RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
palmermd said:
The best upgrade to the Supercharger Network yet.....water cooled cables. They have started putting water cooled cables on the Superchargers to allow for the use of a much smaller cable that is easy to handle and insert into the car. Tesla just does not stop innovating.
You've got to wonder, though, how much this will boost capital, installation and maintenance costs, as well as how much it might limit site selection.
I cannot imagine it limits the site selection one bit. My Nissan LEAF has water-cooled parts and it does not need a source of water.
Depends on leakage and evaporation, I imagine, also potential freezing issues, how the water is circulated, etc. As for site selection, if you've got to have water nearby that's going to limit you, or else boost costs to bring it there. None of this is insoluble, just represents potential issues.
RegGuheert said:
Since water is much cheaper than copper, I expect this reduces cost rather than increases it.
See above, we don't know and won't unless Tesla decides to tell us.
RegGuheert said:
As far as maintenance, I expect a thicker, heavier and stiffer cable is harder on the interfaces (like the one near the handle) than a thinner, lighter and more flexible cable, thus reducing failures due to handling. And any repairs to any of these parts are likely much cheaper.
You make a good point about cable handling; a more flexible cable should be less subject to damage. As for repair costs, depends on the details as mentioned above.
RegGuheert said:
BTW, I don't recall you raising the same concern about the much-more-elaborate cooling systems needed for the nozzles on hydrogen filling stations. (If I missed your parallel comments on that topic, my apologies.)
Because they appear to be required by the system, so why mention them? If, ultimately, that's what's needed to make H2 fueling work, then the only question is what's the final cost, is it affordable and sufficiently reliable?
OTOH, since we know the SCs work without water-cooled cables, it's no more than reasonable to ask if this makes them more or less likely to fail and raises (or lowers) the cost. If the H2 fueling situation were the same as is the case with the SCs, i.e. no cooling or cooling, I'd be posing the same questions re H2.
IOW, on balance is the improvement worth doing? Same as the question of whether or not PEVs need TMS or not; we know they can be built successfully either way, the question is whether the cost/benefit of a TMS is positive or negative. At the moment, to deal with continent-sized climate variation and areas with hot climates I believe the answer is yes, but that could change if we get a battery that can stand up better to heat, cold, cycling and calendar losses.