nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Random EV thoughts.....

Old diesel

The main motors forum has the motors chat thread for the little things one would like to say but might not justify a thread.

Thought it might be an idea for here re hybrids and EV stuff.....

To kick off - i wonder if a new measurement for EVs might be assuming a start trip at 100 percent......

A how much range do you get with a 15 minute stop.

With a 350 kw charging a Porsche Tayman might do very well with getting on for 400 miles...

A Leaf 62 not so good.

Obviously where a car can do more then 50 kw charging we would need both a 50 kw and a whatever the cars top rate is figure*.

*IF chargers are available

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

KCross

unkel wrote: »

Not open yet. Any link to where Musk said non-Tesla owners can use CCS at superchargers?

I think what he has said is that he is willing to work with other manufacturers to make it available to them for a fee... which is only reasonable.

I dont think he has ever said that anyone with a CCS port can rock up and just PAYG. He's not offering that. He's looking for money to fund the rollout as the SC's are not a money making venture!

[Deleted User]

McGiver wrote: »

100 * say 50kW = 5MW, it would need its own little power plant or at least a large transformer...

Or a bank of battery storage charged at off peak to cater for the peak.

liamog

One of Northvolts first projects is a large battery to perform peak shaving.

It's a 320kWh battery that will reduce the input capacity required. I believe they have something similar in Dundee.

https://insideevs.com/news/384832/northvolt-ess-charging-peak-electricity-demand/

MJohnston

KCross wrote: »

I think what he has said is that he is willing to work with other manufacturers to make it available to them for a fee... which is only reasonable.

I dont think he has ever said that anyone with a CCS port can rock up and just PAYG. He's not offering that. He's looking for money to fund the rollout as the SC's are not a money making venture!

It's fair to ask for OEMs to help fund new rollouts, but it's also fair to say he definitely knows there's little-to-no chance they'll do it for pre-existing stations. I would imagine he doesn't really want to open them up, because, in the US at least, it's a big selling point for buying a Tesla.

Silent Running

liamog wrote: »

One of Northvolts first projects is a large battery to perform peak shaving.

It's a 320kWh battery that will reduce the input capacity required. I believe they have something similar in Dundee.

https://insideevs.com/news/384832/northvolt-ess-charging-peak-electricity-demand/

What sort of razors are they expecting?

Water John

Unkel, need to go a bit bigger. 4 Ha produces 2Mw
10 Ha/ 25 acres produces 5Mw.
Cost about €5.5M to install. And if it's my land, I want €30K rent/year.

unkel

KCross wrote: »

I think what he has said is that he is willing to work with other manufacturers to make it available to them for a fee... which is only reasonable.

I don't think that's a helpful approach. There's no way any of the Ionity parties are going to pay Tesla a cent for access to the CCS at the superchargers.

Why doesn't Tesla deal directly with Joe Bloggs with his CCS car. I'd happily pay Tesla €0.50 for every kWh I get at their superchargers

Disappointed in Musk if he willfully blocks progress of EVs with this stance. It is opposed to everything he always claims about his goal being to promote EVs globally even if it comes at his own expense

Dardania

unkel wrote: »

I don't think that's a helpful approach. There's no way any of the Ionity parties are going to pay Tesla a cent for access to the CCS at the superchargers.

Why doesn't Tesla deal directly with Joe Bloggs with his CCS car. I'd happily pay Tesla €0.50 for every kWh I get at their superchargers

Disappointed in Musk if he willfully blocks progress of EVs with this stance. It is opposed to everything he always claims about his goal being to promote EVs globally even if it comes at his own expense

How to overcome the capital costs - charge it directly to the end user?

KCross

unkel wrote: »

There's no way any of the Ionity parties are going to pay Tesla a cent for access to the CCS at the superchargers.

No reason for Ionity parties to, but others might.

unkel wrote: »

Why doesn't Tesla deal directly with Joe Bloggs with his CCS car. I'd happily pay Tesla €0.50 for every kWh I get at their superchargers

Disappointed in Musk if he willfully blocks progress of EVs with this stance. It is opposed to everything he always claims about his goal being to promote EVs globally even if it comes at his own expense

That has limits though. Installing a high powered charger network is massively expensive.

50c/kWh probably wouldnt even cover it and he has to look at the big picture which is keeping Tesla afloat and the SC network is a USP that helps sales. If it got flooded with slow charging Ioniq's (;)) it would detract from that USP.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable business decision to me. Show me the money and you can have access. Musk is not a charity and he needs his money for court payouts anyway!

MJohnston

But they've already built a supercharger network! And in the US where they don't even have a common charging connector, they certainly can't have planned that existing network with the rationale that other car manufacturers would eventually fund it.

In other words, what they've built already, they would always have planned to pay for from their own pocket.

unkel

KCross wrote: »

50c/kWh probably wouldnt even cover it

Obviously he shouldn't sell it at a loss.

I'd be happy to have the choice to charge my slow charging Ioniq at a CCS supercharger for whatever rate (per kWh and per minute) that Tesla makes a decent profit on me. Surely a win-win situation for all?

Of course if there are bottlenecks like Kettleman supercharger at Thanksgiving, Tesla owners will get priority, and lowly "third parties" like myself in my Ioniq (and other plebs in their Porsches, Mercedes, Jaguars and Audis) will have to wait until all Teslas are fully charged :pac:

But being serious, if Tesla have the capacity, why not sell at a profit?

KCross

MJohnston wrote: »

But they've already built a supercharger network! And in the US where they don't even have a common charging connector, they certainly can't have planned that existing network with the rationale that other car manufacturers would eventually fund it.

building... not built.
It has cost millions and will cost millions more.

MJohnston wrote: »

In other words, what they've built already, they would always have planned to pay for from their own pocket.

Maybe not. He has always said it is open to other OEM's to use if they pony up the money. Maybe he is waiting for the penny to drop for some of those OEM's to come calling with the chequebook open. He doesnt want to sell it cheap.

KCross

unkel wrote: »

Obviously he shouldn't sell it at a loss.

I'd be happy to have the choice to charge my slow charging Ioniq at a CCS supercharger for whatever rate (per kWh and per minute) that Tesla makes a decent profit on me. Surely a win-win situation for all?

Except for Tesla owners!

And now that they are selling many multiples of Model 3's to what they have sold before the SC network is going to get alot busier. Having your own dedicated network is a major USP for Tesla owners.

unkel wrote: »

Of course if there are bottlenecks like Kettleman supercharger at Thanksgiving, Tesla owners will get priority, and lowly "third parties" like myself in my Ioniq (and other plebs in their Porsches, Mercedes, Jaguars and Audis) will have to wait until all Teslas are fully charged :pac:

Seriously! How would that work? Can you imagine the scenes of carnage with non-Tesla owners turning up and being told to wait because Tesla's are 1st priority.

Access to chargers has to be first come first served. Anything else would be mayhem.

unkel wrote: »

But being serious, if Tesla have the capacity, why not sell at a profit?

Thats the key thing. Do they have the capacity. As I said, alot more Tesla's hitting the streets over the last year. I'd say they need all the capacity they have for themselves. Anecdotally looking at Bjorn's videos you can see the large SC sites in Norway are quite busy too. Adding in every other CCS car would take away a big USP for Tesla sales.

MJohnston

KCross wrote: »

building... not built.
It has cost millions and will cost millions more.

And as I said, it'd be fine to ask for funds from OEMs to help with the future supercharger network.

But they're never going to pay for what has already been built, and making that a precondition is pretty obviously a way to avoid having to open up the network to others.

Maybe not. He has always said it is open to other OEM's to use if they pony up the money. Maybe he is waiting for the penny to drop for some of those OEM's to come calling with the chequebook open. He doesnt want to sell it cheap.

I know Elon Musk has demonstrated some bad business decision making in the while, but I don't think even he would be that reckless. The vast majority of Tesla's network is in the US, where OEMs wouldn't just have to pay for access, they'd also have to invest in costly adapters for the Tesla connector standard, or switch to it entirely (complicating their global manufacturing base).

No, there's basically zero chance Tesla would have planned their supercharger network with any kind of expectation of financial assistance from other OEMs.

KCross

MJohnston wrote: »

But they're never going to pay for what has already been built...

If I remember correctly, the way it was being negotiated with some OEM's was that it would be $x per car that the OEM manufactures. What that x was we dont know, but that would seem like a reasonable approach.

So, the new OEM wouldnt be paying specifically or directly for past expenditure but would be paying a pro-rata amount for every car they want to give access to the Tesla SC network so they are in effect paying for past and future expenditure and maintenance of the network.

No, there's basically zero chance Tesla would have planned their supercharger network with any kind of expectation of financial assistance from other OEMs.

Largely agree with what you're saying there. I think their plan was to build it on their own dollar and make it part of their business model that doesnt require others to join, but if another OEM wants to capitalise on Tesla's asset then thats OK too.... show me the money!

redcup342

unkel wrote: »

Obviously he shouldn't sell it at a loss.

I'd be happy to have the choice to charge my slow charging Ioniq at a CCS supercharger for whatever rate (per kWh and per minute) that Tesla makes a decent profit on me. Surely a win-win situation for all?

Of course if there are bottlenecks like Kettleman supercharger at Thanksgiving, Tesla owners will get priority, and lowly "third parties" like myself in my Ioniq (and other plebs in their Porsches, Mercedes, Jaguars and Audis) will have to wait until all Teslas are fully charged :pac:

But being serious, if Tesla have the capacity, why not sell at a profit?

Would make sense if Tesla just charged a Membership fee and a Guest / Roaming fee, then give "Lifetime Membership" with their Vehicles.

It's a bit stupid right now that the Ionity Chargers over here in Germany are full of Tesla Model 3s but the Tesla chargers are hardly used because they have to pay 33 cent / kwh when a person in a vehicle with a smaller battery would happily pay that if they didn't have to wait.

KCross

redcup342 wrote: »

It's a bit stupid right now that the Ionity Chargers over here in Germany are full of Tesla Model 3s but the Tesla chargers are hardly used because they have to pay 33 cent / kwh when a person in a vehicle with a smaller battery would happily pay that if they didn't have to wait.

Dont they have to pay for Ionity too though?
Is Ionity cheaper than Tesla SC?

ELM327

KCross wrote: »

Dont they have to pay for Ionity too though?
Is Ionity cheaper than Tesla SC?

Yes and yes
Ionity is 8 quid flat fee
Tesla at 29c-33c per kWh is almost 3 times as much

KCross

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes and yes
Ionity is 8 quid flat fee
Tesla at 29c-33c per kWh is almost 3 times as much

I guess it depends on how much of a topup you need then. If you need anything more than 30kWh you would go to Ionity.

I also thought that that €8 flat charge from Ionity was mooted as an introductory thing and they were to change it. Any sign of that happening?

unkel

KCross wrote: »

alot more Tesla's hitting the streets over the last year.

Tesla Model 3 is now even the best selling car in Ireland

McGiver

samih wrote:

Or a bank of battery storage charged at off peak to cater for the peak.

Is anything like that deployed anywhere near?

unkel

Near where? They were deploying them in the USA during Thanksgiving afaik

McGiver

unkel wrote:

Near where? They were deploying them in the USA during Thanksgiving afaik

Let's say this corner of Europe

Water John

I would suspect such storage would initially be used to stabilise the network. To kick in at sudden demand to maintain the frequency near 50 Hz.
Wonder what EirGrid would pay for such? Think there is planning for one in the midlands.
The original one was the 100Mw Elon Musk built in Australia in 100 days. The network was blacking out.

ELM327

Water John wrote: »

I would suspect such storage would initially be used to stabilise the network. To kick in at sudden demand to maintain the frequency near 50 Hz.
Wonder what EirGrid would pay for such? Think there is planning for one in the midlands.
The original one was the 100Mw Elon Musk built in Australia in 100 days. The network was blacking out.

I said it years ago, I don't know why we don't use storage to balance out demand.

September1

Water John wrote: »

Wonder what EirGrid would pay for such? Think there is planning for one in the midlands.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/planning-permission-granted-for-controversial-energy-plant-in-roscommon-935133.html

slave1

ELM327 wrote: »

I said it years ago, I don't know why we don't use storage to balance out demand.

Economics, too expensive to install versus importing/exporting I'd have to imagine

ELM327

slave1 wrote: »

Economics, too expensive to install versus importing/exporting I'd have to imagine

Then, perhaps
But now, I reckon we're getting close to the point of viabilty
Especially on the green argument. Imagine being able to run the renewables 24/7 and having somewhere to store excess wind energy generated throughout the night!

September1

ELM327 wrote: »

Then, perhaps
But now, I reckon we're getting close to the point of viabilty
Especially on the green argument. Imagine being able to run the renewables 24/7 and having somewhere to store excess wind energy generated throughout the night!

I think issue is that you would need to store energy for handle longer periods of no wind than single day, which I think is not something that can be economical with batteries for decades - as this kind of storage would be used handful times a year, and perhaps not at all on some years.

unkel

ELM327 wrote: »

I said it years ago, I don't know why we don't use storage to balance out demand.

We do (a bit), see Turlough hill

Battery storage is still far too expensive for commercial use here in Ireland when we can generate electricity so cheaply at night with wind

We should use a massive pump and release hydro system in the west of Ireland though, it's a great idea, but nobody seems willing to invest in it. We need a friendly dictator to rule the country for a bit to push it through, just like they did in China :pac: