First Fuji DC charger lands in California

[DaveEV]

It makes much more sense optimize the charge rate, available at the site, by maximizing the kW of that charger, than by putting a larger, more expensive, faster L2 charger in each BEV, "just in case" you find a higher kW L2 site.

I think you're missing something here... J1772 can do up to 70A - that's 17 kW from the wall and well into "quick charger" territory once we start talking about limiting power. Tesla ships their cars 70A capable. There are a number of these out in the wild already, especially in California.

Compared to 3.8kW (from the wall), 17 kW is over 4 times faster - you can get an 20-80% charge in under an hour at this rate.

And then you don't need any fancy, expensive DC QC station. The EVSE is the same as the one in your garage, just with beefier cables going in and out. Clipper Creek will sell you one for $2200 (keep in mind that their 40A unit is prices at $1750). And you only need one charge port.

Pretty easy to see why Renault is choosing the up to 43 kW Mennekes charging - which takes in just about any type of AC - single phase, 3 phase, etc. All from a single plug the same size as a J1772 plug.

At this point in the game - I'd much rather have a 70A J1772 capable port than a DC QC port. I'd bet if we needed these instead of CHAdeMO there'd be dozens and dozens of these stations installed already.

And if you still need more power - simply add another J1772 port and voila - in the same space as the current J1772 CHAdeMO plug, 36 kW fast charging (which would be nearly as fast as 50 kW CHAdeMO for the LEAF since the charge starts tapering down pretty quickly) and much faster opportunity charging at your J1772 typical charge point.

 

[Pipcecil]

DC charging is just more efficient than AC charging. Cutting off the need for conversion saves a handful of percentage points. While maybe not a big deal with a small battery pack of 24 kWhs, if, in the future you get extremely large packs, that loss ends up being a big deal when it comes to charging time, etc.

Also, the faster your charge with AC, your onboard charger heats up significantly more, requiring more coolant to pump around, increasing your conversion loss as the car has to work some to get that energy. AC is more common and is everywhere, but direct DC will always be better and more efficent for your batteries.

 

[davewill]

DC charging is just more efficient than AC charging. Cutting off the need for conversion saves a handful of percentage points. ...

But the grid supply is already AC...there's no extra conversion involved in L2.

 

[evnow]

At this point in the game - I'd much rather have a 70A J1772 capable port than a DC QC port. I'd bet if we needed these instead of CHAdeMO there'd be dozens and dozens of these stations installed already.

From what I understand the problem is not the cost of DC chargers, but the power requirement. Afterall EV Project makes the chargers free.

 

[DaveEV]

DC charging is just more efficient than AC charging. Cutting off the need for conversion saves a handful of percentage points. While maybe not a big deal with a small battery pack of 24 kWhs, if, in the future you get extremely large packs, that loss ends up being a big deal when it comes to charging time, etc.

Also, the faster your charge with AC, your onboard charger heats up significantly more, requiring more coolant to pump around, increasing your conversion loss as the car has to work some to get that energy. AC is more common and is everywhere, but direct DC will always be better and more efficent for your batteries.

No matter where the AC/DC conversion is done, it still needs to be done. Granted, it may be more difficult to get a inexpensive, efficient, lightweight, high power and small charger into the car than it is in a stationary position. But obviously it's been done for years now on various low-volume EVs. Tesla is making a single 10kW onboard charger standard for the Model S. For $1500 one can upgrade to 20 kW with twin chargers. Surely Nissan could do it for less in higher volume?

At this point in the game - I'd much rather have a 70A J1772 capable port than a DC QC port. I'd bet if we needed these instead of CHAdeMO there'd be dozens and dozens of these stations installed already.

From what I understand the problem is not the cost of DC chargers, but the power requirement. Afterall EV Project makes the chargers free.

True. But still - if you're comparing the cost of a $2k J1772 EVSE to a $25k DCQC (Nissan $10k unit is now officially vaporware) - $20k+ will pay for a lot of demand charges.

 

[evnow]

True. But still - if you're comparing the cost of a $2k J1772 EVSE to a $25k DCQC (Nissan $10k unit is now officially vaporware) - $20k+ will pay for a lot of demand charges.

Commercial J1772 that can handle 50kW won't be $2k.

If Tesla can get a 10kW charger for $1,500, no reason to think Nissan's $10k CHAdeMO is vaporware. Afterall, Renault has that kind of charger in the car (and it must cost quite a bit less than $10k).

 

[JeremyW]

There will undoubtedly be all sorts of DC chargers, that operate at various kW capacities available, in the near future.

This is one of the reasons why I expect L2 to, eventually, pretty much fade out of the BEV public charging picture.

That and vehicle to grid. We already have great technology to take DC and produce AC at ~90% efficiency, it is called the Grid Tie Inverter.

Now, we're going to need to see the longevity in the packs increase a bit before we start cycling them like crazy doing that, but I think it'll actually go hand in hand with what I've been seeing with them. These packs have a cycle life (1k, 2k...5k cycles depending on depth of discharge) and a calendar life (that extends if you stay away from 100%.) If we get 150mi+ range packs, those that don't need most of it for commuting can sell a portion of their charge from say 6-10pm (during peak) and pull between midnight and 5am. What better way to pay for your pack then to put it to work selling precious power through net metering? I'm thinking of "cycling" around maybe 10kWh max on a 30-50kWh pack.

I can see the bumper sticker now: I can sell excess electricity back for profit, can you sell your gas back to the station?

The future is very, very bright. :twisted:

Jeremy

 

[edatoakrun]

It makes much more sense optimize the charge rate, available at the site, by maximizing the kW of that charger, than by putting a larger, more expensive, faster L2 charger in each BEV, "just in case" you find a higher kW L2 site.

I think you're missing something here...

No, I believe you are.

You present a laundry list of insignificant arguments, while ignoring the fundamental irrationality, of putting expensive, heavy, and space-consuming charging equipment, in every BEV, that could more easily and less expensively located at the charge station.

Eventually, we will put most BEV chargers on-site, and charge with faster, higher kW DC, rather than slower, lower kW AC, for the same reason we now put high-volume gas pumps at the station, rather than having lower-capacity fueling pumps, carried around in every ICEV.

It's an inherently cheaper, more dependable, and efficient infrastructure design, to place as much common hardware as possible, at the common, public, charge site.

We have L2 chargers in cars now, only because there is so little public DC charge infrastructure, that we now find them useful.

In the not so distant future, I would expect that L2 chargers (if you are not using inductive) would move off-car, and your home or other off-peak EVSE, will do the conversion to DC at the wall. Only one port on your BEV will then be required, and it will be DC.

AC chargers could still be a portable option, for those few who need or want them, that could be carried in the trunk, and plugged into the DC port.

 

[DaveEV]

You present a laundry list of insignificant arguments, while ignoring the fundamental irrationality, of putting expensive, heavy, and space-consuming charging equipment, in every BEV, that could more easily and less expensively located at the charge station.

Renault is putting a 43 kW charger into every car. And this is a mass produced, low-cost vehicle. I have to think they've solved the problem of "expensive, heavy and space-consuming". Tesla already does it up to 19 kW in the Roadster. Is doing 10-20 kW in the Model S. The technology is there and it's affordable. And it works with every single EV on the market with no additional hardware.

Or we can wait (and wait) for CHAdeMO chargers to be installed, the inevitable fight with SAE over their DC QC standard.

It's worse in Europe. There they are fighting over 3 standards - J1772, Mennekes and CHAdeMO.

At least J1772 and Mennekes can be adapted to one another trivially since they're both AC. CHAdeMO? Not so much.

CHAdeMO is fighting an uphill battle. At least finally a couple companies have developed plugs that don't suck. Hopefully they aren't as fragile as the previous ones.

 

[edatoakrun]

You present a laundry list of insignificant arguments, while ignoring the fundamental irrationality, of putting expensive, heavy, and space-consuming charging equipment, in every BEV, that could more easily and less expensively located at the charge station.

Renault is putting a 43 kW charger into every car. And this is a mass produced, low-cost vehicle. I have to think they've solved the problem of "expensive, heavy and space-consuming". Tesla already does it up to 19 kW in the Roadster. Is doing 10-20 kW in the Model S. The technology is there and it's affordable. And it works with every single EV on the market with no additional hardware.

Or we can wait (and wait) for CHAdeMO chargers to be installed, the inevitable fight with SAE over their DC QC standard.

I don't expect too much of a fight.

In the short run, CHAdeMO is the only game in town, so there is no opponent.

In the long run, both of these designs will be superseded by faster-charging, higher kW, DC standards.

The largest obstacle to fast charging infrastructure, is advocating wasting resources on thousands of more misplaced and inefficient slow L2 charge sites, by fostering FUD over an "inevitable fight" over a common standard .

If any manufactures ever do build SAE DC standard BEVs, future DC stations will be designed to accommodate them.

I you want to discuss the Zoe, you can post here:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2824&hilit=+renault&start=80" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TonyWilliams]

If any manufactures ever do build SAE DC standard BEVs, future DC stations will be designed to accommodate them.

That may be true, but initially, that will be a VERY tough sell to a site that has a ChaDeMo that (no doubt to me) isn't paying its way.

I can hear the host saying, " with 25,000 - 50,000 LEAFs we don't make any money. How will a new standard for cars that only number in some comparatively small number be anything but a money pit".

Naturally, GM task master and owner Uncle Sam can kick in a few hundred million to make it happen.

 

[edatoakrun]

If any manufactures ever do build SAE DC standard BEVs, future DC stations will be designed to accommodate them.

That may be true, but initially, that will be a VERY tough sell to a site that has a ChaDeMo that (no doubt to me) isn't paying its way...

I believe few of the currently existing and planned DC sites, may still be considering long-term future operations, by the time the question of adding a SAE compatible port, could ever even arise.

Most of the DCs I've seen have been placed by using criteria other than future market demand, and planned without anticipating profitable future operation. In the first place, every DC station should be placed appropriately, on travel routes, rather than urban parking lots, and planned to accommodate multiple chargers in the future, to avoid the wait times, inconveniencing BEV drivers, that are inevitable with single stand-alone charge points.

IMO, kWh sales will eventually be dominated by business that value the customer base they bring to other sales opportunities, much the same as ICEV fuel stations that sell gas and diesel fuels today.

The larger profit opportunity for the DC fuel station, will be in selling other goods and services to the captive market, during the usual 10 to 30 minute stop.

In fact, since electricity sales per fuel session will be much lower than gas (Even Tesla is unlikely to ever put a big enough battery pack in an BEV to require a $100 fill-up) and the time required to refuel will be longer, the associated site sales at DC stations will be more critical to a profitable operation than they are for ICEV fuel stations today.

So, when given multiple choices in DC fueling, the BEV driver will use fuel cost as only one criteria for the decision (yes, within a few years, you will have a choice! Aren't free markets wonderful?) of where to buy his or her kWh.

If you are stopping to buy 15 kWh, what use you will make of your 20 minute wait time, will probably be the critical factor in your charge station selection. The BEV driver will probably want convenient purchases of food and beverages, appropriate to the BEV demographic, and a comfortable place to sit down a few minutes.

Think Barnes and Noble, crossed with an AM/PM mini-mart.

The revenue from the coffee and muffin, will exceed that from the kWh sale, and the profit margin, will be much higher.

 

[TonyWilliams]

The revenue from the coffee and muffin, will exceed that from the kWh sale, and the profit margin, will be much higher.

The current tax dollar model is put them wherever somebody will accept them, because that is how the contractor gets paid. The first Ecotality/Blink DC charger in San Diego will go in a location about as far from both the major highways and population centers as you can get in a BEV, and not in a location that connects anything. Check out this great first location. Yes, they will get tons of government dollars for this install:

Santa Ysabel

Your other points are valid. People need DC chargers at major artery crossroads, and just off the freeways. Companies that are not accepting government handouts will absolutely need to follow a model that gets them used a lot. However, that doesn't mean that they will have access to any revenue from Coke and muffins. That is the sell to the host for them to accept the lost parking spot(s).

Not a single DC charger installation company that I know of (of the whole two dozen in the USA currently) gets revenue from the host's products. It's the reverse; the host gets revenue from the DC charger.

 

[edatoakrun]

The revenue from the coffee and muffin, will exceed that from the kWh sale, and the profit margin, will be much higher.

The current tax dollar model is put them wherever somebody will accept them, because that is how the contractor gets paid. ...

Not a single DC charger installation company that I know of (of the whole two dozen in the USA currently) gets revenue from the host's products. It's the reverse; the host gets revenue from the DC charger.

Which is why, IMO, most of the current operating and planned sites, will not remain in operation indefinitely, once a sufficient number of DC capable BEVs are on the road, to offer the future DC charge site site owner the benefits of increased other-than-kWh sales.

If I wanted to sell DC chargers, I would not be trying to sell the buyer on significant current revenue, since, with the current low number of BEVs on the road (except, perhaps, for a few key potential Southern and central CA locations) it just isn't there, today.

I'd be pointing to Cracker Barrel in Tennessee (but learn from their mistakes about location, and properly differentiate fast charging spaces, from parking spaces) as a brand-building opportunity, to differentiate your coffee and muffins, from those available at every other fast-food stop off the freeway.

But you should also design for, and emphasise the ability of the BEV charge station to grow with demand, to the extent that it will be a major attraction, for the much larger number of BEV drivers, making up a much larger proportion of potential customers for other-than-kWh-sales, in the future.

 

[DaveEV]

The first Ecotality/Blink DC charger in San Diego will go in a location about as far from both the major highways and population centers as you can get in a BEV, and not in a location that connects anything. Check out this great first location. Yes, they will get tons of government dollars for this install:

Santa Ysabel

Your other points are valid. People need DC chargers at major artery crossroads, and just off the freeways.

Say what you want about Santa Ysabel being out in BFE, but it's a great spot for those looking to drive out to Julian or beyond which a lot of people do on the weekends. For me it will make a common trip possible without topping off for an hour or two on L2 or driving dangerously slow. And they have a nice little grocery store, bakery and restaurant there to spend your time (and money) while you wait to top off.

The only place that might make more sense is Ramona, but for some reason I doubt it'd get much more use despite being more populous.

 

[Herm]

And they have a nice little grocery store, bakery and restaurant there to spend your time (and money) while you wait to top off.

sounds like a nice little trip

 

[llaumann]

I think that Santa Ysabel is a perfect location. It's 60 miles from my house, and the same from downtown San Diego, undoubtedly with some elevation included. I have been contemplating a Julian trip in the LEAF for some time, but it certainly would require overnight charging at a B&B in Julian for the return trip. With a QC in Santa Ysabel, LEAF drivers could get to Julian for apple pie and Anza-Borrego State Park for some hiking. I will be plugged into that thing every weekend. Any idea when it will be in operation? Thanks.

 

[DaveEV]

I think that Santa Ysabel is a perfect location. It's 60 miles from my house, and the same from downtown San Diego, undoubtedly with some elevation included.

Main think to keep in mind is that Santa Ysabel is already at 3000 ft of elevation. Julian is at 4200 ft. Ramona (15 miles closer to I15) is 1500 ft. And most of San Diego County west of I15 is pretty close to sea level.

So 60 miles and up to 3000 ft of climbing to Santa Ysabel will be pretty close - you will most likely need to keep speeds down to make it. You will probably hope to get stuck behind slow traffic up on the way up. Ramona on the other hand would be 45 miles and less than 1500 ft of climbing. That's a piece of cake, and a 80% charge from there should be plenty to get you all the way to Borrego Springs if you want.

Or a QC station in Poway and a short top-off would get you to Santa Ysabel - and if located near I15 would be a good spot for topping off for many people.

Fewer than 10 well placed QC stations around San Diego would really be sufficient to enable a lot of extra trips. More than that would only be necessary when more EVs get on the roads.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

AC DC Fast L2, medium L2, slow L2 who gives a rat's ass??

i take 3 dozen of each!!

EVERYTHING FILLS A NICHE better than the other. public power supplies are AC so you cant say DC is better because it has to be converted from AC line power to DC to be put into the battery.

BUT, solar is DC so QCDC's could work especially if they have onsite power storage (expensive now yes, but how much would it be if two used Leaf packs were purchased to provide enough QC for one good Leaf pack?)

but then again, that would not even be an option if people took comments on this site as gospel now would it?

its kinda funny, but this site has not changed the basic human logic process of abhorring change or embracing progress.

we feel like we are progressive in that we realize that EVs are not a "100%" solution and does require some level of compromise but we accept that and we find ways to make it work for each individuals widely varying need.

but then that progressiveness stops. because now we are back at the "100%" charging solution which is basically the same argument we have with the "big oil" crowd.

so i will not post a rebuttal here. just go back to your conversation you had with someone who is not convinced EVs work for them. change a few words here and there and them we will have full acceptance of the fact we need DOZENS of EV charging options to be successful

 

[TonyWilliams]

Say what you want about Santa Ysabel being out in BFE, but it's a great spot for those looking to drive out to Julian or beyond which a lot of people do on the weekends. For me it will make a common trip possible without topping off for an hour or two on L2 or driving dangerously slow. And they have a nice little grocery store, bakery and restaurant there to spend your time (and money) while you wait to top off.

The only place that might make more sense is Ramona, but for some reason I doubt it'd get much more use despite being more populous.

I've driven to Julian twice.

Oceanside is a good government funded location for a much larger percentage of the BEV population. In comparison, Santa Ysabel will be growing cobwebs (but, of course, I look forward to using it),