CHAdeMO Association Again Responds to European Union Idea Of Transition From CHAdeMO To Combo 2

Nissan Leaf charging UK

DEC 2 2013 BY MARK KANE 35

European Union opt for AC Type 2 and DC Combo 2 charging standards

European Union opt for AC Type 2 and DC Combo 2 charging standards

So, as you might have been expected after the Committee on Transport and Tourism of the European Parliament published this bit of joyful creativity, the CHAdeMO Association responded that it’s deeply concerned for the future of the CHAdeMO standard and questions what Europe wishes to achieve and whether or not Europe wants to truly promote e-mobility.

This is a very important matter that we believe should be supported by the EV communities around the world, because CHAdeMO Association founders developed CHAdeMO quick charging standard when no other solutions were available on the market.  Furthermore, CHAdeMO pushed to make EVs more capable by getting out the quick -charge standard when  others showed no interest at all.

Now, after all these efforts from CHAdeMO, some officials at the EU indicate that from 2019 on, perhaps there will be no new CHAdeMO chargers in the EU (the final decision on this matter won’t come until perhaps April 2014, but this situation has been going on for a long time now).

Is this really reckless operation, or conscious action to favor other solutions and the groups of companies with big money behind the scene?

CHAdeMO Association has around 990 fast chargers in Europe now and over 30,000 electric cars that can use the standard. This is one per 30 cars – a substantial investment because typical fast charger need hundreds of compatible cars to be viable.

Nissan Makes CHAdeMO Smile

Nissan Makes CHAdeMO Smile

Around the world, the number of CHAdeMO chargers is approaching to 4,000 units mark and we believe there to be well over 120,000 compatible cars. Every single year from 2010 to 2013 this was, is, and will be in near term the most popular standard of quick charging, because nobody sells as many fast charging-enabled cars a month as CHAdeMO-enabled cars.

In Europe, we see reinforcement of CHAdeMO from Mitsubishi, which has just started selling the Outlander PHEV and the new Nissan-NV200 next year, so there is no chance that VW or BMW will sell more EVs with Combo 2 (aka CCS), especially since sales of Combo 2 has just begun and it’s an option on the BMW i3, not standard.

Despite this tremendous difference with the number of cars, number of charging points and sales volume, the EU seems intent on marginalizing CHAdeMO.

Even if the Combo 2 standard is better, this rule is just not fair for pioneers and, at the very least the EU’s years of delaying the development of its own standard should, together with the Combo 2 group, find a way to compensate the efforts and pay the bill for inlet change in every CHAdeMO car sold in Europe and for every CHAdeMO charger installed.

Passing the law that will ban new installations of standalone CHAdeMO stations in 2014 from 2019 on will force carmakers to prepare electric cars only for Combo 2 before 2019, because nobody will go down a blind alley with a limited number of points and every year after 2019 the number of CHAdeMO chargers becoming stalled or decreasing. This is just the death of a standard.charger plugs chademo sae

In other words, if law requires multi-standard units or Combo 2 stand-alone then this is a just privilege for German and American (minus Tesla) carmakers affiliated with CCS standard.

In my opinion, this is just insane because everybody can – if needed – install one CHAdeMO charger and one Combo 2 instead of one multi-standard. Or, for example, 4 CHAdeMO and 1 Combo 2 if this will be the right proportion needed to satisfy market demand. There is no need to standardize this now, because investors will decide which charger to buy to attract more EVs at the lowest cost.

With CCS too late to the party, we think CHAdeMO, Tesla and any others who choose to should be able to go their own way.


In response to the EuropeanCommision’s proposal for a directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, the Committee on Transport and Tourism of the European Parliament has adopted a draft report on 26 November, in which the CHAdeMO DC fast charging protocol is recognised until 1 January 2019 in Europe. While this report is still to be discussed until the plenary vote next year, as this shall be the base of upcoming discussions, CHAdeMO Association wishes to express its reactions to the adoption of this report.

CHAdeMO Association welcomes the official reference to the CHAdeMO DC fast charging protocol in this report and appreciates the clear statement guaranteeing that existing CHAdeMO chargers remain in service for an indefinite duration of time. The official reference comes as a clear recognition of the 990 CHAdeMO chargers currently in operation in Europe and servicing more than 30,000 users every day. Now that EV’s are becoming a mass market reality in many markets it is essential that a convenient and affor dable fast charging solution is officially recognised and reassures these users that they have made the right choice.

However, it is unfortunate that the TRAN Committee has decided to adopt the notion of an arbitrary end date for building new CHAdeMO chargers for public use in Europe, despite our last position statement (11 September 2013) and our members’ continued efforts to inform the policy makers about the negative effect of this on the deployment of EV infrastructure. While we understand that the directive does not “ban” CHAdeMO from the market, by giving an end date to its public installations, it will de facto stall the investments into CHAdeMO chargers and eventually in fast chargers in general. CHAdeMO is the only widely commercialized and readily available DC fast charging technology, and, in the absence of any other type of fast chargers that is proven to be reliable for public installation or EVs equipped with such technology as standard features, this will make investors question what Europe wishes to achieve.

We are concerned that this shall disappoint the 30,000 CHAdeMO EV owners in the long run, who are the most passionate proponents of e-mobility and who were counting on us to continue expanding our fast charging network. We are concerned that there may be an impact on jobs here in Europe. Many CHAdeMO EVs and batteries are assembled in Europe, notably in the U.K. and in Spain, where we cannot afford more job loss. In addition, there are 13 CHAdeMO-charger manufacturers and over 40 CHAdeMO-based charging operators in Europe. We are also concerned that this wording may make the outputs from large-scale EU-funded fast charging projects largely obsolete even before the results come out.

The work by CHAdeMO association members and the chargers that have been put in place and operating for the past three years produced data that helped create a consensus among e-mobility stakeholders that fast chargers are indispensable for wide EV adoption. Thus, unhindered development of the deployment of fast chargers should be a priority of the European policy makers, if they want to truly promote e-mobility. This can only be achieved through an open endorsement of dual-standard approach to DC fast charging. The industry is aligned on the principle that the dual-standard chargers should be the way forward. We hope that the European policy makers will duly support this industry initiative by explicitly ensuring CHAdeMO to stay in the European market in the longer term, enabling us to continue to service the present and future CHAdeMO-equipped EV/PHEV drivers.

Categories: Charging

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

35 Comments on "CHAdeMO Association Again Responds to European Union Idea Of Transition From CHAdeMO To Combo 2"

newest oldest most voted

The EU doesn’t want Type 1 plugs either but guess what? Type 1 is what they get.

CHAdeMO should triple down and release a 120 kW version to match the Tesla supercharger.

You need a 90kWh car to match a 120kW power port*. They can extend the standard, but I don’t know how it would change the picture. Chademo already goes to 50kW but there are no 50kW stations because there are only 24kWh cars. Apportioning such a station is counting on cars that aren’t even on the drawing board yet.

*(A lithium pack can charge in 1 hour (15 minutes from 5 to 20%, 30 minutes from 20 to 80%, and 15 minutes from 80 to 95%). That’s no matter what size the pack is. So, to minimize charge time, you need a charger with about the same kiloWatts as your battery has kiloWatt-hours. Going very much higher only gets you marginal improvement, and that’s only with serious Tesla-like electron-fu.)

Most CHAdeMO chargers today actually do provide 50kW (or around that, e.g. 44kW for Sumitomos, 60kW for Blinks), and both the i-MiEV and the Leaf can take this much, up to a certain SoC.
Both do 0 to 80% in 30 minutes btw, not 45; the i-MiEV might even be a tad faster.

The existing CHAdeMO connector layout could go to 100kW without special precaution, so 120kW for some time and/or with temperature monitoring should be perfectly doable… Except, yes, indeed, only a Tesla would take advantage of this today.

Um… I think your understanding of how this all works is a bit flawed. Here’s my 2p-worth… If you have an EV that uses lithium polymer cells (e.g. Tesla Model S), it can charge at about 0.8C maximum or 0.8 times its cell capacity in Ah (1/0.8 = 1.25 hours to charge). This fundamentally restricts the speed of a charge from ’empty’ to full to about 75 minutes. Cars that use LiFePO4 (Lithium Iron Phosphate) cells however can take up to a 3C charge. This equates to 1/3 = 0.33 hours or 20 minutes… but only up to 80% full. The charge rate after that tapers off. (Note: both of these cells are ‘lithium ion’ (not ‘iron’) battery tech). So, the ChaDeMo chargers can put out 50kW of power which, if connected to a 25kW LiFePO4 pack can recharge it in 20-30 minutes or so. A 25kWh lithium polymer pack will still take an hour+, even if the charger could put out 100kW, because its cells simply can’t take as fast a charge rate. Where the Tesla wins, though, is because its packs are relatively large – 60 or 85kWh – and their SuperChargers can put out at least 90kW.… Read more »
Well said Mark, except maybe for that question that sounds like an assumption “Even if the Combo 2 standard is better…”. It’s not. More convenient form factors for vehicles manufacturers, yes. On other aspects more relevant to users, like ease of use, charging speed, safety etc: nope, not one bit. It baffles me that the European parliament still hasn’t called the bluff from manufacturers pushing CCS: put up or shut up. The FUD they perpetuate (and now stepped up one notch) about competing technology is incredibly damaging for EV adoption in the EU. Infrastructure is pretty much on hold pending clarification, and it seems like some powerful lobby has done a great job delaying this way too long already. It’s a disgrace. MEPs should make a decision asap: – Either don’t restrict standards, embrace multi-plug QCs, let the market decide. – Or pick one, and assume the costs incurred to migrate to this, and possible long-term impact of surrounding countries not sharing that decision (e.g. Norway) on e.g. tourism. Methinks that with both BMW and VW already having or readying CHAdeMO versions of their EVs for the Japanese market, it should be much easier to have them go that route,… Read more »

“On other aspects more relevant to users, like ease of use, charging speed, safety etc: nope, not one bit.”
Actually, the European port supports up to 170kW vs 100kW for CHAdeMO. And the CCS supports V2G directly (so far CHAdeMO supports V2H only) plus transfer of additional information via PLC (like payment/membership information for example). So there are advantages for the consumer too.

And as I put below, developing conversion kits for the chargers/cars right now is much less expensive than waiting until years later when there might be 10x more chargers and cars. It’s arguable which one they should pick, but I think it makes sense to pick one (esp. given an appropriate transition period).

CHAdeMO supports both V2H and V2G
The V2Hs seem to be already commerciallised in Japan and will probably come to Europe very soon, which is a big advantage for people that have PVs and think about buying an EV right now. I do not think this is the case with CCS (or I have not heard about a commercialised CCS V2H box). It’s probably going to take a good couple of years for the same thing to come out with Combo 2.
The thing is that in 10 years there will surely be a completely different technology for charging that will come, other than Combo or CHAdeMO, so this standards row that is confusing everyone is completely pointless, people should focus on promoting multistandard chargers instead…

Type 2 combo could do either up to ~44 kW 3-phase AC, or 90/100 kW DC. Even using everything at the same time, you won’t get near 170 kW, but that’s a moot point because the standard has no provision to do such a thing; the connector wasn’t designed with this in mind either. V2H, V2G, V2V… Not only it’s irrelevant as far as the protocol and connector is concerned, but the very same company, Ideal Power, which built a CCS V2G proto, offers CHAdeMO as well. Would you say CCS doesn’t support V2H nor V2V just because there are no commercial products which do so yet? Regarding transferring things like billing information via PLC, not only it isn’t the case today, so we’re in the real of “could”, not “does”, but the same kind of stuff can be done just as well over CAN, or any other bus for that matter. So again, I fail to see where CCS would provide a benefit to drivers, or to the public in general. On the other hand, this completely artificial and avoidable fiasco is definitely very detrimental. The oil industry couldn’t have thought of a better plan to undermine EVs. Re… Read more »

I don’t know what the “fair” thing to do is. However, I do know that it will (or should) eventually come down to one standard so that people do not have to worry if a charger will work with their car, and it also reduces redundancy. Maybe this is the EU’s version of drawing a line in the sand. Is it fair? Probably not completely, but somebody had to lose. Should they wait and let the market decide? I think this is a bad idea because the longer you wait, the more damage you do to the losing side. Nip it in the bud, stitch in time saves nine, and insert some other idiom….

Agreed. Not saying I agree with combo 2 over chademo per se, but nipping it in the bud is definitely what they’re thinking. And if they do that, then they need staying power. The kind of staying power the US didn’t have in its ill fated and failed switch to the metric system. (aside: What a waste. We should have stuck with it.)

One standard drops costs for everyone long term. However, every day I thank the EV gods that the Level 1/2 plug is the same in the US for all models. Can you imagine the nightmare we’d have on our hands if that wasn’t the case?

And it seems the wireless standard has been decided too, so a bullet dodged there as well.

A side note about Tesla; they are doing all of their own legwork by building their own supercharger network and making adapters so their cars work with CHAdeMO and SAE chargers. If CHAdeMO does lose the publicly funded charger war, maybe Japanese automakers will have to look at these options. It’s either that or start making SAE versions of their cars, but either way there is going to be a transition period, that will last at least 2 decades (roughly the life of a car). Who knows really where the technology will be at that point. Maybe we will need a new plug for L4 charging? Or maybe wireless charging will reach high enough levels that most car companies go that route? (There’s a bus that charges at 180kW now wirelessly).

“As of today, the SMFIR technology supplies 60 kHz and 180 kW of power remotely to transport vehicles at a stable, constant rate.”

“Nip it in the bud”?

The issue is that EVs are still not certain to succeed. The bud they’re likely to nip is EVs in general. If the government forces the one deployed and consumable quick charge standard to go away in favor of an unused standard, with no cars using it, with no funding to roll out chargers, they’re essentially convincing everyone to give up on EVs.

I don’t know why everyone is saying doom and gloom if they pick CCS. All the CHAdeMO automakers have to do is switch their charge port. That’s not going to “kill” the EV industry. Plus it’s pretty clear the EU knows it’s not a good idea to just end support for an existing standard so quickly, which is why the “transition period” is there in the first place.

A similar thing is happening for Type 1 (used in the Japanese EVs in Europe) vs Type 2 (used by everyone else) vs Type 3 (briefly supported by a few EU companies but since given up). EU is also saying that they will back Type 2 there.

Sure, no problem. Only 30,000 cars and 990 chargers need to switch. Since thats so simple, why doesn’t BMW, VW, GM just roll out a few thousand charge stations and a bunch of cars at reasonable prices while they’re at it.

It is not minor to switch between CCS and CHAdeMO. Neither is easy. Lots of money and special electrical connection from the utility. There shouldn’t be anything to discourage quick charge stations. There needs to be encouragement otherwise it will not happen.

“The Internal Combustion Engine may not be perfect, but it led the way in the auto industry and there are far more ICE vehicles on the road than EVs. The government should stop picking favourites and eliminate subsidies for EVs and EV charging stations. Just because there are obvious benefits to EVs doesn’t mean we should treat the ICE unfairly.”

Maybe a bit of an unfair analogy, but you get my drift.

Government already picks sides in favor of ICE with all the blood and money spent to insure oil supply from the middle east.

Not sure I “get your drift”, no, or at the very least I see a major flaw with your analogy: the government doesn’t promote (let alone mandate) something new just for the sake of it.
EVs are being subsidized because they offer dramatic, obvious advantages when it comes to public health, energy security, and/or local jobs for example.

Picking one quick-charging standard over another brings zero public benefit.
Much, much worse is hinting that pretty much all existing quick-chargers and DC-capable EVs in the EU might get obsoleted for no sane reason whatsoever, “just because we can (oh, and the Germans really want to mess up with the Japanese)”.
Very. Chilling…

Of course picking a standard has a benefit – a standards battle is bad for consumers, the longer it goes on, the more consumers end up wasting money on the standard that gets ditched. Governments are trying to “nip this in the bud” as kdawg put it, and they got behind the standard that had a clear majority of automakers backing it. This standard may be behind by about 100,000 vehicles or so, but I think we all hope this represents a drop in the eventual bucket of millions of EVs on the road that we’ll see during the lifetime of the infrastructure in question.

What I was saying is that one standard doesn’t offer any benefit over the other, not that a war over them (especially a completely made-up one) is a good thing — it’s very much the opposite actually. Regarding the number of manufacturers supporting each standard, you might want to recount: more actually are behind CHAdeMO. It’s more relevant to count by existing and/or forecasted number of EVs instead though. It’s even more clear-cut then… On the topic of money, the EU has basically 3 options now: – Mandate CCS. By then it will have 40k+ CHAdeMO EVs, which either become obsolete, or need retrofitting at a cost of ~2k each. Also 1k+ QCs at 20~50k a pop end up wasted. Cost: 100 to 200 millions. [Not included are costs to car manufacturers to accommodate this vs CHAdeMO elsewhere] – Mandate CHAdeMO. Couple i3 need to be modified by BMW just like they have planned for Japan. Cost: thousands now, but rising quickly. – Don’t mandate anything. New QC installations become dual/triple-standard, at an extra cost of 2k to 3k each. Multi-QCs sites unaffected; they may consist of a mix of single-plug ones instead. Cost by the time the EU… Read more »

Just because CHAdeMO lists a company as a member doesn`t mean that company isn’t planning a transition to supporting CCS. My company is listed as a supporting member and we are actively planning for our transition. Specifically for Europe:

All current members of ACEA support the Combined
Charging System for Europe: BMW, DAF, Daimler,
Fiat, Ford of Europe, General Motors
Europe, Hyundai Motor Europe, Jaguar
Land Rover, MAN, Porsche, PSA,
Renault, Scania, Toyota Motor Europe,
Volkswagen, Volvo Cars, and AB Volvo

Similar argument can be levelled against this CCS-supporting ACEA list though. Just because a company is an ACEA member it doesn’t mean it’s actively supporting CCS. How many of those ACEA members are really planning to introduce CCS cars? (meaning, CCS-fast chargable). I only see two, max three: BMW and VW, and maybe Daimler.
Then we have Renault, a member of ACEA, bent on promoting its proprietary 43kW AC (not CCS) and PSA, who is about to introduce CHAdeMO-compatible Berlingos and Partners. And then there are all the other companies, which are not really into EVs/ fast chargable hybrids.

I too agree that for the future of the EV market having one standard is better in the long run. Having tripple standard fastchargers is an other option, but those chargers don’t come cheap.

I feel the grief! Let’s not get tangled in the politics, it’s only going to slow things down.

In my opinion we need both, CCS and CHAdeMO DC Fast.
With more ev’s hitting the road every day, we need multi point EVSE DC Fast.
When you go to a gas station, there’s more then one type of fuel: Low Grade, Mid Grade High Grade, Diesel and so on Get the picture.
I know what Elon Musk would say!
Type 1, Type 2,CHAdeMO, CCS Etc.
No worries mate, I’ll Make an Adapter (Gender Changer) and use them all.

I Drive Electric you can too!

Elon Musk is making sure that ONLY Tesla can drink the juices from its own network but nobody else can…. However, its Tesla can drink from anyone else’s cup and often do by hogging it for hours at a time (work places).

Who cares! Just because one EV can only go 87 miles (small battery) or less and the Tesla (60KWh pack) can go much further means crap. One could say the same thing if a Prius needs to fill up and a Ford F350 Crew Cab is in front of them.

I’m sure if you owned a Tesla you wouldn’t care. I guess if a drained LEAF was charging and a PIP needed to charge there should be an issue?

This is a non problem, stop perpetuating it.

Politicians should not go to such details as to specify standards… Wrong level!

Let the market decide.



It’s perfectly good for govs to choose minutia. They just have to do it right.
Faith in capitalism is idiotic.

Sounds like the cell phone connector debacle when the EU laid down the law on Apple and said they must be Micro-USB and not the proprietary 30 pin and the standard was set.

Even though the CHAdeMO organization won’t like it, eventually the government will have to pick a standard to back in order to ensure market certainty. Right now the government obviously wants Combo2 (as a complement to Type 2, which is pretty much agreed on by all sides for Europe after some bickering over Type 2 vs Type 3). Sure, 30k cars sounds like a lot for the EV market, but it’s barely a drop in the bucket in the overall car market. Waiting until there’s 100k+ EVs to pick a standard might be a bit too late (it’ll be very costly to convert so many existing cars over to a different standard). Right now it’s early enough in the game that conversions are still viable (both cars and chargers).

I dont understand the problem with several standards… Sure it is a bit more expensive with a dual charger port but not that much.

Also, why they have opted for something that in practise did not exist is a totally weird thing as well…
– this statement seems rediqulous; hey all you out there, its good that you have invested millions in EV-structure/vehicles… Now lets throw it all away!

They can debate standards until they are blue in the face. Meanwhile, Tesla is building out their superior charging network which is beating all of these standards. Tesla has already said they are more than willing to work with other car companies. The standards won’t mean much if Tesla beats the standards, and enough car companies decide to go with Tesla’s solution.

I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. SImply make a charge station (EVSE as it is properly known – Electric Vehicle Service Equipment) with both standard’s sockets on it. It’s not like one uses electricity and the other carrot juice. Each has different signalling, voltages and sockets, sure, but the extra electronics etc to provide both standards in one box would cost an extra $500 max.

What I want to know is, when are we going to see kits being offered to convert existing EVs to one or other (or both) standard’s fast charging? Then you could just let the market choose which standard should win like the VHS/Betamax fight… or just let them co-exist. That’d be too easy tho, wouldn’t it?

Don’t hold your breath for them… such converstion kits will probably never come to market.

The big question is why do BMW and VW push CCS so hard for Europe, while they have Chademo ready versions of their cars for Japan which could immediately benefit from the 1000 QC installed base in Europe?

As previously commented, CCS and Chademo do the exact same thing… take electrons from the grid and put them in the battery … and at the same speed (nb: although the current Chademo cahrgers are rated for 50Kw the standard is ready for 100Kw ready as well).

IMHO, the genesis of CCS was simply a way devised by the German and American OEMS to slow the uptake of EVs as much as possible while they were developing their own.