CHAdeMO Association Announces 150 kW Charging In 2017, 350 kW Study

JUN 6 2016 BY MARK KANE 75

Soul EV Gets CHAdeMO

CHAdeMO inlet

The CHAdeMO Association has not given up on its fast charging capability, and has announced an amendment to the current protocol this year that will enable 150 kW power transfer.

The first installations are expected in 2017, with full compatibility with CHAdeMO EVs on the road.

Previously, CHAdeMO was up to 100 kW (but just few a installations were made at that power level, with most in the 40-60 kW range).

150 kW will be possible at 350 A current for new long-range EVs, which will be designed to accept such power from new fast chargers. Older EVs will charge at a lower rate.

“Today, 1 June 2016, during CHAdeMO’s annual General Assembly in Tokyo, Japan, the Association’s management has announced its plans and ongoing activities towards bringing high power CHAdeMO chargers to the market.”

“The Association plans to release an amendment to the current protocol, which will enable charging with up to 150kW (350A), this year. The revision of the protocol, announced to the Regular Members already last year, is still ongoing with technical consultations with members happening both in and outside of Japan.”

“Recognising that the upward trend in EV autonomy will lead to a need for charging with higher power at key locations, especially along the motorways, CHAdeMO mandated its Technical Work Group to tackle issues such as the size of the high power cable or managing temperature increase of the charger that may come in contact with users.

The ‘plug’ itself will remain exactly the same as the currentone, meaning the high power CHAdeMO chargers can feed power to both the current EVs as well as the upcoming EVs with higher battery capacity. Current CHAdeMO EVs will also be able to use the 150kW charger, but as today’s EVs are configured to charge at around 50kW, they will charge at the current speed.”

“CHAdeMO technical representatives are also actively involved in the IEC Committee working on high power charging, where, together with other international experts, they are preparing a revision of the DC high power standards, based on the IEC standards published in 2014.”

CHAdeMO’s Secretary General Dave Yoshida said:

“One of the purposes of the Association is to evolve CHAdeMO protocol so that it can better respond to market needs. We see a movement towards mass market EVs with higher capacity batteries and we, as the Association of fast charging protocol, prepare for it by working on the high power protocol. This will enable faster deployment of the high power charging infrastructure, in preparation for EVs that can charge with higher power.”

“We are very pleased that, thanks to the hard work of our technical team, we will soon be able to release the new version of the protocol to our members. We expect first 150kW standardised chargers to be deployed in 2017.”

The other important news is a 350 kW technical study announcement. Well, it would put CHAdeMO on par with CCS Combo alliance plans.

“In terms of higher power, for example 350kW (1 000V x 350A), technical studies are ongoing and the Association will determine its further development around 2018, should there be market demand.”

Categories: Charging

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

75 Comments on "CHAdeMO Association Announces 150 kW Charging In 2017, 350 kW Study"

newest oldest most voted

When someone will show us Tesla charging with over 130kW in video or picture?
The highest I’ve seen is 121kW

Maybe you’ll see it with a 100KHW battery when it initially starts charging.

I think the batteries are limiting charging speed right now. But Tesla is the fastest and no one else is even remotely close to them.

The 135kW for Tesla refers to a supercharger cabinet which serves two stalls. A single stall maxes out to 120kW however.

But assuming you are implying that this is faster than Tesla, it’s not.

The Tesla’s peak current maxes out at around 370A in the real world, 20A higher than this at 350A.

This highlights the importance of looking a current limits, not just the power limit (which uses a voltage that is only on paper).

I’ve actually seen higher amps than 370 charging at a Supercharger (one of the newest ones, and I was the only person at the entire site), but it would only last for a few seconds and would then back off — I think overheating issues.

Show us picture or video.

The highest I’ve seen
347A x 349V = 121 103W

Here’s Bjorn hitting 367A.

This announcement makes it interesting again. 150kW is just necessary for future 50kWh+ cars. Batteries get faster chargable and bigger, so no one will buy the car, that takes 3 times as long to charge.

Its also good to see that they are thinking ahead to 350kW.

Faster charging will eliminate the need for very high ranges (300+ miles), which in turn will make cheaper EVs more attractive for the average car buyer. Range was never a topic with gas cars, because they can refill in 5 minutes. Even if that seems utopic for EVs today, a 10-15 minute to 150-200 miles recharge time would help EVs a lot.

“Faster charging will eliminate the need for very high ranges (300+ miles)”
Not really because you’ll need to have a bigger battery to be able to take 150+ kW charging. It will still take 40 min – 1 hour to charge the car but you won’t have to do it as often as you do with a small car/battery. If you only have to do it once or twice per day even when driving very far it shouldn’t be too much of a hassle.

With todays cells thats true, but what I meant was faster charging cells. JB Straubel and others think its possible and who am I to doubt them?

I’m not sure that faster charging will reduce the need for larger batteries. But having a LOT more infrastructure, particularly reliable infrastructure on every street corner like gas stations, THAT would certainly reduce the need for more range.

The infrastructure will come with the demand of EVs. As soon as most people are willing to buy one, you can make money on infrastructure.

And with faster charging, you need less chargers at one location, which makes the charging station cheaper.

More charging locations would only help alleviate “Range Anxiety”. People will definitely still need bigger batteries.

No matter whether or not fast charging solves the “need” for 300+ miles of range, how much impact it has on the “market” for long range vehicles.

There is often a huge “market” in car sales for features that aren’t necessarily “needed”.

Since the US has always been the home of “more is better”, there will be a market for longer range EV’s as long as US consumers want more. And if there is one thing that US consumers always want, it is more, regardless of what it is that somebody is selling more of.

Most drivers should be more than happy with “20 miles a minute”. In the time it takes for an average run to the bathroom, you’d have 100 miles or more! Plus, you wouldn’t be expected to monitor the progress while it is fueling (as is convention with liquids). You’d start it, go to the restroom, and come back to 100-200 more miles, depending on how(ever) long it took, including distractions and delays.

There will likely be DUAL chargers offering 150 kW for CCS and Chademo – as there are today in 50 kW versions.

I predicted for a long time that the current standard will be updated (CCS 2.0 and Chademo 2.0…) and that there will be no adopting of Tesla’s standard.

Elon Musk’s musings about an European carmaker “adopting” Tesla’s standard/plug months ago resulted in no news since then…

On a global level, CCS will likely win out, but the cost of adding dual charging plugs is minimal – so Chademo will be there unless Nissan/Mitsubishi decides to abandon/phase it out one day (at least outside of Japan).

Mitsubishi has largely abandoned Chademo. The iMiEV is dead. And the USA version of the Outlander PHEV won’t come with Chademo.

Maybe you missed that Nissan will soon control Mitsu Motos?

It depends on Nissan if Chademo lives on (especially outside of Japan).

But as I mentioned above it’s clear that CCS and future iterations (CCS @ 150 or 350 kW) will dominate wired charging outside of Japan.

Mitsubishi Outlander uses Chademo in Europe and it is not going anywhere. Honda will release battery car soon and I doubt it will have anything else but Chademo. You will still have Chademo Leafs on the road for 10 years, they are not getting any retrofit by somebody even if Nissan will abandon Chademo outside of Japan right now. It may do so as it is affiliated with Renault but it has no incentive to do it now – with Chademo they can use exactly the same DC charging hardware for all their production, no need for fragmentation with regional standards, and Chademo chargers still dominant around the world. Japan and probably Korea stays 100% Chademo, even BMW is Chademo in Japan, so automakers selling even single battery car in Japan will need to support Chademo anyway.

It means you will have dual plug infrastructure for a decade or so. Who cares, it doesn’t increase costs much and both are open standards unlike Tesla’s proprietary walled garden that fragments charging network for real and is real problem.

Tesla’s design is a completely open standard. Anyone else who *wants* to can use it. For some reason the other carmakers don’t want to cooperate with Tesla — go figure.

Show me specification of it published, or please explain how can I drive up to supercharger with non-Tesla battery car and charge it for per-use fee, just like I can do at Fastned or any other non walled-garden charging network. If you can, you claims about “open” is as valid as claim that pigs can fly.

Knock it off with that “walled garden” nonsense. Tesla’s system is completely open to other vehicle makers if they decide to use it. It’s simply the best there is out there and if some of these other manufacturers could step off their thrones, they could help speed up electrification.

I’ll knock it off when Tesla fanboys will knock off worshiping of their idol for fragmenting charging network infrastructure as if fragmented and proprietary infrastructure increases electric car adoption.

Tesla did what was necessary to offer the fastest charging there is. It isn’t just the charger or the connector or the car with its battery cooling system. It’s the whole package, and there are no other cars that can take advantage of the superchargers properly.

Tesla’s plug is compatible with Type 2 (and CCS) at least in Europe. Tn theory you could have both Tesla and other manufacturers being compatible with CCS and Superchargers with only one plug on their cars.

“In theory…”

In practice, Tesla cars need an adapater (they finally have one for Chademo, but none for CCS).

The fact that no other car maker adopted Tesla’s system/plug so far speaks for itself.

With Chademo and CCS soon at 150/350kW (I believe 150kW will be more cost-effective and more than enough for most locations) nobody needs another system.

CCS will be the global dominant system for wired fast-charging (outside of China and Japan).

so chademo is basically just nissan…

I believe it is also Kia/Hyundai. Toyota and Honda, if they chose to be relevant car MFGs some 3 years from now, will do the same. Introducing CCS in Japan/Asia will be difficult.

Yes. Good point.

Basically Japan only, and Nissan better support CCS outside of Japan.

Note that they actually haven’t finished the upcoming revision of the standard. This announcement is basically that they are working on it. They think first product shipping in 2017 and given that the standard itself isn’t finalized, we’re probably talking late 2017. Then the issue becomes who is going to deploy this standard?

You can buy 120 kW Chademo/CCS chargers from 2015 and it is already deployed in few places in Europe. Who cares when every dot will finalized and final seal of approval will be issued on spell-checked text. Nobody delays products in rapidly changing market until final standard approval if it means is just firmware updates. The issue is that there are not cars/automakers that can actually use or want to use these 350A. I guess it is done by Nissan for upcoming Leaf 2 aka IDS.

Yes, Chademo = Nissan, and Nissan is (like chademo) dragging up the rear.

Yeah, there is really no one supporting Chademo other than Nissan at this point except maybe some low volume compliance cars is there?

scott franco (No M3 FAUX GRILL!)

Its why god made competition.

How many high volume non-compliance and profitable battery cars do you have really, that support open charging standards? Nissan is was closest to it for last years.

This should have been announced 3 years ago.

Chademo is probably dead outside of Japan at this point. Clunky, not well supported, requires a second port or a port with a barn door opening like the LEAF.

Here’s a great general rule of thumb I like to use to easily figure how many miles are gained at a given kW:
For 20 minutes of charging at a given kW, that’s how much range is added. So for example a Model S charging at 110 kW, (which is typically the max), 110 miles are regained in 20 minutes. It can be more or less, but I have found it to be generally accurate.

So 12 minutes for the metric world.

Your text edited with metric units:
“For 12 minutes of charging at a given kW, that’s how much range is added. So for example a Model S charging at 110 kW, (which is typically the max), 110 kilometers are regained in 12 minutes. It can be more or less, but I have found it to be generally accurate.”

Yes, very good. Thanks Peter!

I like the idea regarding a common standard on charging times and distances. In Europe, we already use L/100km or kWh/100km as our consumption metrics. Also, we thus easily calculate costs/100km. So, ideally, I like to see minutes/100km as the charging time denomination standard for DCFC. The alternative km/minute is not as intuitive, I find, but could work as well. From either you can quickly calculate how much time you need to spend for a certain distance or much distance you gain from a certain charging time. However, I think with this, we all forget certain factors in the equation: 1. the obvious: speed, driving conditions such as temperature, hilliness, acceleration etc all affect how many miles/kilometers you will get out of a certain min. of charging / how many minutes it takes to charge for a certain distance such as 100km. 2. The previous state of charge affects the amount of mi/km you can charge per minute of charging. E.g. a a battery that was 80% full before DCFcharging will may take more minutes to charge up to 100% than a battery that is at 20% takes to charge to 80%, i.e. Charging does not follow a linear curve.… Read more »

It could still take another 18 months.

But 150 kW would be great indeed.

I think people are again confusing product development with standard setting. You can develop something that exceeds the standard or doesn’t meet the standard. in some situations that product can even be sold and used.

The other thing to keep in mind is that this is not like a new battery chemistry, people already charge and discharge batteries at over a MW. Fast charging is limited by the car not what’s possible to install on the side of the road, that is true of all fast changing standards.

Yes, but the standard does need to be set. Then car mfg. and DCFC mfg. are all on the same page then.

This standard is set by automakers and other interested players, not some government assigned persons like in ISO. Nobody sets something before actual production is even visible on horizon. Once you have prototype that is going to be produced and needs the power, it makes sense to discuss standard extension.

In this case the standard of CHAdeMO is set by the CHAdeMO Association. They are an association. They are amending the protocol later this year, and the first standardized chargers are expected to be deployed in 2017.

So they are preparing the revision of the standard, and later this year will do so. Who knows when exactly the next gen LEAF will come out, but when it does the Association will have lead the way for Nissan on the car side and fast charge manufactures on the DCFC side to make equipment that will work together.

CHAdeMO is a voluntary standard it is not mandated. It is absolutely one of the situations where you can make something that doesn’t meet the standard and still sell it. For example see the video below that shows a fast charger charging a Kia soul at over 65kW both the car and the charger are not operating to the “standard” both are commercially available. The engineers are a head of the committee on this one. Thankfully as a voluntary standard the lawyers haven’t go involved.

The CHAdeMO standard currently (prior to this announcement) is 200 amps. Therefore, clearly the standard can handle 200a * 500v = 100kW.

So, the charging that you saw is entirely within the protocol.

Hi Tony,

I stand corrected I thought the limit was 150A, so with a 350-400V pack voltage that would have limited the Kia to about 50-60kW. If the limit is 200A (which I suspect is correct my memory is not all that crash hot) then 70-80kW is the upper limit. I thought (again relying on my scetchy memory) there were reports of the souls charging at 100kW, perhaps they meant charging on a 100kW charger, I don’t think the battery has much more than 400V top voltage.

Your memory is just fine. Yes, the 400 V cars will max out at just about 80kW with a “100kW” charger.

Looks like Tesla is going to have to come out with a 120 kw capable HEAVY DUTY chademo adapter – or else have 2 models available.

Most CHAdeMO in our area at dealers are 15 kW. Someone has to pay for the big power of 100 kW and over . Both NRG and Blink are about 40-44 kW. Once most cars reach 80% they drop a lot to 4-10 kW.
So just because if can do 150 kW I don’t see it happening in most areas. This also can’t help the Nissan LEAF with Wilting batteries in the HEAT.

Dealer fast charging has its issues, and I expect not many more Nissan dealers will install DCFCs from here on out. I really can’t see hardly any dealers installing 100 kW+ fast chargers either, but intercity locations by EVgo or other DCFC operators will be quite likely. As battery prices go down and there are more and more BEVs that have lots of them onboard, so too will next gen DCFCs increasingly incorporate battery buffers to mitigate utility demand charges. As next gen cars proliferate, so will next gen DCFCs in proportion. Also, up to 80% charging level is the norm for fast charging.
I don’t know what Nissan will do to better their batteries, but whatever they use, larger batteries can charge at a higher rate.

Good point about battery buffers. You can incorporate battery buffers right now. For example 8 x 120 kW charging station, around 1000 kW. Lets check Powerpack prices on Tesla Energy site: “40 Powerpacks – Peak Power 1,000 kW – 4,000 kWh – 4 hour duration”. 4 hours is a bit short for busy Thanksgiving travel season, but lets stretch a bit for cheaper price: 40 Powerpacks$1,880,000 4 Bi-Directional 250 kW Inverters$260,000 Cabling & Site Support Hardware$22,000 Total Estimate Excluding Installation: $2,162,000 Do you still want it? Surprise! You may still want it if you are in an area with high penetration of intermittent solar/wind and your Big Electric wants to balance all the mess somehow, and keeps raising peak power use chargers (if you every seen big commercial power bill, you will know what it is). E.g. you are in sunny San Diego: 1000 kW * $42/kW per month power use charge = $42,000 / month, and 50-100% of this fine amount typically don’t go away for 12 months after you reach peak power for 15 minutes. Sorry guys, Big Electric needs to install some not so cheap “hardware” to keep up with your great momentary power demands. Lets see… Read more »

No, ten years from now you will have destination chargers at 10 KW, superchargers at 150 KW and megachargers at 1000 KW. This last one will connect under your car at dedicated stations. It will also break the 400 volt barrier and go up to at least 1500 volt. Those chargers will be available for an extra payment but they will really recharge your car in 10 minutes.

Both 8 x 120 kW charger station or 1 x 1000 kW charger station would mean the same ability to charge n cars per day, and the same peak power use charges, assuming a car can take this 1000 kW. It means it is expensive and will get more expensive as more intermittent solar/wind are getting connected grid and peak power charges will continue to climb quickly. Batteries are really not a way to travel long distances for cheap however great they are for local transportation. At least until somebody invents ultra-cheap supercapacitors or batteries for grid balancing.

The peak power is set by your supply line and storage solutions have never been as plenty as they are today, so rates should decrease not increase. You have the good old pump storage facilities, the ARES system which is basically the same but without water and with a better yield, battery storage like what Tesla is doing, capacitors storage , flywheel storage especially interesting for peak shaving, a new kind of pump storage , flow cell batteries , Compressed Air Storage (CAS), under water CAS, thermal storage (solar plants mainly). So that’s plenty of choice to store electricity.

Protocol doesn’t mean anything for cars on the road now unless the cars can handle it and there are stations out there that can be upgrade easily.

Maybe this is a sign that upcoming LEAF 2.0 will have decent size battery/range. Now, the question is that with 150kW, the LEAF battery better have liquid cooling, else, it won’t work!

Leaf 1.0 has a 20 kWh usable pack and charges at 50kW, Leaf 2.0 could have a 60 kWh usable pack why wouldn’t it be able to charge at 150 kW?

I suspect that Nissan will not push the charge rate and stick with no active cooling. If come 2020 the choice is a $42k Tesla 3, at $37k GM bolt and a $34k Nissan leaf 2.0 all with more than 200 miles range but only the Nissan with passive cooling I personally would go for the Leaf even if the lack of active cooling limits me to charging at 100kW. To be quite honest I would probably go with a 30 kWh leaf if the price differential was $6-7k less than the 60 kWh model.

If a CHAdeMO or Dual CHAdeMO/CCS DCFC station this much maximum power, they really need to make it possible to share the power between two cars. Tesla realized this very early on – with only one car on a charger this powerful, you’re under utilizing your infrastructure. The only sensible thing is to allow two concurrent connections to share the total power. I hope there are people at ABB, Efacec, BTC, etc. that realize this and will make it happen.

Yes, that is exactly what it looks like will be happening!! The EVtec fast charger can charge a CHAdeMO and a CCS car at the same time.

Forgot to mention too that Delta Electronics has a similar charger, and they or EVtec may be the actual mfg. Arctic Roads has a test one installed south of Oslo.

That’s pretty odd that an article that addresses CHAdeMO coming out with your 150 KW / 350kW is “not giving up”, when in fact, they continue to lead worldwide. The CHAdeMO Association is a real formal organization, and has been for many years. The members meet once per year in a congress. They just met for this year, and voted for these standards. In sharp contrast, the CCS standard is fractured between the firmly established SAE for the USA region, and a newly formed organization in Germany for the Europe regional CCS standard. Prior to this organization in Germany, CCS in Germany / Europe relied on public relations groups to support it. I’m glad that they finally have organized a formal group which makes sense if you plan on sticking around. It turns out competition is good. I seriously doubt that either standard would be pushing the limits without the existence of the other. Needless to say, Tesla is way out in front and will likely stay that way. There is no way that Tesla will allow public charge stations to be faster than their proprietary network. The only thing that can stop them are state / regional protectionist laws,… Read more »

“The only thing that can stop them are state / regional protectionist laws, like the one that were recently passed in Germany to require CCS at Tesla Supercharger stations.”
The law was amended such that private stations like Tesla’s are not included after complaints by Tesla and other EU member states that the law was not consistent with the EU mandate (which only applied to public charge networks) and would hold back DC charging development.

That is fantastic news!!! I don’t get over to that forum often, after being unceremoniously kicked off about two years ago.

Re battery buffering, I expect if you are buying in bulk you’d do better even today. But this will really come into its own, as Brandon says, in a few years when battery prices fall further. As for the high power bidirectional converter, not required as the batteries can ‘trickle’ charge at a lower rate and battery to car doesn’t need inverting. My guess is that this will make good sense about 2020.

It is really great to finally hear someone that dare break the 400 v imposed dogma and propose at least 1000 v. That is indeed required if we want true fast charge ev with 400 miles real life autonomy to finally put the last nail in the gas car coffin. Voltage and power above 350 KW up to 1000 KW will be required to charge 150 to 200 KWh batteries and of course high C rates cells are now the clear challenge for future developments. We need 5C and perhaps a bit more.

Planned 350kW at 800V is already plenty. I don’t think I would want to pay for anything faster for a car. Long distance buses & trucks may need more. Even 350 kW would require some 3C-5C charging rates and today’s Li batteries can’t do it while keeping top specific energy at the same time. Even assuming some better fantasy batteries, it would cost just way more than gas when you add grid balancing cost. So in addition to that you would need bring down some “Powerpack” prices at least several times down. Highly unlikely it will happen within next 10 years.

High initial price is not the major problem, it is more being able to set the technology in place. Later on, just like for everything prices will be able to go down. A Tesla Model 3 will already reduce by half the price of the Model S. So initial MW level charger could be very expensive but later on become as mundane as a 4 MW level gas hose is today. Beside there are other interests in high rate electric power transfer, the bus and truck like you mentioned but also front mounted recharging probe for mid-air recharging of planes like in the transatlantic Yates project. Here is a picture of that system:

What I have thought all along is that Tesla was first and had to get the ball rolling for the industry. So Tesla had no choice but to create it’s own fast charging standard being so far ahead of the curve, and needing charging rates much faster than the early sub 100 mile EV being offered by other automakers.

BUT….I expect when CCS reaches 150+ on the way to 250 and 300, then Tesla will adopt CCS. Just like all other automakers globally.

Superchargers will get converted, and now they can be open for paid service to any CCS vehicle. While at the same time, wireless charging will be picking up ‘speed’, which does not care what plug you have, and everyone can use the same charge pad.

This just gets better….

Tesla will adopt the large clunky CCS plug (when they could have already done that) as soon as Tesla owners demand it.

Answer – never, unless protectionist laws are implemented to require such a move.

why is it do you suppose that the CCS cheerleader group seems to think that Tesla somehow needs the help from any other charging protocol?

You can’t really believe that Tesla hasn’t long ago planned out their higher speed charging infrastructure,

After leading this charge speed contest for so long, it isn’t even logical that they would give up and just stop (which is what adopting a huge clunky plug is). if you really believe that, you have not been paying attention to Tesla.

Right. Tesla can do fine on their own (they had no other option starting out anyway) and in continuing to do so their own network will be able to best serve the needs of their own cars.. IMO

The 350kW @ 350A obviously means 1000V which is even higher than the voltage mentioned by Porsche.

It follows that these stations that can supply 1000V will do so only for cars that request it.

The current (no pun intended) batteries inside Tesla cars operate around the 400V level. If they were connected to an 1000V DCFC system they would just demand 400V and not get the full benefit.

FYI the reason that the current in these new systems won’t go higher, even when the voltage does… i think… is because “power loss in the cables” which manifests itself as heat, is current x current x resistance of the wires. Voltage doesn’t come into it. So no-one will use higher current than 350A is my guess otherwise you’ll burn yourself when charging in the summer.