400 “Ultra-Fast” 350 kW Charging Station Network Planned By 4 Automakers For Europe

NOV 29 2016 BY JAY COLE 169

Good news! Now your have a place to plug in your 2019 Porsche Mission e and grab a 350 kW boost in Europe. Actually, you will have ~400 or some places

Good news! Now your have a place to plug in your 2019 Porsche Mission e and grab a 350 kW boost in Europe. Actually, you will have ~400 or some places

In a rare moment of collaboration and joint interest four major automakers have come together to announce the formation of a high-powered charging network along long distance travel routes in Europe.

The CCS Combo charging protocol gets a big shot in the arm for Europe

The CCS Combo charging protocol gets a big shot in the arm for Europe

The infrastructure joint venture is backed by:

  • Ford
  • BMW
  • Audi
  • Porsche
  • Daimler

And yes, one might note that there are 5 names there (as well as comments from 5 OEMs below), but Audi and Porsche are still both the VW Group to us.

The new stations, ~400 worth of them, will offer charging up to 350 kW.   Everyone in the group is a CCS Combo supporter, so perhaps unsurprisingly the network will be as such:

“Network is based on the Combined Charging System (CCS) standard which uses a connector that is fully compatible with most current and next generations BEVs”

The unnamed ultra-fast network will be being its deployment in 2017, and the ~400 stations is only a starting point.  The group says that by 2020 “customers should have access to thousands of high-powered charging points.” 

With a stated output of 350 kW, that is more than double Tesla’s current charging standard (~145 kW), and well above what any retail plug-in offering can accept today – so the station will be more than future-proof.  Or put another way, good news for those planning the purchase of a Porsche Mission e (a vehicle reportedly capable of recharging its ~95 kWh battery in about 15 mins) in 2019.

“The goal is to enable long-distance travel through open-network charging stations along highways and major thoroughfares, which has not been feasible for most BEV drivers to date. The charging experience is expected to evolve to be as convenient as refueling at conventional gas stations.”

The set up reminds us of the recently announced “Ultra E” program to install along the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), with points in Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Austria…but that network is only planned for 25 (350 kW) charging stations deep currently.

Why faster...is better (via Porsche Engineering Magazine)

Why faster…is better

The four automakers will be joint partners in the network, and will each make “substantial investments” in the project.   However, at the same time it is not a closed group, as other OEMs are both welcome and encouraged to join.  No locations have yet been announced.

Statements from the various persons of interest at the automakers:

BMW Group

“This high-power charging network provides motorists with another strong argument to move towards electric mobility,” says Harald Krüger, Chairman of the Board of Management of BMW AG. “The BMW Group has initiated numerous public charging infrastructure projects over the last years. The joint project is another major milestone clearly demonstrating that competitors are combining forces to ramp-up e-mobility.”

Also capable of 350 kW charing - The Vision Mercedes-Maybach 6 ...well, at least the concept is on paper

Also capable of 350 kW charing – The Vision Mercedes-Maybach 6 …well, at least the concept is on paper

Daimler AG

“The breakthrough of e-mobility requires two things: convincing vehicles and a comprehensive charging infrastructure. With our new brand EQ, we are launching our electric product offensive: by 2025, our portfolio will include more than ten fully electric passenger cars. Together with our partners, we are now installing the highest-powered charging infrastructure in Europe,” says Dr. Dieter Zetsche, Chairman of the Board of Management of Daimler AG and Head of Mercedes-Benz Cars. “The availability of high-power stations allows long-distance e-mobility for the first time and will convince more and more customers to opt for an electric vehicle.”

Ford Motor Company

“A reliable, ultra-fast charging infrastructure is important for mass consumer adoption and has the potential to transform the possibilities for electric driving,” says Mark Fields, president and CEO, Ford Motor Company. “Ford is committed to developing vehicles and technologies that make people’s lives better, and this charging network will make it easier and more practical for customers across Europe to own electrified vehicles.”

Prototype of an 800-volt DC charging station (cooperation between Porsche Design and the Charging Systems department at Porsche AG)

Prototype of an 800-volt DC charging station (cooperation between Porsche
Design and the Charging Systems department at Porsche AG)


“We intend to create a network that allows our customers on long-distance trips to use a coffee break for recharging,” says Rupert Stadler, Chairman of the Board of Management of AUDI AG. “Reliable fast charging services are a key factor for drivers to choose an electric vehicle. With this cooperation we want to boost a broader market adoption of e-mobility and speed up the shift towards emission-free driving.”

Porsche AG

“There are two decisive aspects for us: ultra-fast charging and placing the charging stations at the right positions,” says Oliver Blume, Chairman of the Executive Board of Porsche AG. “Together, these two factors enable us to travel in an all-electrically powered car as in a conventional combustion engine vehicle. As automobile manufacturer, we actively shape our future, not only by developing all-electrically powered vehicles but by building up the necessary infrastructure as well.”

 Hat tip to Alan H!

Categories: Audi, BMW, Charging, Chrysler, Daimler, Ford, Porsche

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

169 Comments on "400 “Ultra-Fast” 350 kW Charging Station Network Planned By 4 Automakers For Europe"

newest oldest most voted

A bet there is some hand wringing going on at BP and Total today.

Gas stations already have the best locations for these charging stations, and should be very interested in this customer group.

This charging network can be a great opportunity for them to join the party, and it would be extremely stupid (but not at all surprising) if they just ignore this opportunity.

Would be great! But.,Gas stations join the party to put themselves “out of Business” NEVER!!

“Gas Stations” are really convenience stores or fast food restaurants that sell gas in order to attract junk food eaters.

Installing fast chargers does nothing to put them out of business. Quite the opposite is true.

BTW Great for potential European Mission E Customers. Not so great for potential American or Asian Mission E customers.

BTW II WTF is Opel/GM?

Opel is the badge used in Europe for at least some GM cars. For example, the Chevrolet Volt 1.0 was badged as the Opel Ampera, and the Chevrolet Bolt (confusingly) will be badged as the Opel Ampera-e.

I think in this case, he means “Where the eff” not “What the eff.”

Where the eff is Opel/GM in this group of fast charge OEMs?

U can go for lunch and charge your EV at the same time. Not a bad business model. And long trips won’t be a problem anymore.

Tesla already offers that, and offered others to adopt it. Nobody did.

Because it is a propietary type and not folloing the SAE set of “standards” that all other manufactures follow. TM will survive if they offer an adapter to charge their models at the CCS stations, or add that inlet type to the models.

The smart station owners will install the SAE CCS chargers because it keeps their regular customers who convert fom gas to electricity. And those cutsomers who wait longer will spend more in ther “all services shop”. BTW, a DC fast charger cost much less to install than a new gasoline pump (and use up almost the same amount of electrical power). So in the long term, they will come out ahead.

I think he was referring to oil majors’ upstream production business, not the downstream distribution business, which many oil majors have already spun off anyways.

Oil company franchised gas stations are not even allowed to sell E85, let alone electricity.

Gee…I wonder where they got that BIG Idea ! ?? l m a o

Not in the US where we’re going to be “great” again.

He was saying “late”… “make American late again”.


speechless – pure comic genius.

Maybe it was Make America grate again.

Make American Hate Again

Think it’s a little late for that. Have you watched the news in the past couple years?

You couldn’t pay me to be a police officer in today’s society.

This has been going on far before any election and doesn’t seem to be improving in any way.

Politics aside, it’s a sad situation that has been on a downward spiral for some time now.

Trump said “punch them in the face and drag them out”…”I could shoot someone in the streets”..if that does not sound like hate to you then God help you.

LOL..in the US we are going back to the 1950s.

New mandates for full service?

Keep winding the clock back … PEVs where very popular in 1910’s. 😉

Trump just nominated Mitch McConnell’s wife for Transportation secretary.

So . . . are coal-powered cars the upcoming Trump Technology?

Coal is organic and no chemicals added.

Solar panels, not so much.

I use plenty of solar energy at home. It feeds my plants and trees (one is a lemon tree so I get free fruit and beverage), and it dries my clothes, too, for free (we also call it a clothesline). Can you do any of that with Coal? If you dried your clothes with Coal (no burning allowed), they will stay wet and get dirty!

I don’t think anything will change under Trump.
The only change will be his personal wealth, which will have a major boost.

Daimler says “the availability of high-power stations allows long-distance e-mobility for the first time…”


He is too proud to admit a Silicon Valley start up showed them the way. When the whole world knows about the renowned Supercharger (not the other “supercharger” a.k.a. KOMPRESSOR)

He is of course absolutely right. For the first time, Daimler’s electric vehicles will be able to drive long distances (provided that the next models to come have a bigger battery than the currently available Daimler BEVs).

You can bet Tesla is already looking at this. Who know it might be a simple upgrade to the existing super charger network…..just another reason to buy Tesla.

Not so easy for a Tesla to appreciate the faster charging of an 800 Volt network unless the native voltage the Tesla Pack is 800 Volts.So perhaps the charger can reduce Voltage to accommodate different cars (not sure though), but not generally possible for a 400 Volt pack to suddenly accept 800 volts. And you aren’t going to pump 350kW at 400 volts due to the extreme current required. Seven times more than a 50KW Charger.

Tesla isn’t going to increase the voltage of their Superchargers unless and until they plan to start building cars which can accept higher voltage. And of course existing cars won’t be upgraded for that, just like Roadsters were not upgraded to use DCFC.

But Tesla has already increased the power output on newer Superchargers, and it’s almost certain they are thinking about doing that again. As battery pack sizes increase, now to 100 kWh, if Tesla wants to maintain the same amount of time to maximum charge, then they will need to up the kW rating again.

I’ve never seen a wiring diagram for a Tesla but it is quiet conceivable that you could wire the battery pack to increase voltage. The current battery is 350-400V? and contains 7000ish cells getting to 800V is not going to be a massive issue. They may even discharge the battery at higher voltage but charge at low voltage to make it compatible with other battery charging standards currently available. IMO it is not an accident that the voltage is basically twice that of existing battery packs.

Crossing over the threshold into “high voltage” territory certainly is a huge issue, because voltage gets so high that electricity jumping the spark gap to any metal or other conductor in the car becomes a significant issue. In the USA, “high voltage” is considered to be anything above 600 volts.

While I would guess it’s theoretically possible to upgrade any electrical or electronic system for higher voltage if you want to spend enough money on rewiring and replacing existing electronics with those rated for higher voltage, there comes a point at which it becomes too expensive to make sense as a retrofit of a mass produced car. That’s why the Tesla Roadster isn’t being retrofitted for Supercharger use, even for customers who get the new upgraded battery pack; that would require replacing the power electronics, and would be too expensive for that to make sense.

Dated info…. 2017 NEC changes the demarcation point to 1000 volts.

Its been a long time in coming, but modern thermoplastic and Cross-Linked Plastics (that hopefully will make the modern version of Pex Plumbing work longer than the last version of PEX, that had to be totally ripped out of unsuspecting homeowners’ houses) are pretty safe from Carbon Tracking and Corona at 1000 volts, versus the old rubber insulations where the withstand rating was only 600.

So I’d forget that 600 volt benchmark. Its 2017 not 1925.

Also worth pointing out that a domestic microwave oven operates at over 2000V.

These voltages are not to be sniffed at but are perfectly controllable if the system is properly engineered.

A standard combustion engine car spark plug is even operating above 20000 V with no wiring issue.

Beside Fluor polymers can go much further up to 150000 V, so 2000 V is not difficult.

In the long run the 800 V is likely to be doubled again to 1600 V. At that voltage we can really get toward Megacharger power and enter the true lower than 10 minute charging for a 150 KWh battery. But it becomes time to have a pantograph type automatic charging system under the car to avoid any manipulation and allow easy automatic charging at a Megacharger, a fast charger, a home garage charger or every other packing place equipped with two inox contacts and a bluethooth security communication chip.

‘electricity jumping the spark gap to any metal or other conductor in the car becomes a significant issue’.
Not really, take a look for yourself:


0.004″ airgap at 800V. This can’t be an issue.

You are talking about theoretical distances with dry air.

I’ve personally experienced opening a switch at 2400 volts ac (with no ‘blow out’), where the arc length had to be increased to 18″ before convection ‘blew’ the arc out.

Do you keep your car’s gasoline in an open container and pour it by hand into your engine? No, because your gas system uses pipes and closed containers. Same with electricity! Electricity is used inside insulated conductors, so you will never be hared by it. BTW, more pepole die due to gasoline fires than all the posted deaths by electricity!

“Increased the power of the later superchargers”.

Supposedly, each SC cabinet has 12 car chargers in them – and so obviously since the EURO chargers are bigger than the American ones, 12 EURO chargers will produce more output.

There has also been at least one 6, and one 9 charger model – not sure where those are.

But that is quite different than using a broad brush as to what the existing facilities are.

Yes Warren. Obviously current Tesla vehicles could not take the higher voltage. That would require Tesla to go to 800 Volt battery packs. It wouldn’t surprise me if that is a trick Elon has up his sleeve.

However, He could still upgrade the existing SC network to the higher voltage. The older cars would just charge at their design speed. Note that current doesn’t change only Voltage so all the conductors could possibly be used in the superchargers. That’s the beauty of doubling the Voltage.

Note that the Volt 1.6 kw Volt portable charger can be rewired to take 240 Volts and the power doubles. Simple change

Yes, double the voltage, half the current for same approx wattage. My upgraded LEAF EVSE is all I use for charging all my cars at home.

‘1.6 kw charging cord’.

As a rule, we don’t have 133 1/3 volts at our convenience recepticles so I’m not sure what planet you are talking about.

You can already supercharge a Tesla during a 25-30 minute “coffee break”, as part of a 400 mile trip. That is what their 135kw charging allows, when you leave your garage fully charged.

I’m more impressed about these OEMs verbalizing the need for a “reliable” charging network, at any level of direct current. It is another glimmer that they understand.

The cost of this network won’t be measured in chargers. It will be the lost revenue from maintaining all the proprietary bits that make inordinately complex internal combustion automobiles tick, and the thinner margins electric vehicles represent.

For the consumer that gets it, “it’s all good”.

Yes, its great they are looking at reliable as an important characteristic.

Tesla needs to up (double) the voltage of the batteries to get to such power levels as 350 kW. Basically it wont happen any time soon, and it surely wont happen to the existing models, probably not even with the model 3 family either.

Does Tesla really need to get to 350 kW charge rates that soon? Car makers don’t build cars trying to satisfy the most demanding buyer on every point, they build cars that will make 80% of the potential buyers happy. There will be buyers who want to get 400 miles of additional range in 5 minutes, but they are rare enough so that satisfying them isn’t that important. Once you get to the point where a car can recharge at a rate sufficient to get 210 miles at 70 mph in 20 minutes or less, you will have satisfied most potential electric car buyers. Most people would be happy with a pack large enough to charge quickly and that encounters limited or no charge tapering, and can get you in an out of the charge station in 20 minutes or less. 210 miles in 20 minutes could be achieved with a respectable 180 kW charge rate, which is right around half as fast as the standard noted above. Would it be worth the added cost and complexity to go from 200 kW charge rates to 350? This year or next, I doubt it. 5 years from now? Still doubt it.… Read more »

I would actually have preferred 500 KW as a half way point towards the Megacharger (1000 KW).

It is not so much that we need it right now but rather that we secure for when the cells with high high C rates are there. In the mean time we also eliminate any charging cable section thickness issues and heat loss as well as high temperature issues.

By the way buses and trucks will need way more power anyway so we may as well up the standard Beside it will still be able to provide lower power at lower voltages, so there is no real problem. He who can do more can do less.

It will add more locations for a Tesla driver with a CCS adaptor. Charging speed will not be 350, but likely the Tesla standard speed

Ford!? Wha…wha..wha…whaaaaaat?

Yeah, that kinda p1sses me off. Their only EV is a clunky conversion. Their PHEVs are underbatteried.

And then they announce a high-speed fast charging network IN EUROPE?


No GM in the list? If not for BMW, I would’ve said those other guys are blowing smoke. eGolf doesn’t even have active cooling, and I doubt it’d be able to take 50 kW without severe taper, let alone 350 kW.

Without knowing the drag and power, that graph of average speed vs driven speed is meaningless. Here’s one for SparkEV based on power at speed. Notice it does taper down at high speed since drag power is cube of speed and motor power not a flat line. Also note that it can drive 1000 miles in a day even with 50 kW DCFC and 80’ish miles range per charge SparkEV.

Once again… GM not really in the game… rather than leading they could have had at least a 100kW capable BOLT DCFC interface… but instead… 60kW takes over an hour. Hopefully BOLT 1.5 will use this… course it is all 1 to 3 years out in terms of availability.

You misunderstand max charging rates and effective charging rates.

If you think a 60kWh Model 3 will sustain a charge rate of 100kW, you are in for a surprise!!

I am wondering if it takes only 15 mins for a 95kWh battery to be fully charged,

A) What would the first 80% be charged in ?

B) what is the miles per minute charge rate up to 80% ?

A) I bet it’s 80% of 95kWh in 15 Minutes. Since 350kW for 15 Minutes will only get you 87kWh without charging loss.

B) Highly depends on driving style. You recharge at 350kW. If you consume 40kWh/100km (640Wh/mile or 1.55miles/kWh) because of high Speed (think 100mph) driving you recharge “only” 875 kph (544 mph). If you drive reasonably and you consume around 20kWh/100miles (320Wh/mile or 3.1miles/kWh) you recharge 1750 kph (1088 mph).

Just for reference a conventional gasoline pump can “charge” your car at a rate of 6000-12000kph (3720-7450 mph).

Yeah, but that way you are committing to 10 – 20 billion grams of CO2 per hour.

I’ve seen 3,000 watt hours / mile at the track, but rarely escape the 250-400 wh/mi in public. In the very limited places where the above cars can drive “100mph”, perhaps their customers should chose something else, or sellers should develop a better “EREV”, or extended range PHEV. The <10kwh cars have been a big expensive joke. Either take the plug away and stay hybrid, or put in 60-80 miles worth of NEDC range, in the battery.

Nobody plugs in to save the price of a cup of coffee, and make their performance delivery less consistent.

The Volt will have had the PHEV formula right, for about 10 years before we might see another. The Prius started kinetic recovery, and hybrid, which lead to LMP1 and current F1 tech. We're ready.

How does that compare with the average ICE car in the US ?

It sounds pretty good to me for an EV.


You beat me to it !

87kWh assume no taper, which does not sound all that great for pack life.

I bet Nissan are looking at this closely too !

CHAdeMO is getting to 150kW soon with existing connectors… so if they add the combo CCS to their J1772Plug then a LEAF could use any plug they find along the way. Sure hope they support both. Now that the Supercharger net is charging… maybe other companies will start to adopt that socket also on their cars.

Chademo needs to go, a single standard will do a lot more good for adoption of EVs.

I applaud Chademo for being the first standard, but the sooner we go to one standard, the better for EV adoption.

Even if, then there’s still two CCS standards, and in China there’s another one…

Also what is the effect on battery degradation when charged at 350kW vs 50KW ?

That depends on the battery capacity and chemistry.

But I would not try to get that power into any of the current EV cars sold. 😉

A lithium titanate battery in a bus though, that would be fine today.

“That depends on the battery capacity and chemistry.”

Don’t forget cooling. At that kind of power even the slightest inefficiencies will yield quite a bit of heat. And given the limited volume of a car’s battery pack, it could be a pain to remove it from the system.

350kw is a lot more energy to make heat with, but at 800v can be done with much thinner wire. Ultimately, it may be wires currently used by Tesla’s chargers which would be used to run 800v, at twice the current (~280kw).

We’re focused upon charging, in this thread. What about the likely motor kw, in a Mission E that has up to 800v coming from its battery? What about the regeneration rates (kw) coming back from braking, when that battery can upload much faster? I’m curious how many ways Porsche will exploit the possibilities of higher voltage.

I hope they “bring it” to Pike’s Peak.

You mean at twice the power – twice the voltage and the SAME current. And hence the same cables.

Yep, a Model S 200, or a Model S 300 could take 350kW charge rate.
350kW will cover future EVs pretty well, I just wonder when are they going to launch such an EV, which can take this charge rate.

I don’t know for the Model S 200 and I think the Model S 300 will never be, but for sure if a Tesla truck is ever to come on the market, it will likely have a 200 KWh battery as base standard to be able to have 200 miles range while towing. So the need is obviously there because you won’t want to wait for double the time compared to a Model S when you go supercharging your truck.

It’s impossible to say. It depends on the pack.

Charging faster is not more damaging if the pack doesn’t become hotter in the process than it would with slower charging. If it does become hotter then the reduction in pack lifespan is proportional (but not directly proportional) to the increase in temperature.

Since we aren’t specifying a particular pack here none of us know what the impact would be. And even if we did specify a pack, likely none of us have the data to say.

A well-cooled (liquid cooled) pack could be designed to quick charge on one of these with minimal impact on pack lifespan. Unless it’s a large pack it likely won’t go at 350kW, but you cold go at quite a high rate as you see with Tesla.

What about the USA? Trump won…not gonna happen in the USA.

Didn’t vote for Trump, actually would have been my 3rd choice, but did I miss some announcement where he’s going to actively stop an EV transition?

Right now, the US has the best EV charging infrastructure in the world thanks to Tesla and the government only got in the way (via permitting).

Tesla is already talking about doing a completely autonomous cross country drive, which includes autonomous charging.

Is Trump going to issue an executive order to stop this?

If Porsche, GM, VW, whoever want an infrastructure for their cars, they can negotiate with Tesla or with 7-11, QuikTrip, etc to roll one out here.

Trump’s tone is to repeal everything Obama did in the past 8 years, therefore I expect Trump to move against clean renewable energy policy and it includes EV transition. But I hope I’m wrong believe me lol

That was his campaign position to sucker people in to voting for him. He has already backpedaled on almost all of it.

Now he just goes to steak dinners and tweets stupid things, while skipping intelligence briefings. I think the question we should ask is what is President.. um.. I mean Vice President Pence going to do.

Yeah. He already made this clear long before he even picked Pence as his running mate that the VP would be getting the coffee and making copies.

Remember when Kasich flat out told the press that he was offered that very deal as VP?

Yep in the end Trump is a politician…
But it is the scienctist, engineers and business men who will continue to lower cost and speed up recharging time and roll out EVs and charging stations to the masses…
The gov can slow ot down or speed it up a little but that it will not stop especialy with China being the num 1 auto market and the EU will only go harder and harder for cpean air in their cities…

Mister G, Think “I, I, H, T, T” Infrastructure, Immigration, Health care, Trade and Taxes. If it isn’t in this list, it isn’t to be advanced, or repealed. That doesn’t mean Trump won’t horse trade away with the Republican Congress, but it seems so far to be a guide to what he’s trying to bite off.

Sublime said: “…did I miss some announcement where he’s going to actively stop an EV transition?” I don’t think it matters much if Trump himself has any interest in that. The people he’s appointing to run the various agencies are mostly hard-right activists, who certainly have a pro-Big Oil, anti-green agenda. Is EV tech going to be banned? No. Is it going to be subject to onerous fines (“fees”) and unnecessary regulations? Definitely. In fact, we’re already seeing annual fines imposed on EV drivers in some States, supposedly because those drivers pay less in gasoline taxes every year. (And that’s true, but EV advocates say the imposed fines far outweigh the loss of tax revenue.) The EV revolution won’t be stopped under the Trumpian administration, but it certainly will be slowed. The Washington Post had this to say about Trump’s pick to run the EPA: “The man planning how a Trump administration can obliterate Obama’s environmental legacy is Myron Ebell, a Washington fixture who has long been a cheerful warrior against what he sees as an alarmist, overzealous environmental movement that has used global warming as a pretext for expanding government. Ebell has argued for opening up more federal lands… Read more »

We can certainly expect the tax credit for residential renewable energy installations to not be renewed past the 2019 cuttoff. Better get our PV panels while the getting is good.

Hopefully Tesla can get their solar roof off the ground and running before too close to 2019.

Ebell, and the belief of many, that the states are the better place deserves a “careful what you wish for” response.

States downwind of emitters have a demonstrated right to clean air, no matter how dependent places, like Texas, might be on fossil fuels. The Clean Air Act has been tested on this, and prevailed (CSAPR). This “States will do the right thing” non-sense sounds great from a founding fathers perspective, but the reality is a bunch of people, like Ebell, deciding what you’re going to breathe.

TX is by far the nation’s leader in wind generation. Just sayin’….

This is true but requires some context I think. As a Texan myself I have looked into this before.

From what I have read, Texas, reached this point primarily by setting a renewable energy goal during the 1990s, mandating utilities invest in renewable energy, and by funding infrastructure for transmission lines. This was back when R’s and D’s were capable of working together toward a common goal and the Tea Party didn’t exist.

Many of today’s Texas Republicans would never have allowed this to happen. They’re fine maintaining state and federal subsidies for oil and gas, but not renewable energy.



Regulation and incentives were required to really get the ball rolling. Just like they were required for getting EVs off of the launch pad.

The good news is, even if all subsidies and mandates for renewable energy were to vanish, Texas wind would likely survive at this point.

pj — yes, the courts have ruled many times on this issue.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t preempt folks like Ebell from simply ignoring the law and announcing the elimination of regulations that have already been ruled upon. The only recourse is to sue after Ebell acts.

Which leads to part II.

Previous rulings also don’t stop Trump from packing the courts with judges that will reverse prior rulings. With a 5-4 or 6-3 SCOTUS with Trump judges, all those prior rulings can all instantly become toilet paper.

+1, agreed!

Not to mention that they will use the “state right” cover to give the states the control of federal lands. That means that mostly western Red states that has the biggest problem with federal government controlling the FEDERAL LANDS!

It will just benefit local state to “sell out” their “federal lands” to the benefit of few resources based companies.

By appointing judges in SCOTUS and federal judges through DOJ, they can repeal many previous federal judge rulings on many issues. Many of the issues don’t even need to get to to SCOTUS before rulings are overturned.

There are going to be many lawsuits coming.

But the problem will be that court won’t stop those actions while lawsuits are pending. So, as they cut back the federal government, there will be less resistance in many of those executive orders issued by the executive branches. GOP congress won’t make a stop to it either!

Sadly, you’ve nailed it 100%.

Not just you Pushi, but most of the liberals here should really stop the histerical attacks made toward Mr. Trump. Although only being a reluctant supporter of Mr. Trump myself, Mr. Trump only has to do two things to become what will in retrospect be viewed as a great presidency: 1). Diffuse the tense situation with Russia and get along with them, unlike Mrs. Clinton who has said she approves of a “Nuclear First Strike”. On that note, Russia has watched over the decades how the WEST has demonized IRAQ, IRAN, SYRIA, Ukraine, and LIBYA in words, and then later went on to attack them when all of those countries stated they had no disagreement with the US. Kadafi was executed while attemping to surrender. Ukraine was surruptitiously attacked via Non-Governmental-Organization ‘Color Revolution’. Putin, during his UN speech, stated “DO YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE?” Since Russia is constantly being blamed for EVERYTHING, (with not a shread of proof), and being called ‘The new Hitler’, etc. makes Russia SERIOUSLY think they are about to be attacked. Except this time, the US is not bullying a Kindergartner that cannot defend itself. This time they’re picking on the College Linebacker. Putin… Read more »

Your THIRD choice?
I didn’t realize The Devil was on the ballot!

I’m sure his second choice was Great Cthulhu.

I think he has to be woken up first. You want to make the call?

Great to see.
I hope this is charger power and they’ll be Supercharger-style with multiple plugs.

The real scoop will be WHERE these stations are located!
Lets hope they are smart enough to put them along travelled routes and NOT at dealerships lots blocked in by other cars and locked inside fences at night.

lets hope but it wouldnt surprise me one bit.

They will possibly be at the Autobahn in Germany, likely at the location of the existing rest-stops, to use the infrastructure already in place.

oh yeah single plug charge points! nearly useless , they better go multiples at each place or its a worthless investment.

Didn’t VW have to stump up $2b for charging infrastructure in the US ?

That would buy a lot of 350kw chargers !

I thought the absolute fastest Tesla per the graphs was around 115 kw, the ones where they actually have graphs of the thing charging, and its only for a very few minutes before tapering off the peak.

It would also to be ‘fun’ to hear what a ‘Substantial Investment’ is – especially from groups like FORD.

Perhaps they could, while they are doing this vitally important function (of course, Tesla Superchargers seem to get along just fine at 115 kw (or 60 kw if they’re busy) of making 350 kw practical:

Of somehow figuring out a way to glue their MASSIVE 20 mile range batteries in the car so that it doesn’t use up 1/2 the trunk space (boot). The other companies mentioned are kind of a big YAWN as to current range also.

I wonder if the companies just talk about all this fast charging crap makes it more Politically Correct for them to absent-mindedly forget that the avg customer just wants a bigger battery so that he doesn’t have to charge all the time in the first place?

Think ya you used enough cynicism there, Butch? 😉

We should celebrate this consortium of auto makers planning a forward-looking format — and hopefully to become a real standard — for EV charging, rather than limiting themselves to the limited charging ability of most current non-Tesla PEVs (Plug-in EVs).

If EV tech is going to progress to a 10-minute (or less) charge time, then we need to think in terms of eventually charging at 1000 kWh or even more.

Bill’s point is well taken: “the avg customer just wants a bigger battery so that he doesn’t have to charge all the time in the first place?”

Faster and faster charging, and having to be as quick as petrol, is just snow covering the range abilities we’re quickly coming to.

Pushi is just showcasing his ignorance – he puts the spotlight on it whenever he tries to talk about specifics.

Pushi fares much better with 2 pages of generalities.

I’m rather surprised that European countries are all that ‘worried’ about 350 kw charging their cars.

If anyone hasn’t noticed, Europe is in a bit of a political and economic upheaval lately, even if it is mostly ignored by our main stream media. But with all the layoffs currently happening there, the only conclusion is that people, one by one, are finding another medium.

Speak of the Devil: What was that Pushi about ‘1000 kwh’??

Or did you mean 1000 kw, I’m sure you feel that is a safe number to type, since Priusmaniac says the same thing all the time..

But either/or – neither make sense in 2017. Not for an individual car. Busses and Trains – where the cost may be amortized amoungst thousands of paying customers, maybe, but cars no.

Ack! Yes, I did make the elementary error of writing “1000 kWh” when I meant “1000 kW”; an error for which I’ve chastised others. 😳

Mea culpa.

I certainly don’t advocate that PEVs (Plug-in EVs) must be able to charge as fast as gasmobiles refill; that would be a two-minute charge. But it’s inevitable that competition will drive down charge times; that’s already happening, and it would be foolish to suggest that will stop until the average wait time is 10 minutes or less. There will be a “sweet spot” between two economic forces. On the one hand, the exponentially rising cost (in high-voltage equipment, and high power hookup from the local electric utility) of reducing charge time by yet another minute, and on the other hand, customers who demand faster charging and will chose whichever EV charger will provide them a fast enough charge that they don’t have to wait for long. I’m guessing that sweet spot will come around 10 minutes, but it may well be significantly less. Tesla’s CTO (Chief Technical Officer) has been quoted as saying Tesla wants to get charge time down to the 5-10 minute range. * * * * * pjwood1 said: “Bill’s point is well taken: ‘the avg customer just wants a bigger battery so that he doesn’t have to charge all the time in the first place?’ ”… Read more »

This group is talking about unlaid eggs. I don’t think they will ever agree on anything. They are trying to ally against Tesla, but the commitment is still missing.
I mean, just take a look at those names:


This is a bunch of comedians.
Only BMW is somewhat serious about EVs.

“If EV tech is going to progress to a 10-minute (or less) charge time, then we need to think in terms of eventually charging at 1000 kWh or even more.” Yes I concur. When we look at the numbers, with some extra on the present Model S battery towards 150 KWh, to charge that in 10 minutes it would take 900 KW of continuous power. But that is the minimum because there will always be some reduction of power towards the end of the charging, so we clearly get into the Megacharger territory above the 1000 KW. This is no fantasy or love for extreme things but just looking at the numbers. Conclusion even 350 KW will be short of what’s needed for a 10 minute charging. To further hammer the nail, this becomes even more when the Tesla Truck comes along with the same 10 minutes charging time on a 200 KWh or 300 KWh battery. In that case we may start to look towards ten megawatt to fit the job. Completely separated from this speed of charge consideration there may also be another point of interest, if we need to charge a lot of cars (all the cars),… Read more »

Tesla is continually improving Supercharger charging rates. For example, the redesigned new 100 kWh battery packs stay at roughly 115 kW charging rate all the way to roughly 60% SOC. And roughly 100 kW charging has been observed at as high as 75% SOC.

Tesla is very close to keeping the charge rate above 100 kW all the way from 0%-80% SOC before tapering off (80% is universally accepted as the max you charge to when “fast charging”). With the switch to the new battery cell format coming from the Gigafactory, we will most likely see them beat their current stats for their current 100 kWh battery pack.

The 350 kW chargers from this story will likely taper off from 350 kW also. They don’t have any data yet, but I doubt they will be immune from the laws of physics.

I’m a little embarrassed by the quality of my photoshop job on that image. But I’m glad people find it useful!

It is very useful! Thanks for your contribution!

Sort of odd when you post something on a completely different board, and it starts showing up in random places on the internet, eh?

That’s a very good analysis. Let me add that as battery costs drop and weight storage density climbs, we could see larger batteries used in slightly downrated form. Comparatively, a 110 Kwh battery rated to 100 Kwh would reach 100% in, say, 50 minutes from empty versus 75 minutes for a 100Kwh battery rated at 100Kwh.


The most power I’ve ever gotten from a supercharger is 124 kW (346A at 358V), but they may have dialed things down slightly since then: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/model-s-connector-max-power.38936/#post-832089

The P100D cars also appear to get >100kW of power MUCH longer than 85 kW cars:

wraithnot, if I had composed that graph, I’d be proud of it. I think you’re too close to the subject; perhaps you only see the tiny flaws, and not how well you’ve done in presenting data in a very clear and easily understood manner.

We can see from your excellent and very useful graph that the Model S100 charges significantly faster than the S85. Of course part of that is simply that larger capacity battery packs have more cells, and therefore the pack can accept more power without overheating. But it looks to me like the improvement is significantly more than just the difference between 85 and 100.

Tesla upgraded the battery pack’s cooling system for the Model S P100D (mentioned in the article linked below, but sadly no details). I rather suspect we’re seeing the benefit of that here.


None of today’s EVs can take advantage of these chargers but it is of course a great investment for the future as the next generation of cars will have both better and bigger batteries. If you build proper chargers from start you won’t have to upgrade them every time a new car comes out.

Bingo, we have a winner! 🙂

With half ton batteries (the 60kW Bolt) we need faster charging more than bigger batteries. Its time to invest battery improvements in lighter weight and lower cost instead of just trying to pack the car and achieve a big kW number.

A chicken and the egg situation. I vote to declare the charger the chicken….which in turn lays eggs, or cars in this fable.

Seriously, a standardized charger concept can help the entire industry move is the same direction. And, why not add headroom to the process by going straight to 1600 Volt chargers that can handle whatever is plugged into them?

Egg came first…

If you believe in evolution theory, birds come from reptiles or luke warm reptiles such as dinosaurs. They laid eggs.

It seems like it is case here. The cars are here first before there are DCFC in the public.

If they go with an 800V system, I hope they make them backwards compatible, so all the current EVs can still use them.

I bet they’ll support CCS at 50 kW, but it really doesn’t matter. We have to realise that today’s cars are too few to sensibly be bothered about.

No technical problem there.
I just hope they don’t forget this issue when they design the charger.

Awesome! Four companies agreeing on such a progressive standard! Didn’t expect this, especially with Ford being there.

The first cars that can accept this charge without too much taper, it will become a major selling point.

They are just preparing for the ban on fossil cars in Germany in 2030. Properly and in style. Over to You Stump.

Good news is so is the USA. We exported more natural gas this year than we imported, and Germany will be a bigger and bigger customer as they shut down their nuclear and coal generation. Same with Japan actually.

While the group has an agreement for building a network of stations, the work has only just begun.

To handle 350 kW of power, the Combined Charging System (CCS) standard will have to be re-engineered to handle 1000+ Amps. No small task.

For those thinking this is minor task; I point you back to when Blink use assembly methods for 3.5 kW connectors to build 7 kW connectors.

At 1000 amps vs. 15-30 amps design flaws will lead to much more exciting failures … thus the quality of engineer and attention to details will need to be much more consistent.

The Ultra-Fast stations will also need to have support of regional energy utilities. If demand-time charges were an issue with cost of energy at 30-50 kW, at 350 kW demand charges could be 100x more a hurtle.

Just saying … this group of automotive manufactures needs to make friends and partnerships which include the electrical power and energy distribution industry.

Much work lies ahead …

(kind of like a few companies agreeing they could use an office tower … much engineering, design and cooperation needs to occur; including many sub-contractors … from architecture, regulations, to logistics at many levels)

Yes, so much this.

On the topic of high power charging at these levels, US vs EU is significant as a practical matter.

Utilities in Europe are not as tough on high power demand / demand charges and seem to deal better with a 350 kW shotgun of power as a load on their system – I pity the site host in the US that has to answer to one of our utilities when drawing that kind of power on a regular basis. Not to say it can’t make its way over the Ocean, but its not quite plug and play either when you consider practical implementation factors.

(And why I believe the private charging EVSE companies are not in as good of a position to deploy this kind of infrastructure safely and effectively – on this point utilities should be given the lead to do very high power infrastructure)

Actually it doesn’t require that many amps. This system relies on an 800V pack to get the nameplate 350kW and that requires “only” 437.5 A, which Tesla has already approached (superchargers peak at about 350A).

At the typical 400V or less pack, this turns into 175kW. Still very fast, but not as fast as the nameplate.

425V * 350A = 149 kW
500V * 350A = 175 kW
800V * 350A = 280 kW
1000V * 350A = 350 kW

Current stays about the same or increases just a bit. They only needed to take care of better isolation for higher voltage. Some 400-500V 120-150 kW chargers from Evtec are already installed for public since last year with the same CCS & Chademo plugs, so everything stays backwards compatible.
This is minor work compared to grid peak power demand problem.

Hopefully the charging stations will incorporate battery storage themselves, providing a buffer to high demand charges. A great use for EV car batteries that are no longer on the road.

It may be that charging cost at a charger would fluctuate in real time according to the time of the day. It would be cheaper to charge at 2 PM on Sunday than at 8 AM on Monday.

It is good that they are moving forward with SuperDuperchargers, even faster than Superchargers.

But I’m confused. Are they working WITH the appropriate standards groups for revising the current Combined Charging System (CCS) standard to support 350 kW charging? Or are they doing a rogue variant that violates the CCS standards, and then inviting other car companies to join their non-standard CCS system?

When Tesla went off standards, it was because they had cars to deliver that needed higher kWh charging than any of the standards at the time supported. They had no choice, because they had cars they were selling to customers, and the standards bodies were still dithering on setting final standards.

But this is different. Nobody has cars capable of 350 kW charging anywhere near ready to go to market. They should be going through the standards process, the same way Tesla has now joined the CCS standards development, for setting future standards.

google CharIN dude

Dude, do you know the answer to my question or not? Because the current CharIN international IEC standards max out at 200 kW charging rate. They have NOT YET set 350 kW charging standards.

So do you know if these 4 companies are doing all of their work through the IEC standards committees, which include ALL of the major car makers (including Tesla)? Or are they branching off and building chargers based the work of just those 4 companies, OUTSIDE of CharIN work to create a future 350 kW charging standard?

Because their quote in this story is contradictory at best, and a mutually-exclusive fallacy at worst.

I can’t speak to what you’re reading into some PR buzz from automaker executives with words put in their mouth by a corporate communicator – but pro tip: canned PR quotes are generally a poor way to learn what’s really going down.

Do you really think the automakers are going off and actually designing, engineering and constructing these systems themselves? Let this thought be your guide to answering your own question; and then you can sleep at night knowing that the Germans are doing things within the established standardization norms – even though they haven’t personally sent you all of their documentation to prove it to you.

p.s. ask yourself why Tesla joined CharIN – hint: the answer will not be found in a fanboy’s mentality

I see, so you don’t actually have an answer to my question as to why this press release is coming from just these companies:


When the full list of car makers in CharIN also includes these additional car makers:

Faraday Future
Jaguar/Land Rover

Thanks for wasting my time.

well, you can lead a horse to water…

And you can ASSume whatever you want, but as the saying goes…

350kW will be part of a revision to CCS, its being worked on by automakers on both sides of the pond (SAE in NA, IEC in EU). 1000V, 350A. This has been outlined by members of the SAE standards task force.

CharIN’s mission is to develop and promote the standard. This announcement is about 4 automakers actually putting up cash to deploy infrastructure.

Mustang — Thanks, that was more of the kind of information I was looking for. That would bring in a whole lot more car makers into the equation, which is how I understood it.

Do you know when they all are collectively going to be done with the 350 kW standard?

Because Ford’s official statement about this project is that “The buildup is planned to start in 2017.” My concern is that these companies are creating a splinter group that is going to forge ahead with building out infrastructure in 2017, no matter whether the 350 kW standard is done or not.

My experience with standards development is that it happens at the pace it happens, until agreements are reached with ALL stakeholders, not just a subset of 4 stakeholders.


DOnt worry about it. CCS stations were being deployed in NA before the CCS standard was completely finalized. That of course runs the risk of minor incompatibilities, but as long as the physical dimensions are locked down, most of the revisions would just be firmware updates. None of these automakers would have any motivation to create a splinter group, everyone’s onboard with the standard, and it’ll just take announcements and initiatives like this to put the pressure on to make sure the standard is buttoned down sooner than later.

That’s a good point. Thanks for the info. I think that answers my question. They will probably move forward in 2017 no matter what, and as you say, retrofit any software fixes later.

Since there currently are no cars even on the horizon for a car that can draw 350 kW in 2017, they should have plenty of time to retrofit software fixes.

Thanks for the posts.

H-Dog — A charger can meet German TUV standards and be legal to install, even if it doesn’t meet any proposed future IEC standard for CCS that haven’t been completed yet.

Those are completely different sets of standards. So claiming that the Germans will follow standards means nothing. They only standards they are legally bound to in Germany are TUV standards.


Clearly you have not read enough InsideEVs comments to realize that Nix posts more informative, in-depth posts than anyone else, and I do mean anyone.

In unjustly and unfairly aiming pejoratives at Nix, you’ve merely embarrassed yourself, and revealed your ignorance over who is informed here… and who isn’t. The latter would be you.

If you decide to stick around, then an apology would be highly appropriate.


H-Dog’s comment went totally over your head.

I don’t necessarily agree with ALL that he said, but at least he’s thinking about the issue.

Who exactly are you to critique someone on a technical basis? Whenever you address something technical its always a Knee-Slapper, no offense!!

You are a bit confused by your Tesla cheerleader stories.
Daimler, BMW, VW group, Ford are CCS. There are no other bodies other than made by these automakers and other minor interested companies, Tesla as well. Final standard version for 350 kW will be published when they’ll finish their practical work and every detail will be decided and spell-checked, not before. Nobody is inventing yet another incompatible or proprietary plug.

No mention of Opel joining the party, so prospective Bolt Ampera E will be left out of this ultra fast corridor? Or GM/Opel are mulling cooperation with Toyota on wireless chargers. Nissan has no intentions of taking part in any of this, they politely said Europeans will get Note e-Power with diamond charger onboard.

Opel cars are strongly influenced by GM. The electric ones so far were Volt = Ampera and Bolt = AmperaE with a different badge.

If GM does not intend to build cars that are capable of really fast charging, what’s the point in investing in a system that most GM electric vehicle customers can’t even use as it is on the wrong side of the ocean? The Volt does not need it as it has a range extender, and the Bolt is mainly California only…



Ford First delivers fast chargers over seas first? Good on the EU, bad on the wait at home here in the good old USA.

Strange story. Besides the fact that noone needs 350kW for now or the next few years (buses & electric ferries excepted), how does this fit in with the large number of projects already completed or planned, mostly EU-financed under the overall TEN-T plan (UNIT-E, Corri-Door, CLEVER/EMCOR, FAST-E, RCN etc.)? They’re all regional dual-standard DC charging networks, 50KW now but upgradable later.

It doesn’t make sense for manufacturers to sponsor a completely separate network, certainly given the EU is funding ~50% of the existing networks.

Really odd that there is no mention of it in the story. Either this is some kind of high-end pilot project (unlikely if Ford is involved, although the odd lack of the VW brand itself, as opposed to Audi & Porsche), or they’re simply contribute a little money ot existing projects, but try to reap all the PR rewards.

Anyone know what’s going on

Well Done.

I expect this coming to the US very soon. Ford sells at least 20 times more cars in the US than in Europe, and VW has the penalty where they have to install charging stations in the US. Besides VW’s plan of replacing their dirty diesels with EVs at a rapid pace.

So I expect another partnership between VW, Ford and many of the other major automakers happening very soon, because the network needs to be up before they launch of the domestic 300+ mile EVs. Tesla is way ahead of the game. But their competition has work to do.

Well, I can’t say it won’t happen, because I didn’t think anyone in their right mind would want to spend a ton of money on Hydrogen Vehicles since there’s not many places outside of California to refuel them, especially since they will always be in competition with Low-Cost Gasoline.

But these 350 kw charger locations are a bit of mystery to me, since at least the H2 filling stations DO exist – as piss-poor an infrastructure as it currently is – it looks to get somewhat better in the near future – at least for Californians.

I’m always asking the same question on all these different articles, whether Hydrogen, or Ludicrously fast charging: Who is going to pay for EVERYTHING that is required to make it happen?

Hint: You can take Priusmaniacs Idea, run the car at 350,000 volts, and then charge it at a 1 amp rate.

But there are one or two other things you also have to do. THOSE things will more than likely kill it.

Wow 350000 V! That would be lightning fast charging indeed. Frankly I think 1600 V will be enough, max 6000 V.

It is interesting to see the new insulating materials that are now available.
Here is a look at the data for PTFE, FEP, PFA, and ETFE electric properties.


The Dielectric strength in V/µm is at 80 for PFA and 79 for ETFE. This means 2 mm of PFA can withstand an amazing 160000 V. In those conditions remaining bellow 1000 V is like permanently flying a 747 bellow 500 m instead of above 10000 m.

That’s not what you used to say. You used to say 35,000 volts was so practical because the lines behind your house were that so u just go up and grab it when you need it for your car – problem solved!

I’m the one who throttled you down to 1500.

I’m surprised that so many really think that 350kW charging is possible in this decade (for passenger car, not semi truck). IT IS NOT.

There is a reason why even Tesla is struggling with 120kW rate. This issue is called heat dissipation.
Tesla uses one of the best chemistries available. Using 800V does not change chemistry. If we exclude conductor resistances (all those wires and busbars) chemistry itself is not 100% efficient.

Anyway, not going to explain too much.
Short answer. Tesla is at 100% AC compressor load to cool pack down during charging in warm weather. With better cooling design 120kW can be tipped. For example 160-180kW, but not 250kW and definitely not 350kW. AC compressor can’t extract more as cars don’t have unlimited space for condenser(s).

Most likely 350kW is combined charging station power. And that station might have 4 plugs. I imagine 4 or 6 CCS plugs all share 350kW charger.

Also another limitation is cell voltage. It is safe to charge at ultra fast speed but tipping maximum cell voltage is not acceptable. 800V pack will not help. 100kWh battery pack will not be able to sustain 200kW rate (maybe with new chemistry) for minutes.

Well that’s only 1 of many problems. The solution to your problem – if this is ever seriously attempted, is to have the ‘chilled glycol connector cable’ send the cooling thru to the batteries and electronics – keep the refrigeration machinery back in the corral.

But the other issue which apparently no one except me is worried about is ‘who is going to pay for all this?’.

I can see a high charge rate for Busses (and possibly trains, ferries, etc) – where the huge expense may be amortized over thousands of passengers.

But the huge ‘infrastructure’ required in the car will make this thing non-competitive, to quote a phrase.

This will double (at least) price per station (it is kinda ok up until you have like thousands of stations) and also adds to running costs. Not acceptable. Also no patents (except Tesla) to that cooling. This means it is not planned.

I would say charging at speeds above 200kW in any way is not reasonable. In EU truck drivers must to rest after period of driving. Why not to “soft force” that to passenger vehicles by not allowing driving 3-4hours with less than 30min charge. I don’t support driving:resting ratio smaller than 8:1. Up until level5 autonomy.

Also the need for faster chargers will drop due 1) bigger batteries and 2) EVSE possibility at destination.

Oh I totally agree. I used to say 7-8 years ago I thought the practical individual car limit was going to be 150 kw.

I wouldn’t have said that if I had seen the HUGE amount of money spent on “Hydrogen Vehicle Infrastructure” in California. First they said stations will cost an extra $1 million, then 1.8, then an extra $3 million.

350 kw chargers can be FORCED to work, just like the Hydrogen stations. But how much money is the individual driver going to want to fork over

1). In the added cost of the car.
2). In the obsene per minute charging rate price.
3). In the huge tax increases necessary to support a ‘MegaHighway’ ?

If it happens, everyone concerned with it will have to be very ‘well-healed’.

Yep. Agree. 150kW was my own estimation as well. But with some advanced (more or less simple) tech high end vehicles (6-digits) might get 20-40kW more. Will there be chargers (and plug designs) available, I doubt. Like Tesla is struggles with (and Omar Sultan mentioned) tapering is more important than getting that last kW rate. I estimated that Tesla would go up to 150kW with model S/X but it appears that 120kW tends to be the “comfortable” limit right now. Tesla knows that doubling the number of Superchargers is much more important than getting 20-50% more speed. Also I read stuff and 350kW is only possible with 2 mayor changes: 1) pack voltage 1000V not 800V (350Amps*1000V) 2) CCS connector is cooled (like Tesla experimented already, but with cable cooling) With today’s vehicles (400V*350A) 140kW is the maximum for the CCS, with cooled connector. Without cooling CCS can handle 250A (compare that with 300-330A Tesla passive connectors). That means most likely, the real maximum would be 100kW for normal 400V cars. So we can say that without 800V battery packs CCS is not future-proof for long distance travel. And CCS is technically suitable for heavy duty stuff like city buses… Read more »

The 350kWh charger thing seems to be a bit of a red herring. Having lived with my Tesla for a couple of years now, experience says limiting factors are 1) what is the actual taper for a given car and 2) how long is the line in front of the charger (and to be fair to Tesla, with the exception of a couple of locations, waiting is still not an issue for me).

Omar, 350 kW charge rates will get you nearly 55 kWh in 10 minutes. 55 * 3.5 miles per kWh is around 190 miles at 70 miles per hour.
This won’t be fast enough for 10% of the BEV buying public, but would bet it would be good enough for 90% of the people that buy BEV’s.

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough.

5 minutes of pumping gas vs. 12 minutes of charging a BEV once a month or so won’t seem like much of a problem to the majority of drivers.