It would be nice if instead of the fast charging problem the focus would be shifted to standardized battery packs, that can be field replaced. I don't really want to own 50-100kwh battery. I just want to use the charge in it and happy to pay for that.
Like Henry Ford tried on the Model T: The Model T was offered in three fuels: Gasoline, Electric, and Alcohol. It only took I think less than a year to make it Gasoline only.
We're Charging Our Cars Wrong
41–50 of 213 posts
Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong
#42It would be nice if instead of the fast charging problem the focus would be shifted to standardized battery packs, that can be field replaced. I don't really want to own 50-100kwh battery. I just want to use the charge in it and happy to pay for that.
Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
We passed legislation spending a few billion on charging stations and totally failed to get any built.
The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) Discretionary Grant Program have made significant progress in expanding electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure across the United States. As of July 2024, eight states had opened their first NEVI-funded stations, totaling 61 ports, and powered thousands of charging sessions. Over the course of t…
The trick being played here is counting all charging stations in the US and pretending they're part of the IRA's funding.
Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong
#44It would be nice if instead of the fast charging problem the focus would be shifted to standardized battery packs, that can be field replaced. I don't really want to own 50-100kwh battery. I just want to use the charge in it and happy to pay for that.
Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong
#45Lightning strikes...how do EVs currently guard against it? - With galvanic isolation baked directly into onboard charger, I'm thinking worst case outcome is charging infra and isolation link get fried, but that really expensive EV battery remains safe. - Without galvanic isolation, battery goes...boom? Hopefully without you or your family waiting inside the vehicle under some false pretense of safety.
> Lightning strikes...how do EVs currently guard against it? They don't. If lightning strikes, you make a claim and get an insurance payoff. > Without galvanic isolation, battery goes...boom? Hopefully without you or your family waiting inside the vehicle under some false pretense of safety. Nope. The lightning current won't go through the battery, it'll just melt the conductors in the charging cable.
This strikes me as a direct consequence of galvanic isolation provided by isolation link stage in prevailing architectures, something the article proposes to eliminate.
I'm struggling to imagine how a magnitude of surge energy sufficient to "melt the conductors in the charging cable" while directly coupled to a charger and without galvanic isolation leaves an EV's battery unscathed in such an event. What exactly isolates/protects the battery again?
Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong
#46It would be nice if instead of the fast charging problem the focus would be shifted to standardized battery packs, that can be field replaced. I don't really want to own 50-100kwh battery. I just want to use the charge in it and happy to pay for that.
To me, it's not really viable. The 3 main problems are - The extra costs in a vehicle to allow swapping within say 5 minutes is non-trivial. The physical space required to house X number of batteries ready, X number swap ready is a lot at any moderate volume. Last, Batteries are not universal and now you're constricting either the design of all cars or you have to go to a specific swap station that houses your battery, related to the physical space. I would not accept a battery w/ less volume.
Time will tell if I'm wrong; NIO might do it, but I'm a naysayer for sure.
Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong
#47You don’t really need two ground wires, CP has a diode with series resistance 2.74K to PE (ground) so it’s trivially possible for the EVSE to just send a push/pull waveform over CP and if it reads push but not pull (remember diode) then it knows it’s connected properly. The return path for the pilot current will be over the PE contact, so it can also be detect and doubly verify that PE is low resistance, although ide…
Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong
#48It would be nice if instead of the fast charging problem the focus would be shifted to standardized battery packs, that can be field replaced. I don't really want to own 50-100kwh battery. I just want to use the charge in it and happy to pay for that.
I keep hoping flow batteries can overcome their issues as replacing depleted electrolyte with charged electrolyte is much more like 'refueling' in the current sense of the word.
Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong
#49Require a coin-operated 120V outlet with gfci and accessible way to reset the breaker for every two parking spots, everywhere. Many benefits: 1. Everywhere you go, you know there'll be somewhere to charge overnight. 2. It's the cheapest per installed spot, by far, allowing way more locations. 3. Renters can safely by an electric car and have home charging. 4. Coin-op 120V are far more robust than cables with valuable…
And no need to invent new ways to charge people – paid parking is a solved problem. Just set out a section for EVs (and EVs only).
Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Lightning strikes...how do EVs currently guard against it? They don't. If lightning strikes, you make a claim and get an insurance payoff. > Without galvanic isolation, battery goes...boom? Hopefully without you or your family waiting inside the vehicle under some false pretense of safety. Nope. The lightning current won't go through the battery, it'll just melt the conductors in the charging cable.
I would guess it will jump to a grounded conductor inside the charging cabinet or the grounded case of the cabinet itself before it goes to the car that is sitting on rubber tires
Now, if lightning were to strike the charging cabinet itself, I imagine that most of the surge current would go through the cabinet into the ground. If any were to make it to the chassis of the car through the charger, it would probably (“educated” guess) be at a low enough potential to not jump through the tires, but rather off some other low-hanging metal components. If it’s below the ~dozens of kV needed for that, charge will build up for a good fraction of a second, and dissipate over the next few seconds (or close to instantly if the ground wires don’t melt in the charging cable).
Really, the level of isolation in either the current case or proposed case doesn’t do that much to help with lightning strikes. They’re both designed to mitigate shock hazards measured in the hundreds to single-digit-thousands of volts. When the arc distance is measured in kilometres rather than centimetres, a 3” galvanic isolation transformer isn’t going to save you.
The solution for lighting is the same as it always has been: ideally, don’t get struck by lightning; otherwise, install a lightning rod nearby.