That's essentially what the J1772 charging standard does (with a few modifications).
The UL/NEC doesn't want people regularly plugging in to your typical 240V plugs - they aren't designed for that and are lacking important safety features (like GFCI circuits) which makes it too easy for people to electrocute themselves when handling the plug.
That said, one can send off the standard 120V Nissan LEAF charge cord to be modified (for about $240 + adapters) to run off 120-240V at 12-16A. Then with the right adapters you can plug into nearly any power source around.
Tesla sells you a handy kit to do this as well for the Roadster - but it costs quite a bit more ($1,500)
I still don't see why the big desire for batteries. They're heavy, a pain in the ass to change even if you have a standard. You're looking at someone to do it for you, or knowing how to do it yourself using machinery in both cases. In the end, fuel cells will be the way to go, unless there's some amazing earth shattering breakthrough in battery technology.
Every single one of your limitations applies to fuel cells, too.
Right now if fuel cells require extremely expensive and rare fueling stations making them a severe pain in the ass to charge. There's probably a handful of them across the country. And the cost of that fuel is expensive.
In the end - fuel cells are just another type of battery. Except more expensive than today's batteries and even harder to refuel.
If you have a 2 mile commute, you should be riding your bike or walking. Not lugging 2 tons of steel back and forth. If too lazy to do either, get an e-assist bike.
You're in luck. The soon-to-be-sold in the USA Mitsubishi i has those exact batteries.
Unfortunately, recharge times will be currently limited to about 30 minutes from empty to 80% - same as the Nissan LEAF. Probably mostly due to how much power it takes to do so. Peak charge rates are around 50 kW.
It's easy to forget to good we've had it with gasoline - each gallon of gas has about 36 kWh worth of energy in it - and your typical automobile only uses about 20-30% of it!
The Tesla Roadster needs to very carefully maintain battery temps because it uses commodity lithium cells which do not like extremes in temperatures.
The LEAF and iMiEV have much more robust batteries which are more stable. They also have lower internal resistance which do not generate significant amounts of heat during charge and thus can tolerate wider ranges of temperatures without issue except perhaps some minor degradation of capacity over time if high temperatures are sustained for extended periods of time.
unlike batteries which can convert as much as 50% of it to heat during charging/discharging) and their working life makes them very attractive - current batteries aren't going to last more than a few years (much less if you're continually quick-charging them)
Modern lithium batteries are well over 90% efficient during charge/discharge.
Quick charging is not a problem for their battery life as long as you avoid quick charging all the way to 100% full capacity - this is why the Nissan LEAF and Mitsubishi iMiev quick charge to 80%. Charge rate is automatically tapered off as the battery fills up to avoid generating excess heat.
DIY HVAC is pretty common especially in the off-grid community these days. Most typical setup are your mini-split systems. Very simple to install - and very efficient, too.
Any grid-tied PV system you buy from a store that is UL listed will not feed energy back to the grid if the rest of the grid is down. Off-the-shelf generators pose a bigger risk than a grid-tied PV system - and they're much cheaper, too.
Regardless - there is a reason why linemen treat wires as hot at all times even when they know it's not though, you know...
So, money that is spent on heating costs doesn't have any effect on the economy? Where does that money go then?
Yeah - you're right. Let's leave all the windows open whenever we're running the heater or air conditioning - think of all the jobs we'll create in the gas/coal industries!:-P
Here's a thought for you - increasing efficiency let's us spend more time working on other things that improve quality of life - there's a good reason that civilization really started taking off once we figured out how to use fossil fuels to do massive amounts of work for minimal amounts of labor...
I'm for solar subsidy, especially once solar panel efficiency exceeds 40%, which they're almost to on the newest panel designs, especially for structures that can receive solar panels without spoiling the appearance of the structure.
PV panel efficiency does not matter unless you are space constrained - and current PV panels are no where near 40% efficiency. PV panels currently in use range from 10%-20% efficient depending on the technology. 40% efficient panels are used where space/weight is a premium - primarily space applications - and are very expensive.
What really matters is the cost per kWh of an installed system. Right now, without subsidies, PV is between $0.15-$0.30 / kWh in sunny areas depending on the scale of the project. This makes it competitive with retail electricity prices in many areas. That's without subsidies!
The industry is working to get the price cut by 75% by 2010. At which point PV will be cost competitive or even cheaper than current grid power in many areas without the harmful emissions.
Uh, from the data in your own fine article, Petroleum (crude oil) is only half the energy of gas and coal. But looking closer that is energy production.
Looking at energy consumption, petroleum is ~50%+ more than both gas/coal - we must use it very inefficiently on average thanks to the millions of tiny combustion engines we have running around...
Well said - they're mixing up range numbers all over the place. There's a reason why there's standardized tests for these types of things and using different test results on makes things more confusing for the consumer.
I'm not sure how much the prices are skewed by tax, but electricity costs me about four times as much as gas, per kWh, so I'd be crazy to heat my house with electricity.
Which is why using resistive heating is extremely wasteful unless you have electricity to throw away (perhaps if you live in the northwest right now where they currently have too much hydro and wind and not enough transmission lines to move the power out it makes sense to use resistive heat). When you have gas furnaces well above 95% efficient at turning fuel into heat and getting it in your house - that's really hard to beat.
But if you use a high efficiency air source or ground source heat pump - all of a sudden things look a lot better - you can get 2-5x the energy you put into the heat pump into your home - so you put 1 kWh into the heat pump compressor and you get 2-5 kWh of heat in your house. Now electric heating costs basically the same as gas heating per kWh - and you have the opportunity to source that energy from renewable sources instead of oil or gas.
some people are saying the cost of cleanup and indemnification in fukushima can be as high as 60 billion.
how many wind turbines can you buy with that ?
Assuming a cost of about $1.75/watt installed, about 35 GW of wind. Wind typically has a capacity factor between 30-40% depending on how effectively it is sited. Newer sites tend to have higher capacity factors, so let's assume 35% average or about a constant 12 GW of power.
Nuclear typically has a capacity factor of appx 90%.
In the end it's probably easiest to look at cost per kWh before a project is built - and cost to run the plant after it's built. For those reasons once they're built nuclear and renewables typically have a very high capacity factor (fuel is cheap or free once built) compared to coal/gas plants.
It typically takes a panel a couple years to "break even" on energy costs. Everything after that is gravy. Given that panels are typically warranted to produce at least 80% of their rated power for 25 years it's over a big positive.
Overall, wind is often more expensive (and has to be subsidised as a result), at least per unit of electricity generated, than oil/gas at current prices.
Oil/gas is only "cheaper" because current pricing of oil/gas/coal does not account for it's externalities.
For example, a recent study puts the unaccounted for price of coal in the US somewhere between $140-$242 billion dollars a year.
If these costs (in effect subsidies) were paid for, wind (and other renewables) would be very cost competitive with coal without any additional subsidies.
As it is, subsides for renewable energy just help level the playing field.
Nimby might like that but the power co tends to step in then with NOMBY (not off my back yard).
Definitely - which is why legislation is needed to make the utilities cooperate. And legislation is needed to prevent neighbors from preventing the installation of small scale, on-site generation (the states that lead in these areas have such legislation in place). For example, in CA, HOAs can't keep you from installing your own solar system. And the utilities have to provide means for net-metering when you do generate your own electricity.
Most utilities are set up so that they don't profit off of power generation (those costs are passed directly to the consumer and typically have to be approved by a regulatory board) but they do profit off infrastructure improvements (also regulated).
That does tend to discourage utilities from using locally generated power in some cases as it reduces the need for long distance, expensive high power transmission lines.
Do you realize that over 10 million light vehicles (cars, SUVs, pickups) are sold every year? So slightly less than that are recycled each year.
The bigger challenge will be convincing buyers to buy 1 million EVs over the next 5 years. Even though that sounds like a big number, that is only 2% of the market and hybrid vehicles still only have around 2-3% of the market and that's after being widely available for 7 years. Even then - one hybrid in particular - the Prius is vastly more successful than any other model with about half of all sales.
So which is it - solar panals are too expensive or your already have a solar array? Looking at your later post... Or are you just confused?
Anyway, to dispel your claim of $50k (the cost of 2 Priuses) only being good enough to generate about 7 kWh/day...
The cost of solar PV installed before rebates is currently between $5-7 / DC watt - let's use $6 / watt.
So $50k will buy you about a 8 kW array.
Using PVwatts and assuming you live in San Francisco, your typical system this big will generate over 11,000 kWh / year or 30 kWh / day. You could drive your Nissan LEAF over 37,000 miles / year or 100 miles / day using the EPA's estimate of 3.4 mi / kWh.
So in reality, a $50k PV system will buy you a large enough system to power over 3 typical EVs over 12,000 miles / year. And that system should last 25 years with minimal maintenance. (Never mind that the $50k system is 30% off = $35k thanks to federal tax credits and you can very often get additional rebates depending on where you live).
Honda Civic hybrid. I'm having a lot of hybrid-oriented issues with the thing which make me REALLY happy I leased the thing rather than buy it. Honestly I just wanted a buffer until better tech comes around, during which they have to fix everything that breaks.
What I'm worried about is the batteries in my car can go a little schizo on you. They'll show full and then two seconds later they say they're at 20%. My assumption is that this is a crappy Honda thing
Yes, it's a known issue with the Civic hybrid. Supposedly there is a reflash to help keep the car from causing the batteries to lose capacity too quickly, but many suspect that either by the time it's done the damage has already been done, or that it sacrifices fuel economy in normal operation - despite Honda's claims that it doesn't.
I know mileage drops in the winter. But going form ~45MPG to ~25 or even less? That's quite a difference.
It depends on the length of your trips (the shorter they are, the worse it is) and the temperature, but it's not unheard of. Even on other hybrids on the Prius. The latest Toyota hybrids have exhaust heat recovery systems which help mitigate this to some degree. Don't forget to check your tire pressure - inflating them a bit higher than recommended can also help a good deal - most find that around 40 psi is a good compromise between fuel economy and ride quality.
Regular cars also suffer from reduced fuel economy in the cold - it's just normally quite as dramatic or noticable because they are so much less efficient to begin with.
I drive a hybrid car now, and in the LOVELY Minnesota winter, the batteries just DIE. I'm not kidding, they've had to be replaced.
Out of curiousity - what type of hybrid do you drive exactly? While the batteries used in current hybrids (NiMH) are definitely lacking in extreme cold temps like you get, they shouldn't fail because of it if the battery management system system is doing it's job. I've never heard of a Toyota hybrid's battery dying because of the cold...
Even when they work my mileage almost halves in the winter.
That's expected. Current hybrids sacrifice fuel economy for reduced emissions meaning they need to run the engine more to keep it warm. Plus you will typically be running the heater which gets it's heat from the engine - meaning the engine has to run more.
A surprise "Hey your vehicle's range just dropped form 100 miles to 50 miles with no notice!!!!" is NOT a good thing.
While range in an EV will go down a good deal in winter - this is primarily because of HVAC loads, not because of reduced battery performance. The heater will suck down juice in the very cold between at 3-5 kW or so. Solutions are to run with less heat (EVs optimized for the cold will have steering wheel and seat warmers which is more efficient), bundle up a bit more for your drive, and pre-heating - using energy from the grid to preheat your car right before you drive off. The best lithium batteries will work down to very cold temps without issue - some chemistries will require some thermal management to maintain performance under extreme cold.
Either way - it won't be "no notice!!!" issue - you will be well aware of the reduction in range before you leave your driveway.
Second, I want to be able to plug the thing into a regular ol' outlet.
The two current production plug-ins (the Nissan LEAF and Chevy Volt) can plug into a regular ol' outlet just fine. But it takes a LONG time to charge - basically one hour of charging on a 120V 15A circuit (the car will pull slightly less than 12A on this Level 1 charge or about 1.4 kW) means that for each hour of charging, you get about 4 miles of range.
Both the LEAF and Volt can charge on a Level 2 circuit up to about 3.7 kW (240V at ~16A) this is about 3 times faster or about 12 miles / hour.
The upcoming Ford Focus EV (to be released late 2011) will be able to charge at twice that rate (~7.4 kW) or about 24 miles / hour. I would expect the next model year LEAF to get this higher rate charger as well.
So while it's completely possible to charge off a regular 120V circuit - you really need to plug into a higher power circuit to achieve reasonable charge rates.
Slashdot Mirror
That's essentially what the J1772 charging standard does (with a few modifications).
The UL/NEC doesn't want people regularly plugging in to your typical 240V plugs - they aren't designed for that and are lacking important safety features (like GFCI circuits) which makes it too easy for people to electrocute themselves when handling the plug.
That said, one can send off the standard 120V Nissan LEAF charge cord to be modified (for about $240 + adapters) to run off 120-240V at 12-16A. Then with the right adapters you can plug into nearly any power source around.
Tesla sells you a handy kit to do this as well for the Roadster - but it costs quite a bit more ($1,500)
I still don't see why the big desire for batteries. They're heavy, a pain in the ass to change even if you have a standard. You're looking at someone to do it for you, or knowing how to do it yourself using machinery in both cases. In the end, fuel cells will be the way to go, unless there's some amazing earth shattering breakthrough in battery technology.
Every single one of your limitations applies to fuel cells, too.
Right now if fuel cells require extremely expensive and rare fueling stations making them a severe pain in the ass to charge. There's probably a handful of them across the country. And the cost of that fuel is expensive.
In the end - fuel cells are just another type of battery. Except more expensive than today's batteries and even harder to refuel.
I want a single car to replace my single car.
EVs are not for everyone! Perhaps a plug-in hybrid would fit your needs better.
If you have a 2 mile commute, you should be riding your bike or walking. Not lugging 2 tons of steel back and forth. If too lazy to do either, get an e-assist bike.
You're in luck. The soon-to-be-sold in the USA Mitsubishi i has those exact batteries.
Unfortunately, recharge times will be currently limited to about 30 minutes from empty to 80% - same as the Nissan LEAF. Probably mostly due to how much power it takes to do so. Peak charge rates are around 50 kW.
It's easy to forget to good we've had it with gasoline - each gallon of gas has about 36 kWh worth of energy in it - and your typical automobile only uses about 20-30% of it!
The Tesla Roadster needs to very carefully maintain battery temps because it uses commodity lithium cells which do not like extremes in temperatures.
The LEAF and iMiEV have much more robust batteries which are more stable. They also have lower internal resistance which do not generate significant amounts of heat during charge and thus can tolerate wider ranges of temperatures without issue except perhaps some minor degradation of capacity over time if high temperatures are sustained for extended periods of time.
unlike batteries which can convert as much as 50% of it to heat during charging/discharging) and their working life makes them very attractive - current batteries aren't going to last more than a few years (much less if you're continually quick-charging them)
Modern lithium batteries are well over 90% efficient during charge/discharge.
Quick charging is not a problem for their battery life as long as you avoid quick charging all the way to 100% full capacity - this is why the Nissan LEAF and Mitsubishi iMiev quick charge to 80%. Charge rate is automatically tapered off as the battery fills up to avoid generating excess heat.
The GP comparing weather to climate pretty much causes him to lose all credibility on the subject...
For those interested in the difference, NASA has a good article on it:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
DIY HVAC is pretty common especially in the off-grid community these days. Most typical setup are your mini-split systems. Very simple to install - and very efficient, too.
Any grid-tied PV system you buy from a store that is UL listed will not feed energy back to the grid if the rest of the grid is down. Off-the-shelf generators pose a bigger risk than a grid-tied PV system - and they're much cheaper, too.
Regardless - there is a reason why linemen treat wires as hot at all times even when they know it's not though, you know...
So, money that is spent on heating costs doesn't have any effect on the economy? Where does that money go then?
Yeah - you're right. Let's leave all the windows open whenever we're running the heater or air conditioning - think of all the jobs we'll create in the gas/coal industries! :-P
Here's a thought for you - increasing efficiency let's us spend more time working on other things that improve quality of life - there's a good reason that civilization really started taking off once we figured out how to use fossil fuels to do massive amounts of work for minimal amounts of labor...
I'm for solar subsidy, especially once solar panel efficiency exceeds 40%, which they're almost to on the newest panel designs, especially for structures that can receive solar panels without spoiling the appearance of the structure.
PV panel efficiency does not matter unless you are space constrained - and current PV panels are no where near 40% efficiency. PV panels currently in use range from 10%-20% efficient depending on the technology. 40% efficient panels are used where space/weight is a premium - primarily space applications - and are very expensive.
What really matters is the cost per kWh of an installed system. Right now, without subsidies, PV is between $0.15-$0.30 / kWh in sunny areas depending on the scale of the project. This makes it competitive with retail electricity prices in many areas. That's without subsidies!
The industry is working to get the price cut by 75% by 2010. At which point PV will be cost competitive or even cheaper than current grid power in many areas without the harmful emissions.
Petroleum is used more than natural gas.
Uh, from the data in your own fine article, Petroleum (crude oil) is only half the energy of gas and coal. But looking closer that is energy production.
Looking at energy consumption, petroleum is ~50%+ more than both gas/coal - we must use it very inefficiently on average thanks to the millions of tiny combustion engines we have running around...
That said, most of the US energy supply still comes from coal and gas (in that order)
Actually, gas just nudged out coal for 2010. And is still leading so far in 2011.
Well said - they're mixing up range numbers all over the place. There's a reason why there's standardized tests for these types of things and using different test results on makes things more confusing for the consumer.
I'm not sure how much the prices are skewed by tax, but electricity costs me about four times as much as gas, per kWh, so I'd be crazy to heat my house with electricity.
Which is why using resistive heating is extremely wasteful unless you have electricity to throw away (perhaps if you live in the northwest right now where they currently have too much hydro and wind and not enough transmission lines to move the power out it makes sense to use resistive heat). When you have gas furnaces well above 95% efficient at turning fuel into heat and getting it in your house - that's really hard to beat.
But if you use a high efficiency air source or ground source heat pump - all of a sudden things look a lot better - you can get 2-5x the energy you put into the heat pump into your home - so you put 1 kWh into the heat pump compressor and you get 2-5 kWh of heat in your house. Now electric heating costs basically the same as gas heating per kWh - and you have the opportunity to source that energy from renewable sources instead of oil or gas.
some people are saying the cost of cleanup and indemnification in fukushima can be as high as 60 billion.
how many wind turbines can you buy with that ?
Assuming a cost of about $1.75/watt installed, about 35 GW of wind. Wind typically has a capacity factor between 30-40% depending on how effectively it is sited. Newer sites tend to have higher capacity factors, so let's assume 35% average or about a constant 12 GW of power.
Nuclear typically has a capacity factor of appx 90%.
Here's some data on capacity factors of the US grid: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p2.html
In the end it's probably easiest to look at cost per kWh before a project is built - and cost to run the plant after it's built. For those reasons once they're built nuclear and renewables typically have a very high capacity factor (fuel is cheap or free once built) compared to coal/gas plants.
It typically takes a panel a couple years to "break even" on energy costs. Everything after that is gravy. Given that panels are typically warranted to produce at least 80% of their rated power for 25 years it's over a big positive.
Overall, wind is often more expensive (and has to be subsidised as a result), at least per unit of electricity generated, than oil/gas at current prices.
Oil/gas is only "cheaper" because current pricing of oil/gas/coal does not account for it's externalities.
For example, a recent study puts the unaccounted for price of coal in the US somewhere between $140-$242 billion dollars a year.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/tallying-coals-hidden-cost/?partner=rss&emc=rss
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x/full
If these costs (in effect subsidies) were paid for, wind (and other renewables) would be very cost competitive with coal without any additional subsidies.
As it is, subsides for renewable energy just help level the playing field.
Nimby might like that but the power co tends to step in then with NOMBY (not off my back yard).
Definitely - which is why legislation is needed to make the utilities cooperate. And legislation is needed to prevent neighbors from preventing the installation of small scale, on-site generation (the states that lead in these areas have such legislation in place). For example, in CA, HOAs can't keep you from installing your own solar system. And the utilities have to provide means for net-metering when you do generate your own electricity.
Most utilities are set up so that they don't profit off of power generation (those costs are passed directly to the consumer and typically have to be approved by a regulatory board) but they do profit off infrastructure improvements (also regulated).
That does tend to discourage utilities from using locally generated power in some cases as it reduces the need for long distance, expensive high power transmission lines.
Nimby doesn't want nuclear, coal, oil, gas, hydro, solar, or wind power.
Well - Nimby doesn't like solar in the deserts - but Nimby does like solar on roof tops and over parking lots.
Do you realize that over 10 million light vehicles (cars, SUVs, pickups) are sold every year? So slightly less than that are recycled each year.
The bigger challenge will be convincing buyers to buy 1 million EVs over the next 5 years. Even though that sounds like a big number, that is only 2% of the market and hybrid vehicles still only have around 2-3% of the market and that's after being widely available for 7 years. Even then - one hybrid in particular - the Prius is vastly more successful than any other model with about half of all sales.
So which is it - solar panals are too expensive or your already have a solar array? Looking at your later post... Or are you just confused?
Anyway, to dispel your claim of $50k (the cost of 2 Priuses) only being good enough to generate about 7 kWh/day...
The cost of solar PV installed before rebates is currently between $5-7 / DC watt - let's use $6 / watt.
So $50k will buy you about a 8 kW array.
Using PVwatts and assuming you live in San Francisco, your typical system this big will generate over 11,000 kWh / year or 30 kWh / day. You could drive your Nissan LEAF over 37,000 miles / year or 100 miles / day using the EPA's estimate of 3.4 mi / kWh.
So in reality, a $50k PV system will buy you a large enough system to power over 3 typical EVs over 12,000 miles / year. And that system should last 25 years with minimal maintenance. (Never mind that the $50k system is 30% off = $35k thanks to federal tax credits and you can very often get additional rebates depending on where you live).
Honda Civic hybrid. I'm having a lot of hybrid-oriented issues with the thing which make me REALLY happy I leased the thing rather than buy it. Honestly I just wanted a buffer until better tech comes around, during which they have to fix everything that breaks.
What I'm worried about is the batteries in my car can go a little schizo on you. They'll show full and then two seconds later they say they're at 20%. My assumption is that this is a crappy Honda thing
Yes, it's a known issue with the Civic hybrid. Supposedly there is a reflash to help keep the car from causing the batteries to lose capacity too quickly, but many suspect that either by the time it's done the damage has already been done, or that it sacrifices fuel economy in normal operation - despite Honda's claims that it doesn't.
I know mileage drops in the winter. But going form ~45MPG to ~25 or even less? That's quite a difference.
It depends on the length of your trips (the shorter they are, the worse it is) and the temperature, but it's not unheard of. Even on other hybrids on the Prius. The latest Toyota hybrids have exhaust heat recovery systems which help mitigate this to some degree. Don't forget to check your tire pressure - inflating them a bit higher than recommended can also help a good deal - most find that around 40 psi is a good compromise between fuel economy and ride quality.
Regular cars also suffer from reduced fuel economy in the cold - it's just normally quite as dramatic or noticable because they are so much less efficient to begin with.
Out of curiousity - what type of hybrid do you drive exactly? While the batteries used in current hybrids (NiMH) are definitely lacking in extreme cold temps like you get, they shouldn't fail because of it if the battery management system system is doing it's job. I've never heard of a Toyota hybrid's battery dying because of the cold...
That's expected. Current hybrids sacrifice fuel economy for reduced emissions meaning they need to run the engine more to keep it warm. Plus you will typically be running the heater which gets it's heat from the engine - meaning the engine has to run more.
While range in an EV will go down a good deal in winter - this is primarily because of HVAC loads, not because of reduced battery performance. The heater will suck down juice in the very cold between at 3-5 kW or so. Solutions are to run with less heat (EVs optimized for the cold will have steering wheel and seat warmers which is more efficient), bundle up a bit more for your drive, and pre-heating - using energy from the grid to preheat your car right before you drive off. The best lithium batteries will work down to very cold temps without issue - some chemistries will require some thermal management to maintain performance under extreme cold.
Either way - it won't be "no notice!!!" issue - you will be well aware of the reduction in range before you leave your driveway.
The two current production plug-ins (the Nissan LEAF and Chevy Volt) can plug into a regular ol' outlet just fine. But it takes a LONG time to charge - basically one hour of charging on a 120V 15A circuit (the car will pull slightly less than 12A on this Level 1 charge or about 1.4 kW) means that for each hour of charging, you get about 4 miles of range.
Both the LEAF and Volt can charge on a Level 2 circuit up to about 3.7 kW (240V at ~16A) this is about 3 times faster or about 12 miles / hour.
The upcoming Ford Focus EV (to be released late 2011) will be able to charge at twice that rate (~7.4 kW) or about 24 miles / hour. I would expect the next model year LEAF to get this higher rate charger as well.
So while it's completely possible to charge off a regular 120V circuit - you really need to plug into a higher power circuit to achieve reasonable charge rates.