Tesla’s Magic Has Been Reduced to Its Chargers | Hacker News Reader

Tesla’s Magic Has Been Reduced to Its Chargers

theatlantic.com

34 pointsfortran7758 comments

McDonald's or Starbucks will eventually add EV charging to stores nationwide. It'll draw customers, and chargers are so much easier and cheaper than gas pumps.

Supermarkets are already doing that in Europe.

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/YZpcW

> CCS is all but done ... The EV revolution has never hinged more on Tesla than right now.

No. What all of the reporting around this misses is that it will be the CCS protocol. The chargers will be CCS chargers with Tesla's plug. CharIN will probably standardize the Tesla plug eventually.

Europe had the right idea by setting a common plug standard. North America is going to live with its silly multi-plug situation for years yet.

I too watched the video by Alec of technologyconnections.

I actually looked it up after that, and the EU rules on it are that it needs at least a CCS2 connector to be called a car charger. You can still add addition standards. useful for anyone still driving an old Nissan leaf around. (I've seen chademo connectors on charge points myself)

> I too watched the video by Alec of technologyconnections.

I didn't watch a video by Alec of technologyconnections.

> and the EU rules on it are that it needs at least a CCS2 connector

Yes. All brands of charger charging all brands of EV is sensible infrastructure. Europe's done it correctly, North America is still behind.

Except pretty much everyone thinks the CCS2 connector sucks compared to the Tesla connector. The EU ought to mandate the Tesla connector instead. We're still in early days, no need to worry about the tiny number of cars that have already shipped.

Type 2 supports 3-phase AC, something both CCS combo 1 and NACS don’t. That alone would make a transition in Europe a terrible idea, especially since the Tesla connector doesn’t even seem to have a path to 3-phase support.

Yes, Type 2 Combo 2 is a bit bulky, but otherwise it’s perfectly fine.

Three phase is a red herring. No consumer needs to use all three phases to charge their car at home overnight. You’ll wake up to a fully charged car every day on single phase, as the vast majority of us do. Same applies even with the slightly weaker current per phase on continental Europe.

The parts of Europe limited to 25A would still allow for a full overnight charge. The EU voltage is 220V, so 25*220 = 5.5kW. Assuming a 75kWh usable capacity on the Model Y, that means the rare occasions where you’re charging from 0-100% overnight would take 13.6 hours.

The real test of charging hardware is on long journeys where we want to keep the charge time to a minimum, and where Tesla’a NACS 1MW capability is a huge benefit to consumers vs CCS

If you believe the EU’s CCS mandate is a good thing, you’re not paying attention

> No consumer needs to use all three phases to charge their car at home overnight.

The Renault Zoe can do 22 kW AC charging. There are public AC chargers too. They are cheaper to deploy than DC chargers.

> The real test of charging hardware is on long journeys where we want to keep the charge time to a minimum, and where Tesla’a NACS 1MW capability is a huge benefit to consumers vs CCS

So.. you claim no consumer needs "all three phases" for AC charging but now you're insisting consumers need 1 megawatt DC charging on passenger cars, cheerfully ignoring the fact that there is no deployment of 1 megawatt chargers for passenger vehicles and no current passenger car can sustain 1 megawatt charging at any part of its charge curve.

Make up your mind. And while you're making it up, understand that there's nothing preventing a revision to the CCS type 2 Combo plug and cable standards to spec faster charging. The Tesla plug is just about the cable and plug. It's the least interesting part of any charger.

> If you believe the EU’s CCS mandate is a good thing, you’re not paying attention

I'd like to pay attention to your manifesto on how CCS type 2 Combo is a bad thing when the European EV market is bigger than the North American market, when all brands of charger charge all brands of EV in Europe, when CCS type 2 Combo is deployed in many countries outside of Europe, and when 400 kW CCS chargers are being deployed while Tesla's chargers still max out at 250 kW:

https://electrek.co/2023/06/08/evbox-400-kw-ev-charger/

> 400 kW CCS chargers are being deployed while Tesla's chargers still max out at 250 kW

The EVBox literature discusses 400kW per station, but each station has two CCS cables that can share that power. Since the max power delivery of CCS2 is 350kW I suspect EVbox are clickbaiting their headline and the truth is that 400kW is only delivered across both connectors (200kW each), not to a single connector.

Tesla’s V4 Superchargers, on the other hand, can deliver 600kW, and have been rolling out since March. The Tesla NACS hardware can carry 1 megawatt, unlike CCS2’s 350kW.

https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/1269/tesla-v4-supercharger...

> Since the max power delivery of CCS2 is 350kW

It is not.

> Tesla’s V4 Superchargers, on the other hand, can deliver 600kW

Gee golly! Let's see how well that works currently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEJ2KtzMeh8

Hmm. Outperformed by other chargers and even outperformed by a Tesla V2 charger. Pretty lame. Tesla must try harder.

> The Renault Zoe can do 22 kW AC charging. There are public AC chargers too. They are cheaper to deploy than DC chargers

Maybe ten years ago, a 22kW public charger might have seemed reasonable.

Now public chargers operate on DC, at 350kW and beyond, it seems a bit anachronistic to be discussing 22kW AC public charging.

> So.. you claim no consumer needs "all three phases" for AC charging but now you're insisting consumers need 1 megawatt DC charging on passenger cars … make up your mind

I think you perhaps misunderstood the distinction I made between home charging (single phase AC is fine, as we can leave the car overnight) and public charging, which is relied on during long journeys, and for which 100kW+ DC is essential for practicality.

> public chargers operate on DC, at 350kW and beyond

Beyond, you say. What, you mean like 400 kW Alpitronic chargers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbgChK9VDjI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4ZWN_-a2j4

How are 400 kW chargers being deployed to the field?? Is it a conspiracy? Is it those mysterious Them?? Are They doing it?

> understand that there's nothing preventing a revision to the CCS type 2 Combo plug and cable standards to spec faster charging. The Tesla plug is just about the cable and plug. It's the least interesting part of any charger.

Revising the cable and plug IS the complicated bit, actually, when you run a network of EV chargers and you’re the one paying for the hardware and labour costs

The Tesla NACS hardware is megawatt capable. CCS2 hardware is 350kW capable.

Let’s not pretend it would be trivial to upgrade CCS2 to megawatt capability, with so much legacy deployment to upgrade.

> Revising the cable and plug IS the complicated bit, actually,

It is not. CCS has had one revision already. You also seem to be misunderstanding that all that's going to happen is Tesla's plug will be put on CCS chargers, just as Tesla chargers have CCS type 2 combo plugs on them.

Tesla's chargers talk CCS. They are CCS chargers. How do you think they work in Europe? How do you think they're going to charge all cars in North America?

> CCS2 hardware is 350kW capable.

Sure, kid. That's why those 400 kW CCS chargers exist.

> Let’s not pretend it would be trivial to upgrade CCS2 to megawatt capability, with so much legacy deployment to upgrade.

Charger cables get replaced all the time.

> That’s why those 400kW CCS chargers exist

If you think CCS chargers exist that can deliver 400kW to a single connector for a passenger EV (as opposed to 400kW shared across two connectors, or specialist charging hardware for semi-trucks) then by all means, edit the opening paragraph of the CCS Wikipedia page (“350kW” -> “400kW”) and let’s see how your revision goes down with the experts that frequent that page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Charging_System

You're not making any practical sense. Why would I edit Wikipedia to say 400 kW when 700 kW CCS chargers exist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm5shAEITA0

You've been fooled by Tesla's advertising. It's better to apply some critical thinking to advertising rather than just credulously believing it.

Even better. Edit that page to say that the max power of CCS is now 700kW.

Let’s see if that stands up to scrutiny from other editors.

Let me know when you’ve done it.

So.. instead of the practical realities in the field, your final "proof" is what users of Wikipedia think? Truly bizarre.

It's sad how effectively Tesla's advertising has warped your perspective.

So despite your confident claims about CCS being rated to 700kW, you choose for Wikipedia to state it as 350kW.

I wonder why that is? Do you need me to explain how to edit Wikipedia? I’m happy to help.

—-

Interesting that you keep bringing up Tesla.

Is Tesla / Musk a sore point for you? Perhaps you were sold a non-Tesla EV (you mentioned the Renault Zoe) and the salesman made false claims about access to Tesla’s best-in-class charging network? I understand why that might leave you feeling bitter. The Zoe is cute, by the way, a nice simple starter EV for buzzing around town on a budget.

——

I see from your response to this that you’re still unwilling to edit Wikipedia 350kW -> 700kW for some reason. You don’t seem to mind the article’s vague promise of “higher rates in the future” despite you claiming that 700kW exists in the here and now. How peculiar.

The offer of guidance on editing Wikipedia still stands.

> you choose for Wikipedia to state it as 350kW.

The precise sentence from Wikipedia is, "It can use Combo 1 (CCS1) or Combo 2 (CCS2) connectors to provide power at up to 350 kilowatts (kW) (max 500 amps),[1] although higher values are coming" which is true. Higher power levels are here. 700 kW CCS chargers are a practical reality.

Did you watch the video or not? I'm thinking not.

> Interesting that you keep bringing up Tesla.

How is it interesting? We are precisely talking about Tesla's plug versus the CCS type 2 Combo plug. You are falsely claiming that the Tesla plug can do something the CCS plug cannot. What else am I going to bring up?

I find it remarkable that when the practical realities are put right in front of your face you still deny them. That's some highly effective brainwashing. That's what Tesla has done to you.

Wikipedia still states the max power of CCS is 350kW. Why haven't you updated it, if what you say is true?

> I'd like to pay attention to your manifesto on how CCS type 2 Combo is a bad thing when the European EV market is bigger than the North American market, when all brands of charger charge all brands of EV in Europe, when CCS type 2 Combo is deployed in many countries outside of Europe

Incumbency doesn’t imply a superior standard.

CCS2 is winning in Europe not because it’s better than NACS, but because a technocratic EU committee decided it would win, many years ago.

> Incumbency doesn’t imply a superior standard.

Superior results imply a superior standard. All brands of charger charging all brands of EV is a superior result. Anything less is substandard, backward, and primitive.

I think you confuse winning on merit with winning by regulatory mandate.

I prefer the former, you prefer the latter. Let’s agree to disagree. We clearly don’t have much intellectual common ground here.

> We clearly don’t have much intellectual common ground here.

There's nothing at all intellectual about your blanket denial of practical realities. You've been brainwashed. It's sad to see.

EVBox and Alpitronic have deployed 400 kW chargers. Repsol deployed 400 kW chargers 4 years ago. Nxu has a 700 kW CCS charger.

Look, here are all the links again. Have a read and a watch and try to break free of your brainwashing:

https://insideevs.com/news/375020/repsol-most-powerful-charg...

https://electrek.co/2023/06/08/evbox-400-kw-ev-charger/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbgChK9VDjI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4ZWN_-a2j4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEJ2KtzMeh8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm5shAEITA0

3-phase is not really for consumers. It’s for commercial and fleet operations where a 3-phase AC charging setup can deliver far more power with much lower amperage circuits. When installing chargers for an entire 15+ storey apartment building or making sure a fleet of 10+ vehicles can all charge overnight 3-phase suddenly makes life a lot easier and can reduce the cost of install significantly.

> Except pretty much everyone thinks the CCS2 connector sucks

They don't, it doesn't, it works, and it's deployed internationally on all cars and chargers.

No point making up a false narrative.

Hmmm, I wonder when power companies will make a move. Why go through a middleman like Tesla when you can get all the profit?

In Germany all major power providers have their own charging networks and they all suck and are very expensive.

You cannot roll up to a charger and pay, no, you need an app and an account for each charging network. Then there are multiple kinds of subscriptions where each kWh costs more or less depending on the base fee and much more.

All those charging network owners threw a fit when German legislation started requiring new stations to be equipped with a card reader to accept digital payments without apps from July 2023 onwards by the way...

The problem is that the card reader will be by far the most expensive part of the charger, plus the service fees for using the payment network.

I agree that having 5 apps and needing a phone is bad, but the cost of the card reader will be passed onto you and less chargers will be available.

An NFC-based solution which worked with a single card or a phone would have been better.

Can you elaborate on that? I can get a credit card reader for almost nothing that connects to my cell phone in the us from stripe or whatever for a business. In this case, for outdoor equipment and open to the public, it has to be hardened, has to connect to a network, probably has to have a small display or at least buttons. So should be under $1,000 maybe. But installing the high capacity electric line probably costs way more than 20k, installing conduit, buying the chargers costs way more. Service fees are handled by slightly increasing the cost, which every business in the world that takes credit cards somehow withstands.

The same day oil companies will go through the middle man and own the gas stations?

The oil companies certainly do own the gas stations. Do you think BP, Shell, Exxon, Mobile, Phillips 66,, Marathon and Chevron are named after giant oil companies for no reason?

AFAIK those are generally franchises, like say a Subway or a McDonald’s.

That seems like a distinction that doesn't matter to this conversation. The point is that it's done through the oil company. Either way, you expect to fill up at a PG&E station in 10 years, not a Tesla one.

I think that while they can be owned by the oil companies, you can also enter into a licensing contract with said oil company to use their likeness.

There’s a subtle difference.

Oil companies are not involved in direct last mile delivery. Electricity providers are already doing that.

That's a good point. But that means they do already sell people the electricity for their ev if they charge at home, which is probably most of the ev charging. So the question is would they bother invest in building charging stations to get the whole market.

> So the question is would they bother invest in building charging stations to get the whole market.

I think that would depend on how the market evolves. Currently I believe they are content, as you say, just delivering to the homes and business (offices which provide charging to employees). If this market starts leaning towards solar and the charging station market becomes huge, I think it’d be trivial for these utilities to set up last mile charging stations, or perhaps create a subsidiary to do just that.

There is a lot of regulation around this sort of thing already, for example some power companies sell AC servicing (motivated by-wanting to prevent under maintained units from causing demand spikes, which would in turn require new plant construction) and this requires the creation of a new independent subsidiary that is not allowed to share data or other resources with the parent company.

Killer feature is when you can use solar surplus to charge everywhere, esp in places where residential solar/wind is unfeasable

In a gold rush, sell the tools. Looks like Musk is priming himself to do similar with electric car charging.....

This is what their stated mission has been - to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. They’ve been selling cars for a long time already.

If that were truly the case they’d have started with plug-in hybrids.

The one bit of credit I will give Tesla is proving to the large manufacturers that pure EVs can have mass market appeal.

I think for the stated goal, skipping right past hybrids was a great idea.

I strongly disagree that skipping hybrids was a great idea.

IMO a 40-50 mile PHEV would have effectively electrified 60-80% of car trips by 2020 if the US had mandated their use in all cars back in 2002 (about 5 years after the Prius and Insight were introduced).

I think carbon emissions could have been greatly reduced by 2015 with good foresight. Of course we're talking the Bush Administration in 2005, so that wasn't happening, and Obama didn't have the political firepower either.

Really within a year of the viability of the Prius Congress should have passed CAFE laws that basically forced hybrids in every consumer car segment as soon as possible, and then followed up 5 years later with a PHEV requirement, and then 5 years later with a 40 mile all electric requirement.

Why is that such an amazing idea? Simple, it maximizes the impact of the battery manufacturing supply. Instead of a Tesla Model S with a 350 mile range toting around 85% of its batteries daily for no reason, all of those batteries would have gone to actual daily use.

But now the industry is not going to do that, everyone is replatforming or replatformed for pure EVs.

Sure, the government should have done a lot of things.

But we weren't talking about government, we were talking about Tesla. I don't think Tesla releasing a plugin hybrid instead of the Model S would have led to everyone having a hybrid today, much in the same way everyone doesn't have a BEV today.

I think ironically PHEVs (or more realistically, range extended BEVs) will actually gain popularity as the proportion of people with BEVs begins to cross the 50% threshold. For them to really make sense to sell there needs to be a big enough market that making the low power engines required becomes dirt cheap per unit. As it stands the difference in cost between a pure BEV and a PHEV is so low that paying that little bit more for the BEV makes sense basically every time.

The problem for PHEVs is that as BEVs cross 50%, there will be more electric vehicle infrastructure, and the hybrid becomes moot. Either you have access to cheap (overnight, at-home) charging, or you don't.

The hybrid extends the range of batteries, but the use case is small and becomes smaller. The vast majority of people will plug in overnight. Very long trips use quick chargers. The hybrid case is reduced to places where you don't think you can plug in (which will be few when BEVs become the majority).

There are corner cases: "Yes, I like to haul my enormous boat to the lake hundreds of miles every single week and so the quick chargers still require hours". But in the end I think that such corner cases will be reduced to "Fine, go buy an old ICE car, and plan your trip around the diminishing number of gas stations".

Yeah, which is why now the play is full EV.

But 10-15 years ago there is a generation or two of ICE still to go. Making all those PHEVs would have been a massive improvement to emissions.

Maybe trains?

Musk hates trains.

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-awkward-dislike-mass-t...

Both hyperloop and underground tesla tunnels were both just a means to an end to stop California/US from focusing more on trains/public transport.

Because they considered anything short of pure electric was net negative emission wise: [0]

The CO2 content of any given source fuel is well understood. Natural gas is 14.4 grams of carbon per mega-joule and oil is 19.9 grams of carbon per mega-joule. Applying those carbon content levels to the vehicle efficiencies, including as a reference the Honda combusted natural gas and Honda fuel cell natural gas vehicles, the hands down winner is pure electric

[0] - https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-j...

And? A plug-in hybrid runs from electric the vast majority of the time.

They succeeded, I'm not about to argue with Elon Musk's business muscle or American tech muscle lol. You can if you wanna! But he succeeded in a way that Chevy failed when they had a huge head start with the ev1. With less money. That's amazing and maybe plug-in hybrids matter or maybe they don't. He kept stating even in really early interviews what the goal is and they made it - massive charging network and now everyone will have standard connectors to it. And most of it is solar powered.

Come on man.

bad take. hybrids make a lot of sense but they are way harder for a new company to design.

Reminds me of AWS. Take a key component your business, open it up to outsiders, and turn it into a profit center. Tesla has clearly been working towards this for years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com