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.

22 of 130 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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 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...
3. 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
4. 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...
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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.'"
8. 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".
9. 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
10. 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.
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 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.
2. 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!
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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!
6. 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!
7. 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
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: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.