First Look At Tesla’s Massive 40-Stall Supercharger – Video

4 days ago by Mark Kane 75

Tesla recently completed work on one of its largest Supercharging station with 40 stalls in Kettleman City, California.

Kettleman City Supercharger

The site is pretty unusual, as it’s equipped with a 250 kW solar canopy, Powerpack energy storage systems, a lounge with a barista, and the presentation of various Tesla products (solar panels, Powerwall and Supercharging network info).

The station is new, but is already attracted several cars in the video, including two Model 3s – of which, doesn’t have free access to Superchargers.

Kettleman City Supercharger. 40 Stalls, 2 Model 3’s, and a Barista!!

Quick visit to the brand new Kettleman City Supercharger. The new location has 250 KW of Solar Capacity, Powerpack Energy Storage, and 40 Supercharger stalls, all right off of the I-5 Highway, between San Fran, and Los Angeles. Take a look at the newly designed Owners Lounge, complete with a Tesla Barista.

The only larger station currently in operation is the 50-stall Supercharging stop in Shanghai.

Tags: , , , , ,

75 responses to "First Look At Tesla’s Massive 40-Stall Supercharger – Video"

  1. jelloslug says:

    Pay attention other car companies, until you start making these things yourself, you will always be a bit player.

    1. Caution says:

      Not too smart putting the lounge access code in the video. The non-Tesla public will see it and the place could be overrun by non-Tesla drivers. Not being snobby, just want Tesla facilities to be for Tesla drivers!

      1. menorman says:

        I thought Tesla said that each driver was going to get a unique code anyway?

    2. Dan says:

      The idea of brand specific charging stations shows just how far from real world convenience EVs are. Do you go to a Toyota gasoline station? Of course not; it would be ridiculous.

      If and when EVs get real, all charging facilities will handle all cars and electricity will be sold at market price which will vary by location, time of day (high at mid day and afternoon), day of the week and season of the year.

      By the way, that 250kw solar array would run 2 superchargers out of 40 and only when sunny and mid-day.

    3. Miggy says:

      Why is New Zealand not on the world map at 5.10 in the video.

  2. Four Electrics says:

    A truck stop, but for passenger cars. Hmmmm.

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      …..and GM, Ford, Fiat Chrysler, VW et al have what for their EV products???????

      1. Magnus H says:

        They have a standard interface that can use any of the numerous charging station’s made available by various entities.

        The idea that every car manufacturer should have their own charging network seems very inefficient to me.

        1. Recoil says:

          You mean 1 to 2 at a time space not for getting from place to place but bunched up around town. Oh also Tesla can use those chargers too.

  3. zzzzzzzzzz says:

    250 kW is barely enough to power 2-4 out of 40 stalls, in case the Sun is high in the sky at the moment. Quite useless, but good sales gimmick for gullible congregation.

    As for the practical matter, hope they have diesel generators ready like on Harris Ranch when electric grid can’t cope with the load.

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      …..and GM, Ford, Fiat Chrysler, VW et al have what for their EV products???????

    2. Tech01x says:

      It has 5 PowerPacks for 1 MWh of onsite battery storage to help assist in the peak times.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “250 kW is barely enough to power 2-4 out of 40 stalls”

      250 kW would be enough to power one Supercharger (two stalls), but actually it’s probably less than that. Note the wording “250 KW [should be “kW”] of Solar Capacity”. It is, unfortunately, typical of solar power advocates to cite capacity of the solar panels rather than actual generated energy.

      Reaching actual rated capacity would likely only happen at an installation in the tropics where there is no cloud cover, within one hour of noon. Average capacity anywhere in the mainland USA is always going to be somewhat less, especially in early morning and late afternoon when the sun is far from straight overhead.

      “Quite useless…”

      Not at all! Note the comment saying that there were only two cars at this station when checked. 250 kW… or, a more realistic number, perhaps 2/3 of that, which would be 167 kW, would supply a significant portion of the power to charge those two cars, on sunny days. And if the station is sometimes empty when the sun is shining, then the solar panels can charge the buffer battery packs.

      1. scott says:

        I wish as a country we would rapidly expand wind, and solar. It is going to take a lot of solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines to create a renewable based infrastructure. Something like a Tennessee Valley Authority is in order. Think of the jobs building it would support.

        1. Dav8or says:

          That’s why we need to get serious get on to the next generation of nuclear power. We can put off the inevitable for a while with wind and solar and whatever else, but as the population grows and more and more people attain 1st world living conditions, those things will no longer cut it.

          Nuclear power probably has more people spreading FUD (to use a popular acronym around here) than any other technology ever.

          1. Mark.ca says:

            I’m starting to understand why your thinking is so twisted. They dumped nuclear waste in your back yard, didn’t they?

          2. floydboy says:

            What is the Hinckley Point nuclear power station build costs up to now?

            1. William says:

              Why, and who’s really counting at this point?
              As long as rate payers keep paying, its business as usual.

          3. MikeG says:

            I don’t understand why people push nuclear power when it is takes a decade to build a plant that produces power that costs 2-3x what utility scale solar and wind cost.
            Solar and wind can be build incrementally in weeks and months, while a nuclear reactor will take at least ten years to produce any power.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              It wouldn’t take 10 years to build a new nuclear plant if there were not so many rabid “No more nukes!” activists using court orders and demanding ever more restrictions and repeated superfluous environmental impact statements, all intended to drive up the cost and delay such projects to the point that they are abandoned.

              Just look at what France did, by building a series of standardized nuclear power plants back in the… fifties? sixties? That has served France very well!

              We can hope that the new generation of truly fail-safe commercial nuclear reactors will meet less NIMBY opposition than projects using older designs, but humans being the stubborn irrational animals that they are… likely not.

              https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608271/small-reactors-could-kick-start-the-stalled-nuclear-sector/

              I do disagree with Dav8or on this point: I don’t see more nuclear power plants in most areas as what we will be moving to more and more in the future, but rather as an interim solution until we get more cost-effective solar farms and affordable large-scale energy storage systems.

              Now, there are some areas where solar power just ain’t gonna cut it. In far north or south latitudes, for example, and perhaps in areas with more cloudy days than clear ones, nuclear power may remain the preferred long-term solution. Solar power isn’t practical everywhere.

              And wind power is much less practical than solar in most areas, because it’s usually undependable and intermittent.

              1. MikeG says:

                Get back to me when you have solved the safe disposal of nuclear waste. Until then, your strawman argument that nuclear power is blocked by anti-nuke activists is pure BS.

                Nuclear power is failing for the same reason coal is–the economics suck.

                Years from now, we’ll look back on splitting the atom to boil water as pure foolishness.

                1. Nick says:

                  “strawman argument that nuclear power is blocked by anti-nuke activists is pure BS.”

                  This is not a strawman argument. He’s not misinterpreting your argument.

                  If you’re claiming anti-nuke activists have had no impact on commercial nuclear power in the US, I think that’d be hard to argue.

                  As for the nuclear waste issue, I think breeder reactors have a lot of promise. I think we’ll need a lot of solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, etc, etc to successfully displace natural gas.

                  Thanks!

              2. Nix says:

                Even France is shifting to solar and wind and away from nuke power.

                The life span of their oldest reactors is reaching the end of life, and instead of planning on replacing them with new nuke power plants, they are choosing to build wind and solar.

            2. Dav8or says:

              It takes a decade because we are not serious about it and have some work to do. Very little investment so far do to fear. As we build more, it will go faster. Fortunately, the Chinese aren’t afraid and they are pushing ahead.

              Modern nuclear is desirable because we shouldn’t want to cover the planet with glass and wind towers and act like that will have zero impact on the environment.

              We should want to build nuclear plants so we don’t have to inefficiently try to shove electricity into battery banks waste power and then discharge those batteries then act like those batteries have zero impact on the environment.

              We should want to build them so that we can actually start to solve our nation’s current nuclear waste problem by turning a serious liability that actually does threaten our environment into an asset that we can power our cities with and eventually eliminate all that 50,000 year half life waste.

              We should want to do this because they are comparatively small and compact installations that can be scaled to a decentralized grid system with zero emissions and much friendlier to the environment than what we have now.

              We should want to do this because it is the only technology that is sustainable, good for the environment and can handle the exponentially expanding population growth on our planet.

              Do it now, or put it off and do it later, but it is the only logical solution unless we plan on eliminating future population growth or we really don’t care that much about the environment.

              1. Nix says:

                Nuke power plants are actually very land intensive, and continue to be more and more land intensive as larger security zones are created to prevent terrorism attacks.

                Meanwhile, solar and wind simply don’t need as much space as many think, and wind farms can be used for mixed use as both farming/ranching and wind.

                http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-solar-panels-to-power-the-earth-2015-12

            3. david cary says:

              It takes “all of the above”.

              Every way of producing electricity has a downside. Fossil fuels obviously have the biggest. Solar is great and we don’t have to cover the world of course. But it does take some time to build solar and it does not produce electricity all the time. This isn’t a small issue. I just moved from a near all electric house (I used NG for backup heat and cooking). My usage was highest in the winter and I live in the Southeast (NC). My generation was lowest in the winter (well December).

              It is not a small problem. Cars need more juice to get to work. You need to heat the house and that generally takes more energy than cooling. You need more artificial light. And the solar hot water needs more backup heat. I had a 6 kw array and about 12 kw would have covered 9 months of use. It would take about 25kw to cover December/Jan. And that still would have involved some sacrifices.

              Seasonal variation of solar is at least a doubling issue. Honestly in my mild winter area with 2 cars, it is more of a quadrupling issue.

              Ok so then what about wind? Blow pretty hard in the winter on the coast. I am fine with that. Now come up with a reasonable plan that does that with minimal environmental damage in the next 10 years. The problem is huge. And we have great resources compared to other areas of the world. We being NC which is reasonably sunny and has a huge coastline with warm waters.

              Small nuclear makes sense.

              1. Mark.ca says:

                Any scale nuclear is not making any sense until we find a solution for the waste and make them bulletproof. You want to talk anout environmental impact of solar and wind? How about of nuclear? Even if no accidents happen the impact is catastrophic. In case of a disaster, you can rebuild solar and wind but you will have a 100 miles quarantined eara around nuclear. We been there and done that. What is the use of getting clean energy if the price you pay for it is the loss of the entire ecosystem in the area? What we need to improve is storage of renewables and explore tidal and geothermal possibilities.

          4. Ron M says:

            Your kidding right nuclear plants haven’t you read about the V C.Summers in S.C and Vogel in GA. Both were building two new advanced nuclear units 1,000 MW each. Construction has been halted because of massive cost overuns and delays. It caused Toshiba to lose 7 billion and Westinghouse to file bankruptcy.

            1. Bill Howland says:

              Yeah Just like Hinckley, those Vogel (vogtle?) plants are designed to make electricity when finished at more than TWICE the price than when the project was commissioned.

              Auditors who looked at the books stated “What were these people thinking?”.

              1. Kevin Cowgill says:

                They call it a guaranteed return on investment, 100% legit.
                I’d call it a painfully slow kick to the groin.

        2. floydboy says:

          Infrastructure?? Some uppity bo…er.. fella kept talking about this infrastructure nonsense. We showed him the door! Tax cuts is the only way to go!

      2. Mark.ca says:

        Actually cloud cover can have a huge impact on solar production so places in CA, NV and AZ could get more production than humid places in the tropics. You need to go with capacity numbers because these are many ways an install can affect the production numbers (ie instal angle, orientation). Whatever 250kw can power it’s irrelevant, any solar power input is welcomed and is energy that is replacing nat gas energy. Panels are not that expensive and you need the shade so why not do this everywhere. As i mentioned here before, all schools in my are have these huge canopies in their parking lots that are covered in solar panels and installed by SolarCity. Some hospitals are picking on the trend too.

        1. wavelet says:

          Absolutely. Note the following world insolation map: Best are desert areas, not the tropical equatorial regions:

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          I love the idea of putting solar canopies over parking lots! That provides shade for the cars, protection from rain, snow and hail, as well as providing lots of surface area for solar power.

          That’s very much a win-win solution!

          I hope to see the idea spreading everywhere, altho I haven’t yet seen it put into use here in the Greater Kansas City area. 🙁

          1. Nick says:

            > Greater Kansas City area.

            Too conservative. For some reason “not fscking over the planet” is being treated as a uniquely liberal idea.

            Makes no sense to me.

    4. Paul K says:

      That the solar panels cannot meet the demand is not the point. They will reduce the amount of power to be drawn from the grid. And the power they generate is clean and green.

    5. Steve Townsend says:

      zzzzzzzzzz, do you REALLY see a problem here? Really???

      1. Mark.ca says:

        When the problem is in his head of course he sees a problem everywhere.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Yup. The problem is not the facts or reality; the problem is the attitude of a hater who always tries to find something negative to post about whatever Tesla is doing, regardless of how positive the news about Tesla is.

          The problem exists only between zzzzzzzz’s ears!

    6. Mark.ca says:

      250Kw capacity translates to over 600000 kwh per year using conservative numbers. Shade and electricity…suck it zzzzzzzz!

    7. Bill Howland says:

      I don’t know what your background is zzzzzzzz, and where you are stationed, but 2400 kw is relatively nothing…

      I used to work at a truly ‘dinky’ steel plant, and many of the mills had a 3,000 hp (2400 kw) motor (power input, around 2700 kw since it was slow speed – (long story)) for each mill.

      We never worried about whether the electric company could supply us. Now, the one 40 times bigger in the next town, well, maybe their was some concern there.

      The other thing is that battery charging is the easiest load in the world to supply.

      Besides – I thought you were on the other side of the fence here – I thought it was only the Tesla Fans that had Penis Envy?

      1. Nick says:

        Yep, industrial loads need massive solar overbuild in residential areas to have a chance.

        Steel, concrete, aluminum, and paper production all need strong price signals to abandon carbon heavy generation.

        I suspect most will end up closing their doors and relocating to places which have abundant hydro or access to huge wind power, etc.

        Once you can’t burn brown coal and dump your waste into my atmosphere, the math stops working quickly.

  4. Zeb says:

    Solar plus battery should smooth the load pretty well

  5. Bill Howland says:

    Pretty good, including 2 HPC’s for cars without supercharging enabled.

    Absolutely huge coffee shop. Probably pricey coffee and tee-shirts.

    Standard 3000 or 4000 amp service should cover it, depending on whether they use some powerwalls in the back for demand-limiters. I noticed it said 120 kw max (per pair of stalls)

    1. AnonyMouse says:

      Those two HPCs next to the front door are for the the two dedicated handicapped parking spots, which is lame if not outright discrimitory. Non-Tessa cars can’t legally park in that spot to charge.

      1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        So if Bro1999 had a Handicap placard/license plate, your telling me he wouldn’t be able to park there and charge his Bolt with his Tesla to J1772 adapter??

        I highly doubt that.
        He may not get a code to get into that building but I’m pretty sure he’ll be able to charge and park in there legally.

    2. David Murray says:

      Wow… I didn’t even notice those HPCs.. If more supercharger stations started installing those, it would be incentive for me to get one of those Tesla to J1772 adapters.

  6. Dav8or says:

    I will see this station as I travel for Thanksgiving on Thursday. Kettleman city is a usual stop. We often eat in the Carl’s Jr just across the street. Maybe I’ll cross the street and see how the upper class lives, but maybe not. It doesn’t seem like much to see in there.

    Question- do you have to pay for the coffee?

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      I’ll just plug in a portable keurig and make my own coffee……lol

    2. MTN Ranger says:

      The sign showed $3.75 for coffee and $2.50 for tea. Open 9 am – 8 pm.

    3. Gregson says:

      He showed it in the video at the 6:57 mark.

      Coffee Drinks & Hot Chocolate $3.75
      Tea $2.50

      Hours 9AM-8PM

      Credit Card Only

      1. stimpacker says:

        Not good.
        The video showed the code to the security door keypad.

        Hooray for vandals and Tesla haters.

        Note to Tesla: Time to change the door code.

        1. William says:

          Said keeper of the Codes, and “Captain Obvious”!

  7. Another Euro point of view (improved version) says:

    Cool !

  8. clarityPhev says:

    250KW of panels would generate around 1750KWHr of power everyday.

    1750KWHr will be sufficient to charge 40 cars, at the rate of around 40-45KWHr.

  9. Ziv says:

    Just 3 blocks to the nearest In-N-Out Burger! 120 kW charge rates fit right into the time needed to walk there, sit down for a good burger and fries, and then walk back 20 or 30 minutes later.
    Who needs to charge faster, it takes that long to enjoy a good meal!
    LOL!

  10. David Murray says:

    I’m curious.. It looks like he had to type a code to get in the door. Where did he get the code?

    1. Dav8or says:

      I suppose all Tesla owners have a PIN associated with their charging accounts these days. It’s a way to keep the riffraff commoners out.

      1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        ” keep the riffraff commoners out.”
        HEY!!!!

        I resemble that remark!

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        That’s MISTER Riffraff Commoner to you, buddy!

        1. William says:

          Thanks for sorting that out for us, Good Sir!🍃

    2. MTN Ranger says:

      At 55 seconds into the video, the nav display gives the PIN code for the door.

    3. Eric W. says:

      I read in another article, the code appears on your Tesla Center screen when you plug in.

      Can’t wait to see one of these on the East Coast, but most places is not an issue now. I have driven a Model S between Philadelphia, PA and Atlanta GA and Orlando, FL several times and only waited 5 minutes for a stall Once in DE before they expanded to 12 stalls and have also added stations at the 2 Maryland Rest stop Houses on I95.

  11. Ron M says:

    I came up with a 250 kw solar system should generate about 1,078 kwh a day. This combined with the batteries seems to be adequate since I don’t think 40 stalls will be used at once for a while.
    Also is Tesla manufacturing the solar panels on the roof or will is all solar being manufactured the solar shingles?

  12. hpver says:

    Very cool. I wish they would do something like this for the rest of us with all that VW dieselgate settlement money, but let’s just say I’m not holding my breath.

    One nitpick, however: the charging units look pretty close together and unprotected. I wonder how long until someone clips one while trying to get in or out of a charging spot.

  13. Logan says:

    According to http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php a 250kW solar array in Kettleman City will produce 397,959 kWh of power per Year. Let’s say on average a Tesla will go 3.5 miles per kWh that gets us to 1,392,856 miles per year.

    Clearly their goal isn’t to cover all their usage 100% or anywhere close to that but between the solar arrays and power pack batteries you can do a hell of a lot of peak shaving and keep your costs as low as possible.

    1. Bill Howland says:

      I’m sure at the power rates for most of California that the batteries and panels will easily pay for themselves in 6 years.

      Besides, it looks kinda cool.

      I have 100% Solar at my house, but in California or Arizona it would make 2 or 3 times as much juice. That, combined with pretty cheap utility electricity, is why few people have it around here, even with Fed and State tax credits. Doesn’t cost THEM anything, but I just get less STOLEN from me for a while.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “I have 100% Solar at my house, but in California or Arizona it would make 2 or 3 times as much juice. ”

        In AZ, maybe. Not all CA is that sunny. Some are sunny, some aren’t. In Northern California, there is something called “fogs” that often cut down much of the generation capability. The coastal region of the California has a lot of fog.

        My solar panel only generates about 1,550 hours at max capacity per year or 1kW solar will only generate 1,550kWh per year in SF Bay Area due to fogs. Then again, SF is at 37.8 deg N which is still better than 42.9 deg N of Buffalo.

        1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

          Kettleman City has one drawback and it’s the mountains right next to them directly west.
          Sun hides pretty early for them there.

        2. Bill Howland says:

          MMF: You get around 50% more out of your system compared to mine relatively.

          Buffalo gets same amount of Sun as Alaska or Germany.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            Some of the relatively poor performance of my system (it still makes around 9300 kwh/ year – which is more than triple what I used per year before I purchased EV’s) is due to being SNOW COVERED for 2-3 months per year. Those months I get ZERO solar, but it’s not the disadvantage it seems, since the sun is so low in the sky the amount of power I’m actually losing is small.

        3. Mark.ca says:

          That is a pretty good number. I get 1600kwh per 1kw installed in inland SoCal with a half and half W-E install (no South space to use).

      2. Nick says:

        > “even with Fed and State tax credits. Doesn’t cost THEM anything, but I just get less STOLEN from me for a while.”

        Bad news. Tax credits cost other tax payers money. I’M paying for your panels. You’re welcome.

        We have to make up your shortfall.

        1. Bill Howland says:

          If I just quit working they wouldn’t get any money anyway. I’m part of the solution, not part of the problem.

          If you want to see that end of the scale, check other great places like Detroit or Chicago.

Leave a Reply