I wonder how soon we'll have charge time down to 5 or 10 minutes?
I always suspected Elon Musk was a fan of Douglas Adams.
Keep in mind that individual Tesla cars can't even take full advantage of the output of the current superchargers. Even the modest capacity of today's superchargers is not fully utilized unless TWO cars are plugged into the SAME supercharger bank.
Putting FOUR cars onto a 350 kW supercharger bank could, on average, let more cars charge faster... even without changing the individual cars.
But reducing the individual car charging time down to 5-10 minutes is going to require purchase of a whole new car with a new battery design... so frankly that's pretty irrelevant for the immediate future...
And I already prefer the "zero" refilling time of overnight charging vs the hassle of going to a gas station weekly for a supposed "fast" 10 minute fill up.
Zero refilling is great if you're not traveling long distance, the goal here is to make it less of a hassle to travel. If they can get the time down to about the same as filling up an ICE vehicle then that will make it more attractive to buyers.
Plus less time at the charger means less time waiting if the chargers are full.
Sure, shorter refill time is an interesting goal.
But I'd contend it's not really that much of an issue even now. ICE folks expect an EV to behave like their familiar ICE, when in fact the EV refueling paradigm is ALREADY much better that the ICE paradigm... unless you never commute and only take road trips...
And all this hype about super high capacity superchargers is only one (relatively small) piece of the progression towards 5-10 minute refueling times. I think the car-side issues are much more relevant and will pace any new paradigm shift, since those costs need to paid by every individual owner...
SUN 2 DRV: Exactly, precisely, undoubtedly why the qualifying phrase 'up to' is used in Tesla's promotional materials regarding Superchargers.
current sc give you about 10m/min charge-I'm happy with that. I'll charge up about 20m more than I need to get to where ever I need to go just to stay on the safe side. Most of the time I don't fully charge up so the trickle time doesn't take affect an I'm out of there in about 14 or 15m max. No complaints from me about charging time-except that dude that doesn't move his car once it is fully charged. But hey, sometimes that guy is me. 2 days and never moving the car off a charger-big complaint. This happened to me at Yosemite.
@dd's getting 600mph supercharging? Must be a friends of Elon special firmware. Can't believe you drove cross country and didn't let us all know. Isn't Yosemite gorgeous? Sounds like you've got some supercharging tips I could use! 15 minutes maximum charging is awesome!!!
@Bighorn nobody knows Superchargers like you. Not even the engineers whole designed them not the QA testers. But I think @dd's point is you don't need the full charge w/ long taper to get where you are going, not that @dd gets faster than the average bear charging.
My favorite reply about charging (was it @Silver?):
Q: How long does it take to charge?
A: I don't know, bc I've never waited for a charge. Car is ready before I am.
Now @BH, you know firsthand that sometimes waiting Is involved, but really only on long trips. So on the handful of days where the average driver takes a road trip, should they give up the advantages of "full" and ready every morning? If you add up 10 minutes every week, that's 500 minutes or over 8 hours. When I drive from NorCal to SoCal I won't wait bc I like to eat and stretch on the way (the Twins like to too). Even if we end up waiting 10-20 minutes both ways, that's only 20-40 minutes per trip, maybe 3-4 times a year. Or worst case, 160 minutes! And, I know that really the car will be waiting on us most trips. But not everyone has kids, so that's where the extra time comes into play.
Sure @RS going from SoCal back to Missippi will wait, but there are many drivers who never will.
The current charging rates are really not to far off from the time it would take to gas up a car. What do I mean by this? back before there was such a thing called GPS, an Uncle of mine who was a long haul trucker said that if you want to know how long it will take to get somewhere, divide the number of miles by 50 (mph). This factors in getting on and off the highway, stopping for gas, bathroom/meal breaks. From my house in CT to Raleigh NC, it is 635 miles and using this "50" formula, that works out to 12.7 hours. Last March I drove to Raleigh in my MS and it took 13 hours. Over the course of a 635 mile drive, a mere 15 minute difference to me mean nothing. In other words, there is no difference in traveling in gas car versus a Tesla.
"the goal here is to make it less of a hassle to travel. If they can get the time down to about the same as filling up an ICE vehicle then that will make it more attractive to buyers."
The goal is to make it more attractive to non-EV owners or people who think of things in terms of how often they buy gasoline. For me, the ideal would be that I'd always be able to make a trip with no more delay than I'd have from stopping to eat or for restroom breaks that I'd take anyway. Tesla is mostly there already. The advantage of being able to charge in under four minutes would be that although I'd waste four minutes plus time exiting the freeway, getting to the charger, and getting back on the freeway, I'd be able to stop wherever I felt like it for meals. Right now, it's most practical to charge near a restaurant I'd be willing to eat at anyway, which means I save a few minutes compared to an extra stop for gasoline.
What the current system doesn't account for is people who don't have a dedicated parking place with electricity. Tesla could still sell more than 100 million cars to people who do have a dedicated place to park and still be far from exhausting the potential customer base, but a solution that works for everybody would be even better. I think once EVs are ubiquitous, people who live in town houses and apartments will find more and more places that account for EV parking or they will have problems attracting tenants.
The part of the article that I found interesting was about the fool cell. If Tesla can build a car with 300 miles of range that can charge in less than five minutes then they will be eligible for even more ZEV credits.
Isn't the CARB rule, according to Electrek, more or less the "vehicle 'fuel' able to be 95% replenished, in under 15 minutes? [not 5]
Might then give a hint to the possible "base" battery size of the M3 in CA [or other ZEV states].
Because by making your battery smaller, with a faster SC, you might be able to slip in under that 15 minute limit, thus making smaller battery cars worth more to Tesla (9 ZEV credits instead of 4).
What I don't know is that "rule" determined based on the delivered vehicle and battery size - if it was, then Tesla could artificially create a software limited battery, so you could possibly make a compliance Tesla, one that comes out of the factory with a small (usable) capacity battery so that the "battery" can be filled to 95% in under 15 minutes to gain double the normal ZEV credits.
Then subsequently the end owner/consumer phones Tesla and unlocks the full capacity, effectively nullifying 5 of the 9 credits as it no longer can charge to 95% full in 15 minutes. But of course, Tesla already sold those off to the likes of GM and such.
I'm sure that this is not part of Elon's thinking, but shows how perverse the ZEV credit rules actually are. And actually goes to demonstrate, ZEV credits, like EPA pollution tests, are easily gerrymandered by those who decide to do so.
" always suspected Elon Musk was a fan of Douglas Adams."
How can he not be, considering the name of SpaceX's proposed Mars spaceship is "Heart of Gold"
That comment about "350 kW" being "a mere childs toy", is a classic "Deep Thought"-ism, from Hitch Hikers.
Albeit, not a direct quote, like some earlier comments he made on other things.
This is an incredible move. To match charging speed with "refueling" will be key in getting people to switch off gas. BUT - This comes with risks. To charge your car that fast may increase battery cell temperature to the extent that your battery degradation will be significantly higher. Tesla will need to find a way to keep battery temperatures from rising during this 350kW charging period.
Even if it isn't faster - just eliminating the reduced charge rate when paired would be huge, IMO.
I don't know why this robotic snake charge plug / not having to get out of the car to plug it in is an asset. If you've been driving long enough to run down the battery, you're going to have to get out of the car to go into the convenience store to get something to eat / go take a piss / get out and stretch your legs a bit, so being spared the HUGE INCONVENIENCE of plugging in a power cord means nothing to me.
@purepwnage - I agree it's not an inconvenience - but is essential if there is no one driving the autonomous car. :)
It's the unplugging and moving the car that will facilitate charger use, if the driver isn't around.
"I don't know why this robotic snake charge plug / not having to get out of the car to plug it in is an asset"
It's necessary to allow the autonomous cross country trip planned for next year to succeed.
S2G Supercharger (batter and solar) to Grid is here.
Powerwall 2 inverter and Model 3 may be bidirectional.
The demonstrated robo-plug is part of the package.
Don't forget 350kW+ "children's toy" like Supercharging upgrades.
Throw in "Tesla Network" and full level 5 Autonomy.
Most valuable company in the world.
I always thought the Solar City deal would integrate into Tesla's Supercharger aspirations. I did the math a while back, but if I remember right, I think it takes close to 1 million panels per year to support the Supercharger network's power needs based on their production goals.
I had a think about this overnight (my time).
And I think the SC v 3.0 hint ties in with the future need for the Tesla "large truck" and the need to electrify that kind of transport.
A truck like that will need (I expect/guess) about, 10 times the battery capacity of the current largest battery pack (100kWh).
Imagine if you had 10 of those 100 kWh batteries that needed to be recharged at once and certainly quicker than "overnight", you're going to need a huge power source (SC 3.0?) to do so.
So, enter SC v 3.0, ten couple that with Powerpack v 2.0 which can provide the on-site storage and demand smoothing such a huge electrical load will place on the local grid.
The only question is whether SC 3.0 supports direct DC to DC transfer between Powerpack 2, avoiding he need and loses involved in going from DC in the Powerpack 2.0 to the truck battery. Or will it go for the already known/simpler (and safer) approach of DC->AC->DC.even if its less efficient?
Either way, I think this is what perhaps Elon is alluding to with his "childs toy" comments for a 350 kWh SC.
e is thinking in Mega Watts not Kilo Watts of power in the future Superchargers.
I think a large truck battery will need to hold the thick end of 1 Mega Watt Hr (MWHr) of capacity [possibly more] to be able to do much useful work hauling stuff around.
Thus the sheer size of these batteries and their storage/refill demands will dictate the form and function of SC 3.0.
And maybe a truck sized SC can also easily refill 10 P100Ds in the same amount of time if no truck is using it. [or 20 base model 3's if they use 50 kWHr capacity batteries in the base model].
So maybe the next major rollout of SC's will be more co-located at/around truck stops, in preparation for that future.
A future, that is easily within the forseeable future lifespan of any new Superchargers that are rolled out in 2017.
My 2 cents worth.
Good point! Even a Tesla pickup truck or cargo van would probably need about a 150 KWH pack ... so current Superchargers would need to double their power just for that class of vehicle to maintain the current charge time!
tstolz: The way it has been explained to me is that the larger the battery pack, the more energy can be transferred within a given time frame. So, if going from 20% to 80% on one capacity (~250 miles) will add 150 miles (~51 kWh) in half an hour... Then 20% to 80% in the same time frame on another, higher capacity (~330 miles) might add 200 miles (~68 kWh) instead. And once again, on an even higher capacity (~500 miles, 170 kWh), 20% to 80% might add 300 miles (102 kWh). Sure, it might take longer to literally fill from below 5% to 100%... But that doesn't matter. What truly matters is the length of time it takes to receive enough charge to reach the next Supercharger, or the one after that, or even the one after that. So, with Superchargers spaced at 80, or 160 miles apart, a higher capacity battery pack would either allow shorter stops as soon as you want to go, or the same 30 minute wait, whichever you preferred. So, no need to double power application to have similar charging times as today.
@greg nailed it. Transport sector is biggest co2 source going forward, trucks going electric can have a huge impact. Trucks going electric AND Autonomous will have a much bigger impact, and better support the capital costs of trucking by eliminating driver and being able to run 24/7, which will drive very fast adoption.
And massive need for retraining. Oh well.
@Red - fair enough! I won't turn down the extra power though if I get it :)
... actually that isn't entirely true .. most of the time the current charge times are fine. I need to eat.
Part of the reason for the Model 3 to have at least a 200-mile battery is @RS's point about battery capacity helping charge time for the sweet spot of charging.
NorCal to SoCal for me is ~350 miles. I can take the 101 or I-5. I prefer the 101, so I'll use Gilroy, Atascedero, and Oxnard mostly. At some point I imagine Salinas, King City, Santa Maria, SLO/Pismo, and Santa Barbara will get SC sites too. If they install these v3 versions, then I'll be more than set.
18 wheelers would need very fast chargers.
SCv3 at rest stops would have 6 to 8 hours to charge trucks for sleeping truckers.
tesla could also make drive units and batteries to retro fit trailers
It will be problematic how much fast charging can be done as fast charging has battery life issues. Fast charge and discharge create stress and wears down the battery. Batteries, like gasoline engines wear out over time no matter how careful we are in usage and maintenance. And even with fast charging currently, Tesla slows the charging rate as the battery approaches 70%. Decreasing battery weight while increasing storage capacity is the only way to really increase range and utility of EV's for long range, cargo, towing etc. Hydrogen powered fuel cells EV's are probably the answer there.
On solar powered charging station, it takes about 15 sq feet for 300 Watts so a six vehicle charging station providing power for 6 x 65,000 Watt hr batteries would take up a lot of real estate. Musk points out the increased need that EV's will put on the grid and need for more base power in his presentation on Tesla solar roof.
The taper doesn't start at 70%--it's linear and starts very early, as low as 10%. You might notice it by 70 because it's down to about 50 kW by then, but it's definitely not a step down.
Much of long distance trucking is scheduled and on the same routes ... battery swap may be a great option for long-haul trucks ... probably faster than filling up diesel tanks too. Fool cells will never be an option IMHO as the cost of hydrogen can never compete. Also, BEVs longevity is so much better than ICE age vehicles or fuel cells ... so many reasons in EVs favour!
Solar generated hydrogen is cheaper than gasoline, about $1 kg of liquid hydrogen equals a $3 gallon of gasoline as far as stored energy. Currently hydrogen is mostly generated via fossil fuels but the same is true of electricity for EV battery storage. Both sustainable fuels aim at sustainable solar generation and both need to be evaluated long term based on that clean production.
EV and hydrogen powered EV have their places. Idea that one is THE ANSWER is the wrong answer. Long haul, high cargo weight transportation (planes and trucks) will be most efficient with hydrogen powered fuel cells, shorter range, low cargo weight cars will be most efficient with EV. Currently EV batteries and hydrogen fuel cells are costly alternatives but battery cost/efficiency and fuel cell costs will decline with tech and time and each will fill a niche in a sustainable transportation future.
"18 wheelers would need very fast chargers."
No, they need multiple chargers.
Or perhaps continuous charging. Plus, fewer drivers, better road surface to reduce rolling resistance, multiple trailers to reduce air resistance, to get off the automobile roads, to lower cost of those in money and lives. And we are back to trains.
Thank you kindly.
By the time you transport and compress the hydrogen to make it useful it isn't even close . Look it up on Wiki if you don't believe me .. it's all there. Hydrogen is being abandoned in favour of BEV. Just look at the behaviour of major companies ... BEV trucks and busses are a really big thing now ... hydrogen, not so much.
FISHEV, I imagine you suggest using solar to obtain hydrogen from water, which is the "cleanest" way right? In order to do this you need: solar, make electricity, split H2O, put hydrogen in the car or cell, recombine hydrogen with oxygen and get H2O again.
I can assure you that the electricity you spend splitting the water is way more than the electricity resulting from oxidising the hydrogen back into water.
So why not put the electricity you produce with solar directly in the car? You eliminate countless wastes (storage, transport, distribution of hydrogen).
And hydrogen is not your average fuel: it diffuses even in metals, has no smell, has to be stored at thousands psi.
Elon said it well : "Hydrogen fuel cell is dumb". And I think he knows better them you and I.
Please have a look here:http://www.thenewatlantisDOTcom/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
Replace "DOT" with "." I promise you it's very interesting and will clear some things about hydrogen.
Solar generated hydrogen is $1 kg at the pump. 1kg hydrogen equals 1 gallon of gasoline. The issue of direct solar to electric efficiency misses the point of weight and transportabilty that favors hydrogen in situations that need a high energy but light fuel which is where hydrogen shines. And with solar power which is free and "fuel" (water) free the energy cost becomes irrelevant to the job that needs to get done.
EV's only work with smaller loads due to the battery weight. It's a simple diminishing returns equation. Large trucks, planes can't run on battery power due to the weight issue of the batteries but work great on the lightweight, high power hydrogen.
"$1 kg at the pump."
Where did you get that number? The solar to hydrogen facility in England is subsidized, and is still charging £9.99 per kg, so $12,30 per kg.
$4.99/kg in CAhttp://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.php/hydrogen-fueling-stations/hydro...
That is natural gas generated hydrogen. With free energy (solar) and free raw material (water) the cost to create and compress the hydrogen to 1kg of liquid is effectively zero. Transportation costs are equally minimal as the hydrogen powers the pipeline pumps. The infrastructure has costs but then that is divided over hydrogen produced and costs keep dropping as volume produced.
With 80% of vehicles being EV battery and shorter range and 20% running via hydrogen for cargo and range, airplanes via hydrogen, long haul trucks via hydrogen, trains electrified, the sustainable transportation system works.
Hydrogen pimps get the flag treatment.
@FISHEV - nothing is free in this world, costs are direct or indirect and someone pays somewhere. You forget that to produce this "free" solar power to synthesise the hydrogen you need to invest in a massive solar plant and the land to put it on. And water isn't free either, it needs to be collected, stored or piped in something that costs money to build.
And therein lies the rub. If you internalize all the direct and indirect costs, FCEV won't win because it is about one-quarter the efficiency of BEV. So to get the same energy out you are putting four times the amount of energy in. Efficiency is money and money always wins (in the end). This is the same reason ICE will die too.
So the numbers are clear: Hydrogen has a 'usable' energy of about 33 kWh per kg. As I write this, the retail price for a kWh is $0.158 and the spot wholesale price is $0.039*. If I had some kWh I could sell them for somewhere in that range. For 33 kWh, that is between $1.28 and $5.12, so that is my avoided cost if I somehow acquired 'free' electricity. A kg of Hydrogen could NEVER cost $1.00 here as someone would be (effectively) selling that energy on the grid instead.
This does not include the cost to chill the gas, nor compress it, nor pump it, pay for storage facilities, transportation infrastructure, etc. Plus of course, the solar electricity ISN'T free, small scale around here, cost in the $0.08 to $0.12 range per kWh. Wholesale amounts in sunny places are cheaper, but generally not below 3-4 cents / kWh range. OTOH, do look at the new huge scale systems in places like Dubai.
p.s. I can't help but notice that 'free solar' makes a Tesla look pretty astounding from a TCO standpoint. A Prius plus 200,000 miles of fuel is $35,000.
* - according to ISO New England; 1/1/2017 6:56pm
People keep quoting natural gas generated hydrogen. Comparison is solar electricity to solar hydrogen. In the case of hydrogen, the energy and the storage are free. The power to compress it is free. The storage vessels, are inexpensive and both fuel and storage are very light.
In the case of electricity the energy is free but the storage, the battery, is very expensive and very heavy.
Its why electric vehicles are limited in size as the weight of the vehicle increase it becomes diminishing returns. When one gets to large truck size, battery EV doesn't work. And li-on battery degradation on top of the weight to power issues and recharge times, even with supersuperchargers. Just physics, nothing to get emotional about.
Getting back to the Tesla SuperSuperCharger, due to the current physics of lithium ion batteries, it won't have a significant impact on any current Tesla products now or in the near future, next five years. The current battery state of li-on battery design and size imposes the limits. The weight to power ratio of li-on batteries, the limiting factor, is a modest curve, nothing like the Moore's law. 'And the li-on charging and use issues have not changed at all. This discourages the fast charging as it increases battery degradation.
Yes free solar does make EV's look good. That was Musk's point with Solar City PV roof speech. But this was for the slow home charging that li-on batteries do best with. EV cars are great, can't wait for my Model 3, but we should always recognize the limits on the EV's. Even with Teslas superchargers, long distance travel in EV's is an issue. How much an issue depends on how much time one has to spend on the recharge where full recharge to 250 to 300 miles will take 2 hours with current SuperChargers for foreseable future.
FISHEV: As others have already noted, you continually post facts that are not in evidence. Essentially, you are claiming there is already an existing distribution chain for Hydrogen fuel, when there isn't. You are claiming that there is already a pipeline for Hydrogen fuel, that is powered by Hydrogen generators, but there isn't one, and none is planned. What there is in place is an existing distribution network for Natural Gas, Methane, captured from Petroleum sources. And that is less expensive and more efficient than any that could be conceived for Hydrogen. And it is still more expensive and less efficient than simply powering transportation with electricity directly. Further, even if all your electricity comes from burning Natural Gas that is more efficient than any means of gleaning Hydrogen for use in fuel cells.
The notion of acquiring 'free' Hydrogen through electrolysis of water is incredibly stupid. California is next to an ocean and much of the water used here is piped in over the Rocky Mountains from Colorado or other points East. Water costs money here, and this is the place that matters, because this is where all of the publicly used HFCEVs will be. You'd think someone would have been smart enough to require that Petroleum companies build two or three water desalinization plants for every offshore rig that is within sight from the California coast, but no -- that didn't happen. Kickbacks -- they do a local politician good!
Even the California Fuel Cell Partnership admits that they 'hope' the cost per unit of Hydrogen gets down to that of a gallon of gasoline eventually, some time beyond 2022 or so. That is the basis of their claims for continued subsidies of Hydrogen Fuel Cells by the government as an alternative fuel program. Thus, your claims of Hydrogen being on par with gasoline already in terms of pricing is complete and total hogwash.
It isn't that we are saying there is only one 'ANSWER'. Most of us are in favor of Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Tidal, and Hydroelectric options, along with some consideration of Nuclear. We are pointing out that Hydrogen Fuel Cells are definitely NOT an answer at all. Welcome to the [IGNORE] Pile.
Is it just me or is something fish-e about these posts? The writing style, reasoning (or lack there-of) is strikingly familiar.
Not just you.
There is an existing distribution chain for hydrogen, the hydrogen tankers are passing you every day on the road just like gasoline tankers, delivering to local retail level distribution. Hydrogen fuel, like the EV's, doesn't have an economic driver, it requires government action to develop. Hydrogen appears to be viewed as a threatening technology to a few here, similar to how gas powered afficiandos view EV's.
Getting back to the Supersupercharger, it doesn't really change the recharge time for current Teslas or those in the near (five year) future. The charging time would be the same. For an example of the problem of EV's as freight haulers look at some of the Model X owners towing experiences. Painful.
V3 Superchargers eliminates the only remaining criticism of EVs ... refuelling time on long trips. EVs are already cheaper to fuel, cheaper to maintain, they last longer, and very soon (M3) they enter the mainstream at a competitive price too..
EVs are already more convenient to refuel day to day ... so V3 adds the final nail to the ICE age coffin. It certainly makes EV trucks compelling IMHO. Can't wait for mine :)
Eagles ... I thought something was Fish-e about your posts.