Note you can toggle off sources in the chart by tapping on them in the legend.
Gas plants can respond quickly to changes in load, but they need to be up and running to do that. In the future this will be done with batteries but we don’t have enough of those yet. California does have about 20x more batteries than it did a few years ago, check out the Record Tracker link. There was a new record for battery discharging 5 days ago.
Except pretty much everyone thinks the CCS2 connector sucks compared to the Tesla connector. The EU ought to mandate the Tesla connector instead. We're still in early days, no need to worry about the tiny number of cars that have already shipped.
Type 2 supports 3-phase AC, something both CCS combo 1 and NACS don’t. That alone would make a transition in Europe a terrible idea, especially since the Tesla connector doesn’t even seem to have a path to 3-phase support.
Yes, Type 2 Combo 2 is a bit bulky, but otherwise it’s perfectly fine.
Three phase is a red herring. No consumer needs to use all three phases to charge their car at home overnight. You’ll wake up to a fully charged car every day on single phase, as the vast majority of us do. Same applies even with the slightly weaker current per phase on continental Europe.
The parts of Europe limited to 25A would still allow for a full overnight charge. The EU voltage is 220V, so 25*220 = 5.5kW. Assuming a 75kWh usable capacity on the Model Y, that means the rare occasions where you’re charging from 0-100% overnight would take 13.6 hours.
The real test of charging hardware is on long journeys where we want to keep the charge time to a minimum, and where Tesla’a NACS 1MW capability is a huge benefit to consumers vs CCS
If you believe the EU’s CCS mandate is a good thing, you’re not paying attention
> No consumer needs to use all three phases to charge their car at home overnight.
The Renault Zoe can do 22 kW AC charging. There are public AC chargers too. They are cheaper to deploy than DC chargers.
> The real test of charging hardware is on long journeys where we want to keep the charge time to a minimum, and where Tesla’a NACS 1MW capability is a huge benefit to consumers vs CCS
So.. you claim no consumer needs "all three phases" for AC charging but now you're insisting consumers need 1 megawatt DC charging on passenger cars, cheerfully ignoring the fact that there is no deployment of 1 megawatt chargers for passenger vehicles and no current passenger car can sustain 1 megawatt charging at any part of its charge curve.
Make up your mind. And while you're making it up, understand that there's nothing preventing a revision to the CCS type 2 Combo plug and cable standards to spec faster charging. The Tesla plug is just about the cable and plug. It's the least interesting part of any charger.
> If you believe the EU’s CCS mandate is a good thing, you’re not paying attention
I'd like to pay attention to your manifesto on how CCS type 2 Combo is a bad thing when the European EV market is bigger than the North American market, when all brands of charger charge all brands of EV in Europe, when CCS type 2 Combo is deployed in many countries outside of Europe, and when 400 kW CCS chargers are being deployed while Tesla's chargers still max out at 250 kW:
> 400 kW CCS chargers are being deployed while Tesla's chargers still max out at 250 kW
The EVBox literature discusses 400kW per station, but each station has two CCS cables that can share that power. Since the max power delivery of CCS2 is 350kW I suspect EVbox are clickbaiting their headline and the truth is that 400kW is only delivered across both connectors (200kW each), not to a single connector.
Tesla’s V4 Superchargers, on the other hand, can deliver 600kW, and have been rolling out since March. The Tesla NACS hardware can carry 1 megawatt, unlike CCS2’s 350kW.
> The Renault Zoe can do 22 kW AC charging. There are public AC chargers too. They are cheaper to deploy than DC chargers
Maybe ten years ago, a 22kW public charger might have seemed reasonable.
Now public chargers operate on DC, at 350kW and beyond, it seems a bit anachronistic to be discussing 22kW AC public charging.
> So.. you claim no consumer needs "all three phases" for AC charging but now you're insisting consumers need 1 megawatt DC charging on passenger cars … make up your mind
I think you perhaps misunderstood the distinction I made between home charging (single phase AC is fine, as we can leave the car overnight) and public charging, which is relied on during long journeys, and for which 100kW+ DC is essential for practicality.
> understand that there's nothing preventing a revision to the CCS type 2 Combo plug and cable standards to spec faster charging. The Tesla plug is just about the cable and plug. It's the least interesting part of any charger.
Revising the cable and plug IS the complicated bit, actually, when you run a network of EV chargers and you’re the one paying for the hardware and labour costs
The Tesla NACS hardware is megawatt capable. CCS2 hardware is 350kW capable.
Let’s not pretend it would be trivial to upgrade CCS2 to megawatt capability, with so much legacy deployment to upgrade.
> Revising the cable and plug IS the complicated bit, actually,
It is not. CCS has had one revision already. You also seem to be misunderstanding that all that's going to happen is Tesla's plug will be put on CCS chargers, just as Tesla chargers have CCS type 2 combo plugs on them.
Tesla's chargers talk CCS. They are CCS chargers. How do you think they work in Europe? How do you think they're going to charge all cars in North America?
> CCS2 hardware is 350kW capable.
Sure, kid. That's why those 400 kW CCS chargers exist.
> Let’s not pretend it would be trivial to upgrade CCS2 to megawatt capability, with so much legacy deployment to upgrade.
If you think CCS chargers exist that can deliver 400kW to a single connector for a passenger EV (as opposed to 400kW shared across two connectors, or specialist charging hardware for semi-trucks) then by all means, edit the opening paragraph of the CCS Wikipedia page (“350kW” -> “400kW”) and let’s see how your revision goes down with the experts that frequent that page:
So despite your confident claims about CCS being rated to 700kW, you choose for Wikipedia to state it as 350kW.
I wonder why that is? Do you need me to explain how to edit Wikipedia? I’m happy to help.
—-
Interesting that you keep bringing up Tesla.
Is Tesla / Musk a sore point for you? Perhaps you were sold a non-Tesla EV (you mentioned the Renault Zoe) and the salesman made false claims about access to Tesla’s best-in-class charging network? I understand why that might leave you feeling bitter. The Zoe is cute, by the way, a nice simple starter EV for buzzing around town on a budget.
——
I see from your response to this that you’re still unwilling to edit Wikipedia 350kW -> 700kW for some reason. You don’t seem to mind the article’s vague promise of “higher rates in the future” despite you claiming that 700kW exists in the here and now. How peculiar.
The offer of guidance on editing Wikipedia still stands.
The precise sentence from Wikipedia is, "It can use Combo 1 (CCS1) or Combo 2 (CCS2) connectors to provide power at up to 350 kilowatts (kW) (max 500 amps),[1] although higher values are coming" which is true. Higher power levels are here. 700 kW CCS chargers are a practical reality.
Did you watch the video or not? I'm thinking not.
> Interesting that you keep bringing up Tesla.
How is it interesting? We are precisely talking about Tesla's plug versus the CCS type 2 Combo plug. You are falsely claiming that the Tesla plug can do something the CCS plug cannot. What else am I going to bring up?
I find it remarkable that when the practical realities are put right in front of your face you still deny them. That's some highly effective brainwashing. That's what Tesla has done to you.
> I'd like to pay attention to your manifesto on how CCS type 2 Combo is a bad thing when the European EV market is bigger than the North American market, when all brands of charger charge all brands of EV in Europe, when CCS type 2 Combo is deployed in many countries outside of Europe
Incumbency doesn’t imply a superior standard.
CCS2 is winning in Europe not because it’s better than NACS, but because a technocratic EU committee decided it would win, many years ago.
Superior results imply a superior standard. All brands of charger charging all brands of EV is a superior result. Anything less is substandard, backward, and primitive.
3-phase is not really for consumers. It’s for commercial and fleet operations where a 3-phase AC charging setup can deliver far more power with much lower amperage circuits. When installing chargers for an entire 15+ storey apartment building or making sure a fleet of 10+ vehicles can all charge overnight 3-phase suddenly makes life a lot easier and can reduce the cost of install significantly.
You can use CO2 as a refrigerant. Non flammable and enables heat pumps to be practical at lower temperatures. Lots of products on the market. See https://r744.com
People experimented with CO2 refrigerant around the end of the 19th century, when refrigeration had just been invented and most other refrigerants hadn't been invented yet; it was called "carbonic acid" and required much heavier machinery due to the high pressures. (Typically over 1000PSI for CO2, compared to 100-200PSI for HC, CFC, and HCFC.)
This can be used to monitor someone's breathing in a non-invasive way, which would be good. Here's a startup that has been working on it: https://www.originwirelessai.com/technology
It seems like Bridgely hooks up to the grid while we connects directly to the energy product? so when they sell ML tech to detect EV chargers we help onboard a the customer directly to their app
Java is also making good progress on low latency GC.
Reference counting can be slower than GC if you are using thread safe refcounts which have to be updated atomically.
I don't want to have to think about breaking cycles in my data structures (required when using ref counting) any more than I want to think about allocating registers.
Yet we still read articles and threads about how bad the Go GC is and the tradeoffs that it forces upon you.
I get the feeling that the industry is finally starting to realize that GC has been a massive mistake.
Memory management is a very important part of an application, if you outsource that to a GC you stop to think about it.
And if you don't think about memory management you are guaranteed to end up with a slow and bloated app. And that is even before considering the performance impact of the GC!
The big hinderence has been that ditching the GC often meant that you had to be using an old an unsafe language.
Now we have rust, which is great! But we need more.
The Go GC isn't that great, it's true. It sacrifices huge amounts of throughput to get low latency: basically a marketing optimised collector.
The new JVM GCs (ZGC and Shenandoah) are more sensibly designed. They sacrifice a bit of throughput, but not much, and you get pauseless GC. It still makes sense to select a throughput oriented collector if your job is a batch job as it'll go faster but something like ZGC isn't a bad default.
GC is sufficiently powerful these days that it doesn't make sense to force developers to think about memory management for the vast bulk of apps. And definitely not Rust! That's one reason web apps beat desktop apps to begin with - web apps were from the start mostly written in [pseudo] GCd languages like Perl, Python, Java, etc.
I don’t think it’s fair to call garbage collection a mistake. Sure, it has properties that make it ill-suited for certain applications, but it is convenient and well suited for many others.
Same applies with manually memory management, you get instead slower allocators unless you replace the standard library with something else, and the joy of tracking down double frees and memory leaks.
I'm using Rust, so no double frees and no accidental forgetting to call free(). Of course you can still have memory leaks, but that's true in GC languages too.
That is not manually memory management though, and it also comes with its own set of issues, like everyone that was tried to write GUIs or games in Rust is painfully aware of.
That's true. The comment by mlwiese up-thread, that I responded to, praised Go's low GC latency without mentioning the heavy memory and throughput overheads that come with it. I felt it worth pointing out the lack of a free lunch there; I think a lot of casual Go observers and users aren't aware of it.
Agreed, although if Go had proper support for explicit value types (instead of relying in escape analysis) and generics, like e.g. D, Nim, that could be improved.
I don't think that's as hard as you make it out to be. Notably, Zig does not have a default allocator and its standard library is written accordingly, making it trivial to ensure the use of the appropriate allocation strategy for any given task, including using a debug allocator that tracks double-free and memory leaks.
No, and as far as I am aware it makes no attempt to do so other than some allocators overwriting freed memory with a known signature in debug modes so the problem is more obvious.
This LA study has one of the same authors as the Stanford study (Neeraj Sood). It uses the same test and so it has the same issues with the false positive rate. An honest person would address those but I didn't see that in the press release.
