Electrify America Is Shutting Down All Its 150-350kW Chargers Due To Potential Cable Defects (cnet.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Electrify America Is Shutting Down All Its 150-350kW Chargers Due To Potential Cable Defects (cnet.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Friday January 25, 2019 @10:00PM from the technical-difficulties dept.

Electrify America, a Volkswagen subsidiary created as part of the German automaker's $2 billion settlements with California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its use of emission test cheating devices in its diesel vehicles, is shutting down all of its high-powered 150- and 350-kilowatt electric chargers due to a potential manufacturing defect with the liquid-cool charging cables. CNET reports: The cables in question come from a supplier called Huber+Suhner. Electrify America's release didn't specify what the defect might be or whether any injuries or damage had occurred. "The safety of our customers is our highest priority," said Giovanni Palazzo, president and CEO of Electrify America. "Out of an abundance of caution, Electrify America is shutting down all of our stations that use the Huber+Suhner high-powered cables until we can confirm that they can be operated safely. We are confident that Huber+Suhner will investigate and resolve this issue as quickly as possible." Thankfully, 50-kilowatt CCS chargers, Level 2 chargers, and CHAdeMO units will still be running.

73 of 130 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:level 2? by Rei · 2019-01-25 23:05 · Score: 1

Level 2 means AC.

--
"Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by Rei · 2019-01-25 23:21 · Score: 2, Informative

The new Audi E-Tron just opened for configurations, so now we can see its final stats.
Starting price: 80,9k EUR
0-100kph (0-62 mph): 6,6s
Top speed: 200kph (124 mph)
WLTP combined range**: 381km (236 miles)
** WLTP gives more optimistic figures than the EPA. For example, the Model 3 LR AWD is rated for 560km (345mi) WLTP, but only 310mi EPA. Jaguar I-Pace is 467km (290mi) WLTP, but only 234mi EPA.
E-Tron (a 5-seater) also apparently comes with some truly record-smashing energy consumption figures, even worse than the I-Pace: around 250Wh/km and around 400Wh/mi WLTP combined (worse as EPA combined). Double the energy consumption of a Model 3. The latter of which charges at ~117kW on existing Superchargers, faster when V3 comes out. E-Tron would need to be able to charge at ~240kW to beat it in charge times (actual peak rate: 155kW). By far, most of the actual chargers the E-Tron can charge at are only "50kW" nominal, less in practice. Oh, and then there's this news about Electrify America shutting down its (small numbers of) >50kW chargers
What a joke. Can we get a real "Tesla Killer" on the market, please?

--
"Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
1. Re: Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by Rei · 2019-01-26 00:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  E-Tron is a 5-seater with an interior space is only slightly more than Model 3 (the driver's seat and dash are further back from the front end than in the Model 3, eating up its extra ~30cm length, and part (though only part) of its extra height is a mix of ground clearance and pack thickness; width is basically the same). It does get a larger boot however due to its reduced rear taper (though smaller than the Model S's - 605 vs. 894L; Model 3's is 424L). Overall space is far smaller than a Model X. Yet its energy consumption is way higher than even Model X, which is not only much larger, but also uses an inefficient induction motor (unlike the Model 3). It's just a crazy level of consumption for a 5-seat vehicle. Nothing short of an electric F350 should use that much power on WLTP.
  Remember that when someone uses the term "CUV" (or more misleadingly, "SUV", although that's outright wrong), that's a statement of form factor, not size. Even the Kona has been being referred to as a "SUV", and that thing is quite small.
  
  --
  "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
2. Re:Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt many people will be cross-shopping a premium-brand SUV with a cheaply built saloon that isn't actually on sale in Europe yet. Additionally, the e-tron is ready for high-current chargers that will soon be everywhere, while Tesla has not yet announced what the maximum charging power will be for the Model 3. Chances are it won't be more than the 120kW offered by Tesla's own chargers.
3. Re: Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by Rei · 2019-01-26 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  Also, if you think the interior space of a Model 3 is similar to a Toyota Celica, you've clearly never been inside a Model 3. Interior space is more than a 3-series, even though the external dimensions are similar. They did a really impressive job on maximizing internal volume.
  
  --
  "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
4. Re:Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by JaredOfEuropa · 2019-01-26 00:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  A "Tesla killer" needs to have a decent price point (the long range Model 3 is still on the expensive side), with good range. Good range means that it'll fill your need as a daily driver under any condition, without ever having to worry about a roadside top-up of the battery. If you have that, fast charging isn't even that important for most people; just look at the insane demand for the Hyundai Kona which has good range (> 400km WLTP) but only charges at 50kW max (some say 70kW, not sure if that's the case). There's quite a few people who'll say Tesla's superfast charging is a must-have, but those are generally people who drive their car all day, like sales reps or taxi drivers. Tesla taxis are a very common sight here.
  
  On the short range end, I really wonder how well the Tesla 3 will sell. It might still be too expensive compared to what the competition is offering.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
5. Re:Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by Rei · 2019-01-26 00:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I doubt many people will be cross-shopping a premium-brand SUV with a cheaply built saloon that isn't actually on sale in Europe yet
  1. Your "cheaply built saloon" has the highest resale value retention of any car in the US in the US, from a company with the highest owner satisfaction. But don't let facts interfere with a good attack line.
  2. Model 3 is on sale in Europe. First customer cars arrive in Europe on a week from now.
  
  Additionally, the e-tron is ready for high-current chargers that will soon be everywhere
  1. There are two primary factors that determine how long you're waiting at charging stations on a road trip: A) the charging power, and B) your vehicle's consumption. As described above, E-Tron is such a guzzler that even if it can charge on 175kW stations it still would only charge at 3/5ths the number of miles/kilometers per minute. Of course, most CCS stations are far from 175kW.
  2. "Soon be everywhere" is a funny statement. You know that Ionity network that's supposed to be making them in Europe? You may be surprised to know that the vast majority of what they're actually building is only CCS v1 (capped out at 200A, not 500A as in CCS v2). It's not even clear that they support 800-1000V yet either, rather than just 400-500V. The "350kW" moniker is designed to be a "later upgrade"; they're 350kW "design intent".
  3. Even if this weren't the case, they're years behind the Supercharger network.
  
  while Tesla has not yet announced what the maximum charging power will be for the Model 3.
  They've pointed out that all of their current production can take powers well faster than current superchargers can deliver, which is ~117kW. The onboard computer, when put into factory mode, shows a current limit of 525A, which would be ~180kW, give or take.
  
  --
  "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
6. Re:Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by JaredOfEuropa · 2019-01-26 01:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  1) Resale value means bugger all on a relatively new vehicle that is in high demand. I bet that at some point the resale value on Tesla 3's was actually higher than the factory price, since people might be willing to pay for instant gratification.
  
  3) Not over here they aren't. Problem is that they tend to focus on urban charging stations, which sort of makes sense because there are tons of Model S taxicabs here. In the Netherlands, FastNed have way more chargers, and many of them are on the highway. I suspect that Tesla will NOT get a license for Superchargers on the highways unless they open them up to other brands as well. Which they might well do, given that the European Model 3 uses standard CCS Combo 2 charging plugs.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
7. Re:Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  "E-Tron"? Is that for real?
  In French, "etron" is a turd.
  https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=fr&tl=en&text=%C3%A9tron
8. Re: Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by AmiMoJo · 2019-01-26 01:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's an Audi. It's a luxury barge with pretend sport features.
  Get a Niro or Kona. One third the price, longer range, high spec. Only problem is the Kia/Hyundai badge, which is only really of much concern to people who buy Audi rep-mobiles.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
9. Re: Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by Rei · 2019-01-26 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Tesla's competing offering, the Model X, is almost 50% more expensive
  1) No, it's not. And it doesn't bundle basic tech features into a separate options package.
  2) This is after Tesla eliminated the much (nearly $20k) cheaper 75D, leaving only the high margin 100D and the very high margin P100D (the difference in cell costs between a 75D and a $100D is only ~$5k or so).
  3) E-Tron isn't even close to the size of Model X. The rear-seats-down internal space is literally 50% larger in the X than the E-Tron. E-Tron has less boot space than even a Model S. Its internal space is roughly a "slightly taller Model 3".
  
  Sure, it may accelerate to 100 km/h a bit quicker
  "A bit"? A 66k EUR M3P will do 0-100 in literally half the time. The slowest vehicle Tesla sells in Europe does it in 73% the time.
  6,6 seconds and 200kph top speed is totally unacceptable at that price point. Particularly in Germany.
  
  On the other hand, the Audi will probably be much more reliable, be more enjoyable to drive, have a much nicer interior
  Yes, that's totally why Tesla scores several ranks 14% higher than Audi (90% vs. 76%) in consumer satisfaction, huh?
  
  while subjective, I think most people will agree it looks a lot better too
  Lol.
  
  I am willing to bet it will go round corners faster too
  Heavier & higher = Nope. Heck, it's even heavier (although not higher) than a far-larger Model X.
  
  and I am fairly certain it doesn't share Tesla's arbitrary, remotely enforceable limit on the number of times maximum acceleration is attempted.
  You're confusing Ludicrious Mode launches (P100D models only) with regular acceleration. Do you really want to compare performance to a P100D? And secondly, that limit hasn't been in place for a year and a half.
  
  --
  "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
10. Re: Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by Rei · 2019-01-26 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Not exactly. An SUV is by most definitions built on a truck chassis.
  
  --
  "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
11. Re:Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-01-26 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  I would have thought that an "X killer" would need to be better than X (perhaps quite substantially), not just comparable, for all values of X. Unless I misunderstood what "killer" means in colloquial English.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
12. Re:Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-01-26 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  It happens...
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
13. Re: Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-01-26 02:40 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Its all in the frame
  ...of mind?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
14. Re:Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by Rei · 2019-01-26 02:44 · Score: 2
  
  So a brand primarily bought by fanboys has a high customer satisfaction?
  Apparently the vast majority of all EV buyers in the US are "fanboys". What a weird cult! Hey, is it still a cult if the majority believe in it, or does it then get reclassed as a religion? ;)
  
  It's great that it now seems to be finally coming, but I'll believe it when I see it
  Seriously? I literally point you to a ship full of Model 3s, and you say "I'll believe it when I see it"? Want more? Here you go. They fill up a ship a week at Port 80 in San Francisco. Tons of spyshots watching them do it. Where do you think they're going?
  
  Meanwhile, Audi have already delivered the first few hundreds of e-trons in late 2018.
  You're thinking of I-Paces. And they started in Europe, so of course they got to Europe sooner. Their US sales are almost nonexistent so far.
  
  The first 350kW Ionity stations are already operational
  You forgot to put "350kW" in quotes. I literally just informed you that they're 350kW in name only. They're "To Be Upgraded Later". For example. They can't even do 175kW yet. It's literally a CCS1 cable. And if you're going to put a CCS1 cable on it then you're not going to bother filling the rack either only to let it just sit around collecting dust, unusable.
  But hey, they've got rack space for 350kW, and "plans" ;)
  
  Tesla can do its own thing and that is fine, but it will soon become irrelevant. Charging stations are popping up everywhere. Sure, many may not yet offer the higher charging current, but the point is that they are there and EV owners can use them and in due time, many will upgraded
  Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, "Everywhere, ever since the Supercharger network was launched".
  
  Sounds good, but Tesla has rounded up specs in its favour once or twice before
  It's literally what the hacked computer (factory mode, where you can see this data, is not supposed to be accessible by customers) is reporting as its internal values. Did Tesla tell the computer to lie to itself? On the offchance that someone might hack it?
  I swear... do you think the moon landings were faked too?
  
  --
  "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
15. Re: Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by drinkypoo · 2019-01-26 03:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Not exactly. An SUV is by most definitions built on a truck chassis.
  Nope. The first unibody SUV was the 1983 Jeep Cherokee, few would even attempt to argue that it's not a SUV.
  What a SUV is not is based on a car. If it's unibody, it's got to be a unique one, or at least so changed from the original that it's unrecognizable. Of course, VW blurs that line, too.
  CUVs are clearly car-based SUVs, but there's no firm definition for what an SUV is. It's really just marketing.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
16. Re:Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by JaredOfEuropa · 2019-01-26 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Or comparable specs (even without supercharging) but a lot cheaper.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
17. Re:Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by turbidostato · 2019-01-26 04:00 · Score: 2
  
  "I would have thought that an "X killer" would need to be better than X (perhaps quite substantially), not just comparable, for all values of X"
  Then you'd be utterly wrong, i.e. videotape format wars.
  For something to be an X killer, it needs to be perceived as better than X. Key words: "perceived" and the definition for "better".
18. Re:Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-01-26 05:06 · Score: 2
  
  Then you'd be utterly wrong, i.e. videotape format wars.
  Weren't those won by available content? That's definitely one measure of "better" for a media format.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
19. Re:Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-01-26 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Bang for the buck is a decision factor, too, obviously.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
20. Re: Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by Aighearach · 2019-01-26 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  If it's unibody, it's got to be a unique one, or at least so changed from the original that it's unrecognizable. Of course, VW blurs that line, too.
  ... but there's no firm definition for what an SUV is. It's really just marketing.
  When you make a strong statement, and then equivocate, it just means you're wrong. And you knew it.
  If they blur the line, and it is actually just marketing, that also means there isn't a clear line, and it doesn't "got to" this, or "got to" that.
  Once upon a time, an SUV was the class of vehicle typified by the Chevy Suburban. An even heavier vehicle built on top of a truck frame. These days, few of those types sell, and most things called an SUV would have just been 4WD cars back then. The difference between a car and an SUV these days comes down to 2 inches of clearance and wheel wells that slightly emphasize that.
21. Re:Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by Aighearach · 2019-01-26 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  When I was a kid the stores had both. My family started with beta.
  In the end when people stopped buying beta and switched to vhs it was because of available content; but that was after the wars had been fought and won.
  The vhs machines proved to be a lot more popular. Once they had significantly won the sales battle, the war was over. But the rental stores still carried copies of most movies in both formats for a few years.
22. Re: Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by c6gunner · 2019-01-26 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  The French manufacture the Citroen, which is a fail in pretty much any language familiar with lemons.
23. Re:Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by sandoval88419 · 2019-01-26 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  AUDI's etron is a piece of shit: https://www.google.fr/search?h...
24. Re:Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by turbidostato · 2019-01-27 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  "Weren't those won by available content? That's definitely one measure of "better" for a media format."
  It certainly is but, then, that was *my* point, not yours. Remember, you said: "I would have thought that an "X killer" would need to be better than X (perhaps quite substantially), not just comparable, for *ALL VALUES OF X*." (emphasis mine).
  See? VHS was never better than Beta or 2000 for all values of video media -in fact, it was common knowledge that both Beta and 2000 were technically superior to VHS. It was enough for just *one* feature of VHS to be perceived as better (availability) for VHS to reign alone. A case of "the winner takes all".
25. Re: Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by drinkypoo · 2019-01-27 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  "These days, few of those types sell, and most things called an SUV would have just been 4WD cars back then. "
  Maybe. It's hard to say when the closest thing we had on the market was the AMC eagle, the first CUV-by-another-name which was indeed referred to as a car. Subarus were all that car-like, except the brat (which was clearly car-based.)
  But the whole point of my comment was that the lines are blurry, and that frame vs. unibody has nothing to do with anything.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
26. Re: Meanwhile, in other Tesla Killer news... by Aighearach · 2019-01-29 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Subaru is the perfect example; the Forester was a car, now the same old Forester that wasn't an SUV when it was made, is an SUV.
  The Legacy isn't an SUV, and the only difference is 2" of height and the wheel wells.
Re:level 2? by Smidge204 · 2019-01-26 00:23 · Score: 4, Informative

As defined by EV charging standard SAE J1772:
Level 1: 120VAC (nominal) up to ~2KW
Level 2: 208-240VAC (nominal) up to ~20KW
After that you have "quick chargers" which there is multiple standards for, and all bets are off. They usually involve putting power directly into the battery, bypassing the vehicle's on-board charging hardware.
=Smidge=
Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2019-01-26 00:38 · Score: 2

I did not get this epiphany till I stared actually owning a BEV with 300 mile range.
Every mile of a gas car comes from the gas station. 90% of the electric miles come from an outlet in the garage from overnight charging. So these charging stations will dispense typically ten times fewer miles compared to day. Electric miles are four times cheaper than gas miles. So the revenue of these charging stations will be 1/40 th of present day gas station revenue.
Now there are 120,000 gas stations with total revenues of 450 billion dollars. If all of us start driving BEV, these charging stations will pull in collectively 11.5 billion dollars. At less than 0.1% marketshare, the total revenue of these chargers is around 11 million a year. The equipment needed is very expensive, Bolt charges at 50 kW, Teslas at 128 kW and Porches/VW are talking about 350 kW (800V systems). The transformers needed, and the heavy draw power equipment etc are expensive compared to simple pumps and underground tanks. The revenue just not justify the capital needed.
Independent charging stations, like gas stations, are not economically viable, it looks like. Utilities might build them at a loss, so that they can sell more electricity in garages and overnight charging. Car makers might build these networks at a loss. Governments might build it with subsidy to fight climate change. Companies might be forced to build these as a punishment for other wrong doing, (VW is building these stations under a consent decree for the dieselgate scandal). If BEV market share reaches some threshold street part

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by 110010001000 · 2019-01-26 00:58 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Tesla just suddenly hiked their charging prices by 33% and then backtracked a bit. It turns out that fueling your Tesla can cost MORE than fueling you gas car: https://www.techspot.com/news/...
  
  But you are right: the economics don't work. You are at the mercy of Tesla, and they will hike the rates as they need more quarterly revenue.
2. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by Applehu+Akbar · 2019-01-26 01:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Charging parked BEVs would be a good application for solar in appropriate climates. Use solar panels as a roof over those large office parking lots where the cars sit all day, and you could do a substantial amount of charging. At the same time, shaded parking is highly valued in such climates, and generally only available to neurosurgeons. Every week in here we get another article telling us how solar is too cheap to meter, so how hard can this be?
  So far, I have seen one example of this idea in use, at one of the large Krogers in Phoenix.
3. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-01-26 02:02 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'm over here in China (been here for a week), and right now in Shenzhen and Xiamen, most of the cabs are BAIC electrics. I was in one, when the driver asked if we can "change the battery". Of course! We drove to a station, drove into a little "stall", heard stuff underneath for about 3 minutes, then drove away. Swapped the entire battery pack. That makes a BEV a bit more useful... Telsa needs to get off their "supercharger" kick and either get with the new high-power standard here (350 kW) or a swappable battery like BAIC, BYD, and others use (which all use the same, standardized battery pack of 60 kWh size).
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
4. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by crow · 2019-01-26 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Tesla tried battery swap, but found that most people would prefer to just Supercharge.
5. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by crow · 2019-01-26 02:30 · Score: 2
  
  Well, this ignores urban chargers for people who can't charge at home. (Those can work on a subscription basis, and should have sufficient demand to keep prices down.)
  As to the viability of high-speed chargers along highways for travel, we're not looking at 0.1% market share, we're investing for the future with a much higher market share. I don't know the numbers, but once installed, a charging station requires very little maintenance, and the operating cost is just the electricity. So the break-even price would be the installation cost divided by the utilization (over something like ten years), rent for the space divided by the utilization, plus the electricity cost. Add on some profit, and you have the price. The real issue is whether demand is going to spike with electric cars dominating the market in the coming years, or if they'll fail and remain a minor portion. Those building stations now are betting that EVs will dominate. One thing they need to do is price charging based on what they expect utilization to be in the future, so they don't scare people away from EVs now. The math is correct that these stations can't operate at a profit right now, but long term that's not true.
  One thing they need to do is get around the peak demand charges that drive prices way up for charging stations. This can be accomplished with batteries (and possibly solar), or through negotiations with utilities and regulators.
6. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by drinkypoo · 2019-01-26 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Tesla tried battery swap, but found that most people would prefer to just Supercharge.
  There's still no evidence that any customer car batteries were ever swapped. The battery was installed partly with adhesives in shipped vehicles so it would have been extremely nontrivial to do a swap. There is exactly as much evidence that they simply connected the battery to an external coolant source or chiller so that they could charge faster during their "swaps" that took half as long as a supercharge. That is to say, there is no evidence either way, since there's no video of the process ever actually occurring on a customer car.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
7. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by cnaumann · 2019-01-26 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Many gas stations don’t make money selling gas. Gas is sold as a loss leader at many stores.
  With sub $2 gas, a 33MPG vehicle only uss $6,000 in gas in 100,000 miles. There are plenty of gasoline cars availabe for under $20K new.
8. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-26 06:35 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  This is the most insane conspiracy theory I have ever heard. I personally used the battery swap at Harris Ranch at eight different times; drove in with a range remaining between 1 and 10 miles, went to the bathroom, and came back to a car with a range of 260 miles remaining. Charging to full takes over an hour, and it was done in less than 5 minutes. There's no way it could be chilled to make it that fast.
  Why it failed, though, is that it was:
  1) expensive ($40 for a swap)
  2) inconvenient for the customer (you had to schedule your swap time ahead of time within a two-hour window to ensure they had a battery charged for you)
  3) inflexible for the customer (you have to schedule both swaps to get your original battery back, so either they have to be open 24/7 or you have to schedule your return trip during business hours)
  4) a logistical storage nightmare for Tesla upon scaling (batteries have different max charge as they age, so Tesla wanted to get your battery back to you. This means they have to store everyone's batteries and give the right one back to the right customer. If you went to swap and your max range went from 270 to 240, you'd be pissed.)
  5) very difficult to scale with different configurations (Tesla's made 70 kwh, 85 kwh, 90 kwh, and 100 kwh batteries for S & X, and now for 3, they've got Long Range, Mid Range, and soon-enough Standard Range, and eventually different battery packs for S & X, and the different packs for the Y, and so on)
  The swapping part of the process was fast and easy. If they want to make a reality, you need to change the batteries to be owned by Tesla and leased out, with a guarantee that you'll only get some fraction of the max charge for the battery, so that you can just get any battery pack that they have and not have to worry about getting your own back.
  But since charging is "good enough" for most people, Tesla just doesn't have the money to make battery swap a viable service, even if the technical parts are already solved.
9. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by Aighearach · 2019-01-26 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely. You can't run a charging station like a gas station.
  It has to be like a truck stop, with a restaurant and stuff.
10. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by Socguy · 2019-01-26 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  The real solution to folks who rent and don't have access to plug for their vehicle is legislation requiring landowners to make access to a 120v (minimum) outlet for any parking space they provide a regulation along with a reasonable fee for electricity used. Then municipalities need to expand on-street options such as incorporating a viable outlet on all street fixtures such as lighting standards. They should also should include some level 2 charging infrastructure on public parkades and find ways to encourage places like malls to do the same. Municipalities need to incentivize businesses to also incorporate charging infrastructure into their parking lots.
  
  Folks who live in northern climates may be thinking to themselves: "Wait a minute, a lot of this is already in place to service block heaters on cars now..." and they would be right. However, northern climates that see substantial time with sub-freezing temps will need to upgrade these connections to 240v since when temperatures are well below freezing, EV's use a substantial amount of the current from a 120v circuit just to keep the battery warm therefore will need a greater supply to enable them to recharge overnight.
  
  In the end, all most all the infrastructure is already in place to accommodate large numbers of EV's in cities. It's more a matter of political will to ensure that the everyone gets on the same page rather than any technical challenge in rolling out the solutions. The simple fact is that most potential EV owners will be able to get by with a basic 120v plug if there is access to occasional use lvl2 charging located nearby and high voltage DC charging for those longer trips. (With a few exceptions such as the previously noted outdoor charging through cold winters.)
11. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-01-26 11:00 · Score: 2
  
  I call BS. Why would people WANT to stop for an hour or two, when they could swap out their battery in 2-3 minutes? You can still stop for an hour if you want - but you don't have to. This is Tesla-spin, pure and simple. And with Nio (who's cars are definitely competitors to Tesla) now having a network of hundreds of battery-swap stations in China - and plans to expand into the US - Tesla is about to find out it's ancient technology. Why plug in? Just change...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
12. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by Socguy · 2019-01-26 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  Rapid charging is and will be a convenience for MOST EV owners. Yes, there are folks who don't have access to a plug and rely on rapid charging alone, but those folks will largely disappear as municipalities adopt policies that expand the availability of home charging for those that rent. In the end charging an EV will always have a cap on how much can be charged because folks can and will simply throw up solar panels if charging station owners get too greedy. Oppose this with gasoline which you have to buy regardless of the price if you want to drive. With fossil fuels you are at the mercy of a few large refiners who charge whatever they think they can get away with.
13. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-01-26 11:06 · Score: 2
  
  At least with the network I saw used in China, there was no scheduling, a swap was 150 RMB (about half the cost of a tank of gas for the equivalent car), and they had plenty of batteries charged and in-stock. And there is NO NEED to scale your battery pack if you can hot-swap it. Make a standard sized pack, designed to fit on all cars, and call it done. And a 150 mile range is actually fine if you can charge up in a few minutes; during a drive from Los Angeles to San Francisco or Las Vegas, I'd much rather stop every 150 miles for 5 minutes than every 300 miles for 1 hour.
  What this shows is that Tesla simply didn't have either the foresight or capital to do an effective battery swap system. What I saw in China could be put into 4, 20 foot containers, with each container being a hot-swap station. That would give 2 changing bays, one bay for the operator/control center, and one bay for automated storage/charging/retrieval of battery packs. When Nio rolls out its network in the US, Tesla is going to find itself looking really old and foolish...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
14. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by Local+ID10T · 2019-01-26 13:20 · Score: 2
  
  You are looking at it wrong.
  Independent charging stations ala gas stations are not the way forward.
  Around here, offices and shopping areas (grocery stores, malls, etc) are putting in charging stations in their parking lots as a perk to draw customers in. Public parking garages have charging stations -again to draw in business.
  Small businesses are partnering with companies providing charging infrastructure as well. My business has a small parking lot with 10 spaces. One of the charging companies is paying for the right to operate a 2 port charging station in my lot. They provided the equipment. They pay their own utility bill. They are responsible for the maintenance. I get paid a small amount monthly, and customers can charge their vehicles while they shop.
  
  --
  "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
15. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by crow · 2019-01-26 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  Who said anything about an hour or two? Typical Supercharge times are more like 20-30 minutes. And the reason people prefer it is because it's cheaper. Battery swap stations will always require more infrastructure, so the cost per KWh will be higher. Battery swap also only works well if everyone has a standard swappable battery, and cars simply don't all come in the same size.
16. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-01-26 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  So they take 8-10 times longer than a battery swap. A standardized battery size would solve the other issues - and properly designed (like I've seen over here for BYD, BAIC, and Nio) it will fit a massive variety of cars, with a good sized (60 kWh) pack.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
17. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by steveha · 2019-01-26 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  I call BS. Why would people WANT to stop for an hour or two, when they could swap out their battery in 2-3 minutes?
  Tesla Superchargers take roughly as long as people need for a meal. And Tesla cars can go hours on a freeway. So a long road trip looks like: drive for hours, stop at a Supercharger, get a meal while the car charges, continue the trip.
  It's not as convenient as gasoline or diesel, because with those fuels you can go from empty to full in 5 minutes or less, and you get longer ranges as well, so if you are really tough or determined you can spend more time driving and only stop when you choose to. But no matter what kind of car, on a long road trip I want to take rest breaks and get snacks... don't you? And Tesla cars pretty much can go about as long as I would want to go without a break.
  So it's not actually insane that Tesla customers preferred Superchargers over the battery swap. The logistics of battery swapping guarantee that swapping will always cost more than Superchargers, and people just didn't want to pay the higher cost. (Particularly since when Tesla tried the battery swap, all their customers had free unlimited use of the Supercharger. A battery swap was something like $40 and the logistics were a hassle.)
  And with Nio (who's cars are definitely competitors to Tesla) now having a network of hundreds of battery-swap stations in China - and plans to expand into the US - Tesla is about to find out it's ancient technology. Why plug in? Just change...
  Tesla's system recharges the battery in your car, and you have the choice of buying different cars with various sizes of battery. If you are wealthy, you might buy the new Roadster when it finally ships; that is supposed to have a range of over 600 miles. I'm guessing these standard battery packs will have a shorter range than most Teslas so you will need more swapping stations.
  Battery swapping means you don't own your battery and you are locked into a standard. And I predict that the costs will always be higher. Spare batteries for the swap are inventory... you need storage for the inventory of batteries, automated swap machines, and chargers. For the Supercharger you just need the chargers.
  Tesla has active thermal management to keep the battery packs from cooking, so they can really dump power in to recharge. I'm guessing these swappable packs are simpler and thus cheaper, but that also means you need to charge them more slowly or you cook them. That in turn means you need more of them.
  There might be room for a swappable battery system, but really for most people Tesla's technology meets the Good Enough standard and actually is better in some ways.
  For taxis in crowded big cities, the swappable packs might be attractive. If the cars are zipping back and forth they never get too far from a swap station.
  
  --
  lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
18. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-01-26 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I like the flexibility to choose when I want to stop, and for how long. If I have to stop - I want the flexibility to make it either a long or short stop. Battery pack replacement - or fuel, like gas/diesel or hydrogen - allows for the flexibility. If you want a long stop, go ahead! If you don't, you don't need one. Why have the additional constraints of having to pause for an hour every 250-300 miles, rather than choosing if you even want to pause that long?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
19. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by crow · 2019-01-27 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  And you just pointed out one of the problems. A 60 KWh pack is just a touch too small for me. I'm glad that I have the option of packs in the 70-100 KWh range. Standardizing on a pack now will just hold back the technology.
20. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by Bengie · 2019-01-27 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  I've heard from people with electric vehicles where they need to take long trips to see family on a regular basis that going electric was a non-issue. Their main point was along what you said about already needing to stop. What many don't mention is the 80/20 rule. You can charge to 80% in 20% of the time and the remaining 20% takes 80% of the time. Even if you take small 10 minute breaks every few hours, you can charge back up to 80% in no time and it's actually easier on the battery.
21. Re:Charging stations don't seem to be very viable. by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-01-27 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  If you could swap that pack in 2-3 minutes - is that a problem? More so than a 30+ minute stop to partially recharge?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:pointing blame by Rei · 2019-01-26 02:02 · Score: 2

Actually, this problem just got worse. The problem appears to be worldwide; it's hitting Europe too.

--
"Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
Re:level 2? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-01-26 02:10 · Score: 1

Level 1: 120VAC (nominal) up to ~2KW
So if I happen to live in a country without any 120 volt grid at all, all chargers are at least Level 2 by default?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Wait..What? by Ol+Olsoc · 2019-01-26 02:51 · Score: 1

Liquid cooled charging cables? Using the electricity to heat whatever liquid they are using isn't terribly efficient.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
1. Re:Wait..What? by thegarbz · 2019-01-26 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Using the electricity to heat whatever liquid they are using isn't terribly efficient.
  Using electricity to heat is 100% efficient. Heat transfer from the cable to the water jacket is a different question, but still incredibly efficient. I'm not sure you actually understand what it is that is being done here.
2. Re:Wait..What? by thegarbz · 2019-01-26 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  This. If the cable is getting hot, the conductor isn't big enough for the current its carrying.
  This is a dumb comment. Every cable heats up regardless of size if the current is non zero. Whether that temperature rise is too small to measure or not is irrelevant. Cables can happily run hot enough to be glowing red and still happily pass current, the question is if that cable is safe to handle.
  Liquid cooling is just a way of increasing the current carrying capacity which is limited by the temperature rating of the non conductor components in a cable, specifically the insulation.
3. Re:Wait..What? by Ol+Olsoc · 2019-01-26 15:23 · Score: 2
  
  Using the electricity to heat whatever liquid they are using isn't terribly efficient.
  Using electricity to heat is 100% efficient. Heat transfer from the cable to the water jacket is a different question, but still incredibly efficient. I'm not sure you actually understand what it is that is being done here.
  Reminds me of the Ham Radio operator who was bragging to me about how efficient his antenna was, because he put toroids on it and they got hot. This means energy wasted heating up toroids that would otherwise be readiated from the antenna. In his case, his setup had feedline radiation that he was choking off. But it was still energy spent heating those chokes.
  Now in the case of these chargers, you would also want energy going into the batteries. So unless heating is an integral part of the process, any energy transferred to the cooling fluid is simply not going to the batteries. It is going into the cooling fluid. True efficiency would be the cabled not increasing in temperature because they were robust enough that they would have very little resistance. This liquid cooling is just saving the cables.
  A liquid cooling system would be indicated if you were using cables too small for the purpose. Being too small, they would be shedding heat based on simple Ohm's Law. power dissipation . Their resistance would cause them to heat up. Some further research shows https://insideevs.com/vw-elect... Yup, those cables are way too small to be passing 350 KW through them. You run coolant through the cables to cool them and keep them from vaporizing. The coolant makes it possible to use that small of a cable, the cost is a lot of the energy being dissapated as heat. And if the coolant fails? so will the cable - probably very quickly. Could be a thousand amperes flowing through those cables. That is a dangerous design. Marketing tried to over-rule physics with the usual results.
  This isn't rocket Surgery - so what do I not understand?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
4. Re:Wait..What? by Ol+Olsoc · 2019-01-26 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  This. If the cable is getting hot, the conductor isn't big enough for the current its carrying.
  This is a dumb comment.
  Oh, AC. I love it when people call me out when they are 100 percent wrong.
  Every cable heats up regardless of size if the current is non zero.
  The issue is how much amperage you are trying to run through what sixe cable. The thinner the cable, the higher the resistance. The larger the current and the higher the resistance, the more heat will be generated .
  There is a reason why we don't use 20 gauge wire in our car's starting circuit. Run a hundred amps through 5 feet of that and you have a fireworks show.
  
  Cables can happily run hot enough to be glowing red and still happily pass current, the question is if that cable is safe to handle.
  Telll me what happens when you get a positive feedback loop. As the temperature increases, the resistance increases. You reach a point where the temperature increases so much that it exceeds the melting point of the wire. And that is why this cable has a liquid cooling system on it.
  
  Liquid cooling is just a way of increasing the current carrying capacity which is limited by the temperature rating of the non conductor components in a cable, specifically the insulation.
  Oh lordy - this excess heat - Where is it coming from? The cable. Where is it going? Into the cooling medium. Where do we want it to go? Into the battery.
  Pretty simple that. The amount of energy going into the battery, minus the energy going into the fluid, and you have an efficiency of the charging system.
  And if that cooling system fails, we likely have a bad situation very quickly. I'm reading very roughly 1000 amperes, which is nothing to sneeze at. And looking at the cables on that recharge station, I'm guessing less than a second to shut it down.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
5. Re:Wait..What? by Ol+Olsoc · 2019-01-26 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  uhm, so what state of matter is more efficient than liquid cooling? Would you say, screw it.. let the cable become hot and therefore much less efficient?
  Oh geesh. Come on you guys, this is supporse to be a tech site. All metal conductors have some ohmic resistance. This resistance goes up or down based on the thickness of the metal. Too thin a conductor, and you start generating undesireable heat as the resistance does it's job and dissipates some of the powerFor maximum efficiency, you want as little resistance as possible.
  Therefore, you want a bigger diameter cable, or a different way to attach if you insist on running 350 kW though the charging circuit.
  You can use a smaller diameter cable, and cooling if you want that smaller cable to survive by not allowing it to go into thermal runaway. But it is still making heat. It's resistance is unchanged.
  You want the power going into tha battery, not heating the fluid. This company simply exchanged efficiency for a smaller cable. And I certainly wouldn't design a charger like that. Not because it won't work - because the price of failure is so high.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
6. Re:Wait..What? by thegarbz · 2019-01-27 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, AC. I love it when people call me out when they are 100 percent wrong.
  Hmm. Claiming I'm wrong while not even realising who you're talking to, you're not off to a good start.
  
  There is a reason why we don't use 20 gauge wire in our car's starting circuit. Run a hundred amps through 5 feet of that and you have a fireworks show.
  Indeed. Now if you cool that cable to -150C it will work just fine. Unfortunately for your straw-man argument we're not using 20gauge wire here, and it's not practical or cost effective to liquid cool cables in the car which is why they take a simpler engineering solution to this problem: A bigger cable, something which is not practical for 350kW chargers.
  
  Oh lordy - this excess heat - Where is it coming from? The cable. Where is it going? Into the cooling medium. Where do we want it to go? Into the battery.
  Yes, Yes, WTF No! Don't be silly. Making a conductor heat to >90C is not some horrible waste on efficiency in a 350kW charging circuit. Your battery won't miss the small amount of energy converted into heat.
  
  And if that cooling system fails, we likely have a bad situation very quickly.
  Nope. We're likely to have an ok situation which escalates quite slowly to a bad situation, water has quite a high specific heat and the failure of that cooling system is easy to detect at which point the charging system gracefully shuts down and gives an error.
  
  I'm reading very roughly 1000 amperes, which is nothing to sneeze at. And looking at the cables on that recharge station, I'm guessing less than a second to shut it down.
  You're reading wrong and extrapolating incorrectly at many fundamental levels.
  1. On top of water having a high specific heat you know what else does? Copper. You're also ignoring the fact that these cables are quite substantial as they are. Not to mention that loss of flow detection can be pretty much instant, though in practice there is usually a 1-2s filtering to prevent spurious dropouts. Even if your assumption was correct it still is an easy engineering problem.
  2. 1000A while nothing to sneeze at is also nothing that is magically hard to handle with some high school engineering. A 4/0 gauge cable can handle this current continuously without any extra cooling with standard PVC insulation. Dropping the wire just a few gauges and adding a failing liquid cooling system will result in a graceful but time generous temperature rise.
  3. Your guess is off by a factor of 100%. The 350kW chargers transfer no where near 1000A. The cables in question (and more importantly the connectors at the end) are rated to an absolute max of 700A and that includes a 20% safety factor.
7. Re:Wait..What? by thegarbz · 2019-01-27 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Therefore, you want a bigger diameter cable
  You're a genius. I'm not sure how the army of engineers working on bigger chargers managed to get so far without your help.
  
  And I certainly wouldn't design a charger like that.
  Clearly you wouldn't design any charger. I mean if you did you'd probably have read up about it and would know that the limiting factor for >150kW chargers as they stood was cable size and voltage rating for continuous flexible connect / disconnect systems.
  But hey I can't help it you're so smart. You should go call up Porsche as soon as possible and tell them that after a year of engineering you had a much "better" idea. I'm sure they'll give you a wheelbarrow full of money. /sarcasm
8. Re:Wait..What? by thegarbz · 2019-01-27 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Now in the case of these chargers, you would also want energy going into the batteries.
  
  Oooooh you're talking about wanting to not make heat and instead put more energy into the cables. Man are you good at this. First you suggest that the simple solution is to do the one thing they couldn't do (bigger cables), then you go and harp on about some completely insignificant inefficiency in a 350kW charging system like it's some kind of problem.
  
  A liquid cooling system would be indicated if you were using cables too small for the purpose.
  
  Nope, A liquid cooling system would indicate that the cables designed for the purpose needed cooling given other engineering restrictions.
  
  Some further research shows https://insideevs.com/vw-elect... [insideevs.com] Yup, those cables are way too small to be passing 350 KW through them.
  
  That isn't research. It's a statement from one manufacturer that their cables have a problem. It is a straw-man and not a good one. What next, Infinity cable recalling it's 2.5mm TPS is indicative that we shouldn't be using 2.5mm copper TPS to wire our houses? Shit man, someone had a problem! Change everything before we all die!
  
  Yup, those cables are way too small to be passing 350 KW through them.
  Actually they have been passing 350kW through them just fine.
  
  You run coolant through the cables to cool them and keep them from vaporizing.
  No you run coolant through the cables to cool them and keep the insulation from getting soft and degrading.
  
  The coolant makes it possible to use that small of a cable, the cost is a lot of the energy being dissapated as heat.
  
  Nope. The cost is a bit of energy being dissipated as heat.
  
  And if the coolant fails? so will the cable - probably very quickly.
  
  If the coolant fails the system shuts down. What is this amateur hour here on Slashdot? Even the non liquid cooled charging systems have safety systems built into them.
  
  Could be a thousand amperes flowing through those cables.
  1000A would be a problem given the cables are rated for 700A and the chargers just a tad north of 500A.
  
  That is a dangerous design. Marketing tried to over-rule physics with the usual results.
  It's a perfectly normal design required thanks to those pesky laws of physics.
  
  This isn't rocket Surgery - so what do I not understand?
  I don't understand rocket surgery. This however, I'm all over it. You on the other hand seem to have no idea why liquid cooling was chosen in the first place. Maybe go read up on it so we can start talking about this on the same level.
9. Re:Wait..What? by Ol+Olsoc · 2019-01-27 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, AC. I love it when people call me out when they are 100 percent wrong.
  Hmm. Claiming I'm wrong while not even realising who you're talking to, you're not off to a good start.
  The evidence in this issue shows that you are wrong, so your internet muscles and AC CV don't mean much. If the cables are liquid cooled it is because they need to be, and if the cooling system fails, the inevitable happens. Liquid cooling doesn't change the resistance of the wire, it simply allows the heat generated to be removed.
  Your argumentum ad verecundiamis is cute though. I appeal to Ohm's law
  Perhaps you can set up an experiment to prove me wrong. You'll also be proving the people that took the higher power chargers out of the loop as incorrect. They would love to hear from you so they can put them back in service per your say-so. Those cables were simply insufficient to the task. Take it up with Georg Ohm if you like.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
10. Re:Wait..What? by Ol+Olsoc · 2019-01-27 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Therefore, you want a bigger diameter cable
  You're a genius. I'm not sure how the army of engineers working on bigger chargers managed to get so far without your help.
  As likely as not, the diameter and ease of use of the cable was dictated by marketing concerns. The engineers had a cable size they had to use.
  
  And I certainly wouldn't design a charger like that.
  
  Clearly you wouldn't design any charger. I mean if you did you'd probably have read up about it and would know that the limiting factor for >150kW chargers as they stood was cable size and voltage rating for continuous flexible connect / disconnect systems.
  Design of charging circuits is pretty simple. These folks just ran themselves up against Ohm's law. Using a fluid cooled system to draw off excess heat generated by the use of too small of cables that are exhibiting resistance heating isn't surprising. The biggest problem is if the cooling system fails. And if the resulting sparks and fire occur at a mixed fuel location, it could be a real disaster if it caught a gas pump on fire as well.
  But you are right - I certainly wouldn't design such a charging system. While it might work for a very solidly secured charger, we're talking about a cooling circuit that is in a flexible tube.
  The likelyhood of failure is significant. And not unexpectedly, they have problems. This 350 kW system is pushing the envelope of possibility. Combination of needing a liquid cooling system to draw away the heat generated by the resistance of wire that is too thin for the purpose, and the likelyhood of failure that has been proven by it having happened, and we have an easily predictable occurrence.
  
  But hey I can't help it you're so smart. You should go call up Porsche as soon as possible and tell them that after a year of engineering you had a much "better" idea. I'm sure they'll give you a wheelbarrow full of money. /sarcasm
  This design was one that made sense from a convenience standpoint. An easily handled charging cable that could charge an EV in short order. What's not to like? But as soon as they got into the details, it was pretty obvious that an easily handled cable wasn't up to the task. So adding liquid cooling was indicated. But they have to get the liquid in and out of that easily handled cable. And you better be reliable about it,
  And they have obviously had big problems with the device.
  It is like you folks are arguing that something that happened, did not happen. I/R heating. It's not just an idea, it's Ohm's law.
  As for me? I'm at a point where if I say a design won't work or isn't practical, I'm in no trouble. They wouldn't like what I would tell them. This idea simply isn't practical. Failure of the flexible cooling system is likely. If you are going to be rapid charging at such high currents, you need to redesign the whole charging system, or risk big problems. My evidence? Just what has happened.
  Now - I could design a charging system that would handle this amount of current with no need for any cooling. It would take some interaction between manufacturers, and definitely not use a charging port like what is in use today.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:pointing blame by PPH · 2019-01-26 04:44 · Score: 1

TFA said that the nature of the defect has not been disclosed by Huber+Suhner. So, no way of knowing if it met the spec.
It might have failed a version of the "Idiot drives off with the nozzle still in the car while yapping on the cell phone" test.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Not really by Picodon · 2019-01-26 06:35 · Score: 1

The announcement makes it clear that it is a suspected problem with the product itself, regardless of its application. The press release from Electrify America says: “At the recommendation of its supplier, HUBER+SUHNER, (...), Electrify America is shutting down .... The recommendation was issued to all of HUBER+SUHNERS’ customers using the technology worldwide.”
Re:level 2? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-01-26 06:51 · Score: 1

3.5 kW charging is what I'd be doing at home using a "plain wall socket", which is limited to 16 A at 230 V. Using the three-phase circuit I have in the toolshed, I should be able to charge at 24 kW (limited by the circuit breaker; the plug itself should handle 38 kW).

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re: level 2? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-01-26 09:22 · Score: 1

I'm hardly an outlier, this is bog-standard equipment.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
One more time: it wasn't a "device" by nyet · 2019-01-26 11:21 · Score: 1

Idiots keep calling a few lines of code a "device."
This is what happens when you let law makers redefine English terms.
Except for the video of it actually happening: by Brannon · 2019-01-26 16:57 · Score: 1

Tesla battery swap demonstration

Let me guess, fake news?
1. Re:Except for the video of it actually happening: by drinkypoo · 2019-01-27 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  I tried to play your video and YouTube sent me to "Ludicrous Tesla takes down multiple Hellcat Challengers Drag Racing!" Which doesn't really speak to your claim. Just tell me whether that was a customer car and save me the trouble.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Will never work in France by ElRabbit · 2019-01-27 07:43 · Score: 1

étron in French is (slightly outdated) slang for "shit"
Re:level 2? by Smidge204 · 2019-01-27 09:25 · Score: 1

> So if I happen to live in a country without any 120 volt grid at all, all chargers are at least Level 2 by default?
According to the SAE standards, yes. Actual wattage may vary depending on the circuit ampacity available though.
=Smidge=