I'm not an EV user, so I need some clarification. Is NACS actually a better connector? Or is it just more abundant at the moment? Technology Connections did a deep dive on CCS and it seems like it's a more flexible connector with a truly open standard. The argument for NACS I've seen is that it's a little sleeker (does this really matter all that much?) and it's already on Tesla's supercharger network.
The physical shape of Tesla/NACS is way better: it's more compact, and easier to plug in. The CCS connector OTOH is a lazy retrofit of a design-by-committee plug.
The wire protocol of CCS is a bit overengineered, but it's a standard, and it's a sunk cost (all cars, including current Teslas, are already compatible with it). So physical NACS + CCS protocol seems like the best of both.
It's also worth pointing out that the US uses CCS1, while Europe standardized on a slightly improved CCS2. So the US is alone in its (non)standard connector either way.
CCS current spec/design can deliver up to 350kW (although few if any cars can take advantage of that today).
NACS claims it can provide up to 1MW (1000A @ 1000V). I think it will be a while before we see cars able to charge anywhere near this, but there is a trend right now of big EV pickups with massive batteries. Higher power chargers means faster charge times.
The only downside I see with NACS is you can’t level 2 charge using 3-phase power. This isn’t really an issue in North America because it’s super rare to see 3 phase power at someone’s home. In most of Europe homes do have 3-phase power and large loads like an EV are required to use it. This is one reason why Tesla uses CCS2 in Europe. The NACS connect doesn’t have the space for a 3rd power pin.
Having used both, NACS is more compact, so both the port on the car and the end of the cable are significantly smaller than CCS. The cable itself is also lighter and more "usable" than CCS. At least at the newest V3 superchargers, the NACS cable is so much more flexible and easier to manage.
If I compare it to USB-based connectors where USB-C never came along.
NACS is like a Lightning plug. From a practical/pragmatic perspective, it was clearly the best plug at the time it was created. It solved real user problems.
CCS a micro-USB 3.0 plug. Maybe you've never seen one[0], but they are a real thing. Let's take an awful plug (micro USB / J1772) and clumsily add a few more wires on to it to make it both more capable and even worse. It does what you need it to do, but nobody has ever thought it was good at it.
CCS1 (the variant of CCS used in the US; basically J1772 + HVDC pins) has a lot of flaws that can't easily fixed in a backwards-compatible way:
1. It's gigantic, making it a lot harder to handle and plug in [0]
2. CCS1 has a mechanical latch on the handle side (as opposed to NACS, which puts an electronic latch in the vehicle side). This results in a few problems:
a. The CCS1 latch is is exposed and easily broken, allowing the vehicle to begin charging without being physically latched in (meaning it can be unplugged without pressing the lever to unlatch, while still carrying HVDC at hundreds of amps – there is protection against this but it's not great practice to rely on the control/ground pins being unplugged first, rather than making a latch that isn't so easily circumvented)
b. The latch is long and requires a lot of force to unlatch (this may just be my bad experiences speaking, but I've always needed to wiggle the connector a bit to relieve the friction.)
Unrelated to the physical connector, Tesla's charging network in the US is far larger and more reliable than everyone else's CCS1 networks combined, and the only way to use the network is NACS (at the moment, anyway. Magic Dock[1] is being added to some superchargers and will most likely be rolled out wider in the near future.)
While he thinks the Tesla physical connector is probably better, the CCS communications standard is better (AIUI). So once Telsa adopts that, it will probably be a good system.
Also: he's talking about CCS1, and not CCS2, which can do things like handle three-phase power.
NACS can be plugged in one handed by a child. CCS1 needs perfect alignment which can be a struggle for a large man using 2 hands in optimal conditions.
NACS cables are lighter and thinner, which really matters when it is cold and the cables harden.
Most people consider NACS to be a better connector, there are even CCS1 fans who admit that.
But in reality, they are all fine and it doesn't matter that much. What really matters is that there is a standard, whatever it is.
And it seems like NACS chargers will speak the CCS protocol, so those with CCS cars will just need a passive adapter to charge with NACS.
This is for North America, Europe is fine with CCS2, and NACS doesn't intent to change that. And compatibility is not that much of a problem since cars usually don't travel between Europe and North America, plus, for these rare cases, there are adapters.
AFAICT NACS (read, the "standard" and not Tesla's original release) speaks the same protocol as CCS, it just combines the AC and DC pins into, yes, a sleeker connector.
So no real "benefit", and it actually adds complexity into the car itself. But theoretically one could also make a NACS -> CCS adapter, so it wouldn't end up as a CHAdeMO situation.
EDIT: I forgot, the NACS connector is more or less self-aligning if you get it in the right general orientation, whereas CCS is pretty particular.
I don't know if there are any studies on this but the perception amongst EV users that I'm aware of is that NACS is a very reliable system (low rate of charging stall breakdowns) compared to CCS chargers that seem to break down quite frequently. However, it is unclear if this is due to the technology difference between CCS and NACS or if it's just due to the poor implementation of CCS charger infrastructure.
I believe NACS can do everything CCS can do (same number of pins) but in a smaller and easier to handle format. As an EV users I much prefer the NACS connector over the CCS connector especially in the winter when the cables are much stiffer.
NACS doesn't have a standard for vehicle-to-home (or vehicle-to-grid) charging. When they opened up the standard, Tesla said that it was allowed, but they didn't specify any standard way to do it. So it might happen, but there's potential for incompatibilities between car manufacturers and charging systems.
My perception is that CCS2 is better egineering than NACS but both are improvements over CCS1 so any alternate adoption is a market improvement. Having the pure "best design" is very rarely the deciding factor to market adoption.
So much better. Not to mention, same connector for AC (home) charging and DC fast charging (on the road at the super chargers). Whereas now with CCS you have a little cover over the fast charging pins you remove from your usual AC port to plug in the DC fast charging combo. So much nicer.
It's not just the connector. It's the whole charging experience. NACS + Supercharger network is 10x better than the alternatives both in speed of charging and ease of use.
I am an EV user. My connection is not Tesla compatible. I wish the government would prod manufacturers to create a common connection for all EVs the same way there is a common gas intake for all gas powered vehicles.
>I wish the government would prod manufacturers to create a common connection
That is exactly why this is happening. Tesla is expanding their network and opening it to more manufacturers in pursuit of a $7.5bn federal funding program.[0]
>the new rules, issued after nearly eight months of debate...seeks to give consumers unfettered access to a growing coast-to-coast network of EV charging stations, including Tesla's Superchargers.
>Companies that hope to tap $7.5 billion in federal funding for this network must also adopt the dominant U.S. standard for charging connectors, known as "Combined Charging System" or CCS; use standardized payment options; a single method of identification that works across all chargers; and work 97% of the time.
Interesting enough, Tesla is (currently) obliged to add CCS compatibility to their chargers for eligibility, but these manufacturers are adopting their connector regardless.
>The new rules would allow Tesla to keep its unique connectors, but it will have to add a permanently attached CCS connector or adapter that charges a CCS-compliant vehicle, similar to a gas pump that has a separate handle for gas versus diesel.
I've had EVs for 7+ years now and have plenty of experience with J1772, Chaedmo, and CCS. All I can say is thank heavens Tesla's connector is getting adopted! It is the only connector that seems like it was designed with the ease-of-use regular people expect - not what us early adopter EV people will put up with. This kind of friction does impede adoption too.
They did. It was CCS. Everyone except Tesla was on board to using it, and it was widely viewed as the standard going forward, and even Tesla was retro-fitting its chargers with CCS ("Magic Dock"), and presumably would one day switch its cars over.
Then Tesla pulled a fast one on the morons at GM and Ford, who signed stupid deals that handed the future back to Tesla, and now the only question is whether Tesla consolidates the entire industry behind it (possible) or we end up in a world with a split between NACS and CCS (also possible, but probably less likely).
Seems like it’s happening without government intervention. It’s hard to imagine now that Ford, GM, and Tesla are on the same standard that the rest will not follow suit.
IMO the market is too new and there’s more room for innovation here. At the point that EVs can be charged in less than 5 minutes, I’d be on board with standardizing.
I view this as very RIM/Blackberry like, only Tesla has learned from history. Eventually the competitor charging networks were going to be "good enough" - Tesla had the option of working with Ford or GM, or letting them dump their combined resources into a competitor (and every other MFG). Sure in the short-term this will make them more vulnerable to competition, but if your only moat was the charging network you were doomed to fail anyway.
Had RIM opened up BES/BBM to the iphone early on, they might still be around today.
BES was possibly a more significant part of RIM's than the charger infrastructure is to Tesla. Opening the charger infrastructure is just them defining their moat, really. Tesla will still sell cars but more importantly they'll keep collecting usage data that they'll resell to the highest bidder.
I’m glad there finally seems to be a push to a better standard in North America.
I’m really curious how this affects Teslas market share though going forward.
Their supercharger network is why we continue with them despite countless other issues. It’s their biggest moat as far as I’m concerned.
Now I have significantly more options, and my next car will not be a Tesla. I’m sure I’m not alone in that.
Is the brand name of being effectively the gas station of EVs worth it to them? I assume there’ll be a surcharge , so is it better for them to have the biggest slice of much smaller pies?
The thing about how this is affects Tesla is "compared to what?"
Compared to the historic status quo where there were no other chargers, and Tesla had exclusive access to a large-ish proprietary charging network, it looks like Tesla giving up their advantage, and seems bad.
But the forward-looking status quo was going to be a gigantic network of CCS chargers that makes Tesla's proprietary network look small, with every other car maker using CCS. In that world, Tesla would have had to switch their cars over to CCS eventually and retrofit their existing chargers to CCS, and people who bought Teslas with the proprietary plug have a terrible UX of needing adapters everywhere.
Compared to _that_ status quo, this is a huge win for Tesla (and one that back-foots every other carmaker, which -- if NACS does take off -- need to do their own migration to a new charging port and strand their existing customers with the adapter life, making their earliest adopters angry and frustrated). So yeah, this is a great move for Tesla, and GM and Ford in enabling it are total idiots. (Rivian is just going along with the semi-inevitable at this point.)
Tesla Insurance is a kind of small moat. But I think Tesla is really banking on winning the automotive AI race. They currently don't seem to be winning, but that does appear to be their main gamble. If they can be the first to achieve level 4+ self-driving then they would definitely dominate regardless of charging infrastructure.
The long term future of Tesla is a battery manufacturer and a charging network. Those are the two things they are good at. The cars themselves are quickly being beaten out by the larger players.
> I assume there’ll be a surcharge , so is it better for them to have the biggest slice of much smaller pies?
Tesla will be getting billions of Federal dollars[1] for their network. IIRC, the law doesn't explicitly state that the network has to be CCS, only that it has to be "interoperable". If the government insists on CCS as a precondition, I predict Tesla taking them to court (and likely winning). As an outsider, it appears American manufacturers (NACS) are trying to squeeze out foreign manufactures (CCS) from Federal dollars for charging networks. I will change my mind if Hyundai, VW, Mercedes or BMW sign up for NACS.
Tesla owns the electric gas station! for now... Now that unity is achieved in the US, I think we're about to see an explosion in charging stations and designs of various charging hubs (drive-in movies's revival?) as Tesla won't be allowed to own the network 100% come soon.
Is Tesla planning to update Supercharger stations to accommodate non-Tesla vehicles.
Charge plug notwithstanding, the placement of Supercharger stands is usually for the left-rear charge port on all current Teslas. The stand location and cable length is a problem for vehicles with different designs.
Demonstrated here (particularly the F-150 Lightning)...
One fact that's not widely appreciated: Tesla is very efficient, and this efficiency is starting to have macro effects such as this. They've been building out their network diligently for over a decade, they have the permitting, assembly, uptime, everything dailed in. Every single dollar of capex they put in the network will get them more connectors and more sites in less time than if EA or any other company will get for that same dollar.
They might also be the only major manufacturer outside of China that can build EVs profitably at scale. 5 years ago the Model 3 had no competitors and today they have plenty, when looking at the spec sheets. But no one has been able to ship the sheer numbers of EVs Tesla has, because they either physically can't or won't do it because can't make money (it's hard to say as legacy autos don't break out their EV divisions)
The Model 3 now costs $40,240, which is $33,400 in 2018 dollars after inflation. That is, they are making comfortable margins on the $35K base model they aspired to when they started selling the model.
I don't really care whether it's CCS or NACS. What I do care about is that a choice is made.
The worst outcome for EV adaption would be to have multiple different charger networks and plugs that all need adapters to be compatible with each other.
What's important is that there is single standard, not how thin the cable is or how it looks.
For the EU, CCS was chosen a long time ago and this means every car can use every charger without thinking about it.
For the US, it makes sense to go with NACS if Tesla opens up their network.
Cars are always built to spec for either EU, US or any market. So it matters little if EU and US chose a different plug.
Would love to hear fast how charging stations will scale in a way that beats the current price and speed of filling up a car with gasoline.
I mean, even in a small town with, say, three gas stations, there are peak times when all the spots are taken. Average fueling time is probably a few minutes.
How to switch that to an all-electric system?
+ build a significantly higher number of fast electric charges than there are gas pumps. But apparently fast charging stations are rather expensive to build, and that's reflected in prices-- they are higher than current gas prices. There's also the significant increase in the time to fuel the vehicle compared to gas, and that's not going to change any time soon.
+ ramp up at-home charging as well as "at-business" charging for things like landscapers/etc. who use a lot of vehicles. But if you do this at scale electricity costs go through the roof and you're back to the same pricing problem as above.
I'm just thinking of this in terms of a kind of soft-realtime system. You've got something like "blocks" of vehicles all of which need to be fueled on deadlines which can generally get met currently. If there's a massive switch to EV I don't see how those deadlines get met without an enormous increase in charging prices. And without massive subsidies there's no way to build the infrastructure needed to meet the deadlines.
(And let's just assume zero risk of a fast-charger monopoly or cartel...)
I'm going to assume all these companies did their homework and NACS is a real open standard, not something under Tesla's boot.
In which case, great! This is the outcome I was hoping for. NACS is the better and more popular connector, it should become the standard in NA. CCS1 isn't that bad, but when you have a choice, choose the better one.
Nissan leafs are still using Chademo, which shows how serious they are about EVs.
At this point, the rate at which automakers NACS support is a good proxy for corporate malaise. Everyone sees the writing on the wall for CCS, and if an automaker takes another couple months to announce a migration it simply means the executive leadership has no clue what they are doing with regards to EVs.
Is there any technical reason you can't build an adapter from NACS to CCS1? We have adapters for Tesla destination chargers (NACS without fast charging??) to J1772 and they work just fine.
[+] [-] pathartl|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pornel|2 years ago|reply
The wire protocol of CCS is a bit overengineered, but it's a standard, and it's a sunk cost (all cars, including current Teslas, are already compatible with it). So physical NACS + CCS protocol seems like the best of both.
It's also worth pointing out that the US uses CCS1, while Europe standardized on a slightly improved CCS2. So the US is alone in its (non)standard connector either way.
[+] [-] conk|2 years ago|reply
NACS claims it can provide up to 1MW (1000A @ 1000V). I think it will be a while before we see cars able to charge anywhere near this, but there is a trend right now of big EV pickups with massive batteries. Higher power chargers means faster charge times.
The only downside I see with NACS is you can’t level 2 charge using 3-phase power. This isn’t really an issue in North America because it’s super rare to see 3 phase power at someone’s home. In most of Europe homes do have 3-phase power and large loads like an EV are required to use it. This is one reason why Tesla uses CCS2 in Europe. The NACS connect doesn’t have the space for a 3rd power pin.
[+] [-] satrday|2 years ago|reply
Munro Live took both connectors apart and did an overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmjofPpThWU
[+] [-] pseudosavant|2 years ago|reply
NACS is like a Lightning plug. From a practical/pragmatic perspective, it was clearly the best plug at the time it was created. It solved real user problems.
CCS a micro-USB 3.0 plug. Maybe you've never seen one[0], but they are a real thing. Let's take an awful plug (micro USB / J1772) and clumsily add a few more wires on to it to make it both more capable and even worse. It does what you need it to do, but nobody has ever thought it was good at it.
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Connecto...
[+] [-] zlsa|2 years ago|reply
1. It's gigantic, making it a lot harder to handle and plug in [0] 2. CCS1 has a mechanical latch on the handle side (as opposed to NACS, which puts an electronic latch in the vehicle side). This results in a few problems: a. The CCS1 latch is is exposed and easily broken, allowing the vehicle to begin charging without being physically latched in (meaning it can be unplugged without pressing the lever to unlatch, while still carrying HVDC at hundreds of amps – there is protection against this but it's not great practice to rely on the control/ground pins being unplugged first, rather than making a latch that isn't so easily circumvented) b. The latch is long and requires a lot of force to unlatch (this may just be my bad experiences speaking, but I've always needed to wiggle the connector a bit to relieve the friction.)
Unrelated to the physical connector, Tesla's charging network in the US is far larger and more reliable than everyone else's CCS1 networks combined, and the only way to use the network is NACS (at the moment, anyway. Magic Dock[1] is being added to some superchargers and will most likely be rolled out wider in the near future.)
0: https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/... 1: https://electrek.co/2023/02/23/tesla-supercharger-magic-dock...
[+] [-] throw0101c|2 years ago|reply
He did a video on this Connextras channel about this news:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjny4u5THpU
While he thinks the Tesla physical connector is probably better, the CCS communications standard is better (AIUI). So once Telsa adopts that, it will probably be a good system.
Also: he's talking about CCS1, and not CCS2, which can do things like handle three-phase power.
[+] [-] gibolt|2 years ago|reply
NACS cables are lighter and thinner, which really matters when it is cold and the cables harden.
This article shows some visual comparisons: https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-opens-charging-connect...
[+] [-] GuB-42|2 years ago|reply
But in reality, they are all fine and it doesn't matter that much. What really matters is that there is a standard, whatever it is.
And it seems like NACS chargers will speak the CCS protocol, so those with CCS cars will just need a passive adapter to charge with NACS.
This is for North America, Europe is fine with CCS2, and NACS doesn't intent to change that. And compatibility is not that much of a problem since cars usually don't travel between Europe and North America, plus, for these rare cases, there are adapters.
[+] [-] snuxoll|2 years ago|reply
So no real "benefit", and it actually adds complexity into the car itself. But theoretically one could also make a NACS -> CCS adapter, so it wouldn't end up as a CHAdeMO situation.
EDIT: I forgot, the NACS connector is more or less self-aligning if you get it in the right general orientation, whereas CCS is pretty particular.
[+] [-] outlace|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apearson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fordec|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shmoe|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IceHegel|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hindsightbias|2 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VBCpAHvOpQ
[+] [-] option|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javier_e06|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mustacheemperor|2 years ago|reply
That is exactly why this is happening. Tesla is expanding their network and opening it to more manufacturers in pursuit of a $7.5bn federal funding program.[0]
>the new rules, issued after nearly eight months of debate...seeks to give consumers unfettered access to a growing coast-to-coast network of EV charging stations, including Tesla's Superchargers.
>Companies that hope to tap $7.5 billion in federal funding for this network must also adopt the dominant U.S. standard for charging connectors, known as "Combined Charging System" or CCS; use standardized payment options; a single method of identification that works across all chargers; and work 97% of the time.
Interesting enough, Tesla is (currently) obliged to add CCS compatibility to their chargers for eligibility, but these manufacturers are adopting their connector regardless.
>The new rules would allow Tesla to keep its unique connectors, but it will have to add a permanently attached CCS connector or adapter that charges a CCS-compliant vehicle, similar to a gas pump that has a separate handle for gas versus diesel.
[0]https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/new-bi...
[+] [-] pseudosavant|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkozlows|2 years ago|reply
Then Tesla pulled a fast one on the morons at GM and Ford, who signed stupid deals that handed the future back to Tesla, and now the only question is whether Tesla consolidates the entire industry behind it (possible) or we end up in a world with a split between NACS and CCS (also possible, but probably less likely).
[+] [-] mattmaroon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brightball|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freerobby|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ShadowBanThis01|2 years ago|reply
ball = dropped
So now, once again, the USA adopts a "standard" shunned by the rest of the world.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tw04|2 years ago|reply
Had RIM opened up BES/BBM to the iphone early on, they might still be around today.
[+] [-] speed_spread|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dagmx|2 years ago|reply
I’m really curious how this affects Teslas market share though going forward.
Their supercharger network is why we continue with them despite countless other issues. It’s their biggest moat as far as I’m concerned.
Now I have significantly more options, and my next car will not be a Tesla. I’m sure I’m not alone in that.
Is the brand name of being effectively the gas station of EVs worth it to them? I assume there’ll be a surcharge , so is it better for them to have the biggest slice of much smaller pies?
[+] [-] mkozlows|2 years ago|reply
Compared to the historic status quo where there were no other chargers, and Tesla had exclusive access to a large-ish proprietary charging network, it looks like Tesla giving up their advantage, and seems bad.
But the forward-looking status quo was going to be a gigantic network of CCS chargers that makes Tesla's proprietary network look small, with every other car maker using CCS. In that world, Tesla would have had to switch their cars over to CCS eventually and retrofit their existing chargers to CCS, and people who bought Teslas with the proprietary plug have a terrible UX of needing adapters everywhere.
Compared to _that_ status quo, this is a huge win for Tesla (and one that back-foots every other carmaker, which -- if NACS does take off -- need to do their own migration to a new charging port and strand their existing customers with the adapter life, making their earliest adopters angry and frustrated). So yeah, this is a great move for Tesla, and GM and Ford in enabling it are total idiots. (Rivian is just going along with the semi-inevitable at this point.)
[+] [-] outlace|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dahfizz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sangnoir|2 years ago|reply
Tesla will be getting billions of Federal dollars[1] for their network. IIRC, the law doesn't explicitly state that the network has to be CCS, only that it has to be "interoperable". If the government insists on CCS as a precondition, I predict Tesla taking them to court (and likely winning). As an outsider, it appears American manufacturers (NACS) are trying to squeeze out foreign manufactures (CCS) from Federal dollars for charging networks. I will change my mind if Hyundai, VW, Mercedes or BMW sign up for NACS.
1. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-house-says-tesla-char...
[+] [-] genericone|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alistairSH|2 years ago|reply
Charge plug notwithstanding, the placement of Supercharger stands is usually for the left-rear charge port on all current Teslas. The stand location and cable length is a problem for vehicles with different designs.
Demonstrated here (particularly the F-150 Lightning)...
https://youtu.be/W-oaVLRH-js?t=519
[+] [-] thepasswordis|2 years ago|reply
Superchargers vs everything else isn't even a contest. Opening up those chargers to more users is a Big Deal.
[+] [-] martythemaniak|2 years ago|reply
They might also be the only major manufacturer outside of China that can build EVs profitably at scale. 5 years ago the Model 3 had no competitors and today they have plenty, when looking at the spec sheets. But no one has been able to ship the sheer numbers of EVs Tesla has, because they either physically can't or won't do it because can't make money (it's hard to say as legacy autos don't break out their EV divisions)
The Model 3 now costs $40,240, which is $33,400 in 2018 dollars after inflation. That is, they are making comfortable margins on the $35K base model they aspired to when they started selling the model.
[+] [-] piinbinary|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apexalpha|2 years ago|reply
The worst outcome for EV adaption would be to have multiple different charger networks and plugs that all need adapters to be compatible with each other.
What's important is that there is single standard, not how thin the cable is or how it looks.
For the EU, CCS was chosen a long time ago and this means every car can use every charger without thinking about it.
For the US, it makes sense to go with NACS if Tesla opens up their network.
Cars are always built to spec for either EU, US or any market. So it matters little if EU and US chose a different plug.
[+] [-] jancsika|2 years ago|reply
I mean, even in a small town with, say, three gas stations, there are peak times when all the spots are taken. Average fueling time is probably a few minutes.
How to switch that to an all-electric system?
+ build a significantly higher number of fast electric charges than there are gas pumps. But apparently fast charging stations are rather expensive to build, and that's reflected in prices-- they are higher than current gas prices. There's also the significant increase in the time to fuel the vehicle compared to gas, and that's not going to change any time soon.
+ ramp up at-home charging as well as "at-business" charging for things like landscapers/etc. who use a lot of vehicles. But if you do this at scale electricity costs go through the roof and you're back to the same pricing problem as above.
I'm just thinking of this in terms of a kind of soft-realtime system. You've got something like "blocks" of vehicles all of which need to be fueled on deadlines which can generally get met currently. If there's a massive switch to EV I don't see how those deadlines get met without an enormous increase in charging prices. And without massive subsidies there's no way to build the infrastructure needed to meet the deadlines.
(And let's just assume zero risk of a fast-charger monopoly or cartel...)
[+] [-] djleni|2 years ago|reply
But with the wind blowing this way will there be an adapter for CCS vehicles already on the road? Or does one already exist?
[+] [-] 1970-01-01|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mastax|2 years ago|reply
In which case, great! This is the outcome I was hoping for. NACS is the better and more popular connector, it should become the standard in NA. CCS1 isn't that bad, but when you have a choice, choose the better one.
Nissan leafs are still using Chademo, which shows how serious they are about EVs.
[+] [-] simondotau|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bpodgursky|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] V__|2 years ago|reply
I can't imagine NACS to ever be adopted in the EU, so why the additional complexity?
[+] [-] harshaw|2 years ago|reply