New ARCO Freewire CCS charger worked great!

[silverelan]

These have worked great for us a couple times so far, esp if we’re stopping there anyway. Am Pm arco is a good place to stop on our long trips, so why not plug in. BUT, yeah agree, this would never be my last option when in need. And for us at least, there are 2 EA stations station worthwhile to use, others are trash. Def not all created equal.

the Chehalis EVgo is next to the Tesla V3 and is alright. There’s EAs in Lacey (PlugShare reports are they’re derated) and Three Rivers Mall. If there are actually 4 of these Freewires, I’d totally use them if the uptime is good.

Sponsored

 

[back_at_it_19]

the Chehalis EVgo is next to the Tesla V3 and is alright. There’s EAs in Lacey (PlugShare reports are they’re derated) and Three Rivers Mall. If there are actually 4 of these Freewires, I’d totally use them if the uptime is good.

Yeah we love the chehalis EVgo. The Lacey and Three River EA’s are trashy and inconsistent. These Freewire’s have lots of food options - ampm, Starbucks, loves, Taco Bell, a&w - all very close.

 

[Slowmotion]

These units are garbage in busy areas. They are always depleted. I've stopped at one along my weekly route a number of times and it's often in "power conservation mode" aka "turtle charging mode".

They're a good idea for very remote areas, but along busy corridors or Metro areas I wouldn't ever consider one as a viable charging solution.

No doubt an accurate observation, and also why they're so welcome in the rural area where I live. They apparently do not require any significant investment to extend the grid to the installation site. I believe they use 240 volt AC, available most everywhere, to trickle charge the supply battery which then supplies a DC charge.

 

[Gloff]

These units are garbage in busy areas. They are always depleted. I've stopped at one along my weekly route a number of times and it's often in "power conservation mode" aka "turtle charging mode".

They're a good idea for very remote areas, but along busy corridors or Metro areas I wouldn't ever consider one as a viable charging solution.

Forgive me, as I am a novice to the infrastructure side:

Isn't any charging better than no charging? If these can be deployed like gas stations, why wouldn't this be viable? Imagine there's 8-10 of these units at a location. Would that buildout cost more or less than a couple of DC fast chargers + associated hardware/infrastructure?

Would an existing commercial infrastructure (480v with 1000amp service) support these? From my understanding that would support 480kW of power which would be more than enough to run all 10 units at 27kW as mentioned.

And as mentioned, if they could all powershare the batteries, as is being discussed, the throughput would be 270kw per hour at a maximum, right? That's just under 4 cars an hour at peak rates (assuming 10-80% 150kW charging capability). Seems to me, that it's a great stopgap.

The biggest downside I could see to that would be the batteries would need to be replaced relatively often due to the charge cycles (vs an individual vehicle pack). And it would take resources from vehicle production.

 

[DevSecOps]

Forgive me, as I am a novice to the infrastructure side:

Isn't any charging better than no charging? If these can be deployed like gas stations, why wouldn't this be viable? Imagine there's 8-10 of these units at a location. Would that buildout cost more or less than a couple of DC fast chargers + associated hardware/infrastructure?

Would an existing commercial infrastructure (480v with 1000amp service) support these? From my understanding that would support 480kW of power which would be more than enough to run all 10 units at 27kW as mentioned.

And as mentioned, if they could all powershare the batteries, as is being discussed, the throughput would be 270kw per hour at a maximum, right? That's just under 4 cars an hour at peak rates (assuming 10-80% 150kW charging capability). Seems to me, that it's a great stopgap.

The biggest downside I could see to that would be the batteries would need to be replaced relatively often due to the charge cycles (vs an individual vehicle pack). And it would take resources from vehicle production.

So yes, more charging stations are great. There's just a big caveat with these specific units. They don't have the power to charge EVs quickly when the battery is depleted.

The concept behind these units is to install them in locations where high power supplies are limited. The unit uses this lower grid power to charge internal batteries which can then been used to supply high DC power to EVs. Once the batteries are low the units have to recharge. It's not a very efficient way to charge EVs but it's a great solution vs nothing especially in rural areas.

The ones I've come across, like the one off I-5 at Santa Nella are in a very high traffic corridor. Many times I've stopped there to find it's in recharge mode. The point is that I wouldn't count them as a "reliable" charger when you're traveling because it might just be depleted. I would consider them a last resort option when planning a route.

 

[Gloff]

So yes, more charging stations are great. There's just a big caveat with these specific units. They don't have the power to charge EVs quickly when the battery is depleted.

The concept behind these units is to install them in locations where high power supplies are limited. The unit uses this lower grid power to charge internal batteries which can then been used to supply high DC power to EVs. Once the batteries are low the units have to recharge. It's not a very efficient way to charge EVs but it's a great solution vs nothing especially in rural areas.

The ones I've come across, like the one off I-5 at Santa Nella are in a very high traffic corridor. Many times I've stopped there to find it's in recharge mode. The point is that I wouldn't count them as a "reliable" charger when you're traveling because it might just be depleted. I would consider them a last resort option when planning a route.

I understand what you were saying, those points were in your other post that I didn't quote. I was suggesting that, if multiple units are installed, you could offset that risk by having more capacity without the need to up the voltage at the site.

Correct me if I'm wrong, again, not an electrical engineer, but is 1000 amp 480v service not uncommon for businesses? Wouldn't multiples of theses units (instead of a onesie, twosie) reduce the complexity, as a single unit does now? Taking existing infrastructure, instead of adding all the DCFC transformers and hardware? Or do I have no idea what I'm talking about and am completely off base?

 

[DevSecOps]

I understand what you were saying, those points were in your other post that I didn't quote. I was suggesting that, if multiple units are installed, you could offset that risk by having more capacity without the need to up the voltage at the site.

Correct me if I'm wrong, again, not an electrical engineer, but is 1000 amp 480v service not uncommon for businesses? Wouldn't multiples of theses units reduce the complexity, as a single unit does now? Taking existing infrastructure, instead of adding all the DCFC transformers and hardware? Or do I have no idea what I'm talking about and am completely off base?

In the USA, the most common voltage supplied to businesses is still 220. Most all the DCFC units require 3 phase 480.

For larger commercial buildings with the required power I don't see why they just wouldn't go with non battery units. I understand your point, but I wouldn't want to play musical chairs trying to find the unit that's not depleted.

Every time I've seen one of these they've always been alone as a single unit.

 

[Gloff]

In the USA, the most common voltage supplied to businesses is still 220. Most all the DCFC units require 3 phase 480.

For larger commercial buildings with the required power I don't see why they just wouldn't go with non battery units. I understand your point, but I wouldn't want to play musical chairs trying to find the unit that's not depleted.

Every time I've seen one of these they've always been alone as a single unit.

Thank you for the clarification. Do these units require less equipment? They say they are deployable faster and with less equipment. I assumed they bypass all the high power transformers?

Based on other posters, it seems like they're working on linking multiple units, which I see as key to maximizing throughput. A best of both worlds situation where they can draw at a constant 27kW AC without all the conversion, and discharge at DC. Linking a bunch of units seems like the best way to minimizing downtime. In high traffic areas, how many vehicles are charging per hour?

 

[DevSecOps]

Thank you for the clarification. Do these units require less equipment? They say they are deployable faster and with less equipment. I assumed they bypass all the high power transformers?

Based on other posters, it seems like they're working on linking multiple units, which I see as key to maximizing throughput. A best of both worlds situation where they can draw at a constant 27kW AC without all the conversion, and discharge at DC. Linking a bunch of units seems like the best way to minimizing downtime. In high traffic areas, how many vehicles are charging per hour?

I honestly haven't kept up with what they are attempting to do in the future with these. If they are attempting to link them together that would probably be a better alternative to a stand alone. I also haven't looked into the equipment, but I assume the "faster and less equipment" is purely based on the fact that the power required is far less. These units are self contained and don't require a pack to run them. Most other DCFC stations have the charge unit and the pack. There's probably someone else who could chime in on that aspect better.

 

[Gloff]

I honestly haven't kept up with what they are attempting to do in the future with these. If they are attempting to link them together that would probably be a better alternative to a stand alone. I also haven't looked into the equipment, but I assume the "faster and less equipment" is purely based on the fact that the power required is far less. These units are self contained and don't require a pack to run them. Most other DCFC stations have the charge unit and the pack. There's probably someone else who could chime in on that aspect better.

Charge unit I understand, what is the pack?

 

[Maquis]

In the USA, the most common voltage supplied to businesses is still 220. Most all the DCFC units require 3 phase 480.

For larger commercial buildings with the required power I don't see why they just wouldn't go with non battery units. I understand your point, but I wouldn't want to play musical chairs trying to find the unit that's not depleted.

Every time I've seen one of these they've always been alone as a single unit.

You’re right, it’s about the available power, not voltage.

Commercial services are mostly 208/120 wye.
Once you get to larger industrial businesses, it’s 480/277. There is still some 240V delta 3 phase out there, but most utilities won’t supply that for a new service.

The voltage isn’t normally the issue, it’s the (lack of) available power. If a charge station is to be built is anywhere near existing primaries, it’s simply a matter of installing the right transformer if sufficient power is available.

 

[Gloff]

You’re right, it’s about the available power, not voltage.

Commercial services are mostly 208/120 wye.
Once you get to larger industrial businesses, it’s 480/277. There is still some 240V delta 3 phase out there, but most utilities won’t supply that for a new service.

The voltage isn’t normally the issue, it’s the (lack of) available power. If a charge station is to be built is anywhere near existing primaries, it’s simply a matter of installing the right transformer if sufficient power is available.

If I understand correctly, with a traditional DCFC, you need a transformer to step up the voltage. Edit: By power you mean Amperage at the site, right? How much does a DCFC need at any given moment in time? 200 amps? There's no transformer required for these Freewire units, as they're just drawing power at relatively normal voltages to AC Charge the batteries, then discharging DC from the batteries to the vehicle, yes?

So at what point is the AC draw on these units too much, 5 units, 10 units? To my mind it's like drawing and charging at a moment in time at max wattage vs drawing slower over time and charging in a moment.

Like at my dealership, we have three AC chargers, all three can run simultaneously at 11.5 kW, but they're not being utilized all day/all night. If you could store the energy they supply in 24 hours, that would be 828kW. Assuming a Mach E Ext Range charging 10-80% (63kWh) that's enough energy to DCFC 13 Mach Es back to back in 8 hours (assuming 40m 10-80% charge time). That would be enough energy to fully charge 5 of these freewire units in 24 hours.

IF Freewire can link the packs together and have enough AC Amperage to charge all of them simlultaniously, wouldn't that work relatively well, or am I talking looney toons?

 

[Maquis]

If I understand correctly, with a traditional DCFC, you need a transformer to step up the voltage. Edit: By power you mean Amperage at the site, right? How much does a DCFC need at any given moment in time? 200 amps? There's no transformer required for these Freewire units, as they're just drawing power at relatively normal voltages to AC Charge the batteries, then discharging DC from the batteries to the vehicle, yes?

So at what point is the AC draw on these units too much, 5 units, 10 units? To my mind it's like drawing and charging at a moment in time at max wattage vs drawing slower over time and charging in a moment.

Like at my dealership, we have three AC chargers, all three can run simultaneously at 11.5 kW, but they're not being utilized all day/all night. If you could store the energy they supply in 24 hours, that would be 828kW. Assuming a Mach E Ext Range charging 10-80% (63kWh) that's enough energy to DCFC 13 Mach Es back to back in 8 hours (assuming 40m 10-80% charge time). That would be enough energy to fully charge 5 of these freewire units in 24 hours.

IF Freewire can link the packs together and have enough AC Amperage to charge all of them simlultaniously, wouldn't that work relatively well, or am I talking looney toons?

Power is volts times amps. Energy is power times time.
So to charge a battery that’s 400V at 80 KW, the current is 200A.

Your example is basically correct, but it doesn’t take into account what Freewire says their equipment consists of which is a 160 kWh battery with a 27 KW charger at each station. See post 9.
That equates to about 2 MME ER 20-80% charges. Then, it needs 8 hours to recharge considering losses and tapering.

 

[Gloff]

Power is volts times amps. Energy is power times time.
So to charge a battery that’s 400V at 80 KW, the current is 200A.

Your example is basically correct, but it doesn’t take into account what Freewire says their equipment consists of which is a 160 kWh battery with a 27 KW charger at each station. See post 9.
That equates to about 2 MME ER 20-80% charges. Then, it needs 8 hours to recharge considering losses and tapering.

I'm not sure what I'm suggesting is coming through clearly. I understand freewire's individual setup having one 160kWh pack, I'm suggesting that a setup consisting of multiple freewire units storing energy 24/7 to the multiple packs. Kind of like a home backup solar setup, if you have battery storage, you can generate more electricity with a bigger system than you need for daily usage and store that energy for overnight use. In this case, these units would constantly recharging multiple 160kWh packs. Ideally, sharing power between them would increase throughput across all of the units. My thought is that instead of needing a transformer to step up the voltage for instantaneous power for each DCFC, you slow charge constantly to the multiple battery packs.

To @DevSecOps point, one unit isn't enough for high traffic areas.

Could this work much like a gas station does now, where there are multiple pumps that draw fuel(electricity) from a big underground tank(multiple battery units)? Let's assume this area had 480V easily accessible, that would mean each Freewire unit would require 57 amps to charge it's onboard battery at full power. So 10 units would require 570 amps. Is this an abnormal amount amperage for a commercial site? Is it viable to run those 10 x 27kW chargers continuously? My naivety may be showing here, but is it possible to wire multiple packs in parallel and charge them with more than one OBC? Or, could you have it wired in such a way that you could disconnect the parallel connection for charging each pack, and reconnect in the event an individual dispenser needs more kWh to charge a vehicle?

 

[kltye]

Power is volts times amps. Energy is power times time.
So to charge a battery that’s 400V at 80 KW, the current is 200A.

Your example is basically correct, but it doesn’t take into account what Freewire says their equipment consists of which is a 160 kWh battery with a 27 KW charger at each station. See post 9.
That equates to about 2 MME ER 20-80% charges. Then, it needs 8 hours to recharge considering losses and tapering.

Hang on - 60% of an ER battery is about 53 kWh. (I'm assuming they're doing DC-DC conversion from the battery pack to the car) So that's much closer to three ER batteries that need 60% charge. Then don't forget, there's the constant 27 kW coming in as well - which admittedly isn't much, but it's not like the cars are pulling the entire 53 kWh from the built-in battery.

Sponsored