GM Adopting NACS Tesla Charge Ports on Its Vehicles Starting 2025!

[CyberGus]

Ahh, Ford doesn't grow any eggs.

yes they do

 

[cvalue13]

Ahh, Ford doesn't grow any eggs. Ford buys eggs from supplier who added a margin of profit for themselves.

 

[Crissa]

...I probably should complain that the administration hasn't shown any leadership in terms of coalescing the industry around a single standard.

...I certainly don't like the government thinking it's their job to pick the winners and losers...

Which is it, man? It can't be both.

The government should be in the market meddling to make sure the safe things, the least environmentally costly things win - and that consumers don't lose when the standard they bought into is deprecated.

-Crissa

 

[Knucklehead]

Which is it, man? It can't be both.

The government should be in the market meddling to make sure the safe things, the least environmentally costly things win - and that consumers don't lose when the standard they bought into is deprecated.

-Crissa

When the government meddles, there are negative consequences. Always. It is almost impossible for the negative consequences to be less than the benefit the meddling provides. Sometimes the negative consequences are not immediately obvious, but they are always there.

The small number of people doing the meddling are not smarter than millions of people making choices that are best for them. Free markets are not perfect, because human beings are not perfect, but they are better than than top-down mandates and autocratic control from a small group of imperfect people, who think they are smarter than the millions they are trying to control.

Now the government is catching up with the (partially) free market, because obviously the small number of imperfect people writing the laws and regulations didn't expect NACS would become the industry standard. How could they not know? Because they are not smarter than the (partially) free market.

Thank God those "super smart" autocrats didn't mandate the CSS standard for the US. NACS is a MUCH better solution. I bet they considered mandating CSS. But maybe they were too stupid to even understand the difference between CSS and NACS. The law writers are stupid people, IMO. Stupid yet arrogant. What a horrible combination.

 

[cvalue13]

The law writers are stupid people, IMO. Stupid yet arrogant. What a horrible combination.

the irony here

 

[HaulingAss]

Which is it, man? It can't be both.

The government should be in the market meddling to make sure the safe things, the least environmentally costly things win - and that consumers don't lose when the standard they bought into is deprecated.

-Crissa

There is a difference between the government picking the standard, using all their infinite wisdon, and the government encouraging the industry to pick a single standard.

The IRA rules say chargers supporting NACS must also support CCS in order to be eligible for the funding. But not the other way around. That is picking CCS, the least commonly deployed standard, and the most expensive to manufacture, as the king while still encouraging a fractured system. Government should not pick winners and losers so they shouldn't have put the two standards on unequal footing.

I'm hoping, now that the two biggest players have announced their intention to adopt the superior standard, that the government will change their misguided rules so they make more sense. The transition to EV's is still in the early stages so it makes a ton of sense to coalesce around the superior standard rather than waste billions of dollars creating a fractured charging infrastructure system. The minority of existing vehicles using the inferior standard can continue using existing CCS stations and/or use an adapter so they can charge at either. If the government put the two competing standards on equal footing, then the industry would be choosing the winners and losers.

I don't see that my position is at odds with itself (and maybe you don't either now that I've explained it).

 

[CyberGus]

When the government meddles, there are negative consequences. Always. It is almost impossible for the negative consequences to be less than the benefit the meddling provides. Sometimes the negative consequences are not immediately obvious, but they are always there.

The small number of people doing the meddling are not smarter than millions of people making choices that are best for them. Free markets are not perfect, because human beings are not perfect, but they are better than than top-down mandates and autocratic control from a small group of imperfect people, who think they are smarter than the millions they are trying to control.

Now the government is catching up with the (partially) free market, because obviously the small number of imperfect people writing the laws and regulations didn't expect NACS would become the industry standard. How could they not know? Because they are not smarter than the (partially) free market.

Thank God those "super smart" autocrats didn't mandate the CSS standard for the US. NACS is a MUCH better solution. I bet they considered mandating CSS. But maybe they were too stupid to even understand the difference between CSS and NACS. The law writers are stupid people, IMO. Stupid yet arrogant. What a horrible combination.

When a laissez-faire government sits on its hands and does nothing, there are negative consequences. Always.

Choose your poison.

 

[Crissa]

Weirdly you guys are complaining about the government being always bad...

...and then arguing for the result the government is taking.

What is the negative consequences when safety regulations are required? The negative consequences for pricing pollution and climate change into products?

-Crissa

 

[Tinker71]

Which is it, man? It can't be both.

The government should be in the market meddling to make sure the safe things, the least environmentally costly things win - and that consumers don't lose when the standard they bought into is deprecated.

-Crissa

I bought a J1772 to Tesla charger adapter for $100

I wonder what the financials would look like to just give out a tax credit for purchasing CCS adapters for anyone that needs one vs putting CCS charge cords on xx charge stations then swapping them over to Tesla NASC after 10? years.

As a NASC owner I would hate to carry around a bulky adapters just in case the NASC stalls are full by the CCS are open.

 

[Crissa]

I bought a J1772 to Tesla charger adapter for $100

I wonder what the financials would look like to just give out a tax credit for purchasing CCS adapters for anyone that needs one vs putting CCS charge cords on xx charge stations then swapping them over to Tesla NASC after 10? years.

As a NASC owner I would hate to carry around a bulky adapters just in case the NASC stalls are full by the CCS are open.

The cables will wear out in ten years, and most of the cars will, too.

Most Superchargers don't yet support adapters. So it's a bit early to say that CCS1 cars are supported by the system.

I fully support the changeover, but charging stations need to support the last ten years of cars, not just cars yet to be delivered.

I also wonder what will happen to the sub-50kW charging vehicles, which weren't supported by the ver 3 Superchargers in the EU. Motorcycles like Energica and Livewire will always have smaller battery packs, and hence, need a lower charge rate to get the same miles (they get from 6-10 miles per kWh instead of the 3-6 of standard cars).

And if the CCS cars are filling up the Superchargers, there's probably something wrong - cost or function - with the CCS charger. And you're no worse off than if they all bought Tesla because of the Supercharger network.

-Crissa

 

[Tinker71]

The cables will wear out in ten years, and most of the cars will, too.

Most Superchargers don't yet support adapters. So it's a bit early to say that CCS1 cars are supported by the system.

I fully support the changeover, but charging stations need to support the last ten years of cars, not just cars yet to be delivered.

I also wonder what will happen to the sub-50kW charging vehicles, which weren't supported by the ver 3 Superchargers in the EU. Motorcycles like Energica and Livewire will always have smaller battery packs, and hence, need a lower charge rate to get the same miles (they get from 6-10 miles per kWh instead of the 3-6 of standard cars).

And if the CCS cars are filling up the Superchargers, there's probably something wrong - cost or function - with the CCS charger. And you're no worse off than if they all bought Tesla because of the Supercharger network.

-Crissa

I just crossed 6000 mile on my M3 and have only super charged once for 7 minutes. I am lucky I can charge at home. The key is level 2 chargers anywhere someone can park for 4 hours. We need millions of them . Then adapters can easily be used.

Then superchargers won't get overloaded in the first place. Minus a couple peak travel days.

 

[Crissa]

I just crossed 6000 mile on my M3 and have only super charged once for 7 minutes. I am lucky I can charge at home. The key is level 2 chargers anywhere someone can park for 4 hours. We need millions of them . Then adapters can easily be used.

Then superchargers won't get overloaded in the first place. Minus a couple peak travel days.

Yeah, definitely as we go from 5% EVs to 95% EVs, every motel and apartment will need not just a few, but most of their spots to have level 1 charging. And workplaces will need them to take advantage of cheap solar.

That's where I think the government mandates are falling down.

-Crissa

 

[Tinker71]

Yeah, definitely as we go from 5% EVs to 95% EVs, every motel and apartment will need not just a few, but most of their spots to have level 1 charging. And workplaces will need them to take advantage of cheap solar.

That's where I think the government mandates are falling down.

-Crissa

I just looked it up. There are 278 million passenger/light trucks registered. We will need a ratio of 1/3 or 1/4. Chargers per EV I am guessing. Superchargers are the problem more is not the solution.

 

[CyberGus]

I just looked it up. There are 278 million passenger/light trucks registered. We will need a ratio of 1/3 or 1/4. Chargers per EV I am guessing. Superchargers are the problem more is not the solution.

There are 150,000 gas stations in the US. Assuming ten pumps per station, that's still a ratio of about 200:1 for the existing ICE fleet.

By the time we have even 100M EVs on the road, I expect DCFC to charge 10%->80% in 5 to 10 minutes, which is comparable to ICE refilling.

We will never have, nor need, 1 Supercharger for every 4 cars. That's ludicrous (and not in a good way).

 

[Crissa]

There are 150,000 gas stations in the US. Assuming ten pumps per station, that's still a ratio of about 200:1 for the existing ICE fleet.

By the time we have even 100M EVs on the road, I expect DCFC to charge 10%->80% in 5 to 10 minutes, which is comparable to ICE refilling.

We will never have, nor need, 1 Supercharger for every 4 cars. That's ludicrous (and not in a good way).

Tinker was speaking of level 1-2 charging, such as at home, work, hotel, or other destination the car is likely to sit at.

They have the advantage of spreading demand on the grid out to match the supply or grid limitations, as well as not needing big, heavy batteries or big, expensive chargers.

This is a good space for Virtual Power Plant type grid connectivity as well.

-Crissa