7 manufacturers support J1772 L3 DC Quick chrgr over CHAdeMO

[JPVLeaf]

Take That, SAE and '7 Auto Manufacturers'-without-a-mass-market-EV-for-sale ....

Nissan's in the lead and on the offensive.

http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=26660

Chicago, IL - DBT, the largest European charging station manufacturer, announced that Nissan has selected it as one of five companies collaborating to speed the development of cheaper and smaller quick chargers for electric vehicles and to accelerate the installation of publicly-available quick charge points. The program is part of an aggressive rollout of a massive network of affordable fast charging stations that will provide convenient recharging to Nissan LEAF and other EV drivers.

The new quick charge units can recharge a vehicle’s battery to 80% capacity in less than half an hour while Nissan’s innovative design will allow a dramatic reduction in price to less than $15,000 - a fraction of the current market price in the U.S. This new low price will significantly improve the economics of owning and operating a commercial fast charging station, opening up the market for rapid growth.

With CHAdeMO and UL certification already completed, the new quick charge units will be available for purchase in early 2012.

This announcement builds on DBT’s recent progress in the EV charging market. In April DBT established U.S. operations in Chicago through the subsidiary DBT USA Inc., and earlier this month DBT was selected to supply 1,500 Level II charging stations through the E-laad project in the Netherlands (the first phase of a program that is expected to install 15,000 charging points over the next 5 years). DBT USA is currently investigating U.S. locations for a manufacturing facility for the company’s product lines. According to DBT CEO Herve Borgoltz, “Our partnership with Nissan is further evidence that DBT is well positioned to lead this exciting global growth phase in the EV charging market. Our combination of exceptional design and engineering capabilities, 20 years of in-market experience, and aggressive investments in new markets like the US is opening the door to a wide range of new opportunities.”

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

lets take bets;

i am saying that technological advances and innovations will dramatically change the options available for charge storage and will probably do so 18-36 months after the implementation of the said technology by these 7 manufacturers

 

[Spies]

But they have goals:
http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/10/chevrolet-spark-ev-with-a123-nanophosphate-lithium-ion-batteries.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ford may be the first carmaker to sell 100,000 cars annually that includes lithium batteries. When I lasted interviewed Nancy Gioia, Director Ford Global Electrification, she said that Ford has a 2020 goal of 10 to 25 percent of its vehicle sales including lithium batteries. Her best guess is that 70% would be hybrids, 20 to 25% plug-in hybrids, and 5 to 10% battery-electric.

Forgive my ignorance but what exactly does Ford having a goal to have 10 to 25 percent of its vehicle sales include lithium batteries have anything to do with DC quick chargers? And this business of making a vehicle a hybrid is not "Electrification" in my book especially if the vehicle lacks a plug. Besides I suspect the main reason they are switching to lithium for their hybrids is to avoid the whole patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries.

 

[TonyWilliams]

and 5 to 10% battery-electric.

Forgive my ignorance but what exactly does Ford having a goal to have 10 to 25 percent of its vehicle sales include lithium batteries have anything to do with DC quick chargers?

Actually, it shows that Ford won't really be in the Quick Charge business if such a small number of cars will be electric by 2020.

 

[garygid]

With the proposed connector, the L2 subset is used by existing L1 and L2 EVSE, with no changes, I believe. Thus, no "outdated" L2.

The added HV pins also carry the proposed Fast-Charge (L3) control communications, I believe.

 

[scottf200]

But they have goals:
http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/10/chevrolet-spark-ev-with-a123-nanophosphate-lithium-ion-batteries.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ford may be the first carmaker to sell 100,000 cars annually that includes lithium batteries. When I lasted interviewed Nancy Gioia, Director Ford Global Electrification, she said that Ford has a 2020 goal of 10 to 25 percent of its vehicle sales including lithium batteries. Her best guess is that 70% would be hybrids, 20 to 25% plug-in hybrids, and 5 to 10% battery-electric.

Forgive my ignorance but what exactly does Ford having a goal to have 10 to 25 percent of its vehicle sales include lithium batteries have anything to do with DC quick chargers? And this business of making a vehicle a hybrid is not "Electrification" in my book especially if the vehicle lacks a plug. Besides I suspect the main reason they are switching to lithium for their hybrids is to avoid the whole patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries.

I guess I was not thinking of today or a few short years but longer. Standards are for very long term planning.
Who is to say that Ford's "20 to 25% plug-in hybrids" won't be able to have L3 connects in 5-10 years? Why are we stuck thinking these will be L2 forever?
"5 to 10% battery-electric" is only a percentage but if it is of a large number of Ford's sales then it is still a big numbers. If you add in 20-25% above then really big numbers.

Hope that better explains where I was going. Sorry for not being clearer.

 

[SanDust]

Open standards backed by the big players always prevail. This won't be an different. The discussion about how "first feet on the ground" will be determinative reminds me of discussions about how the then deployed proprietary wireless standards would prevail over IEEE 802.11. You have a single plug endorsed by the biggest auto manufacturers which will work both in NA and the EU, both single phase and three phase, at the highest power levels, and with an established communication protocol. There isn't much not to like.

Yes it will lead to some stranded investment and probably some delays but over even the medium run these are minor issues. Given the extremely low number of cars that can use QC which will be released over the next few years this isn't a big loss. Additionally even if there were 10X more, it's hard to see what entities would install the QCs. Given the high cost of the chargers, you can't make a business case for QCs. Governments aren't exactly flush, and the stimulus money which might have changed this will soon be gone.

The big disappointment is that it seems probable that Ecotallity won't install anywhere near the number of QCs promised. This is very unfortunate because, in those markets with a decent concentrations of Leafs, installing the number it had announced would have produced data giving everyone an idea of how viable the concept is.

 

[astralfish]

It's a conspiracy! :roll: Oh, wait.. We all know conspiracy theories don't exist!

 

[walterbays]

Open standards backed by the big players always prevail.

Like, for instance...

• Ada
• Algol/68
• ANDF
• Common Desktop Environment
• HD-DVD
• Linux Standard Base
• OS/2
• OSF Unix
• PL/I

 

[smkettner]

If the big boys come up with something good and actually utilize it, it will prevail.
Right now Nissan is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Second maybe Tesla. The rest are just talking.

 

[GPowers]

Open standards backed by the big players always prevail.

Like, for instance...

• Ada
• Algol/68
• ANDF
• Common Desktop Environment
• HD-DVD
• Linux Standard Base
• OS/2
• OSF Unix
• PL/I

You forgot Betamax

 

[SanDust]

Open standards backed by the big players always prevail.

Like, for instance...

• Ada
• Algol/68
• ANDF
• Common Desktop Environment
• HD-DVD
• Linux Standard Base
• OS/2
• OSF Unix
• PL/I

Some of these like OS/2 weren't open or even backed by the big players, most are software not hardware (huge difference), and HD-DVD simply never worked. While it's true that DC charging may never work, someone mentioned Betamax which isn't a bad example since it is one of the two formats which no longer matter, the point was that if the open standard exists it will prevail over the proprietary ones. That even when the proprietary standard is superior much less, as here, when it's inferior. The most recent example of the how this works is Android. Android is clearly dominating the iPhone, despite the fact that the iPhone is arguably superior and had a huge head start.

Personally I think the whole CHAdeMO business is a tempest in a teacup because there won't be a large enough number of fast chargers with any type of connector to matter for at least the next five years, if then. Fast chargers need a lot more EVs than we'll see in the foreseeable future AND a business model to make them viable. So yes, the likelihood is that this standard will fail, but not because it loses out to CHAdeMO.

 

[Spies]

The most recent example of the how this works is Android. Android is clearly dominating the iPhone, despite the fact that the iPhone is arguably superior and had a huge head start.

You almost make it sound like I will wake up one day and Apple would have thrown in the towel and switched their phones to Android. I don't see that happening anytime soon. IOS hardware and Android hardware will most likely coexist for decades just like Windows and Mac has. Does one have a larger market share than the other? Yes, but it does not mean the other will go away anytime soon.

In the end I am hoping that just because a new standard is on the horizon it does not completely stop the current available standard from being put into use. What I see happening is that DC fast charges will have both CHAdeMO and J1772 DC connectors on them just like many gas pumps have diesel, regular and supreme on them now. Will future Nissan vehicles have J1772 DC connectors instead of CHAdeMO? Possibly, but I hope to not have to care because the DC quick charge infrastructure will have both.

 

[TRONZ]

Shouldnt the title of this thread be that 7 manufacturers want to disagree with the existing L3 CHAdeMO standard? Kind of important to remember that CHAdeMO is already deployed and charging cars daily. Last I checked, "the tail does not wag the dog".

 

[SanDust]

In the end I am hoping that just because a new standard is on the horizon it does not completely stop the current available standard from being put into use. What I see happening is that DC fast charges will have both CHAdeMO and J1772 DC connectors on them just like many gas pumps have diesel, regular and supreme on them now.

If you're going to set up a DC charger then you'll use CHAdeMO. But at the moment why would anyone set up a DC charger? They cost a fortune and there aren't a sufficient number of EVs on the road to support them. The idea was to test whether DC chargers mattered by having the government put them. That made sense but that seems to have fallen flat and, in any event, the effort was always intended to be very limited in its geographic scope.

For a more general roll out we need a business case for DC chargers simply doesn't exist. If it costs $150,000 to put one in, you want a 12% return, and you depreciate the equipment over 5 years, then, even ignoring rent and maintenance and everything else, you'd need to net $48,000 per year or $131.50 a day. That doesn't sound like too large a nut, but how much would people pay to use a DC charger. How about $.25/kWh? Most people would probably think this was too high a price, but let's say they didn't. At the very least it would cost you $.15/kWh, so you'd be making $.10/kWh. Going back to your nut, this means that you'd have to sell 1,315 kWh per day. Assuming a customer would use an average of 15 kWh, that means you'd have to service 88 customers a day, or 3.65 customers an hour, every hour.

How likely is that? Well it's not physically possible to start with. You probably can't handle more than a couple of customers an hour. Moreover, given that for the next two years there won't be more than 25K cars on the road with a DC connector, how many customers would you really get?

This is actually a best case scenario because it ignores demand charges. Account for those and there is no realistic hope of making this work. You can blame a standards squabble over the lack of DC chargers but the real culprits will be expensive hardware and infrastructure upgrades, peak demand pricing of electricity, a limited number of customers, and low margins due to the alternative of cheap at home charging.

 

[garygid]

Same analysis, install a $15k QC for $10k (25k total, so 6x better), make 10%, depreciate over 8 years, locate where food is sold ... then you have a possible business case!

 

[Spies]

Same analysis, install a $15k QC for $10k (25k total, so 6x better), make 10%, depreciate over 8 years, locate where food is sold ... then you have a possible business case!

No Gary, don't you see? SanDust has shown me the light! In the words of Glum from The Adventures of Gulliver "It'll never work!"

 

[Herm]

This is actually a best case scenario because it ignores demand charges. Account for those and there is no realistic hope of making this work.

The only possible way for it to work has to be very high gasoline prices and gov supported L3 charging infrastructure.. you need both. Meanwhile its a good idea that electrics without range extenders come equipped with L3 ports.

 

[walterbays]

SanDust has shown me the light! In the words of Glum from The Adventures of Gulliver "It'll never work!"

I think Gary's numbers are closer to right. But SanDust is right that getting QC stations installed is apparently much harder than anyone imagined. A big obstacle in California is the utility demand charges that make a QC station economically infeasible unless it has very high utilization (not likely with a small base of EVs and not desirable with a large base) or unless it's metered with a commercial or industrial building and integrated into its demand management system.

As SanDust notes a main purpose of the initial EV Project installed QC stations was to have been a study of usage patterns, which obviously is not occurring while no stations exist. I think we will belatedly get a few and they will find: (1) people like getting power for free (duh), (2) people resist paying more per mile for QC electricity than they would pay for gasoline, and (3) in some cases they will pay as much or more than gasoline. Why? If adding 20 miles of expensive QC range lets me drive the Leaf on a 100 mile trip, then that's 20 expensive miles plus 80 dirt cheap miles which could still be much less than driving all 100 miles in the ICE.

Companies like 350Green and Walgreens are taking a risk by installing QC stations before it is certain they will have enough customers. But then at one time some companies took a risk putting up the first cell phone towers when there were only a few cell phones in town that could use them. Some of those companies are now taking $100-200 from you each month and making tidy profits. Ten years from now some of the things we now do to charge our EV's may seem as quaint as carrying gasoline from a hardware store by the bucket. http://www.petroleumhistory.org/OilHistory/pages/gasoline/stations.html

 

[garygid]

Apparently SDG&E thinks they can compete with ChargePoint, Blink, etc. ...
IF the CPUC allows SDG&E to raise everybody's rates to fund the operation, they pay themselves for the power and fees, and they are guaranteed a 14% profit, every year.

Compete, well maybe not. More like drive the public companies out of business with Demand Charges, and maintain a monopoly on power distribution and sales.