fast (1 hour for 150 miles) charging to be implemented vey widely across Europe if the cars support 3-phase.

Can the cars support 3-phase charging cheaply? Well Renault clearly thinks so, as do the German car makers who back Mennekes. The electronics for inverter drive of 3-phase electric motors (Like the ones Tesla Motors uses) and especially for 3-phase regen to the battery must in principle be able to support 3-phase charging. (Note the Roadster can regen from its 3-phase motor about 40kW - that's about equivalent to 3-phase 63A charging though in the Roadster's case I know the connections were never designed to allow this, and fast charging with the Lithium Cobalt battery chemistry may not be sensible. These restrictions needn't be the case on ModelS or any newer car - and certainly if 100kW DC fast charge will be allowed then 43kW 3-phase must be fine for the battery.)

So I think why some people (me included) get worked up about this issue is:

1. The grid extends a 43kW service very easily in Europe (63A, 3-phase)
2. Electric cars that use 3-phase motors and do regen have hardware on board already that should easily re-purpose to use the 43kW for charging
3. Vendors who are developing their cars in Japan and US are ignoring this potential and forcing a model that requires expensive equipment to deliver roughly the same power (DC)

I don't know if in the long run any of this will matter. But it feels like we could accelerate faster in Europe if we agreed to use Mennekes style connectors; cars could accept 1- and 3-phase AC, and DC fast charge via these connectors; medium fast charge using 63A 3-phase was rolled out aggressively as it is low cost, and some DC in key locations.

NB this plan would may not be optimal for the US, given all the comments about 3-phase being scarce there, though I wonder if it's really scarce at the business and local distribution level.

 

[Norbert]

Thanks for the clarifications. I agree that the US will logically move up the J-curve to have a single connector on the car. I also feel that logically Europe would move along a Mennekes pathway. This will be fine since:
1. Very few cars will ever drive from North America to Europe
2. Major OEMs (even Tesla) make different versions of their cars for European and North American homologation (even different between US and Canada).
3. Electric and control systems will be likely identical (J1772 US and Mennekes single phase are, I guess J-DC an M-DC may adopt/extend CHAdeMO signalling and electrical standard) even though the connectors differ.

Pretty much agree with this and also with your other thoughts. I would understand if Europe wants to go with Mennekes, and the best way to get car manufacturers from US and Japan to recognize Mennekes would probably be for everyone in Europe to agree on one specific standard.

Perhaps at some point in the future there will be DC charging only, who knows. And the plugs will be exchangeable. Or something.

 

[cinergi]

I'll see if I can edit it up to place things into two clear sections.

Done.

 

[dpeilow]

Three phase is still relevant for all the reasons Nikola T discovered.

The interesting thing is that while the Mennekes implementation supports up to 43kW and may become IEC 62196-2, the older standard 69196-1 supports up to 298kW AC (J1772-2001 supports higher levels of AC charging that the present variant, too).

You can find 125A three phase AC outlets over here too. Granted, they are pretty rare, but I have seen them (race tracks being one location). IIRC Dale Vince's Nemesis is fitted with one.

 

[vfx]

Three phase is still relevant for all the reasons Nikola T discovered....

Discovered?

 

[Eberhard]

You should aware that Even in America all DC-charging Station will Be powered by 3-Phase AC mostly at 480V

 

[tomsax]

Yea, that's a bit concerning unless 45 minute charge stations become very prevalent in the next 3-4 years. If depletion is fast up front, then say reduced to 85-90% in the first couple years? I regularly travel Portland, OR to Seattle, WA which is about 190 miles. I figured the 230 mile pack would be fine (since I'd stay over the weekend so recharge isn't an issue). Buying a car that wouldn't be capable of making that trip after maybe even just a year of ownership is really making me reconsider.

Does that mean Portland to Seattle is the Kessel run? I hear that can be done in 12 parsecs. :smile:

But seriously...

Remember you don't have to fully charge the car, just charge enough to get you to your destination. Suppose you had to do the Portland to Seattle drive today in a Model S whose battery pack capacity was down to 60% of 230 miles = 138 miles. You charge up in range mode, drive 90 miles to arrive at the Burgerville in Centralia with 48 miles remaining. The HPC there is 208V/70A so you get a burger, log into the free WiFi, and get some work done for an hour while picking up 50 miles of range. That's enough to get you to Seattle.

That's cutting it a bit close. If you were really down to 138 ideal miles of range, you might want to hang out longer to have a bigger buffer, but if you can get something useful done while charging, it's no big deal.

Of course I'm cheating a bit. To get the ideal range, you have to drive a nice steady speed between 55 and 60 mph, which is a pain on a two-lane freeway where big trucks are trying to go 60 to 65 in the right lane and everything else is doing 70+. So, you'll want to spend a bit more time charging to get the buffer needed to drive at a more comfortable 65 to 70 mph.

Obviously this gets nicer with DC Fast Charging, but even with today's 16.8 kW HPC, it would be quite doable.

 

[ckessel]

Remember you don't have to fully charge the car, just charge enough to get you to your destination. Suppose you had to do the Portland to Seattle drive today in a Model S whose battery pack capacity was down to 60% of 230 miles = 138 miles. You charge up in range mode, drive 90 miles to arrive at the Burgerville in Centralia with 48 miles remaining. The HPC there is 208V/70A so you get a burger, log into the free WiFi, and get some work done for an hour while picking up 50 miles of range. That's enough to get you to Seattle.

True, though throwing an extra 45-50 minutes on 3 hour drive is annoying. One of my questions when the Model S comes out is what kind of provisions Telsa might make for 230 mile pack owners to upgrade. I don't need 300 miles, but I do want the ability to still confidently do 200+ miles even after 5 years of battery deterioration.

How do you find out things like the charger at Burgerville? How do you find out how many they have? I've looked around and had a hell of a time finding any sort of official site, that's accurate, that lists various recharge sites and the connection(s) supported. Hopefully that's another thing that'll become easier to find out in the next 18 months...where the heck charging stations are.

 

[dsm363]

ckessel: If that's a trip you'd make on a regular basis (190 miles), you should strongly consider the 300 mile pack. You could charge in standard mode that way and probably not have to recharge during your trip until you got to your destination.

 

[Jaff]

I agree dsm...Mr. Kessel, on your trip, you might want to pass the odd fella (and the even one too)...having a bit of fun will cut down your range...best leave a margin for a bit o' fun! :wink:

 

[ckessel]

That was kind of my point. The 230 mile pack really only has an effective range of, what, maybe 175 given margin of error and Tesla's noted rapid early battery deterioration?

 

[dsm363]

I don't think the battery deterioration is rapid from what I understand but it's something you should take into account. Either way, a 300 mile pack should give you 4-5 years of taking that trip and not having to recharge until you get there. If it became a problem, you could always upgrade in 5 years to whatever the latest battery pack was at the time (something you can't do for the Roadster - yet).

 

[ckessel]

I don't think the battery deterioration is rapid from what I understand but it's something you should take into account. Either way, a 300 mile pack should give you 4-5 years of taking that trip and not having to recharge until you get there. If it became a problem, you could always upgrade in 5 years to whatever the latest battery pack was at the time (something you can't do for the Roadster - yet).

There's a quote somewhere (maybe this thread?) that the battery pack deteriorates rapidly up front, levels out for years, then deteriorates rapidly again. I want to get the 300 pack, but I can't. At least not initially. I thought the 230 was going to work just great, but from what I've heard the last couple weeks, it's not realistically going to make the Seattle/Portland run after that early battery degradation is done.

That isn't a big deal in and of itself, I don't do the trip very often. It's just a bummer knowing I either need to upgrade battery pack later or the trip is going to a bit more complicated by a mid-trip stop.

 

[dsm363]

That isn't a big deal in and of itself, I don't do the trip very often. It's just a bummer knowing I either need to upgrade battery pack later or the trip is going to a bit more complicated by a mid-trip stop.

I think the 300 mile pack is supposed to be available at least if not initially then within the first year. If that's true, you should be able to upgrade at that point for the cost difference. This is of course just a guess since nothing official has been announced yet.

 

[Brian H]

I don't think the battery deterioration is rapid from what I understand but it's something you should take into account. Either way, a 300 mile pack should give you 4-5 years of taking that trip and not having to recharge until you get there. If it became a problem, you could always upgrade in 5 years to whatever the latest battery pack was at the time (something you can't do for the Roadster - yet).

One poster on the TM site reported 24 months, 15,000 miles, 3% range reduction. So I think the concerns are overblown.

 

[Eberhard]

Who knows about the cycle-live compared between the current chemistry and the new panasonic-cells for the 300 miles version?

 

[vfx]

I get plenty of "range reduction" from each of the firmware upgrades.