pseudopad t1_is1d2j1 wrote
Super-fast charging is going to require some pretty beefy cables eventually. If you want to charge a 50 kWh battery in 10 minutes, you'll need something like 300 kW of power supply to that single charger. And that's if it's charging at constant power, which it likely won't, because it'll slow down towards the end. Serving 4 cars at once will require 1.2 megawatts. Not saying it's impossible, but it certainly requires some planning.
phil_style t1_is1g3v8 wrote
Somehow we managed to plan our way to global oil infrastructure, oil tankers and with their associated ports, storage facilities and refineries, oil pipelines that span continents, drilling rigs out in the open ocean that helicopters can land on and petrol retail services along morotoways, at intersections and in town centres all over the planet.
I am fairly confident that we have at leat the ability (if not the political will) to build/upgrade electrical charging stations and their associated cabling.
mynextthroway t1_is1ilon wrote
A few days ago there was a post with a showboating senator trying to get oil company reps to take an Oath that their companies were no longer spending money to disrupt a shift away from oil. They wouldn't, telling me they are still spending money. I wasn't sure what on since most people believe in global warming. Given the way that discussion went and seeing u/pseudopad response, I am realizing the oil companies are seeding the public with thoughts that we can't change, so why bother. That this change will be too hard for us. It will be a challenge, there will be problems and unexpected difficulties and setbacks. But we must certainly can do this. We must. If this attitude had existed in the 60s, we wouldn't have made it to the moon.
phil_style t1_is1ja4t wrote
Yeah, I look around the planet at all the stuff we've built. Roads, hospitals, airports, global networks of telecoms cabling, satellites in space, nuclear power stations, tunnels through mountains, mineral mines with multi-kilometer wide pits, railways, undersea power cables, ships the size of skyscrapers, skyscrapers, ports, giant rings for particle experiments, space craft launching platforms, integrated air defence systems . .
And building up renweables and electric cars is too much effort?
Someone's pulling some serious wool.
killcat t1_is1r1qk wrote
Renewables aren't going to do it alone, you can't rely on them enough, nuclear power on the other hand can.
1purenoiz t1_is1v4el wrote
Edit: I am not anti nuclear power. In it's short usage on this planet it is demonstrably safer than coal and natural gas. But that doesn't make it problem free.
Still waiting for nuclear power to figure out a long term solution to it's waste problem.
That problem alone can't be ignored and in a lot of people's eyes, outweighs the benefits.
sophons-are-here t1_is2dvxg wrote
The """"problem """ of nuclear waste was solved in the 60s. Nuclear waste isn't some green goo dripping out of barrels, it's small radioactive particles mixed into giant blocks of ceramics or plastics, encased in steel containers. That waste is going nowhere.
The radiation is so diluted and well-contained if you stand right next to any of the storage vats with a Geiger counter you won't see higher than background levels.
WhatEvil t1_is4avcb wrote
Coal power plants release more radioactive materials into the atmosphere than nuclear, because coal contains trace amounts of Thorium.
1purenoiz t1_is55xb4 wrote
I am not anti nuclear . And whataboutism is not intellectually honest.
Nuclear waste is a problem that can't be ignored, a half life for 5000 years means engineers need to figure out how to turn waste into something beneficial or harmless.
[deleted] t1_is24g7s wrote
[removed]
grundar t1_is306ib wrote
> I am realizing the oil companies are seeding the public with thoughts that we can't change, so why bother.
You're right -- that is the new face of climate change denial::
> "Doom-mongering has overtaken denial as a threat and as a tactic. Inactivists know that if people believe there is nothing you can do, they are led down a path of disengagement. They unwittingly do the bidding of fossil fuel interests by giving up.
>
> What is so pernicious about this is that it seeks to weaponise environmental progressives who would otherwise be on the frontline demanding change. These are folk of good intentions and good will, but they become disillusioned or depressed and they fall into despair. But “too late” narratives are invariably based on a misunderstanding of science."
Their efforts are very much just a delaying tactic, though, as the economics have shifted decisively in favor of clean energy, with renewables now virtually all net new electricity generation worldwide and EVs projected to be a majority of the global car market by 2034 or even 2030.
Still, each year of delay is that much more cumulative emissions and warming, so pushing to accomplish the transition to clean energy sooner rather than later will still have tangible benefits.
40for60 t1_is5pj3e wrote
I don't think they are really delaying anything, when the major US automakers are all in on EV's its a lost cause.
grundar t1_is61j0y wrote
> I don't think they are really delaying anything, when the major US automakers are all in on EV's its a lost cause.
I largely agree -- EVs started getting mainstream when batteries started getting cheap. No amount of online astroturfing is going to change the fact that EVs will be cheaper than ICEs in most major markets within a few years (source), or the fact that wind and especially solar are increasingly cheaper than fossil fuel power generation.
The economic forces propelling our transition to clean energy are almost inevitable at this point.
Their delaying tactics -- doomism and hopelessness -- are causing significant psychological distress to vast numbers of people, especially young people. As a result, even if their propaganda is not causing any delay in the energy transition it's still worth combatting for the mental health benefits alone.
[deleted] t1_is69qpz wrote
[removed]
Westfakia t1_is222ym wrote
I saw a billboard this morning near my office (Near Toronto) that said “The oil sands are on the path to reduce greenhouse gases.”
I had to think about that for a moment. Yes, I suppose it is true that they are on the path. But in the wrong direction!!
SnooDoubts826 t1_is4c8nl wrote
They are failing because I have never once considered "not being able to do it". But it literally is difficult.
Flash635 t1_is2vqpy wrote
I think at least some companies are holding back on lashing out on EV infrastructure in a big way.
They're probably waiting to see if Betamax or VHS is the way to go and just because one system is better than the other doesn't mean that one will be used.
DadOfFan t1_is49053 wrote
> Somehow we managed to plan our way to global oil infrastructure
This took the better part of a century. We do not have that much time.
dasus t1_is2illi wrote
Yeah, and if we actually utilised technology and resources we have, with proper planning, instead of waiting for "the market to be ready", then I think I might see a space elevator during my lifetime.
Nurgus t1_is1pkmc wrote
We already have 300kw car chargers. For example: https://www.drive-electric.co.uk/news/over-5000-new-350-kw-ionity-ultra-rapid-chargers/
[deleted] t1_is1s5bq wrote
[deleted]
FellowConspirator t1_is2l819 wrote
150kW - 350kW is pretty standard for a DC fast charger today.
Our local mall has a SuperCharger site: 12 stalls @ 250 kW each (3 MW total). There's another one at Target in the town next door; same setup.
perrochon t1_is1s8y3 wrote
There are plenty of locations in the middle of nowhere, e.g. along I-5 or in Baker, CA with tens (50+) of 250kW-350kW stations. Truck charging standards go into the MW. Of course it requires a plan, but it's not hard.
pseudopad t1_is1skwl wrote
Yeah sorry, I confused the name Ionity with the car model Ionic.
drbooom t1_is3a3x4 wrote
The MCS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawatt_Charging_System
Supports 3.75 MW charging. The cable weighs about 2.5#/foot
Coincidentally American gasoline pumps are regulated to Federal level to produce no more than 10 gallons per minute, which is about 3.5 megawatts equivalent (factoring in ICE efficiency).
[deleted] t1_is1yerc wrote
[removed]
creativemind11 t1_is2o85f wrote
I think we'll end up with multiple chargers at the same time. Like split cells.
Fire_monger t1_is3aybj wrote
I just read a paper about cooling electric vehicle cables to handle 2kA.
They're working on it, but it looks like it will need active cooling solutions. Or, a massive increase in voltage at the charger.
Arrays_start_at_2 t1_is4h0xy wrote
Tesla’s v3 super chargers already use water-cooled cables. They can deliver 250 kW while being thinner and more flexible than the 150kW v2 cables.
They’re supposedly adding liquid cooling to the handle as well for the megacharger.
40for60 t1_is5s8ll wrote
I doubt we ever see those for non commercial vehicles, I can see semi's needing them but what people are not getting is that the number of DC fast chargers for regular cars isn't going to be that great, most will be fully charged at home overnight so the idea of a "gas station" is a thing of the past. What we will see is a ton of 20 kw level 2's at destinations places like sports stadiums were people might drive 200 miles to go to.
[deleted] t1_is3dc59 wrote
[removed]
Perdendosi t1_is431ze wrote
>1.2 megawatts.
Not 1.21? Doc!
the_geth t1_is4ggkf wrote
We already have that in Europe, check Ionity stations
Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_is1neey wrote
Correct, and the best way to tackle that problem doesn't seem to have been worked out.
I wonder if having a large supercapacitor as part of each public charger might allow for a feasible solution. The supercapacitor's charge time could be much longer than 10 minutes, but its high discharge rate could then allow for fast charging of a vehicle.
Not my field, so feel free to laugh if this is implausible. How large would a supercapacitor have to be to store 100 kWh?
edit: copied from below
100 kWh in 10 minutes would mean 600 kW supply per charger.
A standard house service provides 24 kW, so each charger would have to supply equivalent power to 25 houses. Let's assume a charging lot has 10 chargers - that's 250 houses equivalent in one small location (6 MW), corresponding to one 'gas' station.
A little searching seems to show the Tesla V3 charging locations have 8 stalls at 250 kW each, or 2 MW per location - and even these don't exist in most of the country. Sorry for trying to help.
edit2: That house equivalence is way off since groups of houses aren't pulling max load all the time. 6 MW should service much more than 250 houses. (600 homes per 1 MW is commonly cited, so ~3600 homes)
tdrhq t1_is3dsbe wrote
As I mentioned in another comment, heat generated in a wire is a function of amperage not power being transferred. That's how high-voltage power lines can transfer energy to power entire cities.
Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_is3mk3i wrote
Right, hopefully most people here know that. I hope most people here also know that in terms of existing infrastructure, gas station locations are virtually all secondary customers, not primary customers.
perrochon t1_is1sg7c wrote
The limit is on the EV battery side. How much can it take...
Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_is2d740 wrote
No, that's not the issue here.
As the commenter above correctly pointed out, we don't generally have transmission infrastructure in place to supply the current necessary for fast charging.
perrochon t1_is2dk6h wrote
But we do in most places where people would charge :-) we have plenty of chargers that can charge cars at many MW combined. Some have battery backup. 10MW+ is not a problem. Charging 50 cars is not a problem.
And we will deploy more where we need more.
Maybe capacitors play a role some when, somewhere, but it's not required.
Right now a simple 250kW+ charger will have to slow down because of the car battery heating up....
Tesla V3 could charge at 300kW, and there are dozens per location. They limit to 250kW because of the car. And they are 400V. There are 800V stations that can easily do more.
Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_is2iuzo wrote
100 kWh in 10 minutes would mean 600 kW supply per charger.
A standard house service provides 24 kW, so each charger would have to supply equivalent power to 25 houses. Let's assume a charging lot has 10 chargers - that's 250 houses equivalent in one small location (6 MW), corresponding to one 'gas' station.
Where are you seeing this commonly existing? Do you have a link to a map of these?
edit:
I see you edited your comment without answering my question. Oh well. A little searching seems to show the Tesla V3 charging locations have 8 stalls at 250 kW each, or 2 MW per location - and even these don't exist in most of the country. Sorry for trying to help.
edit2:
The largest sedan battery pack Tesla currently offers is 100 kWh, so I sized for that.
The issue here isn't so much about kWh, but kW. Charge rate, i.e. time spent charging on a trip, seems to be a commonly cited operational obstacle causing so many to keep buying ICE vehicles. People don't want to have to charge for an hour or more every 200-300 miles.
perrochon t1_is2wgz3 wrote
https://www.tesla.com/findus/location/supercharger/firebaughsupercharger
Has 56 stalls. Middle of nowhere.
Harris Ranch may go to almost 100.
Baker, CA has CCS right next to it.
Every new supercharger has been V3 for a while. V4 is coming out soon.
We don't need those in residential areas where people charge at home and slowly. It's not like the residential gas station that people feel up now for their weekly driving. We need those a long major traffic routes. Maybe in some areas with lots of apartments.
Most new houses in the US had 200 amps at 240V for years. That is some 40 kilowatts.
You have to look for industrial sized electricity. Not residential. This is an industrial hookup.
Jason_Batemans_Hair t1_is325c8 wrote
Anyone looking at the map of Tesla chargers can see that my comment represented the situation fairly, whereas you found 1 oddball charging site in the entire United States and present that as if it's relevant - and it's still just 250 kW chargers anyway. That's intellectually dishonest IMO.
You have a strange agenda, to be arguing with people who would like to see more electrification. There's no good reason for you to be misrepresenting the state of affairs.
Deafcat22 t1_is338kz wrote
You might be confusing combined theoretical peak loads with working demand loads in the real world.
Actual electric cars don't have 100 kWh packs, for starters. Most people are fine with half of that, 50kWh.
Also, very few people go to fast chargers with a 0% battery state. Most people also don't leave the fast charger with 100% battery state. In practice, it's more common to assume most drivers will charge 50% of the battery capacity, which for the sake of argument let's say is 25kWh.
Finally, the actual fast charge rate is proportionate to how close to empty the battery pack is.. a Tesla at 25% SOC topping up to 75% SOC might only start the charge at 100-150kW, tapering down below 50kW.
Yes, a very busy supercharging station in a dense city needs a fair bit of power (and may "peak shave" actual grid demand with on-site battery storage). For most cities however, it's actually not a huge load in practice, and easily implemented (which is why so many cities around the world have already installed them, even cities below 300,000 population like mine).
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments