Electrify America Network

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
DaveinOlyWA said:
Looks like we have another defector in Volta who announced 150 QCs nationwide all CCS only. I guess not all that significant as 150 stations is barely a drop in the bucket. They will be free exchanging ad time for fees.

I think its a rather stupid move since Chademo EVs still have more than a 4 to 1 advantage over CCS so even if they stopped building them today, they will still be around in great numbers for years.

Dave,

Would you be willing to comment (on the record) about EA's disparity between CHAdeMO and CCS connections? If I am motivated I might contact CARB about this for the California Settlement. I have a piece I plan to post shortly on this. I didn't get it posted before I left on vacation. ;)

I can contact you off line if you prefer.

Paul
 
paulgipe said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
Looks like we have another defector in Volta who announced 150 QCs nationwide all CCS only. I guess not all that significant as 150 stations is barely a drop in the bucket. They will be free exchanging ad time for fees.

I think its a rather stupid move since Chademo EVs still have more than a 4 to 1 advantage over CCS so even if they stopped building them today, they will still be around in great numbers for years.

Dave,

Would you be willing to comment (on the record) about EA's disparity between CHAdeMO and CCS connections? If I am motivated I might contact CARB about this for the California Settlement. I have a piece I plan to post shortly on this. I didn't get it posted before I left on vacation. ;)

I can contact you off line if you prefer.

Paul

Sure I will comment. How do you want to do this?
 
Email notification for:

401 NE Northgate Way
Seattle, WA 98125

I'm puzzled. This location isn't active in the EA Driver Portal, and isn't active in Plugshare...
 
Three sites are open, making 10 for the month and 312 total: The aforementioned Seattle, WA (Urb., I-5 ex. 173) and Washington, UT (I-15 ex. 10); and Flushing, NY (Urb., S. of Jct. I-678/S.R. 25A).

All are now shown as open on Plugshare and EA maps.

I've been waiting for Washington. Although it's not needed for through traffic on I-15 owing to Mesquite and Cedar City, it's better spacing from Las Vegas, and more importantly it's the closest QC to Zion Canyon, and also makes it possible to drive to Zion, to Cedar Breaks via U.S. 89/S.R. 14/148, and then to either the Cedar City or Beaver QCs. Keeping your speed down in a 200+ mile BEV, and not using much heat or A/C, it's even possible to go through Zion to Bryce, out to the road end and back, and then over to Cedar City via Cedar Breaks, but practically you'd want to do some charging in either Springdale/Zion (J-1772s) or at Bryce (14-50s).
 
840 Summit Blvd
Frisco, CO 80443

Makes crossing the Colorado Rocky Mountains more realistic. Still a gap between Grand Junction CO and Provo UT.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
paulgipe said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
Looks like we have another defector in Volta who announced 150 QCs nationwide all CCS only. I guess not all that significant as 150 stations is barely a drop in the bucket. They will be free exchanging ad time for fees.

I think its a rather stupid move since Chademo EVs still have more than a 4 to 1 advantage over CCS so even if they stopped building them today, they will still be around in great numbers for years.

Dave,

Would you be willing to comment (on the record) about EA's disparity between CHAdeMO and CCS connections? If I am motivated I might contact CARB about this for the California Settlement. I have a piece I plan to post shortly on this. I didn't get it posted before I left on vacation. ;)

I can contact you off line if you prefer.

Paul

Sure I will comment. How do you want to do this?

I can send you my draft text focusing on EA and California. The focus is on CARB because they might be approachable. I thought I had an email for you but apparently not--or I can't find it. The gist is as described above: EA is favoring CCS and that's what VW uses.

Paul
[email protected]
 
Nebraska having a couple new chargepoint fast chargers being installed in next 30 days.

https://www.omaha.com/sarpy/gretna/fees-coming-for-electric-vehicle-chargers/article_e79c2318-1a37-5863-8e3e-80d90248c59f.html

One more significant gap now with EA redundancy.
 
^^^ Frisco, CO (I-70 ex. 203) is #11 for the month, #313 total. As WetEv noted, this one finally completes the crossing of the Rockies, but another is needed to connect I-70 all the way - see below).

Here's my Top 9 (was Top 10 with Frisco) of "Coming Soon" sites which are needed to initially complete EA's primary Interstate network, listed from N-S and W -E rather than in an order of priority:

California: Anderson, Firebaugh or Harris Ranch, and "Bakersfield" (all I-5); Barstow (I-15); El Centro (I-8).

New Mexico: Lordsburg (I-10).

Florida: Gainesville (I-75).

New Hampshire: Seabrook (I-95).

Maine: Scarborough (I-95).


In addition to the above, there are several sites which aren't yet on the "Coming Soon" map, but which in some cases are as or more critical than the above. It's curious that the west coast remains unconnected in practical terms (which I'm defining as <= 140 mile legs between sites) with the rest of the country east of Salt Lake City, except for a single possible route along I-8/10 with some remaining too long legs, despite the high % of PEVs here. Towns/city names indicate the recommended area rather than the specific site:

I-8: Gila Bend, AZ.

I-10: Blythe, CA.

I-70: Green River, UT. This is the single most valuable site on both lists, as it will connect the east to both the PNW (via U.S. 6 in UT) and SoCal via I-15.

I-80: W. Wendover, UT. In addition, Lovelock & Wells NV, and maybe Lake Point, UT.

I-84: Twin Falls, ID (to connect with Wells for people driving to/from Grand Teton/Yellowstone and Norcal.
 
paulgipe said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
paulgipe said:
Dave,

Would you be willing to comment (on the record) about EA's disparity between CHAdeMO and CCS connections? If I am motivated I might contact CARB about this for the California Settlement. I have a piece I plan to post shortly on this. I didn't get it posted before I left on vacation. ;)

I can contact you off line if you prefer.

Paul

Sure I will comment. How do you want to do this?

I can send you my draft text focusing on EA and California. The focus is on CARB because they might be approachable. I thought I had an email for you but apparently not--or I can't find it. The gist is as described above: EA is favoring CCS and that's what VW uses.

Paul
[email protected]


Paul, you might also include a mention of EA's pricing, as that too favors their vehicles. Allowing the customer to chose their charge rate will minimize the customer's costs while also reducing the max. demand. I've already suggested the need for this to Kia themselves to provide a means to do this on the car (or just reduce the max. charging rate from 77-78 kW to 75): I assume that EA has no incentive outside of government regs to do this, as Kia/Hyundai BEVs manage to charge both too slowly and also a bit too fast.

To prevent VW from further gaming this by changing the charging rate break points, ISTM best to allow the max. rate to be selected either on the car, or ideally on the charger. Alternatively, EA should charge by the actual rate being drawn at a given time, rather than by the max. rate the car could draw at any time, i.e. a Niro would start the charge paying the 76-125kW rate, then once the charge rate dropped off to <=75kW you'd pay that rate.
 
GRA said:
Alternatively, EA should charge by the actual rate being drawn at a given time, rather than by the max. rate the car could draw at any time, i.e. a Niro would start the charge paying the 76-125kW rate, then once the charge rate dropped off to <=75kW you'd pay that rate.
What a concept! Fair, and within the capabilities of today's embedded computers!

What I'm trying to say is, this is so obvious and should be so simple to implement.
 
coulomb said:
GRA said:
Alternatively, EA should charge by the actual rate being drawn at a given time, rather than by the max. rate the car could draw at any time, i.e. a Niro would start the charge paying the 76-125kW rate, then once the charge rate dropped off to <=75kW you'd pay that rate.
What a concept! Fair, and within the capabilities of today's embedded computers!

What I'm trying to say is, this is so obvious and should be so simple to implement.
.
It does not cover demand charges.
 
paulgipe said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
paulgipe said:
Dave,

Would you be willing to comment (on the record) about EA's disparity between CHAdeMO and CCS connections? If I am motivated I might contact CARB about this for the California Settlement. I have a piece I plan to post shortly on this. I didn't get it posted before I left on vacation. ;)

I can contact you off line if you prefer.

Paul

Sure I will comment. How do you want to do this?

I can send you my draft text focusing on EA and California. The focus is on CARB because they might be approachable. I thought I had an email for you but apparently not--or I can't find it. The gist is as described above: EA is favoring CCS and that's what VW uses.

Paul
[email protected]

That's fine. PM sent
 
GRA said:
To prevent VW from further gaming this by changing the charging rate break points, ISTM best to allow the max. rate to be selected either on the car, or ideally on the charger. Alternatively, EA should charge by the actual rate being drawn at a given time, rather than by the max. rate the car could draw at any time, i.e. a Niro would start the charge paying the 76-125kW rate, then once the charge rate dropped off to <=75kW you'd pay that rate.
.
I am still uncertain that the tier rate is chosen by the theoretical max charging rate of a car and not the maximum obtained during a session. If the latter, then people can just start a new session when the power drops below a break-point.

----
So much hot air, for a few hundred Hyundai/Kia affected.
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
To prevent VW from further gaming this by changing the charging rate break points, ISTM best to allow the max. rate to be selected either on the car, or ideally on the charger. Alternatively, EA should charge by the actual rate being drawn at a given time, rather than by the max. rate the car could draw at any time, i.e. a Niro would start the charge paying the 76-125kW rate, then once the charge rate dropped off to <=75kW you'd pay that rate.
.
I am still uncertain that the tier rate is chosen by the theoretical max charging rate of a car and not the maximum obtained during a session. If the latter, then people can just start a new session when the power drops below a break-point.

Rate is determined before car starts charging
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
SageBrush said:
I am still uncertain that the tier rate is chosen by the theoretical max charging rate of a car and not the maximum obtained during a session. If the latter, then people can just start a new session when the power drops below a break-point.

Rate is determined before car starts charging
.
Remind me again why you think that is so ?
I remember we have discussed this but I have forgotten the details

I wonder if the handshake has the car passing on its maximum Amps and then the charger multiplies by some set maximum voltage constant to arrive at a max kW rating used for tier setting. It would explain the rate behavior some think they are seeing.

I think if fair however to point out that to the extent that EA is trying to recoup demand charges it will be figured by the meter, not the power to the car. That is a 10 - 15% difference due to conversion losses, and perhaps more if cooling is also figured.

---
Addendum: http://tesla.o.auroraobjects.eu/Design_Guide_Combined_Charging_System_V3_1_1.pdf
Page #7 is informative. The handshake passes max current and voltage early on, and later in the handshake passes voltage request to begin the charging session. So even if we agree that the tier is set before current starts flowing, I think EA has a choice to either use the max voltage of the battery spec OR the initial voltage request.
 
Guy,

Let me ponder that. It's too much for this piece, but possible in another piece.

We were traveling for almost a month and we come back and nothing has happened on the stations that I am following. They are still not active and EV Connect still hasn't started construction on theirs.

Paul
 
SageBrush said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
SageBrush said:
I am still uncertain that the tier rate is chosen by the theoretical max charging rate of a car and not the maximum obtained during a session. If the latter, then people can just start a new session when the power drops below a break-point.

Rate is determined before car starts charging
.
Remind me again why you think that is so ?
I remember we have discussed this but I have forgotten the details

I wonder if the handshake has the car passing on its maximum Amps and then the charger multiplies by some set maximum voltage constant to arrive at a max kW rating used for tier setting. It would explain the rate behavior some think they are seeing.

I think if fair however to point out that to the extent that EA is trying to recoup demand charges it will be figured by the meter, not the power to the car. That is a 10 - 15% difference due to conversion losses, and perhaps more if cooling is also figured.

---
Addendum: http://tesla.o.auroraobjects.eu/Design_Guide_Combined_Charging_System_V3_1_1.pdf
Page #7 is informative. The handshake passes max current and voltage early on, and later in the handshake passes voltage request to begin the charging session. So even if we agree that the tier is set before current starts flowing, I think EA has a choice to either use the max voltage of the battery spec OR the initial voltage request.

There was a Niro that never exceeded 55 KW on a charge and was billed 2nd tier rates. We also had one locally that never exceeded 40 KW (started charge at 80%) and was billed 2nd tier rates.

So it would seem the handshake only determines the car and not current condition of battery.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
So it would seem the handshake only determines the car and not current condition of battery.
No. Read the link I posted
The handshake also includes the initial voltage request
 
As Dave noted, there have been several reports, not just the ones he noted, of Niros and maybe Konas too (I forget) being billed at the 125kW rate throughout their charge. Owners have been complaining to EA. The rationale that you need to cover demand charges is gone if the car or the charger allows you to select a lower max. charge rate. Anyone who does so knows that they're going to be at the charger long enough for it not to be an issue.

I did suggest to Kia that, as EA has zero incentive to do this themselves absent being forced to by governments, they should reduce the car's max. charge rate to 75kW. The problem with that approach is that EA could then simply change the max. for the lowest tier to 73 or 70 kW or what have you, much as Nissan can change the definition of a 'bar' whenever they wish, which is why I suggested the probably more expensive but more flexible approach of allowing the customer to set a variable max. charge rate on the car.

Increasing the max. charge rate is another approach, but you'd want to go to 1.5C or more, which is presumably not good for the battery, and unless the rate stays high for a long time you'd be getting little benefit. VW says their MEB cars will have max. rates of 125kW, which seems problematic given the biggest battery pack sizes they've announced (77 kWh usable out of 82 kWh total), but if they want to warranty the packs and the average charge rate is high throughout, great.
 
Back
Top