The NACS standard uses CCS communication protocols. So it's as related to European CCS as CCS Type 1 was.
And in Europe Tesla uses CCS Type 2 without any discernible issues. In fact the Tesla/NACS connector would be a significant downgrade for the European market because Europe frequently uses 3-phase AC for charging and Tesla's connector does not have the pins to support that.
Tesla opening their connector last year in the US, branding it as the North America charging standard, and working with other manufacturers to get their support was driven by government intervention, namely the Infrastructure Bill which requires use of a charging connector used by multiple brands to be eligible for federal funding to build chargers.
I think Tesla's connector is great but you're missing a lot of context in your story.
Even calling it "great" is an exaggeration. It can't support anywhere near the power delivery CCS 1 or 2 can, when 800v architecture cars are now commonplace.
It's sheer fantasy calling it better than CCS2. What should have happened is someone should have mandated CCS2 for the US.
It's not that Tesla's connector is better (CCS1 has the same communication/payment stuff Tesla's does), it's that the US used a installation grants and legal settlement to build out a bunch of charging infrastructure with no requirements for availability/reliability. So, shockingly, lots of charging stations went in and nobody gives a shit about maintaining them.
The only problem CCS1 has is the shitty mechanical design that can't handle heavy cables. It's a problem that could be worked around simply by installing a hanging arm that supports the cable or handle. But again, there's no incentive to fix it.
NACS is basically CCS Type 3 at this point. It's a compact connector that is backwards-compatible with (most of) Tesla's existing Supercharger network while being compatible with CCS on a voltage, power, and communications protocol level.
Really the winning feature is less the connector, and more the install base of reliable chargers from Tesla (and the trajectory of their future buildout).
[0]: https://mobile.guideautoweb.com/en/articles/68779/cybertruck...
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawatt_Charging_System
So it's not exactly a government free success story.
The government program exists exactly for that sort of situation, where traditional banks are unwilling to take the risk on an unproven business model.
I have heard second hand that early EV credits helped them get off the ground, but I haven't checked that personally...
Feature, not bug.
That was literally the entire point of the (Bush era) Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing policy: to inexpensively achieve pollution reduction by nudging almost-there clean vehicle technologies "over the line" from non-viable to viable. Why are we suddenly complaining when it did exactly what we intended in the first place?
Inexpensive? Big check (see Clinton's try for a typical case). Accelerated pollution reduction with huge health benefits? Also check.
Where's the problem? I'm not seeing a problem. :-\
When you say "feature, not bug" I'm not sure if you're saying the feature is that traditional banks are bad at evaluating new tech, or if the feature is that Tesla would have not survived without a government loan. Either meaning is hard to connect to the rest of your comment.
I don't know what "Clinton's try" is, or really what fuel efficiency has to do with any of this, to be honest!
Apples and oranges.
Traditional banks have a profit motivation. That's their only job.
Governments have a public health and well-being motivation. They try to achieve that at minimum cost.
It's wrongheaded to view government merely a "broken bank" in this scenario. It's actually that government is judged by totally different metrics, ones which they achieved very successfully.
>I don't know what "Clinton's try" is, or really what fuel efficiency has to do with any of this, to be honest!
Clinton's try for cleaner vehicles, of course. That was the previous attempt before Bush tried his ATVM loan program.
https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1993/09/30/clinton-announce...
It's relevant because it shows the typical-case cost for government achieving (or more accurately, not achieving) their public health goals in this sector. It shows how the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan program was actually a fantastically cheap and successful policy program when compared to its peers.
I agree with 1, but disagree with 2. The loan programs for scaling new massive tech are wonderful and hugely accelerate tech development, IMHO. My only possible complaint is that there are not more failed loans, as I have a bigger risk tolerance.
Government subsidy to stimulate the economy is good.
Tesla on the other hand creates a lot of jobs, invests in US factories, invests into R&D, pays a lot of taxes, and most importantly - delivers on the vision of transition to clean energy.
Without Tesla, America would still be driving even more gas guzzling SUVs and pickups.
So the relationship is mutually beneficial for the company, country, economy, and ecology
in teslas case at least there is clear ecological and experience benefit to consumers to show for all the “subsidies”
You call it subsidy, I call it accelerating EV transition
The charging station funding is to help GM and Ford, they can't figure out how the charging thing works, and they don't want to compete fairly, so my tax dollars and yours, they go to help these legacy carmakers.
But even if it was all pure "get other companies work around regulations", those regulations were created to reduce future costs to people, and the public coffers. By subverting them, in spirit, if not in letter, Telsa made profit not just by selling cars, but also by selling our future, something rarely accounted for.
Also, the problem with the CCS network isn’t the connectors or charging standard.
It’s other stuff, like payment processing and equipment maintenance.
There’s no reason to expect non-tesla NACS stations to be any better than the current CCS stations.
Since all the manufactures want to use superchargers they will be forced to handle payments properly (certificates on the car not a flaky payment terminal on the charger). Should help for third party chargers also.
Likely what will ship in the US is similar to the EU non-Tesla solution, where you just use their app.
BTW, CSS2 supports 3-phase AC charging, which is common in Europe, but not in the US. In this regard NACS would be a downgrade for Europeans.
But I'm not totally convinced Tesla is going over the cable rating. A lot goes into the rating of a particular cable -- everything from conductor material and size to the insulation around the conductors, proximity of conductors, etc. Not to mention the liquid cooling. It's plausible that supercharger cables are rated for more than 600A.
Not to say they are unsafe or anything but it’s not unheard of
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/screen-shot-2022...
Tesla definitely seems to build thinner nicer cables and has reliable chargers and cable cooling, but I'm not sure that's inherent to NACS vs CCS.
No. NACS is CCS chargers with Tesla's plug on the end. The plug will become CCS Type 3.
Older Teslas (2019 and earlier) won't work on NACS chargers without a CCS retrofit:
But if you have an older (pre-2020) Tesla you may not be able to charge at a non-Tesla NACS charger, since those older Teslas do not natively support the CCS communication protocol.
Tesla has promised to offer retrofits for older cars. I went the DIY route for mine (replacing an ECU in the trunk area) for a cost of around $200 in eBay parts.
Longer term Tesla may drop support for it. Might as well use the one protocol everywhere, even when the plugs are different in passenger vehicles and in heavy vehicles:
Charging station funding is a subsidy to legacy carmakers, because they don't to spend a penny building charging infrastructure. Let the govt (Us: taxpayers) pay for it.
Mary, you electrified the entire auto industry, you led, and it matters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UduPjk9gonw). At the time of this announcement, GM has zero EVs being sold.
President Biden shared a video of himself and General Motors CEO Mary Barra while stating that GM and Ford are building more electric vehicles in America than ever before: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/02/02/president-biden-hypes-f...
https://electrek.co/2021/11/18/president-biden-gm-ceo-marry-...
It is obvious that Govt hates Tesla, it is never mentioned. All the subsidies are for Ford and GM.
> Adjusted Gross Income Limitations
> $300,000 for married couples filing jointly
> $225,000 for heads of households
> $150,000 for all other filers
We can bash on him for the mountain of stupid stuff he does, but dancing with the government in highly regulated fields is where he seems to shine.
I think New York gave them a billion subsidy for Buffalo (or maybe spent a billion total on multiple companies?).
The US government funding of Tesla doesn't change the fact that the US government didn't go the EU route of mandating a design early on.
Issuance Date: January 2010, Loan fully repaid in May 2013
Also the government subsided them by effectively paying a portion of every Tesla sale price for a long while.
This is a misunderstanding of the situation. The reality is Europe is a long way ahead of North America on EV infrastructure.
The European charging networks are compatible with all EVs because of standardization. More investment has gone into charger manufacturing and charging network deployment because of standardization.
You've been able to charge other brands on a Tesla chargers for a long time in Europe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y33AArvMUQ
You can charge your EV on a 400 kW charger from Alpitronic and FastNed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4ZWN_-a2j4
Or use a 400 kW charger from Kempower and Shell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR2M5W6saAk
Or charge your Volvo truck on a 350 kW Ionity charger. Why not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UAttTG03WA
Or charge whatever EV on whatever charging network you like. Europe has done EV infrastructure right. And they've got a plan to make it even better:
https://www.fleeteurope.com/en/new-energies/europe/article/f...
In contrast, North America continues to thrash about trying to arrive at a charging standard. It's still going to be years of fiddling around to get anywhere near where Europe already is.
The result North America has ended up with is CCS chargers with Tesla's plug on the end. North America could have and should have got to standardization sooner.
There's also fewer than 30 gas stations per 100k people too. Tesla charges almost as fast, so they don't need as many slow EU chargers.
No. The fastest chargers are CCS chargers. 400 kW CCS chargers are being deployed these days. Tesla doesn't do 400 kW yet on the Tesla plug (or even on CCS type 2).
And Tesla's V4 charger performance with 800 volt cars is very poor at the moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEJ2KtzMeh8
Tesla cars are mid-range in terms of charging performance. Have a look at these charging comparisons:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gxcukAhIAU
But I'll still argue once you have "enough" chargers, it doesn't matter if you have more, and I think there are enough Tesla superchargers as evidenced by them being the number one EV in America.
No network of chargers is going to make my slow-charging, 70-mile-range 2013 Leaf convenient, compared to a 270-mile Tesla which can charge 5-10x as quick.
It's not surprising. There are more EVs in Europe, and the population density is higher.
China is ahead of both.
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/trends-in...
https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/...
There's a big difference between an EV tax credit and getting paid to install charge stations (West Coast Electric Highway) which are often broken, expensive, and slow.
There’s nothing significantly technically superior about Tesla’s connector. Most of what’s superior about owning a Tesla is that the chargers are better maintained and placed in more/better locations. Heck, Electrify America wouldn’t even exist if the VW dieselgate scandal didn’t happen. The problem with CCS isn’t the connector, it’s that most companies who run US charging stations are doing it halfheartedly.
I think it’s also in bad taste to have a main point that European-style regulations are inferior to the American laissez-faire system without very much commitment to the facts surrounding why those regulations are supposedly “bad.” I can’t think of many metrics where the US leads Europe in terms of transportation. It seems to me that EU regulations help do things like keep pedestrian deaths and average MPG/emissions lower than the US.
Heck, the EU has double the EV adoption rate of the US. I have to think that a universal connector helped EU customers shop with confidence.
https://www.statista.com/chart/27431/ev-unit-sales-per-capit...
What we have right now in the United States are two major incompatible systems which is exactly what the EU avoided in the first place. Even the NACS solution isn’t a full solution because non-Tesla vehicles can’t use older generation superchargers.
Charging station availability is a solved issues, now they are at the payment consolidation and subscription. ( that part is still the Wild West, but it exists )
I live in LA, ( not L.A ) I’ve seen charging station cropping up only this years in non-metro area.
Look at a deployment map in rural Spain or France.
The issue was not finding the station but dealing with bad apps to pay for the electricity.
France was the worst for that, there is like 10 competing company. Ok maybe not 10 but I had 5 apps installed for sure.
Or, are you saying that the EU was wrong to mandate a standard? They should have waited to see how things shake out?
Also: as I understand it: NACS is only the physical Tesla connector; the digital elements (protocols etc.) are still CCS. That’s important.
Butttttt... Tesla was the one to drive all that.
Besides is any of this _really_ a problem? Can’t customers buy relatively cheap adapters for NACS chargers if their car isn’t compatible?
As of the last few years, CCS2 had basically already won in the those markets in the same way that NACS has basically won in North America today.
(There is an adjacent issue - in many of these markets three-phase supply in domestic and small business settings is more common than in North America, and the Type 2 AC plug can supply 3 phase).
This statement makes little sense. Europe’s standard is CCS2 which Tesla also uses. It’s quite comparable to NACS in features, even does a bit more.
I would disagree and revert it entirely.
Like usual we have a standard CCS2 that is used successfully over multiple country representing over 500 millions people.
And like usual, USA goes its own way because a private actor pushes its way through lobbying and force it on everybody.
The Tesla connector has nothing Superior. It is thinner, that is its only advantage.
- CCS2 supports three phase power AC 22kw which is very useful in Europe. NACS does not.
- CCS2 cable are bulky because they respect international norms in term of cable safety. NACS does not, cable are undersized on purpose for cost reasons.
- CCS2 is already supporting payment in car. Tesla could simply have adopted that.
- We were already having 3 standard. Chademo for Japan, GBT for China and CCS for the rest of the world.
Congratulations: now we have 4.
Should I quote the appropriate XKCD or should I wait that Liberia and Myanmar uses NACS before doing it ?
CCS1 does not either.
> CCS2 cable are bulky because they respect international norms in term of cable safety. NACS does not, cable are undersized on purpose for cost reasons.
The cable size is a separate issue from the plug, and the main difference is cooling not safety margins.
> CCS2 is already supporting payment in car. Tesla could simply have adopted that.
NACS is using CCS1 signalling.
> We were already having 3 standard. Chademo for Japan, GBT for China and CCS for the rest of the world. Congratulations: now we have 4.
CCS1 is different enough from CCS2 that we already had 4 standards if not 5. Now we have 4.
CCS1 is entirely common with CCS2 for DC charging. The rest could have been unified later.
> main difference is cooling not safety margins.
It is safety margin. The pin are currently undersized for the rated power[1]
> NACS is using CCS1 signalling.
Which is irrelevant. Because both are still fundamental incompatible.
> CCS1 is different enough from CCS2
It is not. The only major difference between both is the presence of the three phase AC. A thing that could have been adapted in future and standardized everywhere world wide.
Now we are in the ridiculous situation that an EV will not even be able to charge itself in a neighboring country just because of lobbying bullshit.
Tesla already ship car with CCS2 by default in Europe. They could have standardize on that even in USA.
They did not for short profits, not for user convenience.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJOfyMCEzjQ&t=1441s&pp=ygUEbmF...
> Which is irrelevant. Because both are still fundamental incompatible.
NACS using CCS1 signalling is significant, because that means existing vehicles will be able to charge from NACS using a passive adapter.
If you require adapters to contain a microcontroller, the number of bugs goes up by an order of magnitude.
True unification would mean changing the plugs on all the cars and be just as disruptive as this is.
> It is safety margin. The pin are currently undersized for the rated power[1]
I don't see anything relevant at that timestamp? But the pins are not the cable and you were talking about the cable.
> Which is irrelevant. Because both are still fundamental incompatible.
It is absolutely relevant to payment methods, because those are software.
> The only major difference between both is the presence of the three phase AC. A thing that could have been adapted in future and standardized everywhere world wide.
It would require reusing some but not all of the DC pins for AC, and I strongly doubt that was ever going to happen given that it hasn't happened so far.
> Tesla already ship car with CCS2 by default in Europe. They could have standardize on that even in USA.
Why would they use CCS2 when everyone else in the country is using CCS1?
Especially because the plug kinda sucks. Compatibility is more important, but since everyone using CCS2 was clearly not going to happen, might as well make a better plug.
> They did not for short profits, not for user convenience.
I don't really care about what their motive was.
“It is much more pleasant to use, that is the only advantage”
> NACS does not, cable are undersized on purpose for cost reasons.
Show us the studies of how unsafe NACS is.
The US went its own way from the beginning with CCS Type 1, because the CCS participants decided that going with the existing local Level 2 AC connector as the basis for CCS was the better option in each market, despite J-1772's worse latching mechanism and pin geometry.
Nothing about the NACS transition was done via political lobbying. If anything the political pressure on Tesla to adopt CCS is what made them cave in and open their connector rather than keeping it proprietary, which led to the other automakers moving away from the politically-favored connector to Tesla's to gain access to their better charging network.
NACS is as similar to CCS2 as CCS1 was. Same protocols and signaling, just a different physical connector. Tesla adopted the CCS standard with their connector instead of continuing to use their proprietary protocols.
Cable size has nothing to do with the NACS spec. Implementers are free to use whatever cables they used previously. You are mixing up Tesla's Supercharger implementation with NACS. Tesla uses similarly thin liquid-cooled cables on their CCS2 chargers in Europe.
EU we’re well intentioned to regulate a standard as it drives efficiencies across infrastructure and provides some stability for manufacturers who might be nervous about entering an unproven market. However, it’s clear that they introduced it prematurely as the technology and requirements were yet to be ironed out.
I would hold that there will be an easy fix to this problem - maybe a drop in replacement to support regional differences, or a power adaptor (similar to the travel adaptor market that supports the current list of 15 odd mains connectors)?
At any rate, if the global market does need to be normalised, the transition period will no doubt be slow and somewhat inconvenient, potentially requiring support for multiple standards at both charger and vehicle.
Edit: reading through the comments here, it seems that there is an sociotechnical angle in terms of ergonomics, as some cables can be bulky or difficult to handle. (Are they any worse than a bowser handle though, and do people actually have an opportunity to do AB testing in showrooms, which are often catered towards a single brand?)
If anything their public charging network is significantly denser and more interoperable than in North America.
The US basically failed to achieve a workable public charging network, which has led to Tesla's buildout lead and the current situation where they are opening their connector to become eligible for future federal funding and to bring the other manufacturers on board with their connector and network.
I don't think the story of this being a clear cut policy win of US vs EU checks out so cleanly as the commenter above is trying to make it.
Why is this a bad thing?