bobzilla said:
Looking at the gas station two minutes from my office on google maps, it sits on a plot about 200 x 150, so 30k sq ft. So if you covered the whole plot with elevated panels, you could conceivably have solar to support 27 level 3 chargers, right?
Once again the math isn't there. 30k sq ft would support (with no gaps and perfect fitment) 1200 400W panels. Those panels would generate approximately 3600 kWh in a 12 hour day. A level 3 charger can use up to 288kWh per day, so at best you're looking at 12 level 3 chargers and then they are only available during daylight hours unless you have a battery supply to feed them.
Luckily Tesla is big in the stationary battery business . In fact if you buy Tesla solar panels they will offer a Tesla power wall to store energy
If not, and your state is one of those that pays you for surplus electricity and bills you for over use. You can use the existing grid as your battery.
It makes sense that Tesla would have worked hard to decrease the cost of installing chargers, as they were spending their own money instead of taking grants. And simplifying and streamlining manufacturing is a fairly significant priority of the boss - making the machine to make the machines.
I don't believe any of the other networks make their own chargers, for example, which means another hand out for a share of the money. Tesla is famously vertically integrated which is expensive to set up but ends up being pretty economical and efficient in the long run.
It is quite possible that Tesla chose to underbid that particular job to get a foot in the door as well.
On topic, will this consortium of automakers be like that, or will they be more like EA? I hope it's the former. I'd love to know Ford's thoughts on the matter as well.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Does Ford need to since they're switching over to the Tesla style charging?
In reply to bobzilla :
LOL. . .. I was suffering from lack of sleep you are correct!!! Totally missed it.
dean1484 said:
In reply to bobzilla :
LOL. . .. I was suffering from lack of sleep you are correct!!! Totally missed it.
I do that a lot these days. Shoulder wakes me every couple hours.
bobzilla said:
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Does Ford need to since they're switching over to the Tesla style charging?
So are most of the automakers in that consortium. Ford was just the first domino. Fundamentally, it's just a matter of a different connector.
bobzilla said:
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Does Ford need to since they're switching over to the Tesla style charging?
All the conversion and power electronics are in the inverter, so from my perspective and knowledge as just a fan I'd say they'll have to incorporate into Tesla's software (especially for payment!) and maybe plant that makes the NACS port.
Also another point on the Tesla supercharger- they're ~400 volts, with most Teslas (until now) being 350-400v nominal from the battery. Grid power at the junction where it's coming from is ~440. I think part of their reliability is that they're barely stepping down the voltage from the grid at all.
Tesla is also helping existing power plants.
Up in Anchorage Alaska their power plant wasn't able to keep up with peak power demands. The two choices they had was a supplemental gas turbine which would cost them $1.6 million for fuel and the plant itself. Or a Tesla Mega battery for $630,000. Charged during off peak it feeds back to the grid during peak demands.
In reply to bobzilla :
A lot of the charger manufacturers are adding or have NACS chargers and CCS chargers available. As the inventory becomes available I'd expect to see those being installed over the CCS only chargers.
In reply to dclafleur :
Plus Tesla has no plans to sit on their hands while others put up chargers.
Given a choice most people will trust Tesla chargers to work and charge faster than others.
frenchyd said:
Tesla is also helping existing power plants.
Up in Anchorage Alaska their power plant wasn't able to keep up with peak power demands. The two choices they had was a supplemental gas turbine which would cost them $1.6 million for fuel and the plant itself. Or a Tesla Mega battery for $630,000. Charged during off peak it feeds back to the grid during peak demands.
Once again lies. https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/07/05/electric-utilities-for-anchorage-and-mat-su-install-63-million-tesla-battery-system/
not $630k, $63M. That's million not thousands. Either you are completely inept with numbers or are willfully lying. At this point I have no idea which is true.
GIRTHQUAKE said:
bobzilla said:
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Does Ford need to since they're switching over to the Tesla style charging?
All the conversion and power electronics are in the inverter, so from my perspective and knowledge as just a fan I'd say they'll have to incorporate into Tesla's software (especially for payment!) and maybe plant that makes the NACS port.
Also another point on the Tesla supercharger- they're ~400 volts, with most Teslas (until now) being 350-400v nominal from the battery. Grid power at the junction where it's coming from is ~440. I think part of their reliability is that they're barely stepping down the voltage from the grid at all.
I suspect what will happen is that the Tesla chargers and cars will learn to speak the CCS protocol - the one they use is related from what I (dimly) understand. They can do that with a OTA update. And if they incorporate the CCS Plug and Charge then the Ford (etc) experience should be what Teslas have now. The CCS chargers would then just need different plugs or an adapter.
Interesting point on the voltage levels.
In reply to bobzilla :
frenchyd said:
Tesla is also helping existing power plants.
Up in Anchorage Alaska their power plant wasn't able to keep up with peak power demands. The two choices they had was a supplemental gas turbine which would cost them $1.6 million for fuel and the plant itself. Or a Tesla Mega battery for $630,000. Charged during off peak it feeds back to the grid during peak demands.
Once again lies. https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/07/05/electric-utilities-for-anchorage-and-mat-su-install-63-million-tesla-battery-system/
not $630k, $63M. That's million not thousands. Either you are completely inept with numbers or are willfully lying. At this point I have no idea which is true.
The choice also didn't have much to do with power plants. Their problem is lack of demand, not too much. They rely on natural gas fields from the Cook Inlet. Natural gas companies have pulled out and stopped drilling new wells there because it was not profitable. They have relied on another company that specialized in extracting gas from existing wells, but that relatively cheap and easy gas is almost gone. While there is plenty of gas available, their is not enough demand to offset the cost of drilling new wells. The batteries didn't solve the problem. They are still running out of gas. The claim is that the batteries let them use the electricity produced by the gas power plants more efficiently, and would allow them to install wind and solar. I'd love to see the numbers behind the cost savings claim. I'm thinking there is some creative math going on, since the batteries appear to be a short term band aid rattler than a solution. After all, they don't make any power on their own. I'm curious what the cost was compared to building a pipeline to another field.
That said, batteries can be a solution when more peak power is needed but not more overall generating capacity. But this doesn't appear to be one of those examples.
Keith Tanner said:
GIRTHQUAKE said:
bobzilla said:
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Does Ford need to since they're switching over to the Tesla style charging?
All the conversion and power electronics are in the inverter, so from my perspective and knowledge as just a fan I'd say they'll have to incorporate into Tesla's software (especially for payment!) and maybe plant that makes the NACS port.
Also another point on the Tesla supercharger- they're ~400 volts, with most Teslas (until now) being 350-400v nominal from the battery. Grid power at the junction where it's coming from is ~440. I think part of their reliability is that they're barely stepping down the voltage from the grid at all.
I suspect what will happen is that the Tesla chargers and cars will learn to speak the CCS protocol - the one they use is related from what I (dimly) understand. They can do that with a OTA update. And if they incorporate the CCS Plug and Charge then the Ford (etc) experience should be what Teslas have now. The CCS chargers would then just need different plugs or an adapter.
Interesting point on the voltage levels.
I imagine that would be "easy" since Teslas in the EU are all built for CCS but require no visible changes to the inverter.
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
I know that US Model 3s got the CCS compatible modem starting in late 2019. Ours does not, so we'd need a new modem ($400-ish) to use a CCS charger with the current adapter. I don't know what that means with regards to an EA fast charger with a NACS plug.
"... shut off power plants..."
I fell off my couch, I laughed so hard.
bobzilla said:
frenchyd said:
Tesla is also helping existing power plants.
Up in Anchorage Alaska their power plant wasn't able to keep up with peak power demands. The two choices they had was a supplemental gas turbine which would cost them $1.6 million for fuel and the plant itself. Or a Tesla Mega battery for $630,000. Charged during off peak it feeds back to the grid during peak demands.
Once again lies. https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/07/05/electric-utilities-for-anchorage-and-mat-su-install-63-million-tesla-battery-system/
not $630k, $63M. That's million not thousands. Either you are completely inept with numbers or are willfully lying. At this point I have no idea which is true.
I pointed this out on the previous page, he seems to be a pathological liar.
racerfink said:
"... shut off power plants..."
I fell off my couch, I laughed so hard.
mguar should be prevented from posting if he can't back it up with facts.
I guess the page views generated from his bullE36 M3 is why he hasn't been banned again.
Keith Tanner said:
GIRTHQUAKE said:
bobzilla said:
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Does Ford need to since they're switching over to the Tesla style charging?
All the conversion and power electronics are in the inverter, so from my perspective and knowledge as just a fan I'd say they'll have to incorporate into Tesla's software (especially for payment!) and maybe plant that makes the NACS port.
Also another point on the Tesla supercharger- they're ~400 volts, with most Teslas (until now) being 350-400v nominal from the battery. Grid power at the junction where it's coming from is ~440. I think part of their reliability is that they're barely stepping down the voltage from the grid at all.
I suspect what will happen is that the Tesla chargers and cars will learn to speak the CCS protocol - the one they use is related from what I (dimly) understand. They can do that with a OTA update. And if they incorporate the CCS Plug and Charge then the Ford (etc) experience should be what Teslas have now. The CCS chargers would then just need different plugs or an adapter.
Interesting point on the voltage levels.
I think in Europe all manufacturers, including Tesla use a version of ccs, ccs type 2. I have not heard if they are having the same reliability problems that many non Tesla chargers seem to have in the US. I imagine most issues with chargers are more communication related than actual hardware failures. Superchargers default to charging the vehicle so they tend to work more often, I'm guessing how much money they are getting from these deals will determine if they will still do that with other manufacturers being able to use their chargers. Ultimately having a common connector will be better for every ev.
The board software would do well to add a mute option. Here's my advice: If you think somebody is trolling just downvote the post and move on.
Getting pissed off isn't good for you and it isn't going to change the troll. Save your breath to cool your soup.
I expect electric charging stations will need to get much bigger than gas stations due to the time required to "fill up". Something like the Bucee's footprint relative to a typical interstate adjacent gas station seems about right. So 3-4x the land area based on my eyeball.
My mother inherited 75 acres at the intersection of a couple state highways - it is currently used only for farming. The farm rent covers the property tax with a little to spare. I wonder who this consortium will hire to acquire land for these charging sites....
In reply to z31maniac :
And things here are allowed to go a bit further than the older days
