Nissan Leaf's fast-charge capability optional. Why?

[Cacti]

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/22/nissan-leafs-fast-charge-capability-optional-why/

"We knew long ago that the Nissan Leaf would not be capable of level three fast-charging from the get-go, and there's good reason for this, which we'll get back to in a bit. It's now been brought to our attention that many of those who are pre-ordering the Leaf are shocked to find out that fast-charging is optional. What may first look like an oversight by the company really isn't at all. Nissan simply failed to outline exactly why fast-charging is optional, so we'll do it for you."

 

[garygid]

Apparently the forty L3 chargers to be installed in San Diego (and many more in other test areas) will have the Japanese Tepco "e-fill" plug on them, to be used with the mating "optional" L3 socket in the LEAFs sold in that area.

Apparently the Tepco (Tokyo Electric Power Co.) is currently working well enough in Japan, and is expected to work safely here as well, otherwise it would not be planned for use in San Diego.

So, what is wrong with just adopting this connector for the US standard?

Or, at least as a working subset of the US standard?

Is it so important for the US to have a "different" connector, just so the standard-makers can proudly say that the few of them alone have dictated that there will NOT be a world standard?

Lacking any information to the contrary, I suggest:
Unless there are compelling TECHNICAL (not "political" or NIH) factors, just ADOPT the Tepco Level 3 connectors and standards and get on with it!

If hundreds of Level 3 chargers are installed, matching an existing standard successfully used elsewhere, I say that this automatically becomes the "international" standard unless there are significant and substantial safety issues, or unworkable technical limits.

Maybe the Tepco connector is limited to 300 amps, and the US standards group feel that "we" need a different connector rated for perhaps 367 amps (and that such a connector just happens to be made by a company that one of the members (or a relative, a friend, or business associate), just by coincidence happens to have a financial interest in)?

 

[AndyH]

Is it so important for the US to have a "different" connector

We already know more about the status of Level 3 charging in the US than the author of the article. I think we also know enough to see that it would be a significant change of direction if the US adopted a "different" connector.

AeroVironment briefed the North Central Texas Council of Governments that Level 3 chargers were due in the US in 3rd quarter 2009.

US Charger companies are already members of the organization that promotes the Japanese Level 3 interface/protocol system. That organization (CHAdeMO) is also working toward the Japanese system being the world Level 3 standard. Other EV companies are in the group - including Mitsubishi and Subaru, so it's not just an interface 'suggestion' from Nissan.

We know that the Society of Automotive Engineeers (SAE) J1772 committee recently ratified the Level 1 and Level 2 recommended practice, and they report that the committee immediately turned their attention to Level 3. They were scheduled at one time to have an initial vote for Level 3 in late June.

We also can see from this presentation from late Jan 10 that there are a number of other SAE standards required for Level 3 - it's much more involved than Level 1 and 2 - and it's certainly more than just a plug. It appears that the plug is the easy part.

I think Nissan is smart to hold-off until there's a US Level 3 standard as it's much more than just a connector issue.

There appear to be a LOT of groups coming together to make this happen - and they actually seem to be working together!

Andy

 

[garygid]

But, haven't all the essential issues already been discussed and resolved in Japan?

What issue is different here, other than the ASE just doing something "different"?

 

[evnow]

Andy,

Any idea when they will be done with this level 3 standard ?

I'm fine with initial Leafs not having the "plug" as long as it is dealer installable later & later Leafs will come with the plug.

Anyway, as I wrote in comments of that poorly written ABG article, Nissan has never clearly mentioned this as an option in innumerable photos, videos, talks, interviews & articles I've read.

 

[mitch672]

But, haven't all the essential issues already been discussed and resolved in Japan?

What issue is different here, other than the ASE just doing something "different"?

The biggest issues here:

#1 Vehicle to Grid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

and

#2 IT Infrastructure standards to allow 2 way communication between the power utility and the vehicle
(see #1)

 

[garygid]

The L3 vote is to be taken near the end of June 2010, I believe.

 

[garygid]

I suspect that the L3 charging capability for the LEAF was not meant to be an "option", though it might possibly be model (SL) related.

Due to the unfinished US standards, Nissan appears to be limiting, as much as is reasonable, actually installing the Tepco L3 on first deliveries, since it might need to be removed in the future. Just adding is a lot less expensive than removing, junking, and adding.

IF the US standards are done in time, it might not be an issue (if grid-connection of the vehicle is OPTIONAL).

If feedback of power to the grid and a power utility information "connection" are mandated (required), it could set L3 implementation in the US back many months, or more.

Assuming it is optional, the connector and the charger-to-vehicle communication might have to allow for the optional communication.

A non-grid-tie subset of the L3 standard should be available, so that "simple" DC charging can be done easily.

 

[evnow]

If feedback of power to the grid and a power utility information "connection" are mandated (required), it could set L3 implementation in the US back many months, or more.

Assuming it is optional, the connector and the charger-to-vehicle communication might have to allow for the optional communication.

A non-grid-tie subset of the L3 standard should be available, so that "simple" DC charging can be done easily.

I doubt they can mandate power feedback to utility. I suspect the "smart" charging will be a different sub-level of the standards that will be optional.

 

[mitch672]

even if V2G is not mandated, the faciity for implementing it must be considered, the utilities have a lot to say about this, as fast DC charging is taxing on the power grid. Anytime a 50KW load is switched on, and can be controlled via "load shedding" by the utility, they are interested... likewise, they are also interested in possible V2G applications, to avoid building additional power plants.

Even if nothing is "mandated", that doesn't mean it won't be considered in the fast DC charging standard, and that is what could slow down the SAE. Does anyone here have access to the Tepco/Jademo standard?

 

[evnow]

... likewise, they are also interested in possible V2G applications, to avoid building additional power plants.

Ofcource - if I can get someone else to buy the expensive battery and let me use it for free - I'd also like it :shock:

 

[mitch672]

... likewise, they are also interested in possible V2G applications, to avoid building additional power plants.

Ofcource - if I can get someone else to buy the expensive battery and let me use it for free - I'd also like it :shock:

they ARE getting someone to buy the expensive battery; every Leaf owner. When the Battery has reach the end of its usefull life for vehicle use, they wil be sold to utilities for power storage/buffering. My bet is, they want to get started as early as possible in testing the V2G. Yes, their application is not exactly V2G, but they will be using the same battery packs.

 

[garygid]

A logical flaw in the V2G assumptions relating to EV and the L3 chargers appears to be that the "parked" EV is connected to a L3 V2G-capable charger during its "95% Parked" time.

Rather, the total national vehicle-hour V2G connection time will likely be very small, on the order of a small fraction of the number of L3 chargers, not onbthe order of the number of EV vehicles "parked".

So, with even 500 L3 chargers, used even 20% during the daytime in San Diego (thus, 100 attached vehicles) make much difference in grid regulation?

Even if ALL the 50kW charging is stopped, that is only a 5MW change in load, and 10MW even if all the cars could discharge quickly. And, statistically, one cannot count on very many cars being connected, especially at night.

Is a 10MW fast-response load-leveler really useful?

If it really is, why not just get 100 LEAF battery packs (100 x 24kWh = 2.4 MWh) for about $1,000,000 and some electronics ... and do the load-leveling independent of the cars?

 

[mitch672]

The "V2G" should have been considered more for the Level 1/Level 2 standards, is true, since that is "at home charging" and most vehicles are connected to that charger for many hours/day. Being that it wasn't planned for in that standard, they are probably trying to not screw up again with the DC fast charging standard. Not all DC chargers will be 50KW, it is possible 3rd parties come out with 6-12KW chargers for residential use, and those could certainly support the V2G standard, if there is one on the L3 standard.

 

[garygid]

Some homes do not even have run-backward electric service meters.

 

[evnow]

Look at the grid usage below.

The following needed features are not compatible with V2G. V2G is just a nerdy dream.
- 10 year battery warranty with only 20% range loss
- Charge when it is cheap at night and drive in the morning
- Most people will be driving when the demand is highest (evening 4 to 6)
- People will be connected to a level 3 charger for only 30 minutes
- I want to have 100 mile range in the car and not have the grid take back the power just before I need to drive

 

[garygid]

The experiment to let the Utility Company to turn off many home air conditioners was tried here about 20 years ago.

A few years later, they came around and removed the remote turn-off devices.

Maybe the Utility WANTS to sell more power! ... just maybe?

 

[mitch672]

V2G is all about utilities not needing to build additional generation capacity for peak load times.

Not everyone has the same schedule, so there will be some cars connected during peak hours.

regardless of it's workability, it will be tried again, to see how it works.
So will other technologies such as end-of-line generation (small fuel cells in neighorhoods, such as the bloom box)

anything to avoid building additional power plants, and imprive the grids reliability and capacity.

 

[AndyH]

V2G is probably Level 1 and 2 rather than 3. It's best used for the times the car is on the plug the longest - like when charging at work when the power company can use the help.

While there are plenty that can look at a piece of gold and spot the conspiracy, the V2G vehicles in place now in Delaware are being paid by the power company for the service - and Delaware restructured their net metering laws to incorporate EVs into the network. Other studies show on average that a single V2G car attached to the grid is worth $30 /hour. Sure looks like doom and gloom to me... :roll:

I strongly suspect that what will come out of the SAE J1772 committee the end of June is that they'll embrace the TEPCO/CHAdeMo standard and all it's ancillary comms processes. That will allow the Leaf to remain as it is and will allow the US charger companies that are part of CHAdeMo to finalize their equipment and start shipping units in time for the December deliveries.

Andy

 

[garygid]

Andy,
1. I suspect that your suspect is not suspect, but ... quite good.

2. I see no mention of throttling back L1 or L2 charging to ease the load on the grid. Also, the LEAF would need a 120v and 240v inverter to "feed" power back to the grid through the EVSE, but it is possible.

3. If grid-connecting one LEAF was really worth $30 per connection-hour, I could make a good business of buying LEAFs and just grid-connecting them.

Or, just buying the battery pack and Level "X" controller components, hooking to the grid, and watch $200,000 a year roll in for each pack!

I would not really need the wheels, seats, motor, auto insurance, registration, etc.

But, I suspect that the $30/hour figure is suspect, not an "average" value, but some "peak-demand" value. But, if I am wrong, let's get this business GOING!