SAE Planning vote to formally deny CHAdeMO in US

[ht2]

BMW i facebook post today 23Mar2012 with a picture of a Mennekes charging port:

A central element for the increasing expansion of electromobility in Germany is taking shape. To enable all future users of electromobility to access a nationwide charging infrastructure in Germany comfortably and securely, BMW Group, Bosch, Daimler, EnBW, RWE, and Siemens have formed a joint venture, the hubject GmbH, based in Berlin. Fascinating, don’t you think? More information (in German language): http://www.hubject.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does this mean Audi, Porsche and Volkswagen dropped out from original 7 manufacturers agreement?
May be this is good news for Chademo side.

 

[edatoakrun]

BMW i facebook post today 23Mar2012 with a picture of a Mennekes charging port:

A central element for the increasing expansion of electromobility in Germany is taking shape. To enable all future users of electromobility to access a nationwide charging infrastructure in Germany comfortably and securely, BMW Group, Bosch, Daimler, EnBW, RWE, and Siemens have formed a joint venture, the hubject GmbH, based in Berlin. Fascinating, don’t you think? More information (in German language): http://www.hubject.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does this mean Audi, Porsche and Volkswagen dropped out from original 7 manufacturers agreement?
May be this is good news for Chademo side.

IMO, the development of the world BEV fast charge standard, is best described in the archaic German word, Fubar.

 

[TimLee]

Having used the CHAdeMO three times now, even the CHAdeMO is a bit heavy and unwieldy.
The SAE concept would have to be heavier and more unwieldy.
Seems like a stupid move in the wrong direction.

 

[walterbays]

Volkswagen, which has 2 EV's on the drawing board and none on the road, was among the original group of German-US companies seemingly using SAE to slow adoption of Japanese EV's with CHAdeMO. But who looks likely to bring on line the 3rd DC quick charger in California? The 1st one in Northern California? CHAdeMO, of course. None other than a Volkswagen dealer! http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=185837#p185837

We probably shouldn't read too much into this, not as I'd hope a defection of Volkswagen from the obstructionist camp. Volkswagen could be agnostic on chargers, and could figure it's easy enough to add more SAE chargers when/if cars exist that could use them. Or since dealers are independent, it could have nothing at all to do with Volkswagen corporate. All I can say is this is one canny VW dealer, who when their own EV's hit the showrooms will have a ready stream of potential customers who already understand the benefits of EV's and who have nothing better to do for 20-30 minutes than sit in the lounge and read sales literature.

 

[scottf200]

Someone brought this up to me yesterday.

http://www.plugincars.com/bmw-i3/review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The i3 will charge in about three hours, and the Level 2 charging will be 30 amps at 7kW. It will also have DC quick charge ability, utilizing the SAE combo plug, allowing for an 80-percent in less than a half hour."

 

[Nubo]

Sorry for not researching, but does the SAE standard have different comm protocols, or is it just the arrangement of the conductors that's different? What I'm really trying to understand is the feasibility of retrofitting the LEAF's ports, or possibility of an adapter.

 

[Ingineer]

Totally different signalling and protocol. They are proposing the use a network over the power line as their data channel. As an engineer, I think this is messy and overly complex, and in addition, could be prone to interference.

I do not see an easy path to conversion, but it's likely a "dual headed" QC could be constructed for not much more cost than the single type. I expect QC manufacturers to offer this as a solution if by some miracle the SAE "standard" actually becomes a standard.

-Phil

 

[SanDust]

Totally different signalling and protocol. They are proposing the use a network over the power line as their data channel. As an engineer, I think this is messy and overly complex, and in addition, could be prone to interference.

Compared to what? Using powerline for the EVSE-Grid leg seems vastly superior to any other alternative I can think of. In fact it's the only realistic alternative I can think of.

 

[davewill]

Totally different signalling and protocol. They are proposing the use a network over the power line as their data channel. As an engineer, I think this is messy and overly complex, and in addition, could be prone to interference.

Compared to what? Using powerline for the EVSE-Grid leg seems vastly superior to any other alternative I can think of. In fact it's the only realistic alternative I can think of.

They're using it for the car-> EVSE leg, intending, I think, to also bridge the grid into it.

 

[Ingineer]

Totally different signalling and protocol. They are proposing the use a network over the power line as their data channel. As an engineer, I think this is messy and overly complex, and in addition, could be prone to interference.

Compared to what? Using powerline for the EVSE-Grid leg seems vastly superior to any other alternative I can think of. In fact it's the only realistic alternative I can think of.

No, this will not work, as the HPLN network doesn't make it past a transformer. This is only being discussed for the EVSE to car comms. It's "elegant" in that no extra pins are required, but it adds complexity on both sides, and is less reliable than the CAN link used in CHAdeMO.

Ostensibly the Grid to EVSE comms will be the type of mesh network already deployed by power companies for their smart meter system.

-Phil

 

[SanDust]

No, this will not work, as the HPLN network doesn't make it past a transformer.

I thought the whole point of IEEE 1901.2 was to get past the transformer. Isn't that the protocol they intend to use? I haven't seen a draft standard for SAE QC. Is it published?

 

[Ingineer]

I thought the whole point of IEEE 1901.2 was to get past the transformer. Isn't that the protocol they intend to use? I haven't seen a draft standard for SAE QC. Is it published?

Wow, I didn't even know about this new proposal. I stand corrected. This could be useful, but I fear it's still a ways off, and most of the power companies have already implemented the silver-spring type 900mhz FHSS NAN. It would make more sense to me to just use this, as it's established and most large power companies have or are currently rolling it out.

-Phil

 

[EVDRIVER]

I recently heard that Black and Decker has developed a partnership that will redefine the entire standard. "Born from the roots of the Van Dorn Company we will release the new Van Damn line of L3 stations". Some real kick butt HV stuff for sure!

 

[edatoakrun]

I wonder if the SAE concept of a combined DC/AC connector will be obsolete, before it's design is even finalized..

If Inductive charging is a s close to reality as the Infiniti BEV announcement suggests, The "plugging in" of BEVs may limited to DC fast charging only, in the not too-distant future.

Yet another reason, IMO, to not waste more money on a public J1772 L2 charge locations.

http://infinitinews.com/en-US/infiniti/usa/releases/infiniti-le-concept-a-vision-of-zero-emission-luxury-revealed-at-new-york-international-auto-show

...In terms of charging, the Infiniti LE Concept is equipped to utilize an integrated charging port, a DC Fast Charge option and an advanced Wireless Charging System.

"In keeping with the Infiniti challenger mentality, the LE Concept includes a built-in Wireless Charging System, which we expect to be the first home-based wireless charging system if adapted for the production version," said Poore. "All you have to do is park your vehicle over the charging pad with no need to connect cables."

The system’s non-contact charging is via inductive energy flow, with a coil safely encased on the garage floor. The primary coil is connected to the energy source, which then creates a magnetic field that excites electric current in a second coil in the LE Concept. The high-frequency charging, controlled by the twin display or smartphone, is safe for children and pets and can be installed easily in a home garage.

In addition, taking inspired technology a step beyond, the Infiniti LE Concept features an Intelligent Park Assist with Around View™ Monitor to easily align the vehicle in the proper position over the wireless charging coil. The system uses e-steering, with full forward and backward capability, along with a 360-degree view of the surrounding area.

It also bookmarks the parking place in GPS so that once the vehicle enters the garage, for example, the navigation system will automatically switch to Around View™ Monitor and the system is ready to park the car.

"With the Wireless Charging and Intelligent Park Assist, there are no cables, no maintenance and no concern about the perfect alignment of vehicle and charger," said Poore. "So, on top of no longer having to pump gas, you will no longer have to connect charging cables."...

 

[lpickup]

The "plugging in" of BEVs may limited to DC fast charging only, in the not too-distant future.

Not for me, thanks. Even if they can achieve a 97% efficiency rating, that 3% loss is not worth the "inconvenience" of plugging in a cable, not to mention the added expense of a wireless EVSE.

Now I would have no problem buying a car with a built in inductive system so that it's ready for wireless charging, as I do think that there may someday be wireless public charging opportunities where aesthetics, or deterring copper thieves, are important issues. Wireless charging at HOME though seems like a high end item. I doubt the J1772 port is going to completely disappear from the car.

I don't think we ought to hold up wired L2 installations and wait around for this technology to mature and be supported on a large number of vehicles though.

 

[Nubo]

The "plugging in" of BEVs may limited to DC fast charging only, in the not too-distant future.

Not for me, thanks. Even if they can achieve a 97% efficiency rating, that 3% loss is not worth the "inconvenience" of plugging in a cable, not to mention the added expense of a wireless EVSE.

Or, for the many people like my wife who have medical implants that cannot tolerate that kind of EMF.

 

[smkettner]

I think inductive charging will remain an expensive option for some time.
The Infinity report I read said it would have all three connectors.... I just want the J plug. The others will be options I would pass on.

 

[edatoakrun]

The "plugging in" of BEVs may limited to DC fast charging only, in the not too-distant future.

Not for me, thanks. Even if they can achieve a 97% efficiency rating, that 3% loss is not worth the "inconvenience" of plugging in a cable, not to mention the added expense of a wireless EVSE.

Now I would have no problem buying a car with a built in inductive system so that it's ready for wireless charging, as I do think that there may someday be wireless public charging opportunities where aesthetics, or deterring copper thieves, are important issues. Wireless charging at HOME though seems like a high end item. I doubt the J1772 port is going to completely disappear from the car.

I don't think we ought to hold up wired L2 installations and wait around for this technology to mature and be supported on a large number of vehicles though.

Well, IMO, public L2 slow charging, whether inductive of with a J1772 plug, is significantly inferior for BEVs, in comparison to faster and cheaper (in actual cost of delivery per kWh) DC charging.

I'd probably be a fan of public L2, if I drove a short E-range PHEV, without DC capability, and wanted to continue to get "free", or heavily subsidized, public L2 recharges.

As to the efficiency loss for inductive vs J 1772, any hard info, on how great that will turn out to be?

Yes, I'd expect most all BEVs to continue to have a J1772, or other, AC port, so that you can access any AC source.

 

[lpickup]

Well, IMO, public L2 slow charging, whether inductive of with a J1772 plug, is significantly inferior for BEVs, in comparison to faster and cheaper (in actual cost of delivery per kWh) DC charging.

I'm not always going to agree with this. If I'm at a movie for example, I'd much rather just plug into L2 and charge the whole time I'm there rather than have to run out of the theater 20 minutes after the movie starts to move my car because the guy behind me needs to charge. As long as the charging stations are located at places where I'm going to be for a significant amount of time, it really doesn't matter to me how long it takes. And while it may be a more efficient energy transfer to use DC charging, I suspect the chargers and infrastructure to support them would be signficantly more expensive. It's hard enough to convince shopping centers, churches, etc. to install 240V L2 chargers that may even be provided with huge incentives. I highly doubt I'd be able to sell them on a $10K DC QC unit because it will charge my car more efficiently!

As to the efficiency loss for inductive vs J 1772, any hard info, on how great that will turn out to be?

I don't have any hard info at my fingertips on where it's at now, but all the marketing information I've seen has indicated targets of 97% efficiency (so I suspect it will wind up being less than that, but that's the number I'm assuming for now). I suppose 3% loss isn't all that great, but I like to compare it to dumping a half gallon of gas on the ground after you get done filling up your gas tank. It's just not worth it to me given that the plug-in/plug-out is pretty damn simple already!

 

[edatoakrun]

I don't have any hard info at my fingertips on where it's at now, but all the marketing information I've seen has indicated targets of 97% efficiency (so I suspect it will wind up being less than that, but that's the number I'm assuming for now). I suppose 3% loss isn't all that great, but I like to compare it to dumping a half gallon of gas on the ground after you get done filling up your gas tank. It's just not worth it to me given that the plug-in/plug-out is pretty damn simple already!

Well, there are inefficiencies in cables also, so I'm not sure how both the eficiency %'s will look in comparison.

You can save 3 % in BEV efficiency, just by driving 3% less, or by just driving a bit slower (since you saved the time plugging-in and out?)

I don't much mind plugging in myself, but watch this video. Once one BEV manufacturer begins to offer this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JJMvWjl4a4&feature=player_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have a hard time believing it won't be a huge selling point, that all BEV manufactures will soon adopt.