GetOffYourGas wrote:I wish I had your optimism, Guy. I don't see Tesla installing CCS plugs for a while. For now, having the supercharging network helps them sell more cars. I know of people who would rather have bought a Bolt, but chose a Model 3 for the supercharging network, for example.
In a few years, when EA + EVGo + ChargePoint + others start to approach the coverage that Tesla has, that advantage will be gone. At that point, it would make sense for Tesla to open their network and sell electricity to other drivers as well.
Back in 2016, when Tesla first showed the Model 3's charging port, the first thing I noticed was how large it was. I'll admit, I was hoping that maybe they would release the car with a CCS plug. While that hasn't happened in the US, it has overseas, as you point out. This is encouraging indeed. Hopefully the next iteration of the S/X design follows suit with a larger, more accommodating charge port door.
KeiJidosha wrote:He explained that the emerging charging technology requires Electrify America to offer 150- to 350-kW charging."
https://insideevs.com/electrify-america-tesla-powerpacks-charging-stations/Electrify America To Add Tesla Powerpacks To 100 New Charging Stations
. . . Some may ask why onsite energy storage is necessary for EV charging, and the simple answer is demand charges. Demand charges are based on the highest draw the customer (in this case all the charging stations at one location) uses from the utility during a set period of time in a given month, usually carved up into 15-minute intervals.
Demand charges vary from utility to utility in the US, but they are so costly they make it nearly impossible for DC Fast charge stations to even break even, let alone be profitable. For example, I own and manage a 24 kW DC fast charger on my property in Montclair, NJ. I pay 12 cents per kWh for my electricity supply, but because the DC Fast charger pulls so much energy at once, I have to pay demand charges for it, pushing the cost of my electricity up well over $1.00 per kWh. . . .
The reason we haven’t seen widespread use of battery storage with EV charging sites has been the upfront cost. Network providers have done the math, and it was less expensive to just pay the demand charges, than it would have been to spend $50,000 to $100,000 for the onsite battery storage systems. Hopefully, this announcement means the cost is finally getting down to the point where it is becoming financially viable.
Each Electrify America site in this program will consist of a 210 kW battery system, with roughly 350 kWh of capacity. They have a modular design, and will allow for more capacity to be added over time. That will become necessary, once there are multiple EVs plugging in and pulling 150+ kW at the same location. . . .
GetOffYourGas wrote:DaveinOlyWA wrote:GetOffYourGas wrote:As I wrote on the “Mission E” thread, I take this as good news. VWAG is taking EVs seriously. EA’s network is now critics to the success of one of their flagship products. Unlike a certain other network, EA is not a walled garden; it is available for all EVs to use. That they have financial motivation to maintain and improve it is a boon to all EV drivers.
EA doesn't have to be a protocol "walled garden" with its pricing scheme. Don't be surprised to see VW giving favorable pricing scheme for its customers while we are left out in the cold.
EA is giving "favorable pricing" for its customers. The Taycan comes with 3 years free! If that's not favorable pricing, nothing is. And no, I'm not surprised by it. Nor am I upset. Sure, I wish that they were more in line with EVGo's pricing. But the truth is, if you could actually use 150kW, the pricing is better than EVGo's (3X the power for much less than 3X the cost).
GRA wrote:I expect that Tesla will eventually start converting SC stalls as well as the Model 3/Y to CCS-1 in the U.S., as that's rapidly becoming the standard here, with all legacy U.S., European, and Korean companies using it. As of now, who's using CHAdeMO? Nissan and Mitsubishi? Honda bailed to CCS. What will likely determine the final fate of CHAdeMO outside Japan will be Toyota's decision on what standard to use, once they start producing BEVs for the world market.
Tesla's already providing GB/T for China and CCS-2 for the E.U., and the justification for continuing to expand the SC network while serving only Teslas is rapidly fading. After all, the SC network was built because "We can't afford to wait for others to do it", or words to that effect from Elon. As others are now 'doing it', the need for Tesla to continue going it alone (and sinking large amounts of cash they need for other programs) is not there. And agreeing to a single nationwide or even better continent-wide charging standard can only help in accomplishing Tesla's original mission, which isn't to build cars or chargers, it's "to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable transport" (later modified to "accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy", reflecting the acquisition of Solar City, battery storage etc).
DeeAgeaux wrote:I don't see that happening in the US but stranger things have happened. Are supposedly free market Republicans going to essentially confiscate the Supercharger Network for Detroit?
DeeAgeaux wrote:EA isn't giving anything away. Porsche is and paying EA the same rate any other company can.
Jaguar can give their IPace customers three years of free charging if they want to and pay the same rate to EA Porsche is paying.
Favorable pricing to VW companies or customers is strictly prohibited by the settlement VW made with U.S. Prosecutors in dieselgate and is being enforced by the US Judge that approved the settlement.