EV general discussion

Bug One said:
Yes, I did. If it takes longer to change the battery than to fast charge it, and is less convenient to do so (can't go get a coffee while it's going it), how is it better than just charging a battery?
Click to expand...
Nio quotes 3 mins but more likely 5. I think they make a great option for those that can't charge at home.
 
Maybe it was the way Tom's video was edited and what we saw was the same process from multiple angles - not real time. It just seemed to take a long while.

It's an interesting concept and I'm all for innovation and investment in making things better. I hope it works.
 
EddScott said:
Nio quotes 3 mins but more likely 5. I think they make a great option for those that can't charge at home.
Click to expand...

I'd say its a great option if you are always in a hurry, and never take your car anywhere other than home for longer than 30 mins. I am then unsure what people do with a car that isn't away from home parked somewhere for any significant period of time, pop to the local shop for a pint of milk, and drop the kids off at school? But these vehicles are in the price bracket were a car for that sort of use is comical.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
Not sure I agree with that take. Cars spend 90% of their time parked, it’s quicker, easier and cheaper to charge them while they are parked. Moving the chargers to the cars is going to be a better solution than swapping £15k batteries every few days.
Click to expand...

Doesnt really matter what you think, fact is in china cities the Nio model is working for the affluent buyers as they simply have no where to charge them.
 
Now I have the iX I can join Octopus Intelligent (Previously on Octopus Go) and save 2p kWh for an additional 2 hours per night. This should save us about £15-£20 per month, which is my justification to the other half to re-new Sky Sports F1 for another season :D
 
‘Slow’ chargers at sky high prices, what’s not to like? At least for the most part they are reliable so it’s likely to work when you get there.

You also have to be careful with instavolt as some of their units only deliver the headline 120/125kw if you have an 800v car. Us 400V peasants top out at 75kw…
 
Last edited:
Bug One said:
Nice to see the NIMBYs had their say.
Click to expand...
Haha I saw that, BBC balance and all that.

Council planning officers had recommended the plans be rejected.

Permission was previously granted for a waste processing facility at the site which has not been implemented - the planning report expressed concern over the loss of a safeguarded waste site if the EV development went ahead.
Click to expand...

Fair enough… followed by…

The report also included concerns over the design and visual impact on the countryside.
Click to expand...

Seems like a major upgrade compared to the previously agreed waste site to me. It made me chuckle somewhat.

From what I can see is that it’s going to be squeezed into a tiny parcel of land between the A34 and A272 and surround by mature trees etc. you are not going to be able to see it from more than 100m away. The other side of the A34 literally hosts a concrete factory :p
 
Last edited:
VincentHanna said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Electric vehicle charging hub off A34 near Winchester given go-ahead

The so-called super hub will have 44 charging points, including bays for large vans and caravans.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

News like this is always welcomed but why only 150kw stations?

Why not have say, 20% as 350kw chargers?
Click to expand...
Do DNO restrictions start coming in to play with sites like this? I mean with the proposed 44 150kW chargers plus the facilities of the site itself it's already a 7MW site before you start doubling up on the charge rates.

I was at an event a few weeks ago and the guy from UK Power Networks both laughed off the idea that EV charging would ever cause an issue to the grid but also said that parts of the network were hanging on by a thread and cited the example of the impact that a single 50kW charger could have. It was all very contradictory.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
Haha I saw that, BBC balance and all that.

Fair enough… followed by…

Seems like a major upgrade compared to the previously agreed waste site to me. It made me chuckle somewhat.

From what I can see is that it’s going to be squeezed into a tiny parcel of land between the A34 and A272 and surround by mature trees etc. you are not going to be able to see it from more than 100m away. The other side of the A34 literally hosts a concrete factory :p
Click to expand...
I visualise the planning committee is essentially a grumpy old man who's adamant that EVs are never going to catch on, but would quite like a refuse site nearby.
 
VincentHanna said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Electric vehicle charging hub off A34 near Winchester given go-ahead

The so-called super hub will have 44 charging points, including bays for large vans and caravans.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

News like this is always welcomed but why only 150kw stations?

Why not have say, 20% as 350kw chargers?
Click to expand...
150kw is fine imo at least whilst the grid is constrained. better to have 5 150kw points than 2 350kw.

once there is good coverage then imo the icing on the cake is super fast chargers.

but 150kw will charge almost every EV on the road fully in 30mins assuming it delivers 150kw and the car can take it
 
lordrobs said:
Do DNO restrictions start coming in to play with sites like this? I mean with the proposed 44 150kW chargers plus the facilities of the site itself it's already a 7MW site before you start doubling up on the charge rates.

I was at an event a few weeks ago and the guy from UK Power Networks both laughed off the idea that EV charging would ever cause an issue to the grid but also said that parts of the network were hanging on by a thread and cited the example of the impact that a single 50kW charger could have. It was all very contradictory.
Click to expand...
The site will have a total power limit to work within which will be lower than 44 X 150kw because in reality not all chargers will be running full tilt all the time.

For example, a Tesla cabinet can supply 4 chargers with up to 250kw each. However the cabinet itself is usually only rated to circa 550kw. Their USP is that they can link multiple cabinets together which can shunt power between them to push out the full 1mw from a single cabinet to its 4 linked chargers if needed.

A site with 4 cabinets may also have a total site restriction below the 2mw because in reality, cars charge on a curve and their average power demand is considerably lower than the headline number. If 16 fully precondition cars turn up at the same time and all plug in together, they’ll probably only get 125kw-130kw each but like I said, that’s not going to happen in the real world any time soon.

The really power limited sites like South Mimms also has a battery buffer to further eek out the most from the tiny grid connection they have there.

Kempower (used by Osprey in the U.K.) also take a very similar approach and both systems are very good at being able to extract the most from a grid connection.

Also see my point below about whether it’s 150kw at 400V or 800V. If it’s the latter, then the real power demand will be considerably lower.

bigmike20vt said:
150kw is fine imo at least whilst the grid is constrained. better to have 5 150kw points than 2 350kw.

once there is good coverage then imo the icing on the cake is super fast chargers.

but 150kw will charge almost every EV on the road fully in 30mins assuming it delivers 150kw and the car can take it
Click to expand...

Only if they are 150kw at 400V, many of the instavolt sites are not and you only get the headline speed with an 800V car. They often cheap out on the charger/cables which are limited to 175-200A. Don’t forget P = V x A. The marketing team step on and advertise the full 150kw and slap 150kw stickers all over them despite the vast majority of cars only being able to get 75kw.

A decent 350kw charger will limited to 500A (rather than 437.5A) so a 400V car can still pull 200kw.

A tesla charger is limited to 625A to get its 250kw headline speed at 400v.
 
Last edited:
b0rn2sk8 said:
The site will have a total power limit to work within which will be lower than 44 X 150kw because in reality not all chargers will be running full tilt all the time.

For example, a Tesla cabinet can supply 4 chargers with up to 250kw each. However the cabinet itself is usually only rated to circa 550kw. Their USP is that they can link multiple cabinets together which can shunt power between them to push out the full 1mw from a single cabinet to its 4 linked chargers if needed.

A site with 4 cabinets may also have a total site restriction below the 2mw because in reality, cars charge on a curve and their average power demand is considerably lower than the headline number. If 16 fully precondition cars turn up at the same time and all plug in together, they’ll probably only get 125kw-130kw each but like I said, that’s not going to happen in the real world any time soon.

The really power limited sites like South Mimms also has a battery buffer to further eek out the most from the tiny grid connection they have there.

Kempower (used by Osprey in the U.K.) also take a very similar approach and both systems are very good at being able to extract the most from a grid connection.

Also see my point below about whether it’s 150kw at 400V or 800V. If it’s the latter, then the real power demand will be considerably lower.



Only if they are 150kw at 400V, many of the instavolt sites are not and you only get the headline speed with an 800V car. They often cheap out on the charger/cables which are limited to 175-200A. Don’t forget P = V x A. The marketing team step on and advertise the full 150kw and slap 150kw stickers all over them despite the vast majority of cars only being able to get 75kw.

A decent 350kw charger will limited to 500A (rather than 437.5A) so a 400V car can still pull 200kw.

A tesla charger is limited to 625A to get its 250kw headline speed at 400v.
Click to expand...
So essentially - They are better off just putting in 800v chargers everywhere as that is less load on the grid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom