-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
VW Fallout: $2.0 Billion for ZEV Infrastructure Buildout
- Thread starter RubberToe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I'm willing to bet that details are still missing and confused. Welcome to the era of Internet Journalism.
Just for fun, a little arithmetic:
350 * 2 + 150 + 50 = 900 kW maximum load
I'm skeptical, but it might help to explain the exorbitant costs of these stations
That's slightly more grid power than a twelve stall Supercharger site, given Tesla's sharing architecture.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Yep, to service 1/3 the cars. What is their upgrade path when congestion occurs ?
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
I (in UK) haven't had a single public-charger experience that was straightforward(*). I have had to phone for assistance several times (e.g. even when I had the APP for that provider, but that Pump was not networked [go figure?]) and of those a number of occasions where despite saying they could the operator then failed to be able to initiate the connection remotely.
Looking at Plugshare 7 out of the 25 CHAdeMO sites in my area have a user-reported failure in the last month or so. I assume that not everyone uses / not all failures are reported on Plugshare.
My metric is that of Tesla's offering: "Plug in, walk away".
(*) admittedly [or, as you point out, because of my experiences?] 90% of my charging has been at Superchargers
It doesn't appear that way based on the GCR article @SageBrush posted:
"Unit 1 accommodates CHAdeMO or 150 kw CCS. Units 2 and 4 are dual headed 350 kw CCS. And Unit 3 is dual headed 150 kw CCS. The dual headed CCS units can only charge one car and the dual cables are designed to reach either the front or the back of a car and are never intended to be plugged into two cars at the same time."
Looks like the 350KW cables are limited to 2 stalls, and they aren't shared at all... even with each other.
It's possible to run two 350kW CCS and 2 150kW CCS at the same time. = 1,000 kW maximum load.
(2 chargers with 350kW supply, and 2 cables each
1 charger with 150kW supply and 2 cables
1 charger with 150kW supply and 1 150kW CCS cable, and one 50kW Chademo cable)
4 stalls, 4 350kW cables => use 350kW at any stall, 2 at time max
4 stalls, 3 150kW cables => use 150kW at any stall (with a bit of a stretch to one of them) 4 max (2 from 150kW, and 2 from 350kW)
1 50kW Chademo cable => use at 2 of the stalls (with a bit of a stretch to one of them) 1 max
If the 350kW chargers can't split power to more than one vehicle, I see absolutely no good reason for them to have more than one connector. However, I suspect that the manufacturer intends to provide the ability to split the power sometime in the future. However, it appears that EA has botched the installation so that it's not possible to park more cars next to the pedestals to take advantage of that possible future feature. Fail.
The problem with high kW DCFCs is the increasing acceptance and rates of Demand Metering. This is where the peak kW number during a month is most the electric bill. The actual kWh is cheaper.
Unless that is resolved, it might not be cost effect to remote charge at fast rates.
Unless that is resolved, it might not be cost effect to remote charge at fast rates.
That's not our problem, it's Electrify America's problem. They have also acknowledged it in their public filings by saying that certain locations will have battery storage to reduce grid impact and lower demand charges. However, until there are cars on the road that can pull more than the 50-70kW that the current CCS cars can manage, they don't have much to worry about.
It's employers, Tesla's, and all other DCFC car's problem. No employer is going to pay $400 a month to charge your car, and they legally would have include that in your wages. Commuting is not deductible. So paying for an employee's commute is wages.
All of that may be true, but has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, the VW settlement infrastructure buildout.
Folks squawked about 'not enough' plugs at DCFC stations that are in progress or planned. A lot of has to do with Demand Metering. As well as stopping things like 350kW charging. $2000+$5561.50 per month for one 350kW connector here. Each additional is another $5561.50 per connector.
This does not include electricity used.
If you take a cynical view and think that VW doesn't actually care about this network beyond the settlement, then they may not care about demand charges. It is probably a creditable O&M cost that counts for their mandated spend. When the network nears completion, it is getting more use, and they need it to break even, THEN they can add batteries to mitigate demand charges. Like I said above, there is little point now when the usage is so light, there are no cars available to pull more than 70kW, and they essentially write it off.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
The only reason is to allow the cable to reach either the front or back of the stall. Not just so you don't have to back in, but because you have to accommodate the charge port being in any location of a car. (Since there is standard for where the charge port is located on cars.)
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
All that money to save some driver the inconvenience of backing up the car (which some people like me do by preference) ?
Hard to believe. I"ll stick for now with my suspicion that the reporting is inaccurate.
What if the charge port is on the rear right corner, and the charger is on the left side at the back of the stall? (No amount of positioning the car would make it work without a very long cable that they aren't going to do.)
This was the reason in the aforementioned article: "...he dual cables are designed to reach either the front or the back of a car and are never intended to be plugged into two cars at the same time...".
Now, I'm with you on if that's a good reason... Although I suppose it's possible that a 350KW rated cable, even if liquid cooled, has some length limitations.
Similar threads
