CHAdeMO announces 150 kW version

Mitsubishi i-MiEV charging

Today the CHAdeMO  Association announced that:

“CHAdeMO Association releases 150kW amendment to the current protocol this year.”

“First product installations expected in 2017, fully compatible with CHAdeMO EVs on the road.”

“Higher power (350kW) technical study ongoing in anticipation of market demand.”

 

I don’t know if this is good or bad news. In my opinion CHAdeMO is a doomed standard.

The power increase will not be enough to survive the CCS standard that is backed by most North-American and European carmakers. The CHAdeMO is soon to become one country standard, only used in Japan.

 

Type 2 connector/plug improved by Tesla Motors allows AC and Fast DC charging

 

Even the bulky CCS (Combined Charging System) is far from perfect, it’s a lot bulkier than it should. The improved Type 2/Mennekes standard that Tesla Motors uses in Europe is the best available, that combines AC and DC power in a compact plug/socket. Unfortunately not every time the best standard wins.

 

 

More info:

http://www.chademo.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016-06-01_High_power_CHAdeMO.pdf

This Post Has 7 Comments

  1. I think Tesla will be (or is already) the Apple of the car makers: expensive, but incredibly easy to use. There’s nothing comparable to the supercharger network: recharging for the price of a coffee break. No other car maker offers something like that. From that point of view the Tesla standard has already won, as it is a race with no competitors.

  2. The Tesla design with the “Tesla-modified Type2” depends on reusing pins (for Single-Phase-AC, Three-Phase-AC, for DC). For this to work, software needs to do the necessary switching in the background BEFORE the actual AC or DC power is then sent on the power lines for charging. This is a considerable risk.

    All other standards: ChaDeMo as well as CCS, as well as the Chinese connectors have a different design philosophy: _dedicated_ pins for AC, dedicated pins for DC, dedicated pins for data communications.

    Tesla is convinced enough that their software based approach is good enough and the risk bearable. The other DC standards do depend on some software as well (for CAN messages or PLC messsages), but they _deliberately_ keep the AC and DC high-power lines separated from each other and hardwired to their respective destinations: AC lines to AC onboard charger (plus a contactor), DC lines to the battery (plus a contactor). Accidentally switching high-power DC on the onboard AC charger cannot happen there.

    With their modifications to Type2, Tesla also introduces new bullshit: a BEV/PHEV with Type2 socket can be attached to a European Tesla supercharger, where however it will not work. This can confuse “average”, non-technical people, who rely on an approach “When it fits physically, it will also work”.

    A Type 2 car can however be connected to a Tesla-type _destination_ charger (these are AC only) where it may work or not.

    1. These are all valid points. But it would certainly be possible to design a far more elegant solution than either the CCS or CHAdeMO plugs. 🙂

      I’ve long wondered how difficult it can be to transform the voltage on the car end. Doing so would allow the use of much higher voltage and lower currents provided by the station, something which as far as I can understand would reduce the cost of components as well as making charging cables and plugs thinner, lighter, and cheaper.

      There are probably good reasons why this isn’t being done, but what are they?

      Some potential answers I can imagine, but don’t know if they are real reasons or not:

      1) Arching. This is the least plausible since ANY standard should avoid live power lines when charging is not in progress. Existing solutions are already made so that a secure connection must be established (and the car and charger negotiating parameters) before the power lines are energized.

      2) A transformer would be too bulky and/or expensive to make sense in the car.

      3) A compact and inexpensive transformer is possible, but it’s energy losses would cause heat dissipation challenges.

      Or something completely different??

    1. True, Tesla Motors just made the pins longer to allow more Amps of the superchargers.

      1. Correct, but it doesn’t invalidate the point. It is still true that software would have to correctly configure the car electronics before the pins go live. With dedicated pins it’s possible to design the electronics so there are completely separate hard-wired paths for AC and DC. Whether this is really an issue worth caring about is another matter. I’d say Tesla has shown its not. Even in the worst case scenario the outcome is very unlikely to include any fatalities – a destroyed car and charging station is what you’d likely end up with in the event of catastrophic failure. It seems this would be such a rare incident that it is perfectly acceptable to use the same pins for AC and DC, but it is true that this somewhat compromises the passive safety.

Leave a Reply