Nissan Engineer Seems To Suggest CHAdeMO Is On Its Way Out – CCS For The Win?


Via Twitter/Chelsea Sexton (@evchels)

Via Twitter/Chelsea Sexton (@evchels)

A few days ago, we exclusively revealed that Tesla Motors had joined the CCS-based CharIN fast charging association that’s focused on getting 300 kW chargers into service in the next few years.

2016 Nissan LEAF & CHAdeMO plug

2016 Nissan LEAF & CHAdeMO plug

Now, it’s come to our attention (via a Chelsea Sexton Tweet & Reply conversation from a few weeks ago) that Nissan may indeed be considering abandoning CHAdeMO in favor of CCS.

The conversation includes some comments made by Barry Koval, who just so happens to be a Senior Project Engineer at Nissan Technical Center North America. The conversation started after InsideEVs revealed that Hyundai was switching to CCS.

Koval replied with a comment suggesting that CHAdeMO won’t be capable of supporting future long-range electric cars.  Update: Koval says Nissan doesn’t have plans to abandon CHAdeMO in favor of CCS for now, but his comment does seem to imply that CHAdeMO has no future and that perhaps CCS is the way to go.

At least that’s our take on the conversation between Sexton and Koval. Perhaps there’s another way to decipher the comments posted above?

Combined Charging System (CCS aka Combo) – One System for All

Combined Charging System (CCS aka Combo) – One System for All

Categories: Charging, Nissan

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

117 Comments on "Nissan Engineer Seems To Suggest CHAdeMO Is On Its Way Out – CCS For The Win?"

newest oldest most voted

I’m pro CCS, but this is pushing it to infer that Nissan will drop CHAdeMO from a single tweet.

Holy crap… talk about a lot of BS about nothing. I read that Boeing can’t fly from London to New York with only 20 tons on Jet-A… OMG !!! BOEING IS ABANDONING JET-A !!!!

Here’s some simple facts. No, you can’t charge a car at 200kW with CHAdeMO… OR WITH CCS, or even with Tesla Supercharger or China’s GB/T.

I guess they will all be abandoned.

Or, the will all evolve.

Currently, CHAdeMO, like CCS, has the following limits:

125 amp / 200 amp design, up to 500 volts “100kW”

In the future, both will go to 300 amps, or “150kW”.

Tesla is already at 370 amps, which at 500 volts would be 185kW.

CCS has PROPOSED a 400 amp / 800 volt / 300kW system. Tesla did NOT sign on for that, nor does Tesla need CCS help to achieve 300kW.

hello, read up “ecotricity 350kw” there chademo stations will be 150kw by 2017 and 350kw BEFORE 2020 so i wouldnt worry whatsoever

UPDATE: this is officially a non-event, as I predicted:

“@evchels No CCS or 100kWh. Just stating facts decision makers will need to consider.”

CCS looks less clunky than CHADEMO.

oh, yeah, A LOT less…

There’s a reason CHAdeMO is called the “franken-plug”…

I don’t get the whole “frankenplug” thing, since “the Franken” are in the middle of Germany (in the north of bavaria). A reference to france people is also strange, since both countries support CCS.

Maybe it’s American thing, but “FrankenX” means made from bits and pieces of other stuff like Frankenstein. For example, sausage / hotdogs are called frankenmeat, and so are GMO (genetically modified organism) meat.

CCS is made for 1772 + 2 extra pins, hence frankenplug. Not sure why Chademo would be call that, though.

Correct. CHADdeMO was never consistently referred to as “FrankenPlug”.

I became aware of it’s usage on the long defunct Aptera Forum, where CCS’s first (very very long awaited) appearance was critically mocked for its design inelegance, low power, and large, clunky form-factor.

While people were waiting for the CCS Body to approve a standard, Tesla couldn’t wait any longer and made their own Fast Charging Standard, to provide a viable ecosystem for the long range Model S.

Had the engineers and CCS committee members acted in a timely manner (and not taken literally YEARS to ratify it), CCS might have been the basis for Today’s SuperCharger Network.

If that sequence of events had occurred, I’m confident that Tesla would have run with the specifications, keeping the form factor but upgrading the power levels to support their vehicles large batteries. Much as they have done with their own system, over time.

We would not be having this conversation today, in an alternate timeline…

I seem to remember reading theories that auto companies purposely slowed down the CCS standard and made CCS connectors heavy and ugly to help discourage EV adoption and that Tesla refused to adopt it because of that. I can’t find where I read that offhand and it’s one of those things that may never be admitted to officially but it seems logical.

Um, no. Tesla had their design out shortly after the J1772 standard. The Combo or CCS plug came way later. Nice conspiracy theory, otherwise.

Actually, the CCS plug is called that.
Pot and kettle…

Oh…ok. In that case, the CHAdeMO plug is more like the red-headed stepchild then.

Ken M?

What? So CHADEMO has been the “Frankenplug” all along? lol This is hilarious.
The villagers with pitchforks are circling the castle. Where’s Dr. Frankenplug?
We need a rant errr a chant!! 😉

I was pissed off originally about the introduction of yet another charging standard (CCS). But I’m at the point now that I wish Nissan would go ahead and phase it out in the USA so that we could start concentrating on a better network of fast chargers. Being a Leaf owner myself, I know that sucks. But our Leaf is probably about to be replaced by a 2017 Volt (to go in the garage next to our 2013 Volt) So it won’t matter to me much. Besides, our network of Chademo chargers here in Texas is soooo thin that sometimes, depending on what route I’m taking, it might as well not exist anyway.

One interesting question is about Tesla. They can charge from Chademo, but at least currently not CCS.

That’s probably one of the reasons they joined the CCS-based CharIN.

~3 years ago there was discussions about Tesla making the CHAdeMO adapter, about protocol etc. At that time it sounded like Tesla uses very similar messaging as CCS, so the adapter would be straight forward. I don’t know much about this stuff, but maybe Tony could chime in.

The CHAdeMO adapter had to have some imbedded processing to translate the messaging making it much more complicated/expensive.

CCS uses the power conductors for the control signals, while ChaDemo and J1772 have separate wires for control signals.

Combining the control signals with the power would require a transformer. Lower frequencies require larger transformers which may be an issue for a CCS adapter, but otherwise I don’t understand why CCS adapters are not feasible.

I made the same mistake by reading that thread, I think Tesla forum from 2013. Tony Williams said Tesla uses full CAN like Chademo, not Homeplug (greenPHY) like CCS. However, it seems signals go over same wires/connectors like Mike mentioned in comment before this one, just like how homeplug would operate.

That might make for messier electronics. You can buy off the shelf home plug chips / parts that carry signal over lower frequency high power wires (ie, PWM DC), but CAN sharing signal will need custom electronics. Yeah, it’s minor except you may have to be certified by the big brother (FCC) all over again.

The CAN messages for Tesla Supercharger are sent over the pilot wire, not the power lines. No isolation / transformer required.

Most CAN messages are sent over twisted pairs. Tesla did not do this, I suspect, so that it could remain compatible with J1772.

Thanks Tony. I read that Tesla uses power line for comm long time ago, probably same place Mike read. Boy, it seems there’s so much wrong information or mis-read information. I wish there’s one clear source…

People are sheep… repeating what they heard, or want to believe.

Every DC charging standard in the world uses CAN, except CCS.

CAN was developed in Germany by Bosch over 30 years ago, and is on virtually EVERY car in the world.

The brain surgeons who committee designed CCS argued that PLC somehow allowed integration with both the car and the power company. Amazingly, they managed to design a system that does neither.

Cars don’t use PLC to communicate, and the utilities don’t use the method of PLC that CCS uses.

Dumb and dumber.

Most of us get our info second or third hand and not privy to source, so that’s what happens. If that’s sheep, I guess we all are to some degree.

I read about early CCS meetings at long tailpipe blog, and it sounds like some IEEE meeting. Sometimes big shots throw their weight around to put some stupid things in the spec for patent reasons and to keep little guys out. Not sure if that’s what happened, but sure sounds like it.

Personally, I’m not a fan of PLC of any kind. It’s messier than it needs to be as well as throwing noise into AC power line which could couple into sensitive equipment. Granted, CCS PLC is not direct connect to AC power line (yet, and hopefully never), but I think it’s needlessly complex.

But oh well, it seems CCS will stick around for a while.

All three western world DC charge standard will do just fine, coexisting together for many years.

I suspect in the long run we’ll have generic CHAdeMO to CCS adapters and CHAdeMO chargers will be slowly phased out. But there is still a huge investment in deMO chargers in EV hot spots like California, New York, and Japan so I don’t think the standard will disappear quickly.

I don’t think Tesla has released a CCS adapter yet because there have been so few CCS chargers until very recently, and even now it’s hard to find one over 25kW which means they really can’t be considered to be quick chargers for 200 mile range cars.

Could Nissan not simply keep the CHAdeMO, AND Add CCS where the J1772 plug goes?

If they did that, it makes it easier to design the charging port bay for multiple countries!

Actually, that is the simple answer. Keep both CHAdeMO and J1772 / Mode 2 charging on the car, and add the two DC pins for CCS.

Truly, a world car. But, that would require a not insignificant amount of cost.

Would it be so high cost? Since most of the wiring would be already done for Chademo, it seems only electronics and minor tweaks in software is needed. While R&D might be high, mass production at factory seems it wouldn’t be all that much when spread out over millions of cars; wishful thinking, I know! What am I missing in this assumption?

This is what I’ve been advocating for a while… add the CCS… keep the CHAdeMO for maximum swiss army knife versatility. Charge anywhere… Eventually retrofit the older cars and phase out CHAdeMO if that is worthwhile.

Well, obviously, this modification could be seen as a profit maker.

At a minimum, there has to be a set of relays between the two DC ports, so that when one is charging, the other unused port doesn’t have deadly high voltage present at the pins.

Some programming, new circuit card, some simple wiring… that’s about it. I would be surprised to learn that the single most expensive thing is new molds to make the mounts.

I think they could add $999 to the retail price to have the “dual” DC charger inlets. Certainly the cost will be less than that.

All I have to say is, “A 200 kW charge rate?”
Anything over 60 kW gets you nearly 120 miles of additional range in 30 minutes which is a decent road trip car. Not great, but acceptable.
Once you get to 100 kW charge rate, you can get 120 miles of additional range in 20 minutes or 180 miles in 30 if you don’t run into tapering. Which makes charging more closely resemble filling up with gas rather than today’s typically slow charge rates.
I can’t even imagine the impact of 150 kW charge rates, let alone 200 kW. But it does make me think that the fee to charge should be based both on the amount of electricity you use AND the amount of time your car is hooked up to the charger so that you are encouraged not to hog the charger after your car hits the 80% taper point.
Plug in and get to 80% and then get off the charger, unless you absolutely need the full capacity charge.

Actually, the learnings from the more mature Norwegian market is that fast charging fee should *only* be based on time!
– and offer cheaper AC trickle charging in parallell to give a good offering to those who really need to top off their batteries.

-If you charge a fee per charge, people tend to stay connected as long as possible to get the most bang for the buck
-If you charge per kWh, people tend to not care if they are blocking a fast charger a long time topping off to 100% at 2kWh effect
-If you charge only per minute, you seem to hit the most effective balance. And many charging providers provide both DC fast chargers and also 22kWh AC chargers, where you typically a third of the minute rate for the fast chargers.


Charging based on time will also provide the OEMs and infrastructure companies incentive to push up charge rates, since customers would value faster charging.

Excellent point that charging per minute is probably best for everybody. It incentivizes people to only get as much juice from a quick charger as they need, freeing the DCFC station up for other users as soon as possible.

As a Leaf owner for 2 years and occasional (probably twice a month on average) DCFC user, I have definitely migrated toward getting only as much charge as I need to get home from the quick charger. Stopping for 10 minutes to recharge enough to get home (where I can charge all night) is more more time-efficient than stopping for 30 minutes.

That is a great observation. I agree.

Charging by time is fine without regard to charge taper. With steep charge taper, those cars would be paying more (or much more). For example, SparkEV charges to 80% at close to 50 kW while 24kWh Leaf starts to taper even from 50% or 60%.

And we know Tesla S60 tapers very severely, charging at about 60 kW out of 90 kW charger almost out of the gate. If there are cars with such severe taper and they must pay by time, they’d be paying far more.

I suppose it’s one way for consumers to demand quicker charging and avoid EV with severe charge taper. But for now, I don’t think many are paying attention to charge taper nor is it benchmarked for various EV. Gee, I wonder if there’s “inside ev” with a chapter of EV charge taper, like there used to be “inside macintosh” with Macintosh technical info. 😉

My Spark starts tapering at 90% on the one station that has voltage and current displayed.
Of course that station only pushes 47 amps @ 384 volts, but it does it to 90%, with 92% dropping to 44 amps, and 94% to 40 amps.

Our 2016 park EV has the best charge rate as you say, charging at 32kw at 94% – probably because of the active liquid TMS to control battery temps. Compared to our 2015 Leaf which drops to 2-3kw around 90%, if no one is waiting to use the DC I just charge as long bas I like… If someone shows up for a charge I hand it over as long as I have enough to get home – for now its free with Nissan NCTC. But I agree strongly on paying for time used at DC QC’s. Grabbing just 10 min at a DC QC can make a big difference on the way home. so paying for 10 min (say .20¢ a min would be $2) but most are around $6 to connect + .10¢ min – making it very expensive to gram 10 min worth… might as well charge all the way up – the .10¢ a min in negligent next to the $6 connection fee

@Knut Erik Ballestad:

Thank you very much for that excellent post!

You covered that subject very well, and your argument is entirely convincing. So okay, charging per minute is the best way to structure fees for public fast-charge stations.

The problem is that your times/rates above only account for the first part of charging. As you get closer to 80% you slow down charging. Then at 80% charging slows down a lot as you go from CC to CV.

I agree about the 80% taper point (varies) being very important. “Plug in and get to 80% and get off the charger”.
Which is why I think getting cars to at least 220 miles of hwy EPA AER is so important. Once you are at 220 you have a decent buffer at both the top and bottom and you can use the middle to cover a lot of miles very quickly.

While at it let’s phase out the Type 1 J1772 plug and replace it with a deeper, backward compatible version of the Tesla modified Mennekes Type 2 version, 3-phase charging and be done with it.

Yes, Mennekes Type 2 is nice.

I’ve heard that the rumours that Tesla uses a deeper version of the type 2 connector to support higher currents have been proven to be false. People have taken measurements, and someone has shown that you can plug a European supercharger all the way into a standard type 2 socket. Apparently Tesla is just pushing past the recommended current ratings, possibly by using better materials or something.

Right, so if they are one edge for 135 kW, having a slightly deeper but still backward compatible version can get us to 200 kW without the need of the CCS nonsense.

You realize that at this point, with so much of the industry getting behind CCS, emotional holdouts are just slowing the industry down?

Ok then let me then reiterate my “emotional holdout”, the CCS connector as it currently exists, both the type 1 and type versions is incredibly space inefficient and unnecessarily complex to justify becoming the defacto standard when we already have better solutions in place. My “emotional holdout” also tells me that the best technical solution should be chosen, not one that has been imposed by the legacy automakers with questionable motivations.

And Chademo isn’t?

It absolutely is.

L2 charging will probably be phased almost completely when 200+ mile EV’s are commonplace – except for destination locations (hotels, resorts, outlet malls, etc… ) because with 200 mile range overnight charging is all you need. DC QC will be the only beneficial charghing you need when away from home out on the road. as it is now, with 80 mile ev’s sometimes your forced to use a L2 out of necessity because of the range limitations, otherwise using a L2 would be a waste of time.

With Nissan gone, Chademo is dead. Just imagine the next Gen cars, Leaf, Bolt, any VAG car, BMW and possibly even Tesla, in addition to their SCs, would be using CCS. Who would want to build a Chademo station, if there are close to no customers?

The extra cost of providing two connectors in the cahrging stations are quite marginal compared to total installation cost.

Most new European chargers are dual-head (or triple-head if 42kW Ac is supported), and I guess this will be the way forward. Then you both support legacy cars, and new cars.

I agree that most new cars will probably only come with CCS.

They might be marginal, but why pay marginal costs, if they aren’t really needed? Chademo might stay for a while, but in 5-10 years, the amount of Chademo cars, compared to other EVs will be so small, that it just won’t make financial sense. Savings of even $50, in production, amount to a lot, if you are building thousands of chargers.

I hope Nissan leaves Chademo. That connector is so clunky and the DC units with Chademo’s always seem to have problems and break down.(I don’t know if that is a Chademo problem or a different issue). CCS looks so much simpler and it can do everything on one port. It might save money on the production costs of the cars too.

I’m a Nissan Leaf owner.

Reading comments on PlugShare indicate that CCS also has many problems, too. Hard to saw how much of a difference in reliability between the two there is.

Nissan seems to be the only real manufacturer still pushing CHAdeMO. But then again, outside of Tesla no one else is pushing any real volume in QC capable cars. BMW is close some months, but still a ways off.

Huh? The Bolt EV, due out this year, will be 30k units annually and have CCS capability. No other EV has sold that many in a year yet.

How many CCS chargers have they built? Have they tried to get builders to put them in rest areas or shopping areas? Pushed for faster than 1+ hour of charging to 80% for their new BEV? Nope, they made a nice around the city car, with no plans to let it travel long distances. They want to steal Tesla sales and for people to see how limited BEVs are.

Bolt is still 6-9 months away from seeing any retail sales volume.

Nissan has been pushing a decent number of QC capable EVs for 5 years now.

ClarksonCote said:

“The Bolt EV, due out this year, will be 30k units annually… No other EV has sold that many in a year yet.”

I guess you mean U.S./Canadian sales only. Nissan has sold more than 60,000 Leafs in a single year, worldwide.

I’m a Leaf owner as well, and I probably use my ChaDeMo port 2-3 times per month on average.

I’d be fine with Nissan switching to CCS for the next-gen Leaf. I also think it would be good if Tesla switched to CCS for its chargers. Best for there to be one global standard.

But if DCFC stations start seeing ChaDeMo stations replaced with CCS stations, then I hope someone makes an adapter that lets me plug a CCS into my car’s ChaDeMo port. I bought this vehicle and hope to be driving it 10 years from now.

It truly amazes me at the responses to this non-news story.

With vastly more CHAdeMO stations and cars in the world, the logical adaptor is one for CCS cars to use plentiful CHAdeMO stations… not the other way around.

How many LEAF drivers would pay for a CCS adaptor? Few, since it would be very rare to find a charging station that did NOT have CHAdeMO.

Beta vs VHS again…

CCS is the future. For Nissan to support CHAdeMO for the next Leaf, would harm it’s sales, so it would not surprise me if they drop it.

Never mind 200 kW, CCS is working on 150 kW and then 300 kW charging!

I hate it when people get all jumpy over crap people Tweet. I personally think I wouldn’t base a business decision off one sentence someone says on Twitter. The reason why I say this is I would want a lot of details into something like abandoning chamo.

Another thing too the CSS makers have not been building CSS charging stations that fast. Chamo has still been building up stations quite fast.

CHAdeMO and CCS both right now are a waste of money. Just stop.

Wait for the next generation of plug standards that are true SAE Level 3 at > 200 amps. Preferably 400 amps to be able to take today’s pack voltages of around 330 volts x 400 amps = 133 kW. Tomorrow’s packs, maybe up to 150 kW.

It makes zero sense to keep dumping $40-50k per plug into CHAdeMO and CCS at 125 amps. Hardly any are even built at 200 amps. We are repeating the mistakes of the low power Blink network boondoggle.

VAG Group is suggesting to move to 800V battery packs. That would lead us to 150 kw chargers with “only” 190 amps.

It could be possible to design a 400V pack that charges normally in a 50 kw charger or splits itself in two serial blocks when charging in a 150 kw charger to achieve a nominal 800V configuration.

Nope. They _charge_ at 800V. They’re actually much lower, using excess voltage to speed charge times. Nor does Samsung have 8V phones, either.

Tony Williams, if you are reading, would love to hear your comments on this one.

Something like “Grrrr, arrgh, FRANKENPLUG, GRRR!”

This story, as well as the Tesla story joining CharIN (the newly formed CCS association) are non-stories. Tesla isn’t switching to CCS, any more than they switched to CHAdeMO when they joined the CHAdeMO Association years ago. Nisan isn’t putting out thousands of CHAdeMO chargers worldwide to abandon them… for what possible gain? If Nissan wanted more power,use the power already designed into CHAdeMO, instead of limiting the vehicle to 120 amps (about 47kW max): 1) 200 amps – about 80kW max with 400 volt battery, but frequently advertised as 200a * 500v = 100kW 2) 300 amps in the future – 120kW max in a LEAF, and will be advertised as “150kW”. It’s going to be awhile before batteries at 100kWh or below will accept 300kW at all, even at 800 volts, and remain viable for long term automotive use. Yes, I consider the CCS “Frankenplug” to be one of the poorest designed standards of them all, with the intention to slow or stop EV competition with the established German auto makers (and GM, too). ****** CCS compared to CHAdeMO: 1) Isolated ground – unlike the German / SAE standard, there’s not a DC ground cable in the cable… Read more »

This is yet another factor helping to kill the residual value of a Nissan Leaf.

All EV mfrs should rally around the Supercharger standard.

Gee golly, except in those countries where it’s illegal, due to its failing their electrical codes. Hence Teslas with Mennekes sockets.

Oh wait, you meant ONE of the Supercharger “standards.” Or did you mean America is the only REAL country?

It sounds like some crazy talk needs a smack down.

The Mennekes Type 2 plug is used by Tesla in Europe for a simple and logical reason. Europe has three phase AC power, the US largely does not (in homes).

Tesla uses the North American style single / dual phase plug in Japan, also. It handles 370 amps currently.

Tesla specifically does not have a single car in the world equipped with any of the several versions of CCS, nor do I expect them to. They will need to install CCS charge stations in countries with protectionist laws supporting their our niche regional charging standard.

Suggesting that Tesla failed some test somewhere is just dumb.

I see no option to install only CCS or ChaDeMo chargers in the next 5-10 years – they got to have both. I cant see how Nissan can leave ChaDeMo behind when you look at how many CCS chargers there are in Japan. In Europe there is a big mix or everything with the notable exceptions Poland and Greece which are empty and the odd ball Estonia that has 160+ ChaDeMo stations (every 30-40km, even islands) but only a single CCS Combo charger because CCS didn’t exist back then.

Won’t come soon enough. Chademo is garbage. Tesla has proven that a high-power charger doesn’t need to look like it could be the main connector from a nuclear power plant to the grid. So unnecessarily inelegant and complicated. CCS is better, but still too big.

It was pretty clear that when all the big 3 USA automakers and all the German automakers lined up behind CCS, that Chademo was going to lose out in the USA and Europe.

And it was especially hard for Chademo when Japan’s biggest automaker (Toyota) decided to be a no-show as far as EVs go. Honda also dragged their feet on plug-ins. Nissan couldn’t carry Chademo on its own.

And yet, neither CHAdeMO nor Tesla Supercharger are “losing”.

CHAdeMO is still (by a large margin) the number 1 fast charge protocol in the world.

What I find more ironic is that the largest, most successful auto makers in the world CANNOT squash CHAdeMO or Tesla Supercharger.

There will be new ground based systems for megacharging long before a global agreement on the accessory plug based charging system. A secured conductor based system with kind of 2 mini reverted pantographs under the car operating somewhere between 500 KW and 1000 KW and at somewhere between 1600 v and 6000 v. The plug will still be present but only for occasional charging. Even at home the under the car system will automatically operate, but then at lower power under lower voltage. 100% efficiency, low cost , able of low power as well as high power and automatic. What else would offer the same low cost 100% efficiency and versatility. And it would be universal defacto as well, with automatic voltage selection. Simple and disruptive.

Thank you for some RATIONAL thoughts.

CHAdeMO and CCS (in its rapidly expanding multiple configurations) will be with us for the foreseeable future.

So will Tesla Supercharger.

What we really need is work on the REAL mass market charger, at 500kW to 1MW. Probably robotic, under the vehicle, directly into the battery without long cables. No onboard chargers at all… even your house would have a 5kW to 20kW home DC charger that you plug in.

Since all production EV’s have to charge the battery will large amounts of regenerated AC, I fail to see the love of DC facilities as were used in the home over 100 years ago when conversion was more expensive than it currently is.

The car is already set up to charge the battery with large AC power levels. Other than flack from American Propulsion, I see no problem in using the existing facility in the car to also charge the battery using everyday AC distribution, as I believe Renault is continuing to do.

But then you’d have to run all the current thru the car’s inverter, leading to the same overheating problem that Tesla cars have when you try to run them at top speed for an extended time.

Using DC to charge the battery pack directly, bypassing as much as possible, is the way to charge the battery pack quickly without overheating.

Obviously, then, per you, Renault hasn’t a clue at what they are doing, and hasn’t recharged any cars at all.

Oh, btw, inverters invert.

Renault has the luxury of ubiquitous three phase power in Europe.

That is not the case in North America.


Nope, many British residential areas only have 240 volts to their houses, so its not ubiquitous in all areas.

While few American homes have 3-phase, many businesses do.

Its a bit of an irrelevant point anyway. They tell me that the Roadster had single phase charging.

Oh, wait a second – I did use 1 phase power to charge my roadster most of the time, like 100%.

All caps, too much starch in the shirt.

And its a straw-man argument since 99% of the fast chargers take a 3-phase input.

So if a location can have a fast charger, there isn’t much to prevent a Renault-like vehicle from charging there.

They have an invention from the nineteenth century called a ‘wall recepticle’.

325,000 reservations and climbing for the Tesla M3.

The direction things are going, the battle between chademo and ccs is for second place behind the Tesla plug standard.

Seems a bit much to infer from just a tweet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Nissan really was thinking about abandoning CHAdeMO (at least in US market).

If they do, I would say “I told you so” to the CHAdeMO backers that said CCS was doomed and wouldn’t be able to grow fast enough.

“CHAdeMO backers”

Well, they bought the LEAF so they have to support it.

What a great month for EV charging! If both Nissan and Tesla switched to CCS, which is a longshot but looking better every day, we could finally get started on a rational charging infrastructure in this country. It shall I say, we can finally follow Tesla in building a rational charging infrastructure. I actually prefer the Tesla connector, but an OK standard is better than a great proprietary.

I have bad news for you… the protocol used to recharge EVs isn’t hindering deployment.

People aren’t clamoring in the streets demanding the German designed CCS system over US designed Tesla Supercharger or Japanese designed CHAdeMO or Chinese designed GB/T.

What’s lacking is promotion of deploying CCS in the US. Obviously, it will go no where in Japan or China. German government and auto makers, and now this new CharIN association in Germany, seem to be doing ok in Europe.

Nissan, Tesla, BMW, and VW to widely varying degrees are actually PAYING REAL MONEY to get hardware in the ground. So are private networks like NRG / eVgo, Greenlots, ChargePoint, etc. Plus, governments like the states of California, Oregon, and Washington.

Some have put a real stain on the entire industry, like Blink and the scam outfit in Chicago (was that 360green?).

We need more hardware in the ground, that is intelligently located, and durable and dependable enough to encourage EV adoption.

CCS isn’t the answer to any of that.

CHAdeMO is not disappearing anytime soon; quite the opposite, actually. CHAdeMO has doubled worldwide in exactly one year, from 5,500 to 11,000 (March 2015 until March 2016). The worldwide leading EV (and leader of all history) uses CHAdeMO only, the Nissan LEAF. CHAdeMO is by far the world leader with over 11,000 installations worldwide, and every plug is interchangeable with another, again, worldwide. CHAdeMO has over 3000 chargers in Europe right now, and is an EU official charge standard. It outnumbers regional standard CCS-Combo2 by 50% in Europe. Yes, there was legislation proposed by German officials and proponents of German auto makers in Brussels (EU parliament) of an outright ban several years ago, but of course, that went nowhere. There are protectionist laws in at least Germany that there has to be a CCS plug, and a similar law will be valid in EU countries. Of course, this doesn’t apply to non-EU countries in Europe. CHAdeMO grossly outnumbers regional standard CCS-Combo1 in its market of US / Canada. GM officially will not support installing or paying for CCS infrastructure. In the USA, there are officially 1612 CHAdeMO chargers as of the update 23 March 2016 CHAdeMO currently is: 50-500… Read more »

Nice theories. In reality, Chademo has a bunch of chargers in useless locations, almost all are about 40kw max, and lots of them are broken down. The existing “network” is almost as good as nothing. As long as we’re starting with almost nothing, we might as well choose a better standard!

I didn’t post theories… those happen to be facts. There are plenty of theories tossed around.

Sadly, many of those theories are based on fundamental flaws in understanding the issues.

CHAdeMO is not a “network”. Neither is CCS. They are charging protocol for DC public recharging of EVs.

Tesla Supercharger is both a network and a DC private protocol.

CHAdeMO isn’t “broken”… chargers that are built by DOZENS of private companies, following the protocol with varying degrees of success, are what “breaks”. The same is true of CCS chargers, when they break (although there are obviously a lot less manufacturers involved).

Neither CHAdeMO or CCS selected any locations to install chargers. That’s a bit like you buying a Blu-ray DVD player (built by Sony), installing it in a dark alleyway, and then bitching that Blu-ray is bad because you can’t watch DVD at home.

CHAdeMO is actually quite mature, and well developed. CCS currently is going through a lot of changes.

Glossed over one fact, at least in the US. Most every new charger is dual head CCS/ChaDeMo. That makes it look like ChaDeMo is pulling ahead, when in fact it will be at parity once the old ChaDeMo only chargers get upgraded in future.

CHAdeMO has ALWAYS been ahead, is currently leading, and assuming every future station has both CHAdeMO and one of the several versions of CCS, then CHAdeMO will always lead.

Nothing glossed over.


CHAdeMO EVs outnumber CCS by more than 4 to 1 in the field (5 to 1 if Tesla cars are included).

CHAdeMO is compatible with Tesla EVs.

CHAdeMO is currently the only standard that supports V2X applications.

“Currently the only standard that supports V2X”


You don’t know what standards are out there, do you?

What I meant was V2X energy transfer (discharging) such as V2L, V2H, V2G and V2V. Can you identify another d.c. EV charging standard that officially supports V2X discharging with genuine products available for purchase ?

Examples of CHAdeMO V2X:

meanwhile Chademo capable cars (Nissan LEAF, Tesla Model S & X, Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV in countries with wealthier Mitsubishi dealers) vastly outsell CCS capacble car (mostly BMW i3 and VW egolfs)

the willing generally overcome a coalition of the unwilling

is anyone predicting the demise of Tesla supercharger? no. but long term bigger batteries and AC home/destination charging is what our children will use, not DC charging

Ultimately I don’t care what wins as long as they get rid of the name CHAdeMO. It sounds incredibly dumb and geeky, and geeky sounding is not what we want if we expect the masses to take EVs seriously.

I couldn’t agree more, although I don’t think we need a “winner”.

For the next decade at least, the world will be just fine with multiple charging standards, just like diesel and gasoline in three different grades all at the same pump.

It seems incredible that the CCS folks picked yet another bizzaro name, CharIN, to be their association (8 years after CHAdeMO formed).

What our children will use is up in the air, X-ray laser charging, photonic battery or probably still something else, but almost for sure, in our time, we are going to have a beef-up form of DC charging at 500 KW to 1000 KW to achieve a 10 minute recharge time of a 150 KWh to 200 KWh battery. The question is how automatic connection is best done and how C rate of the cells can be increased.

I don’t think cars will even have chargers onboard in the future. It’s kind of dumb to haul around all that hardware, *if* the infrastructure is ubiquitous.

So, I predict DC at home, and in public. The only thing different will be the speed of the charge.

‘no chargers in the car’.

Most cars, other than Renault and Roadster, have 2 chargers.

If having ANY chargers in a car is considered a big deal, then you can kiss any regen goodbye.

I really can’t believe you made this assertion.

Nobody is claiming that regeneration is even a factor (except you).

Regeneration through the motor / generator is only a “charger” if it is connected to external power.

If you step back a bit, you’ll see that you actually agree with my statement… no onboard (dedicated, extra hardware, heavy, expensive) charger.

Obviously, that doesn’t preclude regeneration through the motor or using external AC power to charge through the motor.

Slowing down the car makes the battery be able to drive more miles. They tell me that concept is called ‘Charging the battery’.

“Regeneration is only charging if connected to external power”.

Uh, right. Like the Nissan Leaf owner who was late to his daughter’s wedding who had his friend in a Titan tow his Leaf at 50 mile per hour to make his battery fully charged quickly. Or the Volt owner (Clarkson Cote), who drove down a long hill and saw the number of green bars increase…

They must have not told me they were using a 100,000 foot long extension cord.

SO the price of the EV isn’t so bad, its the cost of the extension cord that does it.

“…I really can’t believe you made this assertion.

Nobody is claiming that regeneration is even a factor (except you)…”.

Well, I can’t believe I’m the only one here who knows how this works.

You’d think that the owner of the Nissan wouldn’t be towed by a truck if he didn’t think it would charge his Leaf.

And Clarkson Cote must have thought that the Green Bars added to the display were the same type of green bars added overnight in his garage.

So apparently they at least understand what is going on.

“…If you step back a bit, you’ll see that you actually agree with my statement… no onboard (dedicated, extra hardware, heavy, expensive) charger..”

Nope, don’t agree at all. You need all this heavy stuff to put juice back in the battery when the car is being towed or going down a steep hill.

“…Obviously, that doesn’t preclude regeneration through the motor or using external AC power to charge through the motor….”.

How do we get the “through the motor” to get to the battery, without the ‘extra, heavy, expensive’ stuff?

Lots of significance attributed to the news of Tesla joining the CharIN (CCS) association. Do we know that it hasn’t already joined the CHAdeMO equivalent? MW

CHADeMO regular members (USA):

Aker Wade
Broadband TelCom Power, Inc.
Carbon Zero Advanced Research, LTD. Lear Corporation
Princeton Power Systems, Inc.
Recargo Inc.
Tesla Motors, Inc.
HEVO Power
Fermata, LLC
ChargePoint, Inc.

The closest equivalent to the Core membership Tesla has in CharIN is the Secretary members of CHAdeMO, but those are reserved mainly to founding members and big companies in Japan.

For CHAdeMO you have to become a regular member even to access that protocol documents. People forget, but CHAdeMO started out as a proprietary closed standard.

Tesla’s CHAdeMO adapter was unveiled in October 2013. CHADeMO did not become an international IEC standard until March 2014. That means Tesla was forced to join in order to make the adapter.

In contrast, you do not have to join CharIN (or any organization) to access CCS protocol documents. You can buy it directly from the SAE or IEC for a small fee. It was an open standard from the start.

The CharIN initiative is similar, the documents they develop will be open to the public.

Tesla joining CharIN as a core member is significant because it signals they want to be involved in the development and promotion of the standard beyond simply using it.

CHAdeMO became open protocol in 2012. Nice try.

The standard is available through external sources.

Have you looked at the other Twitter posts by Barry Koval? He’s a huge Trump fan. You might not want to ascribe too much value to his words.

There appears to be some misunderstanding. For the record I never said CHAdeMO was on the way out and never meant to imply it. I was only attempting to point out that in general battery energy density is increasing and capacity is growing – for all makers and in general. To maintain a charge time similar to what we have now the charge rate must increase – in general and in the future. Which standard is decided to accomplish this I cannot say and did not say. I do not even know if that is known yet. I only attempted to illustrate my point with hypothetical examples. Please do not take general comments out of context. That does not accomplish anything useful. I do not reveal future product plans even when I am aware of them; and I am not aware of them in this case. I had only hoped to have a dialog regarding where electric vehicles are headed somewhere down the road in the future. We all want EVs to succeed. My apologies if I was not clear in my 140 character Tweets. That format is not conducive to exacting detail.

So, Barry, with a single tweet, this entire story is officially a non-event, as I predicted:

“@evchels No CCS or 100kWh. Just stating facts decision makers will need to consider.”

Thanks for clarifying the obvious (to me, anyway). Hopefully, you folks at Nissan dont miss the 200 mile EV train, because Tesla and GM sure aren’t.

I’d recommend at least announcing the next LEAF well prior to the GM launch of Bolt. But that’s a whole ‘nother story.

I’m sure you already know that Donald Drumpf is not a friend of EVs, and it was painful to read your Twitter posts, but that’s even a whole ‘nother story that we don’t need to entertain here!!!

The Chademo plug is the only global DC-standard.

CCS is using different plugs in different countries.
Is it possible to use adaptors, or do we have to rebuilt the car, when crossing borders?