Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Standard For Electric Car Charging Announced

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the which-automakers-will-promptly-ignore dept.

Transportation 212

SchrodingerZ writes "The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), an international syndicate, has unveiled what is to become the standard for electric car charging. In today's market there are hundreds of different methods and plugs to charge a variety of different cars, now a single multi use plug is announced as the world standard. Called the J1772 , it 'has two charging plugs incorporated into a single design and is said to reduce charging times from as long as eight hours to as little as 20 minutes.' The cumulative work of over 190 'global experts,' the plug can cater to both AC and DC currents for charging. The plug also sets a new standard on safety regulations, including 'its ability to be safely used in all weather conditions, and the fact that its connections are never live unless commanded by the car during charging.' The J1772 beat out its Japanese competitor the CHAdeMO, used as an option on the Nissan Leaf."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Another one? (4, Informative)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#41706437)

We went through all this in the 90's. Even had "standard" charges at the public transit stations. Ah well, perhaps it'll stick this time.

Re:Another one? (1, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#41706481)

Yeah, I'm wondering that too. As of a few months ago my city put up electric charging stations all around the downtown area. If there wasn't a standard, then why did the stations lack any model information.

Incorporates previous designs (5, Informative)

dlenmn (145080) | about 2 years ago | (#41706925)

From TFA:

[The New standard is] based on the 2009 J1772, which had only an AC charging plug. The current version includes a DC plug underneath the AC plug, which means that not only are both options available, but cars with the older J1772 couplings, such as the 2012 Nissan Leaf and 2013 Chevrolet Volt, can still use the new plug.

Re:Incorporates previous designs (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#41707151)

ah, so its a usb3 plug in disguise, then?

(notfullyserious.jpg)

Re:Incorporates previous designs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707397)

Actually, the larger SAE plug will NOT fit in some cars with the conventional J1772 connector due to a lack of clearance around the socket. So, it is not correct to say that it is entirely backward compatible...

Re:Incorporates previous designs (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 years ago | (#41707693)

Actually, the larger SAE plug will NOT fit in some cars with the conventional J1772 connector due to a lack of clearance around the socket. So, it is not correct to say that it is entirely backward compatible...

I'm sure someone will come up with and sell and adapter as needed.

We have them for cell phones as they change....why not for charging cars too?

Wait...maybe I should patent that.....

Re:Another one? (4, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#41706951)

Yeah, I'm wondering that too. As of a few months ago my city put up electric charging stations all around the downtown area. If there wasn't a standard, then why did the stations lack any model information.

Technically, the standard for those charging stations would be the traditional 3 pin 15 amp socket that you plug anything into. Because every electric car can plug into a atandard 110V 15A socket (at least in North America).

Problem is, the end that goes into the car isn't standard, so those charging stations rely on the user to haul around the charging cable wherever they went. And the car end is important because it has to handle charging from a 110V15A socket, but the user at home may have bought a fast charger using 220V15A or higher. And perhaps you want DC if you're wanting alternative energy so instead of wasting energy inverting and then rectifying power, you can plug straight into your battery bank.

So this stadnard means charging stations can continue to offer standard 110V sockets (with owner-provided power cord) and provide the connector at the end of a cord (like gas station nozzles) so the owner doesn't need their car cable and the car can charge faster if it needs to.

Re:Another one? (0)

tgd (2822) | about 2 years ago | (#41707127)

Yeah, I'm wondering that too. As of a few months ago my city put up electric charging stations all around the downtown area. If there wasn't a standard, then why did the stations lack any model information.

Because, like every other damn story on here, Slashdot's editors are a bunch of drooling mouth breathers and don't edit anything.

Virtually every EV already uses the J1772 standard. In fact, I think Tesla is the only car that doesn't, but IIRC it comes with an adapter.

Hundreds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706659)

In today's market there are hundreds of different methods and plugs to charge a variety of different cars

[citation needed]

Re:Another one? (5, Informative)

Art Challenor (2621733) | about 2 years ago | (#41706861)

The summary (as usual) is a little misleading. The J1772 standard has been around for a while and is widely adopted. As I understand it, the "new" part to this is the addition of an optional, additional, connector that allows DC charging.

High power AC/DC converters are expensive and generate heat, so require costly in-vehicle infrastructure. If the conversion is moved the charging station the on-board electronics are simplified.

So you can have a relatively low-cost, slow charger at home. Charging stations can provide a fast DC charge. The initial cost of the charging station would increase, but the cost per vehicle would be much lower. So if 10 people per day spend 30 minutes charging you can amortize the higher cost of 10 vehicles.

Re:Another one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707549)

What all is required to convert ac to dc? I thought all you needed was 4 resistors in the right arrangement.

Re:Another one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707699)

4 diode's, and its pretty ineffecient/dirty way of doing it.

Re:Another one? (2)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41706953)

Just today I went to the business event [wirtschaft...-baden.com] held in Baden Baden, dedicated to investing in various alternative energy solutions, including the new electrical concept cars presented by BMW mostly (taking off to the related Gala event in a few minutes). It looks like they are aiming at the Asian market with the new electric concepts, they know they have to overcome Toyota Prius and other similar cars, they are hoping for Chinese investment to do this (funny enough, the Chinese investor guy didn't show up for the 500 people event that was basically staged for him). I think you are right, whatever this story calls a 'standard' is irrelevant, there is not even an agreement on what the tech will be. Will it be a hybrid, hydrogen or electrical or something else. They presented all of these possibilities, probably mostly aiming at hybrids, not pure electrical models.

J1772 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706443)

Seriously... they called it the "JIZZZ"?

Re:J1772 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706711)

Don't put your tongue on it.

Re:J1772 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706785)

I don't think there's a JIZZZ pump in the world that would enable me to fill an entire car in just 20 minutes. 8 hours might be enough time, but I'd almost certainly die first from a combination of dehydration and chafing.

Standards are for Communists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706469)

This is your standard troll comment, written in non standard standards.

Hundreds? (5, Insightful)

marcroelofs (797176) | about 2 years ago | (#41706489)

How can there be 100's of different plug varieties when there areonly 10's of different elctric cars yet. Also, how can plug-design speed up charge time 24 times?

Re:Hundreds? (3, Informative)

gfilion (80497) | about 2 years ago | (#41706537)

Also, how can plug-design speed up charge time 24 times?

More voltage, more amps?

Re:Hundreds? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#41707353)

Also, how can plug-design speed up charge time 24 times?

More voltage, more amps?

...and the modification to the standard: a switch from AC to DC, meaning less energy lost to heat in the higher-speed transfers.

Re:Hundreds? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#41707369)

Also, how can plug-design speed up charge time 24 times?

More voltage, more amps?

...and the modification to the standard: a switch from AC to DC, meaning less energy lost to heat in the higher-speed transfers.

doh! s/a switch from AC to/an addition of/

Re:Hundreds? (4, Interesting)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 2 years ago | (#41707603)

You'd need a *lot* more volts and amps. I have a van, which has an 80 litre tank that takes roughly two minutes to fill. On that 80 litres I get around 950km range, or to translate into American units around 30mpg. Now, I'm hauling around roughly 800kWh of energy in that tank. Let's assume that the vehicle actually turns only 30% of that into motion - that gives us 320kWh worth of actual movement.

So if we assume that an electric car is 100% efficient, it would need 320kWh of batteries to travel 950km - and these would take a correspondingly large amount of power to charge. If you charge for ten hours, you'd need to be feeding in 32kW continuously. If you wanted to recharge as quickly as filling the diesel tank, you'd need 576kW available.

I for one do not welcome our .5MW charging connector overlords.

more like 20-25%. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707737)

And if you're american, less than that for your petrol engine.

Also remember that you have to brake your car every now and then. Your petrol car doesn't reverse the combustion and turn that motion into petrol for your car, but the electric one will.

Your electric car needs about 0.2-0.3kwh per km. That means 950/5=190kwh.

And why do you want to fill as fast as a car from empty to full anyway? How often do you go more than 1000km in one go???

Re:Hundreds? (3, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41706545)

Also, how can plug-design speed up charge time 24 times?

The standard redefines time to be 24x of SI time.

Re:Hundreds? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706567)

http://xkcd.com/927/

Re:Hundreds? (2)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 2 years ago | (#41706991)

How sad is it, that I know exactly which comic that is without having to goto* the link.

*Of course, I would never goto the link, as gotos are considered harmful.

Re:Hundreds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707319)

If you've played Knights of the Old republic 2, you'd know that GOTOs are downright genocidal if it is a faster way to reach their goal.

Re:Hundreds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706579)

I imagine the plug looks like this [bigrigtravels.com]

Re:Hundreds? (1)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | about 2 years ago | (#41706625)

The speedup comes from the fact that the interface allows for higher amount of eletricity to flow into the cars batteries.

Cable and contacts need to be able to handle the higher voltage and ampare needed to fill the cars batteries with energy faster. The bigger the cable the more electrons can flow through it.

Re:Hundreds? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#41706717)

Wondered that myself. Even if you figure in all the little utility cars and carts out there... hundreds?

Re:Hundreds? (2)

MeepMeep (111932) | about 2 years ago | (#41706725)

How can there be 100's of different plug varieties when there areonly 10's of different elctric cars yet.

I think the 'hundreds of plug varieties' comment is hyperbole

Also, how can plug-design speed up charge time 24 times?

The plug design change added more pins (the DC ones) and those can be used to deliver more amps quickly

Re:Hundreds? (2)

necro81 (917438) | about 2 years ago | (#41706733)

There aren't hundreds of different plug varieties. Have a closer look at the summary:

there are hundreds of different methods and plugs to charge a variety of different cars

You can get to hundreds if you multiply out the various permutations of physical connector, charge input voltage, charge input phases, charge output voltage, charge output AC or DC, charge rate, charger-car communications, and who controls the charging behavior. As you point out: because there are only tens of different electric car models out there, the number of actual charging system embodiments out of the total potential space is probably a much smaller number.

Re:Hundreds? (2)

necro81 (917438) | about 2 years ago | (#41706813)

how can plug-design speed up charge time 24 times

Changing the plug design permits more amps at higher voltage. Their point of comparison is charging a vehicle overnight through a typical North American residential electrical circuit (120 Vac, single phase, 20 A per circuit). If one were to try pumping 100 amps at 500 Vdc through such a 3-prong 120-V plug or cable, it would simply melt.

Of course, the charger being able to supply such high power to a car is predicated on the charger having that kind of power available to it. You won't get charge times on the order of one hour from a typical residential installation - not unless you have your own substation.

Re:Hundreds? (3, Informative)

gr8_phk (621180) | about 2 years ago | (#41706965)

Of course, the charger being able to supply such high power to a car is predicated on the charger having that kind of power available to it. You won't get charge times on the order of one hour from a typical residential installation - not unless you have your own substation.

One could have a battery powered charger. It could charge at 6kW for much of the day and then dump that at a much higher rate into the car battery. It's not optimal, but it could provide fast charging of the car without increasing the peak power usage of the home.

Re:Hundreds? (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41707021)

I have 300 amp service at home. Figure a typical commercial car charging circuit is 200Amps at 240 volts that is 200AH or 48,000Watts charging per hour. the nissan Leaf is a 24Kwh battery pack. BUT you never discharge past 50% so it's in reality a 12KWh battery pack.

So their proposed 200Amp charging station will charge a Nissan Leaf in 15 minutes. the more typical 100Amp charger will charge it in 30 minutes.

no private substation needed. And its currently available.

Although most home installs are the smaller 40 Amp charging station which charge the car from empty in 1 hour 30 minutes. Very few people go for the 100 amp charging station as it requires being raped by a commercial electrician pretty hard. While the 40 amp unit can be installed by a residential electrician for less than $5500.00

Re:Hundreds? (1)

Ron Bennett (14590) | about 2 years ago | (#41707777)

300 amps? Are you going by what your circuit breaker panel says? Most drops are 60 - 100 amps. And even if the drop wire can handle that power, the local transformer (on the pole or the green box on the ground) likely can't.

Furthermore, the utility, much like ISPs, over-provision - the average household is each expected to draw around 3 or so KW peak, not 20+ KW. Everyone using fast-chargers at home isn't feasible, and hence the push of slow-chargers, which are cheap, and the current grid can handle just fine.

Re:Hundreds? (1)

metrometro (1092237) | about 2 years ago | (#41706913)

By allowing the car to switch between DC or AC current as the situation requires. DC requires more hardware on the charging unit, but allows much faster charging because the car doesn't have to manage heat from conversion.

Re:Hundreds? (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about 2 years ago | (#41707101)

.By allowing the car to switch between DC or AC current as the situation requires. DC requires more hardware on the charging unit, but allows much faster charging because the car doesn't have to manage heat from conversion

Most car chargers convert the AC to higher voltage DC and then use high frequency AC through a small transformer and then back to the DC level of the battery. Even with all those conversions this can be done end-to-end at greater than 92 percent efficiency. The challenge is that there is a desire (requirement?) to have isolation between the car battery and the grid and transformers that can transfer that kind of power at 60Hz would be very large and heavy. You also have to contend with the voltage change of the battery as it charges, so no fixed ratios.

Power conversion is an interesting area with lots of active development.

The great thing about standards (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706513)

The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.

Re:The great thing about standards (4, Funny)

Twinbee (767046) | about 2 years ago | (#41707617)

Exactly, I've been campaigning for cars to be charged via USB so I can charge my car from my laptop. They're so ubiquitous now that it's a waste to have yet another standard. BUT NO, now we get J1772 on top of USB, firewire, HDMI, and the thousand of other standards out there.

Corollary (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#41707807)

The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.

The real thing about standards is that the biggest corporate swinging dicks dominate the committees and have full control.

micro usb! (2)

bob zee (701656) | about 2 years ago | (#41706515)

too bad they couldn't make the microUSB work. :~)>

Europe (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706543)

In Europe we want micro-usb.

Re:Europe (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707081)

Please wait 6-10 weeks for charging.

Re:Europe (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 2 years ago | (#41707443)

fine, use macro-USB instead.

This is the SAE's fault (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706555)

They should have had the DC standard finished a decade ago so it was ready to go, at least in draft form, for the electric and hybrid cars that have come to market over the past few years.

CHAdeMO was an entirely reasonable bit of hole-plugging - the SAE hadn't done its job, so the Japanese manufacturers furnished themselves with a suitable substitute. Fair enough.

(I also predict that this topic will attract a heap of replies saying "the SAE plug is ugly", as if anyone should give a shit about what the plug looks like.)

Re:This is the SAE's fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706631)

They should have had the DC standard finished a decade ago so it was ready to go, at least in draft form, for the electric and hybrid cars that have come to market over the past few years.

CHAdeMO was an entirely reasonable bit of hole-plugging - the SAE hadn't done its job, so the Japanese manufacturers furnished themselves with a suitable substitute. Fair enough.

(I also predict that this topic will attract a heap of replies saying "the SAE plug is ugly", as if anyone should give a shit about what the plug looks like.)

It's not like the SAE hasn't been trying:

Current & Historical versions of this standard
Standard Date published Status
J1772_201210 2012-10-15 Revised
J1772_201202 2012-02-21 Revised
J1772_201001 2010-01-15 Revised
J1772_200111 2001-11-27 Revised

Society of Automotive Engineers hosts standard-writing committees, much like other professional societies.

Re:This is the SAE's fault (1)

robot256 (1635039) | about 2 years ago | (#41707077)

You say that, but in reality none of those previous revisions even attempted to provide a DC-fast-charging standard. That was the hole Chademo was trying to fill, and that's why it is kind of irritating that SAE even bothered to release the standard after waiting this long.

Re:This is the SAE's fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706879)

Not ugly, just sucks compared to CHAdeMO. CHAdeMO appears to have an easy to use lever system to disengage the plug. J1772 has a button on the top. That might be great where the weather is nice, but in cold parts of the world, this will freeze and if it doesn't, will be hard to use with gloves.

Dutch (0)

AshFan (879808) | about 2 years ago | (#41706641)

I wonder why they don't just install power generating windmills on the roof of these cars.

Re:Dutch (1, Funny)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41706745)

It's in the works, but the engineers responsible for it are busy making airplane windows openable.

Re:Dutch (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41706849)

Becasue it would produce an abundance of Tulips.

Re:Dutch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707029)

In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

Can the car control the cable if the battery dies? (2)

chitselb (25940) | about 2 years ago | (#41706653)

'its ability to be safely used in all weather conditions, and the fact that its connections are never live unless commanded by the car during charging.'

Re:Can the car control the cable if the battery di (4, Interesting)

Smidge204 (605297) | about 2 years ago | (#41706751)

Electric cars have at least two batteries: One main battery for motion (the traction battery) which is the one everyone focuses on, and a traditional 12-volt lead-acid car battery that operates all the normal 12-volt lights and accessories that modern cars are fitted with. If the main traction battery is completely dead - which would be an extreme failure case but let's say it did - the charger controls are all fed from the 12V system so at worst you'd need a quick zap from a set of jumper cables to get things going.
=Smidge=

Re:Can the car control the cable if the battery di (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41706883)

None that I have ever worked on did that. they just has a 12V power supply that ran off the main 48V or 96V battery bank.

Re:Can the car control the cable if the battery di (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707015)

At 48 or 96V those aren't real cars anyway. The term you're looking for is Kart...go-Kart, Golf-Kart, etc.

Re:Can the car control the cable if the battery di (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707119)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcRs-4QRaVc [youtube.com]

yup not a real car.... get a load of the lifting forks on that thing...

in reality MOST electric cars are in the 96 volt range... GM and Nissan are new to the game that others have been playing for decades.

Re:Can the car control the cable if the battery di (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | about 2 years ago | (#41707267)

You presumably only work on conversions or kit cars, then? I know of no commercially produced EVs that use less than 300V nominal pack voltage.

=Smidge=

Re:Can the car control the cable if the battery di (4, Insightful)

Vicarius (1093097) | about 2 years ago | (#41706941)

For some cars, like Tesla [jalopnik.com] , if your main battery dies (i.e. drains itself), you will have to buy a new $40,000 battery [autoblog.com] that is not covered by warranty.

Re:Can the car control the cable if the battery di (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707773)

Is that because when the battery is drained completely, it is unable to power the electronics needed to charge it... or because when stored in a drained state for a while it messes with the chemistry of the batteries, and the thing is broken due to what is poor maintenance?

This just in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706679)

The Apple has made a car plug that they think is better and is of their own proprietary design. People love it because they can plug it in wrong - even if they hold it wrong. In addition, it will be obsolete in 3 years and people will mimndlessly upgrade at a cost of $10000

Re:This just in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706689)

I should have said unless they hold it wrong

Chad who? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#41706683)

The J1772 beat out its Japanese competitor the CHAdeMO, used as an option on the Nissan Leaf."

I heard the fact that is was also a wise cracking robot with an obsessive fetish for "80081E5!" didn't help matters.

mod d03n (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706687)

HAND...DON'uT

Three-phase (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 2 years ago | (#41706713)

Any particular reason why they didn't support three-phase power supply?

Maximum current of 6.6kW seems a bit on the low side...

Re:Three-phase (1)

robot256 (1635039) | about 2 years ago | (#41707005)

The on-board charger is two-phase AC because that is what most of the electrical outlets and systems in this country use, and it is sufficient for normal charging, so it is worth having all the time. The fast-charging mode is DC because it basically connects directly to the ~400 volt battery instead of going through power converters in the car. It would be impractical to put power converters that large in the car itself (considering that many units are the size of an entire car), so they put the (super-expensive) converters at fixed locations and just hook the DC lines to the battery to charge. The three-phase commercial power drop then feeds the stationary converter.

Not sure where you are looking to find the 6.6kW number, but it is approximately the power delivered by a 240VAC/40A service and will charge the LEAF's 24kW battery in under 5 hours (but only on the 2013 model, the '11 and '12 models are limited to 3.3kW). Tesla, I believe, takes advantage of the J1772 spec for 240VAC/80A in some of their vehicles, in addition to DC fast charging in others.

Re:Three-phase (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707087)

Because three phase power, at least in North America, is generally only available to VERY large commercial clients and industrial areas. Most smaller strip malls, all houses, and parking lots aren't going to have three phase power nearby. It's also more complicated to wire, at least according to how the NEC and ESA license electricians. That means that a residential electrician would no longer be able to install J1772 in your driveway. You could get a Construction Maintenance electrician to do it (Industrial Electricians are industrial ONLY), however, they are harder to find and are going to charge incredible amounts of work to do a job they don't want to do (My guess? $200 per hour).

Re:Three-phase (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 2 years ago | (#41707725)

All houses? I remember asking my dad why some of the appliances had 4 prongs. Although, our breaker boxes tended to have something like 30+ 25amp breakers and every outlet had GFCI. Lighting, computer room, and entertainment room were on one phase and the garage, kitchen, laundry room, etc were on the other phase.

You could start a power-saw without the lights dimming.

Mind you, we were relatively poor. $60k/year for a 5 person house and my dad is a HUGE stickler for prices, so no commercial appliances.

oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706719)

Two plugs in one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706731)

Great, now I have to lift a cable twice as heavy, and get no charging when I plug my AC car into a DC charging station (or vice-versa) even though both use the same official plug.

Re:Two plugs in one? (1)

robot256 (1635039) | about 2 years ago | (#41706891)

I hope this was a joke. All cars have a 2-phase AC charger on board, and the top portion of this connector will always work with a standard AC J1772 plug. Only some cars (and some very special stations) will have the additional circuitry for DC charging, and those will have the additional pins for the DC charging jack. DC charging is much higher power than AC charging (usually supplied by a capacitor bank), and with today's batteries it actually causes significant wear to charge them that fast. So until we get better batteries, DC fast charging is irrelevant to most consumers. It is a shame that policymakers are so obsessed with fast-charging before either the standards or the batteries are actually ready for prime time--that money could be better spent on more useful AC charging stations and public awareness.

Re:Two plugs in one? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 years ago | (#41707755)

I hope this was a joke. All cars have a 2-phase AC charger on board, and the top portion of this connector will always work with a standard AC J1772 plug. Only some cars (and some very special stations) will have the additional circuitry for DC charging, and those will have the additional pins for the DC charging jack. DC charging is much higher power than AC charging (usually supplied by a capacitor bank), and with today's batteries it actually causes significant wear to charge them that fast. So until we get better batteries, DC fast charging is irrelevant to most consumers. It is a shame that policymakers are so obsessed with fast-charging before either the standards or the batteries are actually ready for prime time--that money could be better spent on more useful AC charging stations and public awareness.

Battery health isn't the issue here.
It is trivial for a charging station to limit DC output, and with the requirement that the charger listen to the car, it would be trivial for the car to regulate charging speed as well. You can set a default preference in your car (rapid charge or standard charge, just like toner saving modes on printers, or rapid charge options for iPod like devices), or a one time override at the charger or with an app on your phone. You could even specify how long you expect to be gone for and the car can figure out how to balance % charged and battery health based on your ETA.

The problem is as follows:

A car that can charge via AC has more complicated and more expensive internals.
A car that can charge via DC has simpler and cheaper internals.

If some cars in the future are sold as DC-only to save on cost, they will still have to support this AC/DC combo plug, which is ugly, heavy, and thicker than my cock during Wheel of Fortune. The end result will be charging stations that support both AC and DC, most homes supporting AC, few homes supporting DC, and cars supporting both even though a lot of money could be saved if we transitioned to DC-only cars and DC-capable stations (including stations in homes).

And on the same day... (3, Informative)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41706807)

...the guy who designed the battery now used in hybrid cars has died. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20004190 [bbc.co.uk]

Re:And on the same day... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41707495)

Shocking.

I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706815)

If they have any networking, or are capable of other communication aside from charging. Would make sense, the car could provide diagnostic information or, many many other uses.

Re:I wonder (1)

robot256 (1635039) | about 2 years ago | (#41707189)

The basic AC connector lets the car provide basic information like "ready to charge" and "charging error" to the charging station. I believe the new standard also allows for data-over-powerline communication, so the car can talk directly to the charger and the smart grid. Can't wait to see what the security holes are in that arrangement.

Let's not rush into this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41706837)

I want to hear what the Zambian Automotive Society and the Sudanese Automotive Journal have to say about this first ...

GM had a better design (3, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41706857)

the EV1 had a charging paddle that was an inductive connection. safe to use under water.

Instead we get a version that means a 100% dead car = a trip tot he mechanic as it cant "command" the connection to start charging.

Re:GM had a better design (3, Interesting)

tgd (2822) | about 2 years ago | (#41707095)

the EV1 had a charging paddle that was an inductive connection. safe to use under water.

Instead we get a version that means a 100% dead car = a trip tot he mechanic as it cant "command" the connection to start charging.

I don't think any of the EVs currently shipping will let their charge get that low, but even if that happened you just have to jump the 12v system -- like any other car with a dead battery. (Even modern standards, generally, can't be push-started anymore because the alternator can't generate enough power to get the ECU booted)

GM's volt, for example, won't let the vehicle discharge the 12v system enough to keep the charger from working.

Re:GM had a better design (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41707145)

Incorrect. I recently push started a 2013 Honda Civic Si. battery was not dead, it was missing. GM cars will not because the Delco alternator is designed to not work without a battery. it requires a battery voltage to excite the coils to create electricity. But many japanese alternators dont have that flaw.

Re:GM had a better design (1)

tgd (2822) | about 2 years ago | (#41707171)

Incorrect. I recently push started a 2013 Honda Civic Si. battery was not dead, it was missing. GM cars will not because the Delco alternator is designed to not work without a battery. it requires a battery voltage to excite the coils to create electricity. But many japanese alternators dont have that flaw.

Yes, because one data point invalidates the statement that "most" can't. But we're all proud of your ability to push start the Civic.

Re:GM had a better design (1)

csnydermvpsoft (596111) | about 2 years ago | (#41707327)

Yes, because one data point invalidates the statement that "most" can't. But we're all proud of your ability to push start the Civic.

It doesn't invalidate your statement, but an anecdote does hold more weight than an assertion with no references given.

I've push-started my Civic (2009 LX) as well, when I've been parked on a hill and wanted to do it for fun. When I realized that I might be damaging something, I stopped the practice, but it worked fine.

That's two anecdotes now - doesn't that count as data? :-)

Re:GM had a better design (1)

tgd (2822) | about 2 years ago | (#41707475)

Yes, because one data point invalidates the statement that "most" can't. But we're all proud of your ability to push start the Civic.

It doesn't invalidate your statement, but an anecdote does hold more weight than an assertion with no references given.

I've push-started my Civic (2009 LX) as well, when I've been parked on a hill and wanted to do it for fun. When I realized that I might be damaging something, I stopped the practice, but it worked fine.

That's two anecdotes now - doesn't that count as data? :-)

Well, strictly speaking, since they're both Civics... its data, but not really useful data.

I'm not going to go waving around my CV on here, but from direct first hand experience, I can tell you that the majority of cars today can't get stable enough voltage out of the alternator for the ECU to come up and actually get the engine started from a truly dead battery unless you can really get the car moving. When the clutch comes out, the engine slows too quickly and all the electronics doesn't get time to get powered up. (And its worse on cars with immobilzer type technology, because that also needs to power up.) Can it work with some cars? Sure. A car with a low enough compression engine that you can keep pushing it once the clutch is out would help, as an example.

But, in either case, the point of the thread is that the actual problem the original poster was talking about largely doesn't exist. The cars with onboard chargers manage both the high voltage and 12v systems and won't let the 12v system drain enough to prevent the charger from powering up. And even if it was dead, it'd be no different than every automatic and the majority of standards -- you need to jump it. You never need to tow it to a dealer, unless you're the kind of person who would tow a car with a dead battery to the dealer. The original poster was completely wrong on that point.

Re:GM had a better design (1)

csnydermvpsoft (596111) | about 2 years ago | (#41707633)

I'll accept that you probably know more about it than I do. And, come to think of it, my Civic's battery was completely fine, so it doesn't really factor into the discussion anyways.

I agree with your last paragraph, with one caveat: If your EV's battery is drained to the point that it can't power the computer, your battery bank is probably toast - those batteries don't like to be discharged that much. You can get the car going again, but your range will be significantly reduced.

Re:GM had a better design (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707513)

No, because the plural of 'anecdote' is 'anecdotes', not 'data'.

Re:GM had a better design (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 2 years ago | (#41707567)

I think I might have to park at the top of the hill by my house, disconnect my Jeep's battery and see if I can pop start it. It does have an ECU but that thing is so simple it might actually work.

Re:GM had a better design (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about 2 years ago | (#41707141)

Instead we get a version that means a 100% dead car = a trip tot he mechanic as it cant "command" the connection to start charging.

Yeah I noticed that. But you can always use a 12V charger or jump-start to get the low voltage systems up and running enough to receive the command. A hassle, but not nearly as bad as towing.

Re:GM had a better design (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41707361)

The charging paddle (and other oddball connectors) were intended to provide a 'unique' connector for charging EVs. This was to provide a means (when regulations were put in place) to charge road taxes for the electricity/fuel/whatever.

The day will come when regs will disallow the use of a simple NEMA 5-15P connection, even for 'emergency' charging. Just so you won't bypass the tax man.

Re:GM had a better design (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41707509)

ore likely, the tax will be shifted to electricity in general. A 1%* tax on you electricity for roads et al.

*whatever.

Re:GM had a better design (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41707739)

Doubtful. We have had a principle of users paying for roads in place since nearly the inception of the automobile. Asking non-drivers to pay for those who drive is politically unacceptable. It also opens up the problem of restricting some people (incompetent drivers) from using the roadways. Once they have paid, they can argue that they have a right to use them. Of course, I'm not talking about keeping pedestrians off the sidewalks. But we need to protect our (seldom used) ability to tell some people that they just aren't cutting it behind the wheel.

Re:GM had a better design (1)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41707583)

safe to use under water.

I don't know about you, but if my electric vehicle was fully submersed in water, I wouldn't worry that much about whether the batteries are fully charged or not.

warning (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707085)

Do not use your mouth when siphoning fuel from an electric car. The back-wash is much, much nastier than gasoline.

Re:warning (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 years ago | (#41707815)

Do not use your mouth when siphoning fuel from an electric car. The back-wash is much, much nastier than gasoline.

That's not what the word backwash means.
And it's not the gasoline that's bad, it's the fumes. You should be able to easily siphon fuel without ever getting liquid gasoline in your mouth. It's no different than avoiding nasty fish water when draining a fish tank with a hose.

Ease of plugging? (1)

JSBiff (87824) | about 2 years ago | (#41707237)

Looking at that plug, I have to wonder how easy it will be to plug and unplug.

Standard for _batteries_ !!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707405)

There definately should be a standard for swappable batteries.

Swapping could be done in minutes, station could charge overnight.
Batteries could be leased, decreasing the up front cost of car. The
charging station could handle the maintainance of batteries.

I can see the future! (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#41707491)

Year 2024...

Gasoline: $21.50/gal
Ethanol: $29.45/gal
Electricity for quick 20-min charge: $20/min

Yeah.

Misread the title (1)

DreddUK (255582) | about 2 years ago | (#41707587)

Weird, I read the title as 'Standard For Electric Chair Announced'. I was actually surprised that they didn't already have one......

What we need are electric roads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707659)

What we need are electric roads

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?