Live data from Hacker News

We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

spectrum.ieee.org

41–50 of 213 posts

Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

#41

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.

Is there any universe where we go the electric route instead of gasoline back then? I imagine the range was nothing

Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

#42

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.

A battery can weigh up to half a ton. Because of the weight, you want to keep it at a low position in the car. That is not easy to swap. By contrast consider that you charge your car. For a daily commute, the most practical is to charge it on your driveway or at the office. In my case that means I only have to consider public charging on vacations and longer weekend trips. Now this means my net travel speed is lower then. But I can adjust to that.

Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

#43
post #26

Earlier 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…

> Over the course of the Biden-Harris Administration, the number of publicly available EV chargers more than doubled. With approximately 1,000 new public chargers being added each week, there are over 200,000 publicly available charging ports.

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

#44

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place_(company)

Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

#45
post #22
post #9

Lightning 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.

> 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

#46

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.

Realistically, this is a pipe dream. China has had a few that are trying this NIO being the most well known.

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

#47

You 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…

Maybe you should prototype and get an investor?

Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

#48

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.

Well it's patented and Tesla doesn't own the patent. But that aside, you trade a different set of problems, specifically what happens if the pack that is put into your car is damaged and as a result of that damage catches fire when it is discharging? That isn't something that happens with gasoline.

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

#49
post #17

Require 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…

This. Maybe then upgrade to 240V and some standard-issue EVSEs.

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

#50
post #22

Earlier 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

Lightning can strike cars directly, and when it does, the couple inches of air and rubber between the car and the ground mean nothing (the tires sometimes explode, which looks neat when caught on video, if nothing else). Remember, the lightning travelled for thousands of metres through the air before reaching the car - another 4” of “insulator” isn’t going to stop it.

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.

Post reply on HN