Kia Installs First 100 kW CHAdeMO DC Fast Chargers In Europe

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
Via ievs.com:

"Kia Installs First 100 kW CHAdeMO DC Fast Chargers In Europe"

http://insideevs.com/kia-installs-first-100-kw-chademo-dc-fast-chargers-europe/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apparently dual CHAdeMO/CCS-2.
 
GRA said:
Via ievs.com:

"Kia Installs First 100 kW CHAdeMO DC Fast Chargers In Europe"

http://insideevs.com/kia-installs-first-100-kw-chademo-dc-fast-chargers-europe/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apparently dual CHAdeMO/CCS-2.


It uses five 20kW air cooled modules.

http://evcharger.biz/products/signet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
TonyWilliams said:
GRA said:
Via ievs.com:

"Kia Installs First 100 kW CHAdeMO DC Fast Chargers In Europe"

http://insideevs.com/kia-installs-first-100-kw-chademo-dc-fast-chargers-europe/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apparently dual CHAdeMO/CCS-2.


It uses five 20kW air cooled modules.

http://evcharger.biz/products/signet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What I was unable to determine from the link is whether it can alter the power split between two cars the way the Tesla SCs do, i.e. from 100/20 -> 50/50 (or 60/40) -> 20/100 and anything in between.
 
GRA said:
What I was unable to determine from the link is whether it can alter the power split between two cars the way the Tesla SCs do, i.e. from 100/20 -> 50/50 (or 60/40) -> 20/100 and anything in between.

CHAdeMO is 125 amps. Period.

If one car is charging, on either plug, they are getting 50kW max.

Two cars get 100kW total.

No one car, unlike Tesla Supercharger, is going to get 100kW.
 
TonyWilliams said:
GRA said:
What I was unable to determine from the link is whether it can alter the power split between two cars the way the Tesla SCs do, i.e. from 100/20 -> 50/50 (or 60/40) -> 20/100 and anything in between.

CHAdeMO is 125 amps. Period.

If one car is charging, on either plug, they are getting 50kW max.

Two cars get 100kW total.

No one car, unlike Tesla Supercharger, is going to get 100kW.
That would seem to be severely limiting in future, as packs get bigger.
 
I'd just clarify that the CHAdeMO standard is actually 62.5kW.

I'd make a presumption, then, that if a charger was unburdened by its local network's 50kW limit then it might either deliver 62.5kW to one car if only one is charging, or 50kW to two cars.

This should help to explain the otherwise confusing comment in the article that "100 kW compared to the more common 50 kW brings charging time of Kia Soul EV from empty to 80% from 33 to 25 minutes."

I hope that sorts out the confusion.
 
TonyWilliams said:
CHAdeMO is 125 amps. Period.

On the site you linked, each 20kW module is capable of 60A DC. I think it's likely they are charging at 200 amps into the Kia Soul EV for short periods of time before the taper.

I'm studying the BMS messages from the leaf and I'm seeing an available charge power message that shows above 50 kW for a very short amount of time when charging from CHAdeMO at a low enough starting SOC. The leaf does not ask for more than 125 amps from the charger, of course.
 
donald said:
I'd just clarify that the CHAdeMO standard is actually 62.5kW.

I'd make a presumption, then, that if a charger was unburdened by its local network's 50kW limit then it might either deliver 62.5kW to one car if only one is charging, or 50kW to two cars.

This should help to explain the otherwise confusing comment in the article that "100 kW compared to the more common 50 kW brings charging time of Kia Soul EV from empty to 80% from 33 to 25 minutes."

I hope that sorts out the confusion.
I believe the 62.5kW rating is at 500V x 125A, and I don't know of any current or projected BEV that has a max. pack voltage anywhere near that; IIRR the LEAF's pack uses constant voltage of 394V? beyond the current taper point.
 
donald said:
I'd just clarify that the CHAdeMO standard is actually 62.5kW.
It's actually higher, the Yazaki connector that the group designed is rated to 200a at 400vdc and now Kia with another connector manufacturer has can do 100kw.

So what's the big deal? Its just updating and refining the standard. As time goes on, you push it abit harder and see what happens. We all know Tesla pushing insane amounts of current through their "smaller" handle. It's all a learning curve.

http://www.chademo.com/05_concept.html
 
My point is that, according to the article, they are not charging at 100kW from a 100kW capable machine, as they are decreasing their charge time from 33 mins to 25 mins.

Big deal. :?

The key to the future of EVs in my opinion is nothing to do with bigger batteries and everything to do with much faster charging. Once you can charge up a 100 mile range in 3 mins, people will wonder what all the fuss was about to have such big batteries. Model S will look like a dinosaur lugging around a ton of battery, in comparison with future 20C capable charging cars with a couple of 100kg of battery.

You will NEVER have a battery big enough to do EVERY journey you want. But if you can stop and recharge in 3 mins every couple of hours, being able to do a long trip on one charge becomes an irrelevance.
 
donald said:
My point is that, according to the article, they are not charging at 100kW from a 100kW capable machine, as they are decreasing their charge time from 33 mins to 25 mins.

Big deal. :?

The key to the future of EVs in my opinion is nothing to do with bigger batteries and everything to do with much faster charging. Once you can charge up a 100 mile range in 3 mins, people will wonder what all the fuss was about to have such big batteries. Model S will look like a dinosaur lugging around a ton of battery, in comparison with future 20C capable charging cars with a couple of 100kg of battery.

You will NEVER have a battery big enough to do EVERY journey you want. But if you can stop and recharge in 3 mins every couple of hours, being able to do a long trip on one charge becomes an irrelevance.
Agreed that more rapid charging (without damaging the longevity of the battery, of course) with the necessary density of charging infrastructure would be a possible option compared to bigger batteries, assuming it's technically feasible. But most people want both to give them the same capability as an ICE, which is the standard they measure against when they ask themselves 'what do I want/need a car to do?'
 
GRA said:
most people want both to give them the same capability as an ICE, which is the standard they measure against when they ask themselves 'what do I want/need a car to do?'
I do not believe we will be seeing 'three times the capacity' of current Li tech as many stories claim (usually about a computer simulation of a battery chemistry in a university somewhere). Even if double were possible, I do not believe we will see it in my lifetime.

So to match the 800 mile range I have in my current ICE car, that'll be around 3 tonnes of battery alone. That makes it questionable whether it would any longer be a 'car' at all, in many jurisdictions!

Batteries cannot compete with a tank full of dinosaur blood. It's a fool's chase to try to create an EV that emulates an ICE, not only on technical grounds but it also destroys the lifetime CO2 benefit of EVs over ICE to stuff it full of cells. Use EVs for the best task they are there for, and if you need to do a long trip once in a while and it can take a 20C charge rate then that'll ensure there is no inconvenience.
 
donald said:
GRA said:
most people want both to give them the same capability as an ICE, which is the standard they measure against when they ask themselves 'what do I want/need a car to do?'
I do not believe we will be seeing 'three times the capacity' of current Li tech as many stories claim (usually about a computer simulation of a battery chemistry in a university somewhere). Even if double were possible, I do not believe we will see it in my lifetime.

So to match the 800 mile range I have in my current ICE car, that'll be around 3 tonnes of battery alone. That makes it questionable whether it would any longer be a 'car' at all, in many jurisdictions!

Batteries cannot compete with a tank full of dinosaur blood. It's a fool's chase to try to create an EV that emulates an ICE, not only on technical grounds but it also destroys the lifetime CO2 benefit of EVs over ICE to stuff it full of cells. Use EVs for the best task they are there for, and if you need to do a long trip once in a while and it can take a 20C charge rate then that'll ensure there is no inconvenience.
While there will undoubtedly be the occasional crazed, lovesick and adult-diaper-wearing astronaut who really needs an 800 mile range car, most people consider 4 hours at freeway cruising speeds plus a reserve under real world conditions to be the benchmark for an ICE, with everything over that gravy. My car's more like 5 hours, but given the short refueling times compared to having a meal it isn't a significant inconvenience to have a shorter range.

Assuming 75 mph, that's say 330 miles while using heat/defrost. A doubling of Tesla's current (240Wh/kg? 260?) specific energy would get us there, from Tesla's 265 EPA to 530 EPA, then assuming 70% EoL plus say 10-15% for accessories. While I take most laboratory announcements with large grains of salt, we clearly are approaching commercial deployment of Li-Si cells with at least 30% better specific energy, with Li-S possibly commercial for cars perhaps 5 years on and ultimately around +75-100% if not more*, and Li-Air perhaps 10-20 years out but much more questionable. There's also work on solid state, liquid metal and flow batteries, or maybe fuel cells will take over the role of the ICE in PHEVs if not replace batteries entirely.

*Did you see this? http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140922005174/en/Sion-Power%E2%80%99s-Lithium-Sulfur-Batteries-Power-High-Altitude#.VCNJ0PBX-uY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

350W/kg. now, and not likely to be affordable of meet the operational needs of a car any time soon, but still shows that Li-S is out there now in a few applications, although its commercial viability can't be judged from this.
 
donald said:
GRA said:
It's a fool's chase to try to create an EV that emulates an ICE.
Really? tell that to Mr.Musk and all the rest of the companies that are investing tremendous amounts into this technology.

And WTF? 800mile range on a single tank "normal" ICE are we talking about here? :roll:

The Volkswagen Golf TDI received the highest marks from Consumer Reports, and earned the top slot as the Best Vehicle for a Long Commute by virtue of its diesel powertrain, outstanding fuel efficiency and long range. With a 2.0-liter turbo diesel engine that produces 140 hp and 236 lb-ft of torque, the Golf TDI is capable of achieving 42 miles per gallon, good for a range of up to 609 miles between fill-ups.

So 800?? seriously? without mods?
 
I did a Sac-La trip in my insight (400ish miles) where I didn't stop for fuel. Did 606 miles on the tank at 60 mpg. Stopped twice for bathroom and/or food on the trip. There's a reason why the average car is 300 miles, that's the threshold for most humans' needs. I think 150 mile packs with say 5C charging rate will be "good enough" for the "mass" public to catch on. But remember things like large trucks and SUV's where even that kind of range is going to require north of 100kWh.
 
GRA said:
While there will undoubtedly be the occasional crazed, lovesick and adult-diaper-wearing astronaut who really needs an 800 mile range car...
Sorry, I have no idea what that means.

It is usual to find cars with that sort of range in Europe. US bloat-tanks might not have that range, but that's just a demonstration of crass excess, as are 4x4s and SUVs in Europe that have equally rubbish range.

Reality is that it has been the norm in Europe to have a 60 to 65 litre tank, with 80 litre tank options for bigger vehicles. As fuel economy has improved to 60 odd mpg, most cars of 3 to 6 years old will have that range. As it happens, newer cars are now being fitted with 45 litre tanks. Still, the lowest ranges for euro cars is around 500 miles. Typical 600 to 700. A few with over 1000. It's the norm in a country that doesn't treat liquid fuel like water and commute to work in pick-up trucks.

Why have that range? Well, you just don't need to waste your time trying to fill up. I fill up once a month, if that.

Anyhow, the point was :-

It's a fool's chase to try to create an EV that emulates an ICE.....
Really? tell that to Mr.Musk and all the rest of the companies that are investing tremendous amounts into this technology.

You've taken it out of context. My point is that with current technology an EV can't get close to matching an ICE on BOTH lifetime CO2 footprint AND range, based on data I'm aware of.

A doubling of Tesla's current (240Wh/kg? 260?) specific energy would get us there

That would not only put its CO2 footprint so far ahead of an ICE that it should be outlawed, but 2 tons of battery also would lead to a 3.5 ton car, at least.

Lugging around 2 tons of battery with an enormous ICE-thrashing CO2 footprint just for the odd one or two annual trips needing that is flat out not what all the grants are there to promote.
 
donald said:
GRA said:
While there will undoubtedly be the occasional crazed, lovesick and adult-diaper-wearing astronaut who really needs an 800 mile range car...
Sorry, I have no idea what that means.
H'mm seeing as how you're in the U.K., I figured the tabloids would have been all over this when it happened:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1587281,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Turns out she probably wasn't wearing diapers, but the story is sooo much better that way.

donald said:
It is usual to find cars with that sort of range in Europe. US bloat-tanks might not have that range, but that's just a demonstration of crass excess, as are 4x4s and SUVs in Europe that have equally rubbish range.

Reality is that it has been the norm in Europe to have a 60 to 65 litre tank, with 80 litre tank options for bigger vehicles. As fuel economy has improved to 60 odd mpg, most cars of 3 to 6 years old will have that range. As it happens, newer cars are now being fitted with 45 litre tanks. Still, the lowest ranges for euro cars is around 500 miles. Typical 600 to 700. A few with over 1000. It's the norm in a country that doesn't treat liquid fuel like water and commute to work in pick-up trucks.

Why have that range? Well, you just don't need to waste your time trying to fill up. I fill up once a month, if that.
We've got cars like that too, although the majority are European imports, and diesels aren't as popular here. Tanks have either been getting bigger or staying the same size even though the cars get better mpg. I suspect it's more common in German makes, where you may not need to be able to go 700 miles non-stop, but you may want to go half that at 200 km/h. As Jeremy W alludes to, on road trips, for most people the tank capacity that matters isn't the gas tank, it's their own tank capacity, whether stomach, kidneys or intestines.

donald said:
Anyhow, the point was :-

It's a fool's chase to try to create an EV that emulates an ICE.....
Really? tell that to Mr.Musk and all the rest of the companies that are investing tremendous amounts into this technology.

You've taken it out of context. My point is that with current technology an EV can't get close to matching an ICE on BOTH lifetime CO2 footprint AND range, based on data I'm aware of.
That wasn't me, that was JasonA, and I don't think either of us is arguing that the current gen. of BEVs can match ICE ranges, although the Tesla can fake it. I'm talking about the next and subsequent generations with higher specific energy and energy density batteries.

donald said:
A doubling of Tesla's current (240Wh/kg? 260?) specific energy would get us there

That would not only put its CO2 footprint so far ahead of an ICE that it should be outlawed, but 2 tons of battery also would lead to a 3.5 ton car, at least.

Lugging around 2 tons of battery with an enormous ICE-thrashing CO2 footprint just for the odd one or two annual trips needing that is flat out not what all the grants are there to promote.
I was clearly talking about increasing the specific energy in newer batteries, not adding twice as much of the current batteries (which are around 1,300 or 1,400 lb. for the pack). The next gen Panasonic batteries that Tesla may well introduce on the Model X and offer for the Model S will boost EPA range over 300 miles with no change in weight or space. While this is still far short of the 300+ miles plus a reserve in typical conditions for the life of the car that an ICE can manage, it does narrow the gap.
 
GRA said:
I was clearly talking about increasing the specific energy in newer batteries
You were indeed, and my reply is clearly that this cannot be done, not necessarily will not. The first problem is that claims of higher specific capacity in a reliable automotive format are still just that - claims. The second problem is that because no-one has made such a thing, there is no way of knowing if doubling the specific capacity halves the CO2/kWh in manufacture.
 
donald said:
My point is that, according to the article, they are not charging at 100kW from a 100kW capable machine, as they are decreasing their charge time from 33 mins to 25 mins.

Big deal. :?

The key to the future of EVs in my opinion is nothing to do with bigger batteries and everything to do with much faster charging. Once you can charge up a 100 mile range in 3 mins, people will wonder what all the fuss was about to have such big batteries. Model S will look like a dinosaur lugging around a ton of battery, in comparison with future 20C capable charging cars with a couple of 100kg of battery.

You will NEVER have a battery big enough to do EVERY journey you want. But if you can stop and recharge in 3 mins every couple of hours, being able to do a long trip on one charge becomes an irrelevance.

Ya know, a 100kWh pack charging at 2C is 200kw, which is a 10-minute stop to get 100 miles. We're already pretty close to your dream scenario, but with bigger batteries, not higher C values. 20C is super capacitor territory.
 
10 minutes is too long. You need to be able to pull up behind a queue at a charge dispenser, pull up, plug in, go in to pay, then come out and go.

If you have to hang around for 10 minutes, then you have to start managing parking, queues and traffic flows.

Doubling a battery capacity can double charging current, as you allude to, but that solution to increasing charge rate does nothing to overcome doubling the CO2 footprint, setting it worse than ICE. What's needed is a quick charge technology.

Of course, if the batteries are made using renewable/nuclear power (as St. Musk is aiming to do) then that's a different matter, but the material processing downstream will be where the big CO2 footprint would then be.

In fact, there is good evidence emerging that current Li tech can be charged at much higher rates that are currently used. The issue appears to be purely battery temperature, rather than charge rate. This was the point of me contributing to this thread - because I don't see any big reason not to simply up the charge rates now, and I got the impression from the headline that maybe Kia was trying this. I think it will be only a matter of time before the VMs permit higher charge rates. It may even be as simple as a software update (together with higher power chargers of course!), I'd be pretty confident the existing JARI 9mm connectors can take more than 125A. How much more I don't know but 125A seems conservative to me.
 
Back
Top