It says it only supports 30 amp draw on a single phase circuit. So it is no better than just using the Bolts onboard charger - which supports a 32 amp draw...
It says it only supports 30 amp draw on a single phase circuit. So it is no better than just using the Bolts onboard charger - which supports a 32 amp draw...10KW CCS Combo Portable Charger
Every Bolt sold with DCFC option should come equipped with its own CCS Portable Charger IMHO!![]()
I suspect these units have a lot more robust build for an external install as well as all manner of bells and whistles not required for a home install. I bet it can be made a lot cheaper for interior residential type install. They will go through the cost reduction cycle that L2 chargers have/are going through.An installation doesn't make sense unless it gets a lot of use. Can you add it to your house, sure. Should you? Not unless you have lots of money you don't need, in which case I'll accept a donation.![]()
Uhm... how much HAVE L2 chargers gone through? On an apples-to-apples basis, I mean. A Clipper Creek LCS-25P has gone from being a $1000 item to being a $500 item in five years, but almost all of that was basically "Oops, we have someone to compete with now" and they were less than $600 by 2013. It's not like 25 feet of flex-tolerant cable has gotten cheaper, and the cost of injection-molding a housing doesn't really change when you're only buying them a container load per year instead of per week. So thinking about how much power-handling materials for 25kw cost may be revealing for just how cheap DCFC actually can get. It might not be as flexible as one might like. Maybe it'll NEVER cost less than $5k just because you just need this much copper and this much steel tubing and you have to have a fireproof housing so it can never be injection-molded plastic and will always be a bent sheet-steel assembly, there always has to be a 100amp safety disconnect and those just cost $50 even when you buy a thousand of them, example etc.I suspect these units have a lot more robust build for an external install as well as all manner of bells and whistles not required for a home install. I bet it can be made a lot cheaper for interior residential type install. They will go through the cost reduction cycle that L2 chargers have/are going through.
6 hours is plenty for "overnight". But most "heavy duty" trucks (in quotes because DOT says they're still light trucks) drive even few miles on average per year than cars do. And we know how little that is because that's what Volts are scoped to handle.Its not just a question of high use. Think about it. A 150kw battery for a heavy duty truck/SUV would take ~24 hours to full charge on present 7.2kw L2 chargers. Even a 25KW DCFC would take ~ 6 hours to full charge.
DC-DC conversion is expensive. Transformers which are cheap, only work with AC current. So 250vdc is harder to work with than 460 3-ph (which is actually over 500v).Did you know San Franciso has a DC power grid?
Yup. You can buy 250 volt DC power right from PG&E. About 1,000 customers do so today.
This is to run 100 year old motors in very old buildings.
With solar panels and BEV's becoming more and more prevalent, there may just be a DC power grid coming to your neighborhood in the next decade or two.
This will make DCFC at home possible at low cost.
My understanding was that streetcars and trolleys ran off 600V DC.What I'm getting at is- for 50 years electric street cars, trollys, and busses were 400 VDC. It used to be a common format.
That's called a New York reload.High odds it would be cheaper to purchase/insure/register TWO Bolt EVs (always keep one you're not using on the charger) than it would be to get one with DCFC...
That's not a good idea, regardless of what Edison thought. MOVING DC over a distance is hard and makes lots of losses. Transforming AC to different voltages and rectifying AC to DC are trivially easy in comparison.I expect (hope) the future to be HV un-regulated DC distribution in the home and grid.
Aren't they working on it, though.That's not a good idea, regardless of what Edison thought. MOVING DC over a distance is hard and makes lots of losses. Transforming AC to different voltages and rectifying AC to DC are trivially easy in comparison.
Don't overlook the 1.2 million Volt 850 mile Pacific Northwest DC intertie that went in service in 1970. The reason it's DC is because at that distance and voltage, the losses are lower than AC!That's not a good idea, regardless of what Edison thought. MOVING DC over a distance is hard and makes lots of losses. Transforming AC to different voltages and rectifying AC to DC are trivially easy in comparison.
Working on it?...It has been a standard in the rest of the world for years...The Swedes have done major projects with it since the 30s...Aren't they working on it, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
Yep...Kennedy finally cleared the path for that project and they decided to use the proven Swedish HVDC technologyDon't overlook the 1.2 million Volt 850 mile Pacific Northwest DC intertie that went in service in 1970. The reason it's DC is because at that distance and voltage, the losses are lower than AC!
I worked on the contracts for that project when I was lawyering for the LADWP!