Some sweet ideas here. I love the idea of everything being pull-through. I'd add:
- Something on-hand to tow someone improperly parked. Just a no anger, "License-plate pictured and you're on camera, fine's in the mail, you're over here now" system unless there's a pressing matter. Berk ICE-ers.
- Might as well make it into an investment. Have it function secondary as a renewable energy station, since it needs SO MUCH power- all roofs are panels over the cars, grid-tie battery, whole 9 yards.
- On top of that- involve small towns. Have open spaces where residents can run shops, depending on if there's enough.
- RV parking?
Keith Tanner said:
DC Fast Charge basically means "faster than Level 2", which is effectively the same as my filtering for 50 kW. There are three basic standards in use: Tesla, CHAdeMO and CCS. It's looking to me that CCS is going to win, that's the Euro standard and it's being used by VW and Ford in the US. CHAdeMO is more likely to be found on Japanese cars and I believe the reason it got an initial foothold was thanks to the Leaf. I believe Tesla is actually required to use the CCS standard in Europe.
It's quite likely the ideal mix of chargers will change over time, but it's easier to change to a different charger type than it is to add more diesel pumps, for example. They all feed off the same grid. EA is having the same problem, trying to service both CCS and CHAdeMO.
Keith Tanner said:alfadriver said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
Given that the charging network is such a big deal for consumers, it would have made more sense for Tesla to push a common standard among everyone, which would increase the consumer appeal to EVs. I know Tesla would not think it's "fair" for them to pay for charging a Leaf, just like VW doesn't like the concept of letting Teslas charge on their system. But the better solution would be to make a single system, and make sure the horse is out there to lead the cart. Especially since it would allow Tesla to save money for the entire network- like for RevRico to make a charging station where one is needed.
One of the opening comments in this thread was "who's system" to use- whereas a single system would have made the process a whole lot easier.
Oh, I agree 100% that the multitude of standards is a problem, and the fact that my car can't use CCS is my biggest concern for long-term ownership. I'm not sure why Tesla didn't use an existing standard. I haven't looked into the chronology to see if there was a viable standard when Tesla started building theirs. But it did allow them to build in things that are just starting to get rolled into the other standards, such as payment info. With a Supercharger, you just roll up, plug in and you're done. With the others, you have to find some way to manage billing and the price structure can be challenging. Maybe it just wasn't technically possible to build what they wanted at the time.
It's my understanding that Tesla has offered to open their network to other manufacturers for years but the open source behavior they demanded from participants was too much. Aptera can/will use it.
On the plug side, there's a bit more to it than just "Which port is best" because so much of the port specs also deal with a nation's grid. Giant wall of text incoming.
Here in the US, line power is 220V (really 240) and is technically 2-phase, but we really use only 1. In the EU it's 230, and some nations- Germany comes to mind- have native 3-phase for high efficiency at the expense of safety and can run FAR higher voltages because of it. Because of this, USA CCS plugs are different from EU CCS plugs. Double of that 220v is ~440- Tesla's run 400V systems for their motors. This is actually a big deal, because it means you're "stepping down" the power only a scooch which is very efficient and doesn't consume much energy to do so- but jacking 400v to 800v like what the Porsche EV wants isn't, because now you have to add a transformer and that will have line losses. On top of that, 400v Supercharger cables already have to be liquid-cooled to be used; I can't imagine what 800v will need, despite the benefits. Tesla is required to use CCS in Europe; apparently, most of their inverters can support it stock (except maybe base Model 3).
Tesla didn't use an "existing standard" because one just didn't exist for doing these things at the time. I think the OG Roadster's even had a different port in the beginning and all of them were retrofitted by 2015. Tesla's hope was that they were going to be picked to be the charger standard and their business model was hoping for that OEM supplier tag.
Right now, there's other pluses and minues between both standards- off the back of my hand:
- Tesla supports up to 250KW/hr, CCS goes to 200KW/hr, but Rivian claims 300.
- CCS has both the DC ports but also a smaller AC port as well- which gets used for Ebikes, EV motorcycles and other smaller vehicles.
- Tesla port is physically much smaller- like a 1/3rd the size of CCS.
- CCS has 9 total connections including 2 for DC power and 5 for communication/AC power. Tesla has 5. IT could be argued that CCS is far more "Modular" for what a company needs it to do.
- CCS is non-proprietary and is understood; Tesla not so much.
- The only charge port certified for V2H/V2G (vehicle to home/grid/whatever) is CHAdeMO.
- Rivian is going CCS as well. Until Aptera, only Tesla was using the Tesla port.
- The Tesla port has remained unchanged all these years, whereas other manufacturers have repeatedly changed ports. Even now you still see new installs of CCS1 and things like J-ports alongside CADdeMO.
I think the final choice for the USA will be made within the next few years.
Electrek's primer on Charge ports, but it's a little short on hard details.
EnelX goes into how the EU CCS is different from USA CCS thanks to the EU having 230 volts.
I'm trying to find the "master comparison" list Electrek has done, but there's so many articles with "Charging" "port" ect. in them it's like digging a mountain away.
