Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Supercharging & Charging Infrastructure' started by ecarfan, Oct 24, 2019.
Moderator note: this post was moved from a California Supercharger forum.
Ideally, for charging speed, all should be V3.
However, it's quicker and cheaper to cut the wait lines by installing more Urban Superchargers.
Most urban chargers are in shopping malls making it a good place for a quick top-off while your are shopping..The Top rate charging is only possible at a range between 12%-40% after that the charging tapers..
I don't see how widespread V3 adaptation is possible in the U.S. with demand charge pricing.
@KSilver2000 -- I don't accept the premise of the question. Of the last 100 Superchargers to open in North America only 36 have been Urban superchargers. That's right about a third. When you consider that so much of the freeway system already has existing, traditional style superchargers along it serving travel needs, the fact that urban style are still only making up ~1/3 of recent installs should really drive home that they aren't Tesla's priority.
I would say that the priority and long term plan for superchargers would be the adoption of the 'tesla standard' for plugging in and charging. Teslas solution is much more elegant and intuitive. If Tesla gets just one other car manufacturer to adopt and buy into the Tesla charging network, I believe that the flood gates will open and others will have to follow suit. Right now the other manufacturers feel threatened by Tesla and giving them anything is Taboo!
My original post was made in a thread from a SF Bay Area supercharging thread.
Do you have data showing that only 1/3 of recent installs are urban chargers?
I just counted all of the core Bay Area chargers, including those in construction. Can you believe there’s over 50+ stations operating or in construction? That’s just core Bay Area.
60% of these SCs are urban charging stations. And all of the newer ones in the East Bay are urban chargers.
That goes more of my point. Wouldn’t it be more of a quick “top off” if they were the 150kW chargers?
I don’t see how it’s quicker to cut wait times by installing urban chargers? Cheaper likely.
It's not about quicker charge. It's about how fast to cut the long line by shifting the line to another station. The line would be shorter but the charge rate is slower.
Instead of having a wait in line with 12 cars backed up all the way in the driveway and out on the street for Buena Park Supercharger that has 8 occupied bays, those 12 cars can go to another Westminster Mall Urban Supercharger that has 24 bays.
It's a quick way to solve the long line problem but not a way to solve the slow Urban Supercharger rate.
In areas with already existing dense supercharger coverage on freeways, you should expect to see more urban locations being built as they are geared more towards local/area use as opposed to travel use. The Bay Area is therefore one of the areas where I'd expect the highest proportion of urban supercharger construction.
I cited the data. I counted the last 100 new superchargers to open in North America and 36 of them were urban. If you're asking for the source of that data, it was from the changes log on supercharge.info.
East Bay superchargers that opened in the last year which are not urban chargers: Richmond, Alameda, Antioch, Vallejo, and Milpitas (I don't think the last two strictly count as East Bay, though). Plus the following East Bay sites which are either in construction or have an approved building permit and won't be urban superchargers: Emeryville and Dublin- Fallon Gateway (both in construction), Oakland- Hegenberger Rd. (permit).
You seem to know a lot. By chance, would you have an idea how much making a 12-stall 150kW station cost versus 12-stall 72kW station?
Where are you getting info confirming Emeryville, Fallon, and Hegenberger not being urban chargers? I would be happy to know if they’re not urban.
Other newer East Bay SC’s with 72kW urban chargers: Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Hayward, Newark, Milpitas (yes, Milpitas does count as East Bay).
No, I've no idea on the cost differentials, if any. For Emeryville and Dublin-Fallon, you can tell by looking closely at the pictures uploaded in the relevant TMC threads showing the hardware already installed on-site. Specifically, look at the preformed concrete bases for the charging pedestals. The ones for traditional-style superchargers and those for urban superchargers are distinct and easily differentiated. Those 2 locations already have the bases for the traditional type installed. Further, Emeryville will be V3 (250 kW) and Fallon V2 (150 kW) [Note: this is from looking at the conduit patterns].
I suppose I don't yet know for sure that the Hegenberger Rd. location won't be an urban supercharger, but I'm willing to bet it won't be. This based on the project descriptions in the building permits, the general location being right on the way to the Oakland Airport, the relative need for such a station to serve 880 north of Fremont, and the existing businesses in the plaza where it's going to be installed, none of which make it a good match for an urban supercharger. I expect it wlll also be V3.
There is likely little cost difference in the hardware. Operating the station is much more expensive in most areas.
This will never happen. I would rather see Tesla going to J1772 which is the standard in the US other than Tesla. Now I don't know if there are any power limitations to the J1772 connector over Tesla's so take my comment as you will.
The reason I say this will never happen is because Tesla has already been open with their charging technology and has always offered it to other manufacturers to use and not one automobile company has taken them up on it. You have everyone else using the J1772 connector and only Tesla using theirs. They've shown they can retrofit as seen with the CCS additions in EU.
Ultimately I wish we could all just agree on one standard across the world but I see another case of charging cables happening like with Apple and the rest of the world, there is talk of Apple conceding to USB-C, maybe Tesla will come around also.
I would think 150kW would be a good bit more expensive than 72kW urban chargers. More transformer capacity (perhaps this just comes back as operating expense?), 2x the AC2DC converters, and more copper in the wiring. The urban chargers have thinner cables.
Now of course, installation costs may totally override equipment cost? And, yes, with demand charges, operating cost would really win.
I don’t think we have any idea of what Tesla electricity rates are to determine that.
You don't need to know the rate, you need to understand demand charges (for the U.S.).
Care to elaborate with some example figures?
I’m asking because I don’t know how different it is.
Easiest way to reduce congestion at urban chargers is to raise the price. Check out the lines at Costco to see how pricing effects demand.