evnow
Well-known member
Then, all we need is an AVR-CAN !Ingineer said:
I need an under 20KW DC ChaDeMo Quick Charger
- Thread starter TonyWilliams
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
Phoenix
Well-known member
evnow said:
So, Ingineer, can you do this on the Nissan under $10k QC that AeroEnvironment is distributing?
Ingineer
Well-known member
I will be happy to as soon as we get one. They are not yet available for sale, but Nissan told us last weekend they have passed UL certification. Although I guess this is no longer an "EVSE Upgrade". We'll call it the "EVSE Downgrade". =)Phoenix said:
-Phil
muus
Well-known member
So anyone put some thought into using some kind of APU to supply the power necessary to run the quick charger in order to avoid the demand charge? A Bloom Box or turbine generator running on natural gas could go the trick. Ingineer is working on a portable turbine powered (30kw) range extender/quick charger (http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=7104)
I know people have mentioned using a generator in previous posts but I'm not talking about using a generator to supply ALL the power, only enough to stay below the 20kW demand charge threshold. The Capstone Turbine can be grid-tied so it could be run during the time charging is above 20kW and once charging slows to below 20kW the turbine would shut down. The smallest unit is 30kW which would be exactly the power needed to get a full 50 kW charge. The only thing is I don't know how well the Capstones can handle being frequently turned on and off. If this is feasible, an enterprising company (AV) could package a turbine with a ChaDeMo Quick Charger. Even better would be to sell it to a business to prevent demand charges for the whole site. For example, if a business occasionally uses more than 20 kW (incurring a demand charge), a Quick Charger with Turbine could monitor the power usage for the entire site and turn on the Turbine when demand nears the 20 kW threshold. This could save the business thousands per month. It would be much easier to "sell" the idea of hosting a quick charger if it ends up saving them money, not costing them a ton on demand charges. Granted the charger would cost significantly more but a good cost/benefit analysis could find that this would be cheaper in the long run (or not).
I still can't get over the fact that the demand charges in some areas start at only 20kW. Many residential customers have 50 kW available. My power company's demand charge start at 50kW. Even at 50kW, a charger/generator would still be very beneficial since you have to consider how much power the business is using on top of the charger. Even if the business is only using 10kW, having the charger pull even 45kW will incur a demand charge.
Not so long ago I was totally unaware of the whole demand charge issue. No wonder so few quick chargers have been installed. Imagine the trouble Tesla will have trying to convince a business to host their 90kW quick chargers. I guess for very large businesses that already consume thousands of kWs, an extra 50 to 90kWs won't make a difference. But for a roadside fast-food or convenience stores I now understand why they wouldn't want to host a quick charger.
I know people have mentioned using a generator in previous posts but I'm not talking about using a generator to supply ALL the power, only enough to stay below the 20kW demand charge threshold. The Capstone Turbine can be grid-tied so it could be run during the time charging is above 20kW and once charging slows to below 20kW the turbine would shut down. The smallest unit is 30kW which would be exactly the power needed to get a full 50 kW charge. The only thing is I don't know how well the Capstones can handle being frequently turned on and off. If this is feasible, an enterprising company (AV) could package a turbine with a ChaDeMo Quick Charger. Even better would be to sell it to a business to prevent demand charges for the whole site. For example, if a business occasionally uses more than 20 kW (incurring a demand charge), a Quick Charger with Turbine could monitor the power usage for the entire site and turn on the Turbine when demand nears the 20 kW threshold. This could save the business thousands per month. It would be much easier to "sell" the idea of hosting a quick charger if it ends up saving them money, not costing them a ton on demand charges. Granted the charger would cost significantly more but a good cost/benefit analysis could find that this would be cheaper in the long run (or not).
I still can't get over the fact that the demand charges in some areas start at only 20kW. Many residential customers have 50 kW available. My power company's demand charge start at 50kW. Even at 50kW, a charger/generator would still be very beneficial since you have to consider how much power the business is using on top of the charger. Even if the business is only using 10kW, having the charger pull even 45kW will incur a demand charge.
Not so long ago I was totally unaware of the whole demand charge issue. No wonder so few quick chargers have been installed. Imagine the trouble Tesla will have trying to convince a business to host their 90kW quick chargers. I guess for very large businesses that already consume thousands of kWs, an extra 50 to 90kWs won't make a difference. But for a roadside fast-food or convenience stores I now understand why they wouldn't want to host a quick charger.
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
Any option that includes gross amount of upfront capital are not going to happen in round one. We need the stations, and ten 20kW chargers spread around your county will do far more for you than two super expensive full capacity chargers, not to mention how much more time it would take to implement.
See how easy it is for somebody to raise this capital, and you'll see why the most prolific, cost effective solution is the answer.
Also, read through any thread that includes actually paying the fees to use a charger, and you'll see that the market is not really ready for "prime time". Some cars don't have ChaDeMo ports, others would never use the charger (even though they have the port) if it is one penny more expensive to drive their Prius (that 20% own) or charge at home on solar (about 30%). Or won't pay more than the pennies per kWh that they pay at home. Or think it should be free (well, paid for by other people's tax money).
All these have been actually opined on this forum, and if one guy types it, 10 or 100 are thinking it.
Simple and the lowest cost is today's solution. Work with the rules given us today, and plan for the day down the road when the rule will change.
See how easy it is for somebody to raise this capital, and you'll see why the most prolific, cost effective solution is the answer.
Also, read through any thread that includes actually paying the fees to use a charger, and you'll see that the market is not really ready for "prime time". Some cars don't have ChaDeMo ports, others would never use the charger (even though they have the port) if it is one penny more expensive to drive their Prius (that 20% own) or charge at home on solar (about 30%). Or won't pay more than the pennies per kWh that they pay at home. Or think it should be free (well, paid for by other people's tax money).
All these have been actually opined on this forum, and if one guy types it, 10 or 100 are thinking it.
Simple and the lowest cost is today's solution. Work with the rules given us today, and plan for the day down the road when the rule will change.
muus said:
Has anyone appealed to the CPUC to eliminate the demand charge for DCQC as it's contrary to the public interest for DCQC? California has put a lot of effort into the adoption of electric vehicles with the clean air rebates, carpool stickers, EV Only parking laws, etc. The demand charge preventing the installation of DCQC seems like an oversight to me and if an organized push was made to the CPUC and / or the state legislature to remove that fee for DCQC stations, it might meet with some success and finally get a QC infrastructure in place.
muus
Well-known member
TonyWilliams said:
I completely agree and my suggestion was simply a way to get around the demand charges and enable full speed charging. There's a good chance the idea is impractical or even impossible, I'm not knowledgeable enough to know. The problem I see with even a "simple" less than 20 kW charger is that unless it's on its own meter, then you also have to take into consideration the other loads for that site. 20 kW is really not very much.
I think Kevin has it right, demand charges should not apply to Quick Chargers and we should all lobby our governments to get an exemption implemented. Government (at the Federal and State level) are investing a lot of money trying to encourage the deployment of electric vehicles. They have to realize that demand charges will be one major impediment to the adoption of electric cars by the general public (due to lack of full speed chargers).
Besides, every new electric car on the road will be new demand for off peak electricity. Something all electric companies love.
edatoakrun
Well-known member
This is an important enough question to deserve it's own topic.
I admit, I never considered the possibility that the CPUC would establish rate designs that would so seriously discourage BEV use, and have been unable to find out much about the history of this issue.
Any of you California EV graybeards out there care to enlighten us?
edatoakrun
Well-known member
drees said:
Why?
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7232" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
planet4ever
Well-known member
Isn't the answer obvious? From a utility network standpoint it is far better to have larger batteries that are charged at night than larger chargers pulling heavy bursts of power during periods when the network is already at maximum stress. This is not the same as saying that the CPUC is favoring the utilities over the customers. If the network goes down, the customers go down. It is quite proper for the CPUC to be attentive to the reliability of the network.edatoakrun said:
Ray
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
This issue has been recently brought before the CPUC, and they declined to act on it. The next time it will come before the board is about March 2013.
Personally, I think the rule could be modified to exempt DC chargers for XX months/years until such time as there's enough of them to even be measurable on the grid at mid-day.
Personally, I think the rule could be modified to exempt DC chargers for XX months/years until such time as there's enough of them to even be measurable on the grid at mid-day.
JimLovewell
Active member
I so agree with you. I am wondering how we get the quick charge suppliers of ChaDeMo chargers to design and sell 20kW electronic pump style (QC) POS systems that take VISA, MC, AE, etc. that can be installed in service stations, convenient stores, shopping centers, etc.
Ingineer
Well-known member
I've got a design for an add-on "limiter board" that you can add to any CHAdeMO QC, which will let you set an upper limit on the charge power.JimLovewell said:
As soon as Nissan actually delivers on their promised $10k (now supposedly only a little over $7k) QC, I'll put this together. Adding in the POS is pretty easy also.
-Phil
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
As of a few days ago, after checking with Nissan customer service and Aeroviroment, nobody knows anything concrete about availablity of this charger.
Ingineer
Well-known member
I'm absolutely baffled as to why Nissan asked Aerovironment to be their exclusive distributor for a product which is clearly a conflict of interest, since AV has a massively more expensive unit for sale already. Why on earth would they want to sell you Nissan's, where they only make a few bucks, when they can sell you their unit?
This may very well explain why it's not happening, or will happen so slowly.
It's a shame, because we need these out there post-haste!
-Phil
This may very well explain why it's not happening, or will happen so slowly.
It's a shame, because we need these out there post-haste!
-Phil
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
Yep.
The very fact that they announced Jan 2012, and now Feb, nobody knows nothing... well, I'm not holding my breath on this.
My biggest fear is that Nissan will in fact offer the chargers for AV to then sell them, as required, for the $10k price, but they must have mandatory warranty ($10k), mandatory service contract ($10k), and mandatory installation ($10k-$50k).
Now, they make more money than selling their own grossly overpriced, clunky, science experiment.
The very fact that they announced Jan 2012, and now Feb, nobody knows nothing... well, I'm not holding my breath on this.
My biggest fear is that Nissan will in fact offer the chargers for AV to then sell them, as required, for the $10k price, but they must have mandatory warranty ($10k), mandatory service contract ($10k), and mandatory installation ($10k-$50k).
Now, they make more money than selling their own grossly overpriced, clunky, science experiment.
Ingineer
Well-known member
Has anyone tried contacting Sumitomo directly?
-Phil
-Phil
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
Ingineer said:
No, I didn't.
Just to get fancy, I'd like a switch that can give the user two choices:
Choice one, of course, is to intercept the hexadecimal data asking for 350v at 125amps at the lowest SOC, and presumably change that to 55 amps (for 19.3kW). I don't know if it would be safe for the cells to hit them at 415v/46.5a instead... my understanding is that current is all controlling. I defer to the experts on those details.
Choice two would offer the user a "turbo" mode that would offer full 48kW service (when the battery can accept that in the lowest part of SOC) that would offer a 50kW draw from the utility meter for 5 minutes, giving about 20 miles range, and then the machine is shut down for 10 minutes.
This should spoof the 15 minute power draw to (5*50)+(10*0) / 15 = 16.66 kW average load for that 15 minutes, hence, once again, no SDGE fee.
walterbays
Well-known member
True. But in this case the CPUC rule has the opposite effect. It does avoid a few hundred KW of peak daytime load. But in so doing it prevents many thousands of additional BEVs from being sold, and thereby avoids many MW of night time load.planet4ever said:
I agree with Tony that CPUC should exempt BEV charging from demand charges until such time as car charging becomes a significant load on the grid. The price of daytime QC ought to be at least as high as the the price of daytime L2 charging at home, probably double the price of nighttime L2 charging at home, and no more than the cost of gasoline for an average mid-size sedan. Thus drivers would have incentive to drive electric, and would have incentive to refuel at night whenever possible.
Similar threads
