Featured Toyota's thoughts on EV adoption

In a world that is non tesla centric , it would appear that Tesla claims to support 2 of the 3 public standards but the adapters are very expensive ( CHAdeMO is $600??? ) or not really available (CCS-1) except in markets where it's mandated by regulators.

Tesla can be made to use the J1772 interface, and I often see the "free" local chargers monopolized by teslas for hours at a time. Bob Wilson would have us believe that even though he thinks that the CHAdeMO is too slow ( 50kW ) the J1772 level 2 EVSE is acceptable when you can't get to a supercharger.

I checked out that link at insideevs and found it had nothing of interest or current if you were not a Tesla fan.

 

Ten years ago, those free chargers were probably monopolized by Leafs. Teslas have been the big sellers since the Model 3 came out. So the odds are an EV at a public charger will be a Tesla. Free ones are just more likely to get used by any EV.

Tesla uses CCS in Europe because they can receive subsidies for chargers with it. That could happen in the US, but they have a larger investment in the Supercharger network here than than in Europe when they made the switch. Pretty sure Tesla's use China's standard there.

These are public chargers, but that doesn't mean they are open standards. CHAdeMO had some high licensing fees in order to use it. Which slowed adoption by non-Japanese brands, and could be why the Tesla adapter was priced so high.

 

Where did Tesla say that getting subsidies was the motivation for changing to CCS2 for model 3 in europe? I thought that Germany mandated shared superchargers back in 2021.

 

CHAdeMO is a japanese standard that has very few vehicles available in the US, with the leaf the only vehicle currently sold supporting it. Nissans Ariya is not using it. Because of politics getting government regulations and subsides for them a lot of 50 KW stations, or ccs combined with chademo were built. The chargepoint L3 charger by me allows ccs @150kw but chademo @50kw. Who cares what they charge. I believe most networks will stop maintaining chademo in the US in 2024.

I can buy ccs adapter easily on-line, I'm not sure why you think they aren't available. Amazon will deliever one to my house for free on prime before 11 am tomorrow for $160. Pre 2022 model S's and X's and early 2018 model 3s need to be modified to use the $200 one. I don't need it, the tesla network is fine for me, but they are available for all new tesla. Maybe its the one for older cars that is not available that you have heard.

If 80% of the bevs in your neighborhood are tesla's and 60% of the bevs charging at J1772 L2 chargers, it probably means that they are using it less than other vehicles. The tesla interface is fully compliant electrically with both L2 standards and the car come with an adapter to put on the plug to put it in the plug-in socket. Why shouldn't tesla drivers be able to use public infrastructure? Should the state governments and US governments discriminate aganist the best selling bev.

BEV vehicle purchasers in the US, Europe, and CHina decided with their pocketbooks that the chademo standard developed for small battery cars in japan is not standard in their countries.

 

Tesla did not flat out say so, but it explains their actions there.

The German law, and ones in other countries there, are based on a 2014 EU directive that called on public chargers with Level 3 or Level 2 DC having to have CCS.
Standardization Of EV Charging In The EU - CleanTechnica
By how that directive defined 'public charger', Superchargers are private. Tesla did not have to go to CCS. They could have stayed with their standard for the Model 3, and avoided the cost of converting Superchargers in place, and the S's and X's already on the road. But laws concerning subsidies for chargers are for public ones, and thus ones with CCS.

Or Tesla saw that CCS was going to be the most common charger in Europe, and did this for the good of the customers.

 

I thought that Bob Wilson knew what he was talking about in this thread when he wrote "Tesla offers a CCS-1 adapter at very low production rates". Guess that was a mistake.

[/QUOTE]

 

Electrify America slaps frequent EV chargers with 15% price hike

Charger rate hike.

 

[/QUOTE]
There are third party adapters available.

Tesla developed one for the cars that couldn't be converted to CCS2 in Europe. Can't say about now, but I remember reports that they weren't in a rush bringing out a CCS1 one here.

It might be lower than the increase in electric rates.

 

Here it is, after I log into the Tesla site
Mike

 

Is that supposed to be relevant - any more than rate hikes for gasoline under varying circumstances? or is it supposed to suggest no one should buy electric, or use Electrify America even if you're low on charge. Has anyone ever NOT been forced to pay hideously high gas prices because they were low on fuel & nothing else was available in some particular area?
.

 

One might as well ask why charging adapters are relevant to the original subject. It's super easy for the government to mandate a single standard for such things.

But since we've moved onto the subject of "forced to pay hideously high" prices in order to travel...

Yes, I once owned a 4x4 F150 pickup that had a small gas tank (12 gallons if memory serves) and about 11 MPG at freeway speeds. It was not suitable for long trips through rural areas, so I never tried to make cross country trips in it.

Now THAT is relevant, since it introduces the idea that maybe we should not build Billions of dollars worth of infrastructure in order to allow us to use BEVs for tasks to which they are not suited.

 

huh? We are not a communist country. Tesla is free to build electricical chargers for their vehicles (tesla and aptera), and nissan (chademo) is allowed to build chargers for their vehicles.

For subsidies, hey I agree, the US and state governments can impose standards that they will pay for infrastructure. Somehow the government decided to subsidize nissan's japanese standard chademo, but it has not subsidized teslas but is the later ccs standard. The tesla network is the most reliable for long range travel so maybe the government shouldn't subsidize it and they don't. Tesla has the most bev vehicles in the US doing long distance travel without the subsidies so they likely don't need it. The ccs network in the US has the most L3 charging locations and new teslas can use it with an adapter. CCS today is not as reliable as the tesla network today but is improving. Because manufacturers do not need to pay tesla or ccs for building the adpters, unlike needing to pay chademo to make theirs, the price is quite reasonable. Tesla may take advantage of state and federal subsidies for ccs in the US by adding ccs plugs to their supercharger network as they have in europe.

I think that is two of you that have moved to that discussion.

I believe the US government is trying to get more competition. Tesla's are suited to long distance travel, and it has built its charging network without the government subsidies. Other vendors would be fully welcome in the system if they pay tesla.

If you want to take power away from OPEC and Russia to manipulate fuel costs, then it is a small price to pay to encourage an alternative source of energy. Today's bolt charges to slow for long trips, but the price of faster charging hardware and batteries have dropped quite a bit. IF there is a better charging network in 5 years and more cars that can take advantage of faster rates, why would you want tesla to keep most of the market. Shouldn't toytota be able to compete on long range bevs without paying a competitor and former partner (Tesla) money for a charging network? That is what this discussion is about.

 

Funny. Like they (US government) have mandated with low voltage charging standards for cameras, phones, laptops, tablets with USB, mini-USB, micro-USB, USB-C, various flip phone chargers, Apple chargers, 6v barrel chargers, etc etc. Oh wait, there are standards, just 10 of them.

Also funny. Since Tesla has sold many hundreds of thousands of cars that can drive long distances and they built the charging network that enables all this and showed that they are suited for this. Are you saying that other car companies can't build cars with the same capability AND/OR that in the near term future this won't be achievable by lots of car brands?

Mike

 

These discussions always devolve into what government should be spending our money on.
Interesting, but fruitless

 

I am pretty sure that is closer to two million EVs. Quarterly production is just under 500,000 worldwide.

Bob Wilson

 

The first paragraph lists a lot of industry standards, not government mandated standards. The US standard for sealed beam headlights was a much better example. That provided consistent lighting that could be replaced by anyone and cost less than $10 each. Or you might remeber the recent EU law mandating the USBC standard for portable rechargeable devices to fight the constant stream of prematurely obsolete chargers going to the land fill.

Appropriate standards can be created and mandated.

The second paragraph misses the point of this thread. From the OP: "Interesting article, considering how to spread the battery resources: predominantly pure EV's vs a mix with more plug-ins and hybrids." That's the point.

There are tasks that are done more efficiently with smaller cars and there are different technologies that use fewer natural resources.

Or look at it this way... If you are OK with the Government banning the sale of new gas powered cars, then you should also be OK with the government putting efficiency standards into play so that there is maximum payback for implementing that mandate. The same when the government spends billions and billions of dollars to make a marginal technology more acceptable despite it's inherent flaws.

 

giving tax incentives to hybrids will just prolong the use of fossil fuels.

20 years is enough to realize that bridge has been crossed

 

The analysis Toyota is leaning on wasn't about using fewer natural resources. It was about getting the most reduction of carbon emissions from cars with a limited battery supply. Taken to its conclusion, it is better to make mild hybrids than full ones with such a limited resource; you could make 3 to 5 for every Prius.

But lithium production has been increasing since 2019, and the car makers are reducing or eliminating the nickel and cobalt.

Toyota isn't being criticized for making hybrids and PHEVs. They are being criticized for not making BEVs. For slow walking out hybrids and efficiency improvements in markets where they can. For having ICE models that are some of the least efficient in their segments while doing so.

There are places where hybrids are the best solution. Unfortunately, they seem to be places that can't afford the hybrid premium.

 

The US reg 108 for sealed beam headlights that kept the US behind europe for a long time, is not a good example of good government regulation. It was fine at the time, but then did not keep up with technology, and held back tech in the US auto industry. I don't really think changing from the lighting connectors for iphones to usb c really makes a difference. Apple already uses usb c on their laptops and tablets.
U.S. Car, Truck, and SUV Headlight Standards to Get Major Update Thanks to Infrastructure Law

There is one standard in the US for L2 public charging. There are 2 real ones for L3 (CCS and Tesla) and one that failed in europe and china and is failing in the US chademo. If tesla's were not compatable with ccs (model S/X just became) then it might be a problem, but all teslas built today in the US can use an adapter to charge on ccs. That means CCS is the US standard for public chargers, but they may have other plugs. Does it really hurt infrastructure to let tesla inovate on their super charger network? They may improve things like adaptive led headlights If the government or other car companies are paying tesla will open up their charging network as they have done in other places. If they are not, why should they give away competitive advantage for free?

 

A plug-in hybrid with EV range equal to the ICE range solves the problem. The operator still has the gasoline 'escape' route but finds they really need to master EV operation to afford and practically use the car. Like 'training wheels' it helps owners learn EV operation without getting stuck.

Bob Wilson