Elon Musk: Tesla Supercharger V3 Coming With Output Over 350 kW

Tesla Superchargers


Tesla Superchargers

Tesla Superchargers

On Christmas Eve during the day, Tesla CEO Elon Musk fired up the Tweetstorm machine on Twitter.

Musk answered some questions related to the Model X holiday light/door show, commented on Superchargers in Canada and even told a potential Tesla Model S P100D buyer that if he didn’t like the car, he could simply return it.

But it was a few Tweets linked Supercharger V3 that caught our attention.

According to Musk, Supercharger V3 will utilize solar and Powerpack V2 to crank up the output to over 350 kW. These V3 Superchargers could theoretically work in off-the-grid areas, provided there’s ample sunshine and it’s not in a snowy region.

No Grid Needed

No Grid Needed

Here’s the rest of the series of Tweets:

Elon Msuk Supercharger V3 Tweets

Elon Musk Supercharger V3 Tweets

A mere 350 kW? That’s what’s being deployed already in the CCS camp, so in typical one-up fashion, Tesla is gunning for even higher output…of course. And by saying 350 kW is a children’s toy, we have to assume the target output is much, much higher.

Unfortunately, Musk didn’t give any timeline for any of this, so as of right now, CCS is ahead is the race for high-output charging stations, but as we all know, Tesla is extremely dedicated to the charging infrastructure, so it’s likely just a matter of time before Tesla again takes the lead and never looks back.

Source: TwitterElectrek

Categories: Charging, Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

79 Comments on "Elon Musk: Tesla Supercharger V3 Coming With Output Over 350 kW"

newest oldest most voted

Btw you can now add credit cards to your model 3 reservation for further payments. The backend is slowly building up. I logged into mytesla recently and discovered it.

Ok, so here’s the important question that in order to answer properly someone is going to need to provide a link to the source:

In order to charge at around 350 kW, the batteries in any such EV will need to be able to fast charge at 3-4 C. Are there any batteries announced for production that can charge at a rate of 3-4 C?

Seeing how SparkEV is capable of 2.6C all the way to 80%, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be higher if it could taper. We know Tesla starts at about 120 kW and taper to about 50 kW at 80%, ratio of about 2.4. Then 2.6C SparkEV could (not that it would) be 6.24C peak if allowed to taper.

SparkEV is 105kW output with 18.4 kWh battery, 5.7C. For short “peak” power charging, it could approach this number. I suspect same can be done with Tesla. Then 100kWh battery could be capable of 570 kW peak.

Output C-rating is always higher than charging rates. In the Hobby world, 60C cells are used for peak-power bursts, with 30C constant draw. Charging is still done at about 5C. Go to HobbyKing.com and review the current types and C-ratings of cells available (it’s only one of many Hobby sites).

Here is one that they now offer 45C/90C discharge (sustain/peak) with up to 15C charging rates.

If some battery can charge at 15C, that answers the question of any charging at 3C+. Tesla is using “bunch of laptop batteries”, so there’s no reason why they couldn’t use RC car batteries if needed.

An interesting question is if they can mix chemistries. They can put few (ie, 25%) 15C charging batteries for quick boost while having the rest as slower charging (3C+).

Hobby ratings don’t mean a thing in this context. Hobby batteries are abused and wear out quickly. You can’t treat an expensive car battery the same way.

Right. Tesla designs its battery packs to “baby” the batteries, ensuring a surprisingly long life.

Furthermore, RC toys can use relatively expensive batteries, since the pack is so small. Tesla, contrariwise, has to use the cheapest-per-kWh batteries that are adequate for its needs.

15 C, that is interesting because it is exactly what would be necessary to megacharge a 100 kWh battery in 6 minutes. So, if 15 C is possible, it is all a question of reducing the price. If of course the cycle numbers are sufficient, but since megacharging would not be an every day event, it could be less difficult to achieve a good overall durability.

Which SparkEV, 2013 with nanophosphate battery or 2014+ with LG Chem battery?
Short peak power is not the same as sustained power from 0 till 80%. It is much more difficult.
And you need to keep specific energy high at the same time. There are chemistries that have much higher power but then specific energy is way too low. So while it is possible technically, it is not cheap or easy task.

Both 2014 (A123) and 2015+ (LG) SparkEV charge at same power, though I’m only personally familiar with 2015. If you consider taper, peak power is going to be lot higher, and that’s my point. Obviously, average power will be lot less.

But peak power is sometimes useful. 350kW peak might have 300kW on average for few minutes. That might be enough to get where you need to go, and charge normally while you’re “taking care of business” after you arrive.

Many RC-hobbyist batteries can charge well past 5-C. Lithium-Ion based on LIFEPO4 can charge at 5-6C no problem.

Now, would today’s NCA car cells in the Tesla last very long doing 5C-6C? Highly doubtful due to the heating of the cells for even 15-Min to get a full charge. However, since they are “cracking down” on supercharging, the supposition is most drivers won’t be supercharging very much and the thrills of “cross country” driving will be replaced by more consumer-centric locality radius driving without supercharging.

Seems a bit of a hype reaction to the other 350KW “to match the words said by others”. I wouldn’t want to charge at 350KW – however, consumers might not jump on EVs without that level of charging performance. Balancing will also be a bit scary at that speed as cell taps and in-parallel cell balancing at such a high rate of charging speed has seen numerous cell fires at RC tracks around the world. In that case, charging must be done in “Li-Po” Bags to contain small fires. In a car, I doubt that will work out as well.

Thanks for the great info guys. It really all comes back to the batteries and how fast a C rate they can manage for a period of let’s say, 20-30 minutes, enough to affect charge time for most of a fast charge session.

Various automakers and some fast charge network operators like EVgo are talking about 350 kW fast charging, so the batteries that can handle a 3-4 C rate for the majority of a fast charge session must be coming in the next 3-4 years.

There’s simply no other way because going to a battery that’s significantly larger than Tesla’s batteries today (100 kWh) really doesn’t seem necessary.

Brandon said:

“…going to a battery that’s significantly larger than Tesla’s batteries today (100 kWh) really doesn’t seem necessary.”

On the contrary, a 100 kWh battery pack still leaves the Model S far short of the 300+ mile range (before refueling) of a gasmobile. We can be sure future generations of BEVs will continue to have battery packs with larger and larger capacities. Larger vehicles, and vehicles built to haul heavy loads, will also need larger packs.

We can be sure that competition will drive larger and larger pack sizes in BEVs for at least several more years.

I certainly hope it will also drive larger pack sizes in PHEVs! I very much hope to see PHEVs with at least 60-75 miles of highway range, to completely eliminate the use of gasoline on at least 85% of the days such vehicles are driven.

Sure, there will be some luxury EVs that will likely be more than 100 kWh, but my main point is that a higher C rate of 3 or 4 will have to be the main thing that will happen for high charge rates to be possible.

Also, obviously larger vehicles will have larger batteries. I’m here talking about cars.

I love how the fanboys here conveniently cropped out Musk’s total bs in those Tweets about making those 350kw chargers “solar powered.” I guess it’s “editorial judgement” to decide when Musk is lying and when he’s not, lol.

Musk clearly states “moderate use Superchargers in non-snowy regions”. It has always been his vision of combining solar energy with energy storage. Every LED light bulb used makes a difference. Evey solar panel used to offset carbon-based electricity makes a difference. Solar/battery combinations that curb peak usage makes an even greater difference.

If all you care about is making money off of shorting stocks, move along.

Caring and talking about shorting Tesla, is one thing, actually making money at is quite another. I suppose “poor judgement” is not just confined to those with don’t agree with.


As you didn’t mention it, and you know we require it of you to disclose when commenting (given the vitriol with which you deliver your message), we assume you have now cleared all your Tesla short positions as a professional trader and are now posting only as a person interested in electric vehicles.

Of note: Normally without such a declaration of your position the post would have been unseen/deleted, but as others have already commented before we saw your post, we did not want to inflict any collateral damage. Next time you fail to disclose your position you will no longer be welcome to comment here.

Do you require TSLA longs to also disclose their positions?

For that matter, do any InsideEVs staff trade TSLA? The timing of certain articles posted during trading hours could raise suspicions.

Obviously no individual with a position in Tesla – or any other company (regardless of what that might be) is required/asked to disclose that position…this being a public forum for general consumption and all that. That said, if anyone is deemed to be aggressively asserting their position repeatedly on a single topic/entity for financial gain, AND is a professional fund manager they are required to disclose that position (in the same way Mark is required when he does live interviews on CNBC), or they are not welcome. — Sidenote: As to InsideEVs and TSLA positions – or any other OEM. “For that matter, do any InsideEVs staff trade TSLA? The timing of certain articles posted during trading hours could raise suspicions.” — Our policy (like our views on whether or not it is ok to have sponsored content, or take free trips, hotels, freebies from OEMs) is that no staff person is permitted to have ANY position in ANY automaker (with the exception of perhaps an unknown/indirect ownership stake in a mutual fund, ETF, etc). Just to add: InsideEVs gears most all articles (~90%) to basically fall within “trading hours”, outside of breaking news, time-shifted auto shows and Euro-Asia news… Read more »

I hate all the accusations of bias. We live in the age of cynicism, where people don’t trust anyone anymore.

Concerning this website, why does anyone have the right to call them out? It’s their website, and they can run it as they please. Along with the moderation of comments.

On being pro-Tesla. Fine, the company is worth being pro over. If you don’t agree with that, why are you here? It’s an EV site, and Tesla is either the biggest or one of the biggest in that space.

Personally, I think any Tesla “cultist” deserves a few digs now and then, in light hearted fun. But then again some people are too sensitive. 🙂

Then you have some people here, who have nothing better to do, then make false accusations, simply because they at the time do not like the tone of your post. Such people create a climate of pro and against, as if no middle ground is allowed. That’s sad, as in many times, it’s the distractors, and/or critics, that we learn from.

Anyway, just my thoughts. Mods can delete this or any my posts if they want.

Four Electrics asked:

“Do you require TSLA longs to also disclose their positions?”

(a) I think only a Tesla stock shorter and serial FUDster like you would care.

(b) I haven’t noticed any Tesla “long” investors using their posts as a disinformation strategy campaign, as you short-selling FUDsters do.

Disinformation (Russian: dezinformatsiya and dezinformatsia) is intentionally false or misleading information that is spread in a calculated way to deceive target audiences.
— Wikipedia

Bottom line: Posts from cheerleading Tesla “long” investors don’t disrupt interesting and meaningful discussion of EVs, as posts from serial FUDsters like you do.

I take it that Spiegel and the other shorters/haters who are always willing to put their greed for few more greasy shekels ahead of their country are starting to sweat as CleanTech, EVs and Tesla in particular are getting closer to full-on disruption of an oil-based transportation system!

Mark here we disagree – I’m not putting any detail on here since I’m going to have a bit of fun with that Stupe Pushi.

As a machinist, you of course realize the concept of cost-effective products.

Mark, your BA in History vetos your ability to comment on physics related topics. Quit trying to influence the market.

I don’t think so, anymore, hopefully, really puts much stock in what he has to say. If they do then they are crying a river. “Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noon-day sun” and sell/tell other to go short Tesla.
Told me you we too good then…you win!


I’m sure that regular readers of InsideEVs and other EV-oriented websites which allow outside comments to be posted, are well aware of the fact that posts from serial Tesla bashers are not to be trusted.

I think the FUD from those such as Mark B. Spiegel, “Four Electrics”, sven, zzzzzzzzzz, tftf, Don C, and a few others are aimed at the more casual reader. Just like spam e-mails, it doesn’t matter to the spammer if 99% or even 99.9% of those receiving his spam ignore it. Apparently Mark and his fellow trolls think just one-in-a-thousand believing their B.S. is sufficient return on the time they spend writing (or copying) and posting anti-Tesla FUD to various popular websites.

Sven is one of the more intelligent posters here. I would sooner read his posts any day, then yours.

A lot of people here have called out your behavior of making false accusations. You should look in the mirror before criticizing anyone.

Let us say that you want 30 kWh to make your battery reach 80%. At 350 kW it will take 5.12 minutes.

Now the M3 will have say a 35 kWh let us assume that V3 supper charger will be 500 kW so that means the charging time for the above example is less than 5 minutes.

That assumes there’s no taper, and we know Tesla already has severe taper. Average to 80% will be lot less, probably far less than 100 kW.

I think we’d see a bit of taper on that Spark, too, at 120kW.

He says 350 kW is for children toys?
What is 150 kW for then? And why is called super chargers? that guy is talking so much BS

I don’t think that the FTC would allow 350KW toys. 😉

My biggest question is will the cars be able to handle this.

My second biggest question is that this might be equal to 3,500 volts of electricity. For the record 3,500 volts is as high as a lot of small town’s power distribution system so I hope it is safe when people use it.

Dear Mr. Ocean, you should indicate your sarcasm in some way unless you’re really this clueless. And most of us here know you are not this clueless!

Power distribution in the usa is minimum about 13.5 KV.

See this:


Where they say 11kv, but that is “international standard”. I trust my power manuals more.
Power distribution in the USA is divided into residential and industrial sides. The power company provides transformers for residential. For businesses, they provide their own transformers.

Here is a photo of a 2,400 volt distribution power line in a small town http://www.insulators.info/pictures/?id=175391057

As for the other comment my question is they are talking about going to 350killwats but a while back everyone was talking about going to a 150 kilowatts. But I didn’t see any Chamo or CSS 150 kilowatt charging station building.

I just kind of feel like this is Tesla hype

Sorry, still can’t tell if you’re serious or just joking.

The engineering necessary to safely use high voltage safely is a problem which has been solved. The only challenge here is implementing known solutions.

Anyone who doesn’t understand this, shouldn’t be arguing with those who do.

i’m curious, fill me in on that…how was the problem solved? the problem with high voltage is the potential for arcing. when there is high power, then you would need a circuit breaker that could switch fast enough to keep the user from getting fried in the event of a short circuit.

You know cow fencing wire is using 6000 v and most countries don’t even consider such voltage to be high voltage. We must not confuse real high voltage at 1000000 v, 300000 v, 100000 v with 11000 v and not at all with 2400 v. That would be like claiming a 30 mm pingpong ball can pierce 5 cm armor because a 30 mm amo of a GAU-8 Avenger A-10 gatling gun can do it.
In the same time fluoropolymers are able to resist 80000 v per mm thickness and power is never on when conductors are visible but only when the plug is safely connected inside the socket, all of it insulated.

Don’t forget….There are TWO cars sharing the output at superchargers. If they crank this up, it might only be to allow max charge speed on all chargers, regardless of traffic at the charger. If they are working hard to reduce congestion, why wouldn’t they try to improve the charge rates? This would help the current vehicles with the current batteries and improve charge times….Without needing battery tech advances. Wouldn’t that help today?

Maybe those will be for the electrified semi trucks?

Mean while…. this happens in a P100D

when the tesla cto was talking about doing a 750kW charging station, the voltage at the head was 1,500V. is tesla going to do 350kW at the current 300V charger level (i.e. is tesla planning to increase the current by a factor of 2.5) or are they planning on increasing the voltage at the charger head?

Higher than 350kw will be needed for large trucks. However, the P100D can barely take that kind if charge level for only a few minutes. Liquid cooled cables and 1kV and needed at that power level.

I doubt that Tesla will try to engineer Superchargers to charge large trucks.

As the EV revolution advances, I expect to see the development of the EV equivalent of a truck stop: Larger footprint charging stations equipped to handle large vehicles for charging using significantly higher power.

An EV charging truck stop might well use something like Proterra’s EV bus chargers:

A superconductor cable can easily handle the high current if cooled with liquid nitrogen. I can’t speak to the flexibility of such a cable though. The other part is reducing the internal resistance of cells. Low resistance = low temperature rise and higher efficiency as well.

Or Graphene.

Sounds like a job for… Robo-Snake!

Oh, for god’s sake, he did _not_ say anything of the sort.

The only things he said or implied were:
(1) Tesla will not roll out solar across the network until they have new versions of the Supercharger, something new from Solar City and the new Powerpack.
(2) Supercharger v3 will be greater than 350kW.

So, no he didn’t say anything the combination being needed to charger at over 350kW, it was just about making the economics work to have solar at every location.

And no he didn’t say that charging would be 350kW+.

A Supercharger is not only used to refer to a cabinet, but also to the _site_. The typical 8-stall Supercharger site has a 500kW transformer, and the 10+ stall sites have a larger transformer still. So, the “children’s toy” comment would just have been a reference to Supercharger sites already having far more 350kW, and would have been a jibe at the recently hyped EVgo chargers.

But, hey, why not feed the monster and get the clicks.

given his dismissive attitude toward 350kW charging, maybe musk is referring to the tesla plans to deploy 750kW charging stations. those 750kW charging stations would operate at 1,500V/500A.

i don’t know how compatible that level of charging would be with current tesla battery packs. maybe the idea would be to introduce a new generation battery and on-board charger. i would imagine that, for a rather significant fee, owners of legacy cars could swap out their current battery pack and on-board charger.

tesla is a good marketing organization, so i’m sure that they have the product migration strategy worked out to keep milking their current customer base for more money. it would not surprise me if many tesla owners just bought a new tesla; i’ve seen reports from owners who upgraded to a new tesla for reasons as frivolous as to be able to get the new all-glass roof.

Yeah I had suggested to PriusManiac back when he wanted superhighvoltage chargers that 1500 volts is probably the most cost effective since it allows reasonable power levels, and there isn’t much trouble with carona and besides, the mining industry has off the shelf components working at those voltages to keep the costs down.

I’ve given the stupe Pushi a homework assignment, so lets see what he conjectures.

Hint: The 1500volts/500 amp car connection cable is the most trivially easy part of the job.

I reacted on your 1500 V suggestion by adopting it, but I am not sure 3000 v would be much more of a problem. That’s still twice the pushing on the electrons, so twice the power. But 1500 v would be good to get to one megawatt charging power if cable section is big enough and perhaps cable cooling. Note that if an automatic under the car charging system is used, then the contact surfaces can be made much larger so that the need for higher voltage is reduced, perhaps even unnecessary. In theory you could have two big contact plates of 10 square inch each. That would make it possible to pump an insane amount of amps. It would look a bit like two miniature plane ski landing gear systems (http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/g634/how-the-lc-130-flies-to-greenland-and-antarctica/) that would come out from a closed bay under the car and push on those surfaces directly fed by the megacharger under a specific Bluetooth security protocol control. This would make it possible to also equip standard parking place with convenient similar large contacts but this time at low destination charger power levels. One system making it all (even if the present manual charging plug could stay there… Read more »

Porsche is talking about Tesla supercharger compatibility for the upcoming for Mission E. I wonder if they’re both going for an 800 volt standard, which would reduce the need for extremely high currents. Heck, with an 800 volt standard, you could even charge your Koenigsegg hybrid!

Porsche boss Oliver Blume told Top Gear:
“It sounds easy but getting the details agreed is hard. We already have the clear technical concept. It can even work with Teslas, with an adapter.”

Well, everything can work with an adapter, but I doubt if 350 kW or just 150 kW adapter would be cheap or practical. Other than that, Tesla uses Type 2 compatible car outlet in Europe, so you can plug CCS into it and it should work for AC or low power DC. CCS plug is supposed to stay backwards compatible with 400 V charging, at half the power of course.

It would be relatively easy to switch to open standard for Tesla in Europe, just add 2 extra prongs to car outlet and that it may be compatible both with legacy proprietary chargers and CCS. But it would be kind of a blow to the “we superior and unique elite” Musk marketing narrative.

Pure speculation from twitter. Fred Lambert and Elon Musk may have just been arguing or something. Elon by saying ‘a mere 350KW’ may not have been hinting that greater than 350KW was anywhere in the works.
He could have said that for a number of reasons.

Amazing how a couple of tweets can set off such fireworks. If anything comes out of this, it will at least be interesting technical discussions about charging. Perhaps more info will be forthcoming by or at the Model 3’s part 2 unveil. Sorry, Tesla shorts: might be a sad moment for you.

Yeah here again I question the article title: Musk seemingly has stated less than the article writer thinks.

But it is fun to think about what they would do to implement a 16 stall hypercharger.

8 SC bays at roughly 400 kw input to each charger to get 350 kw each out. Lets further assume that the ‘350 kw standard’ varied the input voltage to make the 350 kw charging rate CONSTANT, as level 2 chargers already are.

Then the loading on the electric service will be a relatively constant 3200 kw, since any 8 cars would fully load them up.

Since my utility only offers 2500 kw peak per service, they’d need either 2 services, or else have a solar cell or 2 , and a battery or 2 , to make up the slack 700 kw.

Easy to do, my only question is, Who is paying for this party?

Bill Howland said:

“Since my utility only offers 2500 kw peak per service…”

Bill, I see you haven’t learned anything about this subject since the last time we discussed it. I’ll just repeat what Scott Franco posted back then:

Short of powering on an aluminum smelter, the power grid has plenty of headroom for industrial applications. The worst that could possibly happen is that charging stations would be limited to at or near industrial sections of town, hardly a big limitation.

Go outside, look up at the power lines. Those top lines are typically 15kv or more for distribution.

The worst power user here in Silicon valley was the Moffet field wind tunnel, which had its own power substation, and the operators of it were required to call the power grid operators and ask for permission to turn the wind generators on.

Short of that, car charging is a flyspeck.

Here’s a link to that previous discussion, and the article which sparked it:


Pu-pu, Bill Howland never said that it is technically difficult. Just pay the money and it will be done.
I guess you have clear reading comprehension issue if you didn’t noticed that the question was who will be paying for the party. Just get familiar with industrial electrical bill structure and what “demand charge” means. Or Tesla Powerpack pricing and specifications. OK, I admit it can be difficult if you can’t read anything complicated 🙁

I’m perfectly capable of understanding that you citing a few cherry-picked, extreme examples of charges for on-demand power are just more anti-EV FUD from a troll.

Reality check: Large commercial buildings have high power demands, yet that doesn’t prevent them from being built and rented out profitably. I’ve pointed this out before, but for some *cough* strange *cough* reason, you never respond.

I wonder why? /sarcasm

Run along now Sonny – you don’t understand the particulars and I did say it is “Easy to Do”.

You said it was “easy to do” only with a twin power hookup.

Clearly you don’t understand the issue as well as I do, so go back to playing in your sandbox, kid.

1). Pushi I said “…they’d need either 2 services, or else have a solar cell or 2 , and a battery or 2…” so for those ‘Comprehension challenged’ that is 3 choices, multiple, uh 2…. is one of the 3 choices. The second choice is l0,000 320 watt solar panels if you could depend on blinding sunshine, and 20,000 if you can’t. Or perhaps 10,000 kwh of batteries. Hey they make them cheap at that gigathing anyway right? 2). Since I should run along “since I don’t understand the issue, kid” – perhaps you’d like to detail how to lay out a plain old 8 car hypercharger, with each stall running a 750 kw charging rate – your choice as to whether this is peak or continuous. Please for once be DETAILED on how to do this. You can do this without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is what at this point you usually say. It would help if you had a friend who knew what that was – but I digress. Tell me A). What the REAL issue is? B). Give a DETAILED block diagram of the hypercharger as well as estimated costs for everything.

Ok Same as last time, Dead Silence.

Wouldn’t a kid take the easy design route and just take a current 120 kw supercharger design and scale it up 6 1/4 times? That would have at least been one solution.

Ok I’ll take a stab at a 750 kw supercharger design: General: 2 – 500 amp nominal cables to the cars, running at plus 750 volts, and minus 750 volts to Ground (earth), shielded, water cooled (glycol), with the cool glycol provided by the Corral. – Valves in the car will guide the Glycol through the car’s up/down converter, chilled water charging cables, and battery cooling, since in this application, the car’s air conditioner isn’t big enough for this charge rate. The up/down converter maximizes the utility of the 750 kw available as it is a CONTINUOUS rate, like L2 chargers. The batteries charge at a low voltage higher current when dead, and then as the voltage rises on them they are charged at a slower current, but the 750 kw usage is maintained during the charge cycle. Each ‘Hyper charger Bay’ in the Corral goes from 12 – 10 kw single phase 277 volt input chargers (120 kw supercharger) to a ‘Dual battery charger bay’ (62.5 kw single phase 600 volts to ground (earth) input chargers), so in other words in this dual charger bay, there will be 6 ‘plus’ chargers providing a total of 375 kw nominal +750,… Read more »

This is yet another Rorschach Test story.

350 kW stations are already being rolled out in both the EU and North America and nobody batted an eyelash about whether it was technically difficult or not to build out either of these two charging networks.

We had multiple stories on 350 kW chargers and nobody suggested that they were pushing any technical boundaries.

Now Tesla says they will build their own ultra high speed chargers, and all the usual suspects suddenly show up to tell the guy who lands rockets on reentry that they are all suddenly so concerned about the technical challenges!

Concern Trolls are so Concerned!

Because everything they see in Rorschach Tests like this is always something to be concerned about, every single story they are so full of concern!

The reality is this is a tiny small potatoes engineering challenge, when we’ve already seen successful battery charging programs that already dwarf anything Elon might be alluding to here. For example, 10 minute charges of these 1000 kWh ferry batteries:


I don’t know about anyone else, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

I’ve said repeatedly this is “Easy to DO”.

And an economizing measure could be added in a slight lieu of what I previously proffered – but then, there are 10 different ways to correctly do something.

Here’s the economization: Tesla is already using Schneider “QED-2” and, rarely, “QED-6” for their Supercharger installations so they are comfortable with this brand of switchgear. Also, 600 volt Delta is a standard transformer secondary voltage – so using this would allow ‘off the shelf’ construction. So here are some slight modifications of the above plan: 1). 600 volt delta secondary from transformer, arranged in ‘gnd B’ to allow 2 pole overcurrent devices. (Circuit Breakers) 2). Each “Half charger Bay” has 6-62.5 kw output chargers in them. Assuming .95 efficiency and >.99 pf requires a 65.8 kw input, or allowing for 125% of this for ‘headroom – continuous loading’ requires 3-#4 copper wires/ charger to an 80 amp 2 pole breaker. Configure the input of the each charger to run on 600 volts 3 phase, since operating the old supercharging system on single phase is an anachronism to allow for single charger model S installations in North American homes, and since 3 phase chargers start out with only 4% ripple after rectification, plus the currents are reduced and continuous mean much much less filtering, if any, is required, so as to lower the cost and improve the reliability. Therefore, each Half-Bay… Read more »

Very interesting Bill. So are you saying, that cooling would be piped somehow from the charger base station to the car? They would need a new connector then, to handle that.

Well there’s nothing really new to see here because they have kind of tried water cooled car connector cables already. What I’m suggesting kills about 3 birds with only one stone. Why have glycol (water) cooling along with the power cable? Solves these problems: A). If someone actually wants to hypercharge the car at a 750 kw rate (I’m leaving it an open question as to finding a battery pack that can actually survive this ultra fast rate), I’m assuming there will be at least around 50 kw of heat (170,000 btu/hour, or 14 tons of heat to be removed – much larger than the car’s 4 ton air conditioner, and it would be uneconomic to have an air conditioner in the car over 3 times bigger than normally necessary – so having a chilled water system allows the refrigeration to be back at the corral and doesn’t increase the weight or expense of the individual car. C). Since the battery is the ‘hardest’ thing to cool since it is the most delicate and it expells the most heat while ultrafast charging, The coldest water from the coral would go to the big battery first, then the heated water would… Read more »

When I say the ‘car’s up/dn converter’, since this is only for Constant Rate Charging, and is only used while hypercharging, it not being used while level 2 charging or 110 charging, etc because the small built in car charger handles all that, the ‘car’s up/dn’ converter could actually be built into the individual car stall, so that one hyper charger output feeds 2 stalls, each with their own up/dn converter, so that way the 750 kw from the hypercharger is fully utilized either by 1 car at a time or is spilt between 2 cars – one almost dead, and the other almost full – but then the converters take care of the difference. And having it built into the Stall means less weight and space used in the car since it simply isn’t in the car itself, but it is in the circuit ultimately charging the car.

OR, it can be simply built into the hypercharger bay itself, and stalls are fed individually, 2 stall outputs per hypercharger.

Many different ways can be imagined to accomplish the same thing.

The kicker here is that the ‘up/dn converter’ functionality MUST ALREADY EXIST in the twelve 10 kw chargers of the old superchargers since these things take: 1). Single phase input, from 195-285 volts to 10 kw dc output at a lower voltage output, higher current when the car battery is dead, to a higher voltage, lower current when the battery is almost full, with little tapering. Therefore, just make the proposed 3 phase input, 600 volt, 62.5 kw (requires an 80 amp breaker on the ac input), have instead of a fixed 750 volt output, make it float to the charge of the individual car it is connected to as the CHARGERS IN THE CARS DO RIGHT NOW EVERY DAY! If the 62.5 kw chargers (I’m saying these things would be much physically larger than the 10 kw things they are replacing, so therefore you could only fit 6 of these into a bay instead of 12 of the 10 kw things- therefore a ‘double bay’ is required) are putting out a nominal 750 volts at 83 1/3 amps, it would be ok to have the thing have TWO outputs, each of which could run from 600 volts at 104… Read more »

Interesting! I hope they achieve a rate as high as 750 kw rate, and Elon’s tweet seems to hint at something very high.

If cooling is being piped into the car, it adds an extra layer of complexity:
1) cable/hose is more complex
2) recharging station is more complex
3) if coolent is not sufficient “topped up”, it could cause reliability issues with the car
4) quality of coolent could degrade with time
5) backwards compatibility has to be considered.

I have a gut feeling, that Elon does not want that extra layer of complexity, but then again, not sure how they can achieve such high charging without adequate cooling.