Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

ev-edition.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 761 posts

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#151

Post by sebazzz »

conk wrote: post #78
pathartl wrote: post #22

I'm not an EV user, so I need some clarification. Is NACS actually a better connector? Or is it just more abundant at the moment? Technology Connections did a deep dive on CCS and it seems like it's a more flexible connector with a truly open standard. The argument for NACS I've seen is that it's a little sleeker (does this really matter all that much?) and it's already on Tesla's supercharger network.

CCS current spec/design can deliver up to 350kW (although few if any cars can take advantage of that today). NACS claims it can provide up to 1MW (1000A @ 1000V). I think it will be a while before we see cars able to charge anywhere near this, but there is a trend right now of big EV pickups with massive batteries. Higher power chargers means faster charge times. The only downside I see with NACS is you can’t level 2…

Actually NACS doesn't claim anything regarding current, see the spec[0]. It only claims 1000 volts, and the current is left implementation-defined citing that 900A with a non-liquid cooled inlet.

[0]: https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/HXVNIC_North_American_Cha...

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#152

Post by bryanlarsen »

sp332 wrote: post #132
pathartl wrote: post #22

I'm not an EV user, so I need some clarification. Is NACS actually a better connector? Or is it just more abundant at the moment? Technology Connections did a deep dive on CCS and it seems like it's a more flexible connector with a truly open standard. The argument for NACS I've seen is that it's a little sleeker (does this really matter all that much?) and it's already on Tesla's supercharger network.

NACS doesn't have a standard for vehicle-to-home (or vehicle-to-grid) charging. When they opened up the standard, Tesla said that it was allowed, but they didn't specify any standard way to do it. So it might happen, but there's potential for incompatibilities between car manufacturers and charging systems.

Adopting NACS won't prevent Ford from supporting vehicle-to-grid, since they build both the truck and the charger, and the connector itself doesn't care what direction the electrons are flowing.

But it would be really nice if it was standardized for interoperability reasons.

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#153

Post by megaman821 »

dagmx wrote: post #112

I’m glad there finally seems to be a push to a better standard in North America. I’m really curious how this affects Teslas market share though going forward. Their supercharger network is why we continue with them despite countless other issues. It’s their biggest moat as far as I’m concerned. Now I have significantly more options, and my next car will not be a Tesla. I’m sure I’m not alone in that. Is the brand nam…

As a business it seems smarter to grow the pie and increase your revenues even if Tesla's marketshare decreases.

Even through the lens of hating Elon Musk and wanting alternatives, most people have no strong feelings at all. Price and availability largely dictates what Tesla will sell. I have not seen any data Elon's antics change sales volumes.

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#154

Post by rootusrootus »

bloggie wrote: post #129
saalweachter wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a little confused by fast charging standards, to be honest. 1MW is 20x the maximum draw of a standard house, and 800x the average draw of a US house. The hydro plant down the road generates 5MW. It just sounds crazy to plan to pull that much power charging a car at a time.

It is indeed totally insane, but this is what is being worked on, not necessairly for cars but trucks and semi trucks for example that have much larger batteries than a car. Already to achieve 250+ kW charging stations have to have huge cables and watercooled connectors, here's one such installation I saw some years ago https://i.imgur.com/BpG4QAa.jpg and an example of a cooled connector for 0.5 MW https://www.phoeni…

I assume the next jump in power will come from voltage. A Model 3 pulls ~600A when charging at 250kW, because it's relatively low voltage. If they alter the charging design to accept 800 or 1000V we could see over half a MW without a change in cable design. But I'd guess at this point that would be moot because the cell charging rate is the real limit anyway.

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#155

Post by saalweachter »

NickM wrote: post #137
saalweachter wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a little confused by fast charging standards, to be honest. 1MW is 20x the maximum draw of a standard house, and 800x the average draw of a US house. The hydro plant down the road generates 5MW. It just sounds crazy to plan to pull that much power charging a car at a time.

DC charging stations sometimes have batteries on site so that they can charge up from the grid and then deliver bursts of power from the batteries during charging. Apparently this is often worth it to avoid the high demand fees that utilities charge when you draw a lot of power at once. I assume this will become more ubiquitous as charging speeds continue to increase. (You're right that a megawatt is a high power dra…

> but keep in mind that if you can pump ten gallons of gas in a minute you're effectively drawing the equivalent of something like 20MW, so in the context of vehicle refueling it's not so crazy

If 15 Teslas pass through a stretch of road per minute with full 100kWh battery packs, you could also describe that as 90MW of current, but it's also not really.

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#156

Post by ZacharyPitts »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #12
toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who else is going to invest in a fast DC network? The closest competitor was Electrify America, and they can't make the economics work. Tesla made it work by subsidizing their $1B+ global fast DC charging network cost out of robust vehicle margins. Most EV users will charge at home, some at their place of work and businesses, with fast DC charging filling the remaining gap (people who can't charge at home or people o…

Funnily enough, EA has the opposite problem in California: they’re frequently full.

Same in Oregon. I've had to wait multiple times for a slot to come available while traveling.

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#157

Post by techdmn »

dahfizz wrote: post #150
dagmx wrote: post #112

I’m glad there finally seems to be a push to a better standard in North America. I’m really curious how this affects Teslas market share though going forward. Their supercharger network is why we continue with them despite countless other issues. It’s their biggest moat as far as I’m concerned. Now I have significantly more options, and my next car will not be a Tesla. I’m sure I’m not alone in that. Is the brand nam…

The long term future of Tesla is a battery manufacturer and a charging network. Those are the two things they are good at. The cars themselves are quickly being beaten out by the larger players.

I'm happy to consider a non-Tesla (mostly because I'd really prefer a more traditional gauge cluster and more physical controls), but have struggled to find anything that beats the price for performance of the Model 3 Performance. And yes, I realize I'm a niche buyer.

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#158

Post by Symbiote »

saalweachter wrote: post #119
conk wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CCS current spec/design can deliver up to 350kW (although few if any cars can take advantage of that today). NACS claims it can provide up to 1MW (1000A @ 1000V). I think it will be a while before we see cars able to charge anywhere near this, but there is a trend right now of big EV pickups with massive batteries. Higher power chargers means faster charge times. The only downside I see with NACS is you can’t level 2…

I'm a little confused by fast charging standards, to be honest. 1MW is 20x the maximum draw of a standard house, and 800x the average draw of a US house. The hydro plant down the road generates 5MW. It just sounds crazy to plan to pull that much power charging a car at a time.

For a comparison the other way, high speed trains in Europe are around 10-16MW.

Typical railway locomotives used for freight trains in Britain can draw a maximum of around 5MW.

Ordinary-speed electric trains (for commuters, regional trains etc) with a limit of about 180km/h (110mph) draw 1.5-2MW.

Presumably the full power is only needed when starting off on a hill.

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#159

Post by londons_explore »

alistairSH wrote: post #135
londons_explore wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope that part of the standard is that all vehicles shall have a charge plug on either front/right or back/left corners. Making the cable longer makes the experience worse for everyone - it makes the cable heavier (harder to use), more expensive (which will end up in power prices), easier to damage (as it is dragged across the floor or driven over), more electrical losses in the cable (again, higher prices). There…

I never understood why front-center didn't become the standard here. That would obviate more stand placement and cable length issues. The only people who stand to lose are those weirdos who reverse into parking places. ;) (Rear-center would work too)

One day, on street parking will want to have charging, and that is nearly all parallel parking, for which front/rear center would be suboptimal.

Re: Rivian embraces Tesla's charging standard for EVs

#160

Post by jaclaz »

conk wrote: post #78
pathartl wrote: post #22

I'm not an EV user, so I need some clarification. Is NACS actually a better connector? Or is it just more abundant at the moment? Technology Connections did a deep dive on CCS and it seems like it's a more flexible connector with a truly open standard. The argument for NACS I've seen is that it's a little sleeker (does this really matter all that much?) and it's already on Tesla's supercharger network.

CCS current spec/design can deliver up to 350kW (although few if any cars can take advantage of that today). NACS claims it can provide up to 1MW (1000A @ 1000V). I think it will be a while before we see cars able to charge anywhere near this, but there is a trend right now of big EV pickups with massive batteries. Higher power chargers means faster charge times. The only downside I see with NACS is you can’t level 2…

>In most of Europe homes do have 3-phase power and large loads like an EV are required to use it.

Yes and no, distribution is usually 3-phase so the 3 phases do arrive to the building, but in a number of countries in Europe inside the home only 1 phase is used and the amount of available power (by contract) is a fraction of what the US are used to (of course depending by country, but it is rare that a house has a contract in excess of 3 or 6 kW).

Most detached homes (the small subset that have a garage) won't likely be upgraded to more than 12 kW or so, still 1 phase, leaving not that much for charging.

Possibly larger buildings with common parking space may be able to take advantage of the 3-phases distribution, still, particularly in cities, the big problem (once the EV's will be more common) will be the low voltage distribution lines and the transformers/cabins from medium to low voltage.

EDIT: replaced "usually" with "in a number of countries in Europe" did not want to generalize

Post reply on HN