Lucid charges up to 350kw when at low SOC. There are others, too. NACS (tesla port) is now being adopted by many manufacturers. Also, tesla stations are being equipped with magic dock, a built in CCS adapter.
Our Leaf Plus got 78kW from CHAdeMO; it is all about the Amps. If you have a 400V pack, your peak charge rate could come at, say, 335V in which case a 135kW car could pull over 400A - good luck getting that from a 150kW charger. Cars "on the edge" will do better initially on 350kW units generally assuming battery temp right. Charging makes fools of us all - there is little that can be generalized.
Great video! Just would like to comment on what was mentioned at min 17:40 The split charge depends on the host for that specific location and stations, ChargePoint allows the host to decide if they want to split charge or not, that's why some station will deliver full power to 2 cars connected at the same time and some of them don't. Usually they do this because of saving electricity when the host sets a price per hour or if the station is free.
@@theaverageev Tesla supercharger network designed by engineers to encourage the adoption of EV’s CCS charging network designed by the ICE manufactures marketing departments to discourage the adoption of EV’s
I don't truly agree with that at all... Since Europe only uses CCS2 and things are going pretty well over there. I'm pretty sure at the end of the day Elon just wants to make as much money as he possibly can, if he wanted to encourage EV adoption he would have created a more affordable EV years ago. I just don't think the CCS operators in the US understand anything about charging hardware and want to put the lowest initial cost hardware vs. equipment that has the lowest cost over time with low and easy maintenance. Could it be a conspiracy? Maybe, but I doubt all of these companies would be going all in on EVs if they wanted it to fail...
@@theaverageev Being an electronics engineer, i look at the CCS standard and see something that was designed by a committee incorporating all of the worst ideas. Never expecting it would succeed, expecting it would die with the demise of EV’s. Now they are are stuck with it because Tesla made EV’s work and they are tripping all over them selfs to stay in the game.
@@universeisundernoobligatio3283 Isn't the Tesla charge port design at its maximum capacity of 250 kW? While the CCS design has move overhead so the kW chargers can go even higher than 350 kW? If so I say the engineers at Tesla were a bit shortsighted. The advantages the Tesla charging network has over others is they are a walled garden. For example all Tesla's have their cars charging ports in the same location. This means Tesla chargers can have as short of charging cable as possible. It also means that Tesla controls all the hardware and software that are in both the cars and super chargers. This insures compatibility and makes it much easier to track down problems. The other charging networks like EVgo and Electrify America do not have control where the cars charging ports are located. Therefore, they must have longer heavier charging cables. They also have no control over the hardware or software in the cars. They have no idea of the quality of the hardware or how good the software is. Plus these charging networks have to live or die by the amount of revenue they generate. Tesla's charging network doesn't as some portion of the sale of the cars themselves goes into the cost of running Tesla's charging network. Factor those things in, and that Tesla has a few years head start in designing chargers, no wonder they are in the lead for ease of use and reliability. Personally I think Bob Lazar's hydrogen burning ICE car system is the way to go. Basically use solar panels on your roof to separate hydrogen from oxygen with electrolysis from regular tap water. Then take the stored hydrogen and pump it into low pressure tanks filled with a form of lithium. The hydrogen bonds with the lithium. Inside the tanks are heating elements. When the lithium is heated it gives off hydrogen which is then burned in your combustion engine. All you get is pure water. Much easier and cheaper to convert an ICE vehicle to run on hydrogen and replace the fuel tank with a few scuba diver sized tanks than convert and ICE vehicle to an EV. Way less CO2 to convert an ICE vehicle to run on hydrogen than to build an EV from scratch. I still think building EVs and continuing to develop new battery technology and build charging infrastructure is important. I just think it be easier and faster to convert ICE vehicles to run on hydrogen. Think about it. No catalytic converters. No smog inspections. Yeah, you still need tuneups and oil changes but producing your own hydrogen at home which could be used in an emergency to run electric generators to power your house. Even if the power was out for a few days to weeks you would still be making hydrogen in the mean time. Probably a solar and wind combination for power generation would be best. Yes I know it is more efficient to simply run your house off the solar panels in an emergency but hydrogen can be stored for long periods. A surplus can be built up over a long period of time enough to run the house for days or weeks. There is a video on RUclips with Bob Lazar and his hydrogen car. And yes it is that Bob Lazar if you already know the name but I believe he was really onto something here and that video was made in the early 2000's.
Lucid charges up to 350kw when at low SOC. There are others, too. NACS (tesla port) is now being adopted by many manufacturers. Also, tesla stations are being equipped with magic dock, a built in CCS adapter.
Our Leaf Plus got 78kW from CHAdeMO; it is all about the Amps.
If you have a 400V pack, your peak charge rate could come at, say, 335V in which case a 135kW car could pull over 400A - good luck getting that from a 150kW charger. Cars "on the edge" will do better initially on 350kW units generally assuming battery temp right.
Charging makes fools of us all - there is little that can be generalized.
Great video!
Just would like to comment on what was mentioned at min 17:40
The split charge depends on the host for that specific location and stations, ChargePoint allows the host to decide if they want to split charge or not, that's why some station will deliver full power to 2 cars connected at the same time and some of them don't.
Usually they do this because of saving electricity when the host sets a price per hour or if the station is free.
Tesla
I mean yes, but this in reference to CCS cars.
@@theaverageev
Tesla supercharger network designed by engineers to encourage the adoption of EV’s
CCS charging network designed by the ICE manufactures marketing departments to discourage the adoption of EV’s
I don't truly agree with that at all... Since Europe only uses CCS2 and things are going pretty well over there.
I'm pretty sure at the end of the day Elon just wants to make as much money as he possibly can, if he wanted to encourage EV adoption he would have created a more affordable EV years ago.
I just don't think the CCS operators in the US understand anything about charging hardware and want to put the lowest initial cost hardware vs. equipment that has the lowest cost over time with low and easy maintenance.
Could it be a conspiracy? Maybe, but I doubt all of these companies would be going all in on EVs if they wanted it to fail...
@@theaverageev
Being an electronics engineer, i look at the CCS standard and see something that was designed by a committee incorporating all of the worst ideas. Never expecting it would succeed, expecting it would die with the demise of EV’s. Now they are are stuck with it because Tesla made EV’s work and they are tripping all over them selfs to stay in the game.
@@universeisundernoobligatio3283 Isn't the Tesla charge port design at its maximum capacity of 250 kW? While the CCS design has move overhead so the kW chargers can go even higher than 350 kW? If so I say the engineers at Tesla were a bit shortsighted.
The advantages the Tesla charging network has over others is they are a walled garden. For example all Tesla's have their cars charging ports in the same location. This means Tesla chargers can have as short of charging cable as possible. It also means that Tesla controls all the hardware and software that are in both the cars and super chargers. This insures compatibility and makes it much easier to track down problems.
The other charging networks like EVgo and Electrify America do not have control where the cars charging ports are located. Therefore, they must have longer heavier charging cables. They also have no control over the hardware or software in the cars. They have no idea of the quality of the hardware or how good the software is. Plus these charging networks have to live or die by the amount of revenue they generate. Tesla's charging network doesn't as some portion of the sale of the cars themselves goes into the cost of running Tesla's charging network.
Factor those things in, and that Tesla has a few years head start in designing chargers, no wonder they are in the lead for ease of use and reliability.
Personally I think Bob Lazar's hydrogen burning ICE car system is the way to go. Basically use solar panels on your roof to separate hydrogen from oxygen with electrolysis from regular tap water. Then take the stored hydrogen and pump it into low pressure tanks filled with a form of lithium. The hydrogen bonds with the lithium. Inside the tanks are heating elements. When the lithium is heated it gives off hydrogen which is then burned in your combustion engine. All you get is pure water. Much easier and cheaper to convert an ICE vehicle to run on hydrogen and replace the fuel tank with a few scuba diver sized tanks than convert and ICE vehicle to an EV. Way less CO2 to convert an ICE vehicle to run on hydrogen than to build an EV from scratch.
I still think building EVs and continuing to develop new battery technology and build charging infrastructure is important. I just think it be easier and faster to convert ICE vehicles to run on hydrogen. Think about it. No catalytic converters. No smog inspections. Yeah, you still need tuneups and oil changes but producing your own hydrogen at home which could be used in an emergency to run electric generators to power your house. Even if the power was out for a few days to weeks you would still be making hydrogen in the mean time. Probably a solar and wind combination for power generation would be best. Yes I know it is more efficient to simply run your house off the solar panels in an emergency but hydrogen can be stored for long periods. A surplus can be built up over a long period of time enough to run the house for days or weeks.
There is a video on RUclips with Bob Lazar and his hydrogen car. And yes it is that Bob Lazar if you already know the name but I believe he was really onto something here and that video was made in the early 2000's.