Tesla Supercharging Standard Become Nearly As Popular As CHAdeMO Among New EVs

NOV 4 2016 BY MARK KANE 74

Sales data of plug-in electric cars that are equipped for DC fast charging (of any standard) lead us to some interesting conclusions.

The current leader – CHAdeMO – has lost some steam over the first nine-months of 2016, as Tesla’s proprietary Supercharging standard has a shot at becoming the most popular charging option among new BEVs sold this year.

Tesla Model S

Tesla Model S

Currently the difference beteen the two protocols stand at just over 14,000 with three months to go, and the gap has narrowed considerably thanks to the worldwide/all-time sales leader – Nissan LEAF going through some end-of-generation sales fatique, and the Tesla Model S/X hitting delivery overdrive …but it is, what it is.

The CCS Combo standard, which is supported by the widest group of manufacturers, is third:

  • CHAdeMO68,394
  • Tesla Supercharging54,033
  • CCS29,715
  • Chinese GBT – excluded from the comparison

Looking at the all-time chart still clearly demonstrates that the lion’s share of DC fast charge-capable EVs belong in the CHAdeMO camp.

Worldwide DC Fast Rechargeable Electric Cars Fleet (estimated) – EV Sales Blog data

All-time Worldwide DC Fast Rechargeable Electric Cars Fleet (estimated) – EV Sales Blog data

source: EV Sales Blog

Categories: Charging

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

74 Comments on "Tesla Supercharging Standard Become Nearly As Popular As CHAdeMO Among New EVs"

newest oldest most voted

The way I see it, with every 200+ mile EV(aside from Tesla) coming with CCS in 2016 and beyond, not only will the CCS EV count take a huge spike, but CCS chargers will spike also.

In the US, the Japanese standard will diminish as a legacy standard for older short range EVs, while the dominate immediate future plug-in chargers will be CCS and Tesla in NA.

And at the same time, the introduction of plug-less inductive charging(especially for the luxury EV market), that can work with any system, should begin to lead the way and into the long range future.

Good analysis

I believe that the Tesla model for EV charging infrastructure is what the EV charging infrastructure, from now and on into the future, should be. I strongly believe that the focus of nearly all of the money available for developing charging infrastructure from governments, businesses and other sources should be used on developing a network of quick charging stations connecting cities across the nation. However, Tesla already has a network of charging stations nationwide, and this charging infrastructure extends to most of Europe, Japan and other countries where Tesla sells its vehicles.

Read my blog. “One Charger to Rule them All”
http://evworld.com/blogs.cfm?blogid=1394

Bloggin, I haven’t seen any talk of going to wireless DCFC. It would need to be 150 kW for the next gen EVs coming. Can you substantiate your opinion please?

Also, I would be of the opinion that CHAdeMO will keep pace with CCS for the most part. Think about it: basically all fast chargers on the market are dual standard (CHAdeMO and CCS).

Wireless charging is AC charging, by definition. So there’s no such thing as wireless DCFC. The AC-to-DC converter has to be onboard the car for wireless EV charging to work.

As has been discussed in other comment threads, upgrading wireless charging to the power level of DCFC would be a formidable engineering challenge, and may not be economically practical even if a way can be found to accomplish that.

We may well see a future where most PEVs (Plug-in EVs) charge via a wireless slow charger, but use a direct DCFC connection for fast (or superfast) on-the-go charging.

Yes, I understand things to be the same as what you just detailed.

DCFC will be done via plug in connections, and AC charging can be done plugging in or wirelessly.

What isn’t mentioned here is that all the Teslas have the ability to tap into the CHAdeMO network for a fast paced charge.

In a way the Tesla cars are CHAdeMO cars which should be added to the number of cars that can suport CHAdeMO.

There’s absolutely nothing in a Tesla that has anything to do with CHAdeMO. If, or when, Tesla introduces a CCS adapter you might as well claim it’s “a CCS car”…

I for one have CHAdeMO only and still hope it will die. If Tesla’s type 2 derived plug and protocol became the de facto standard that would be great, but if not, I certainly hope CCS succeeds. Both it and CHAdeMO is kind of crappy, but what matters most is simply to have as few standards as possible.

I hope the guy who built the Chamo charger for the Toyota RV4 builds a CSS and Chamo port for cars. I would buy that as soon as it came out to avoid having to worry about getting a charging station wrong.

Really not much to worry about buddy… almost all DCFC installations these days are dual standard (CHAdeMO and CCS).
For that matter there are currently actually more CHAdeMO only locations than CCS only.

JdeMO is available for both the 2012-2014 Toyota RAV4 EV and the Tesla Roadster.

As stated above, virtually all future public DC charger installations in Europe and North America use CHAdeMO and the regional version of CCS that applies.

All of Japan is CHAdeMO, without CCS at all.

That makes CHAdeMO the only plug in all three markets exactly the same.

That would make it very hard to justify the expense to adopt a second tier or regional standard.

this article seems misleading to me. of the 54,000 cars equipped with a tesla supercharging interface, how many of them were manufactured by tesla? if all of them were, then these figures don’t reflect industry adaptation of the tesla interface so much as they reflect tesla sales.

Without trying to wade into the fray too much – maybe just throwing more gas on the fire

…another question (along those same lines) would be what do the CHAdeMO numbers represent if you remove the Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance sales results? The depth of the diversity pool isn’t very deep right now, so taking the individual leaders off any EV charging protocol (or sales list) has a very drastic effect.

This is strictly a “reality of the road” graphing, not a “why is this the reality on the road” article.

there is a BIG difference between the two: CHAdeMO is an industry standard, so the specifications are presumably controlled by a standards body. even if nissan is the only company actually using CHAdeMO, according to the CHAdeMO website, there are over 400 organizations represented in this organization. by contrast, the tesla supercharger is controlled by *tesla*.

if you are a third party auto maker, you would be able to control your exposure to changes in the CHAdeMO standard through active participation in the standards body. on the other hand, if you adopt the tesla supercharger, tesla can change the standard leaving you out on a lurch and there would be nothing that you could do about it.

this is why an automaker would be absolutely foolish to adopt the tesla supercharger. it is much safer to stick to standards. so while the reality is that a single company may be using CHAdeMO, there is a potential for other companies to adopt it if it becomes popular. on the other hand, there is NO chance of other companies adopting tesla supercharging as a proprietary solution controlled by tesla.

…now watch as a I skillfully extract myself from the conversation having said my bit, (=

this is an omen…this means that i should play the powerball this weekend. if i hit the numbers, then i can get a triple deuce B#@Z-O!!! and a bentley too! i’ll probably even have enough left over to get a tesla.

well, i hit the powerball, but that’s not going to get me into a b#@z-o.

“evidently, your bentley must have said ‘rent me'” – ice cube

By the way, this is for all plugins and not just BEVs. The Outlander PHEV is included in the Chademo numbers.
If not then Tesla would be in the lead.

So both the headline and the article needs some small corrections. 🙂

> “tesla can change the standard leaving you out on a lurch and there would be nothing that you could do about it.”

And thus the reason why no other auto manufacturer will embrace it.

CCS is the way forward, and I have no doubt, it will become the dominate standard.

Well, keep in mind that Tesla has said that they are willing to license out access to the Supercharger network to other car makers.

Of course, we do not know the terms of such a license deal. Tesla will want to be compensated for the huge amount of risk, work, and investment it took to build out, operate, maintain, and grow that infrastructure

I’ve used both and Tesla has 2 major advantages over others:
1. Much higher charging speed.
2. Much higher reliability. I travel more than most and have never had an instance where I could not charge at a Tesla supercharger. In contrast, companies like Blink or eVgo take their chargers offline for maintenance, don’t give any advance notice, and they leave you stranded.

“no comment” has it right. No auto maker of any size would adopt Tesla’s charging standard. Sure, Tesla loudly proclaimed that any and every other EV maker was welcome to join their network. But if you look at the fine print of their terms of service for that, it requires the other auto maker to give up all rights to its own patents, just as Tesla has.

That’s a “poison pill” provision that no auto maker of an size is likely to agree to. I can see that some small auto maker might, but that would put too many constraints on the patent rights of any large manufacturer.

Yes, Tesla’s Supercharger network is one of the top two charging formats, in terms of powering EV miles. But that’s pretty irrelevant. The Tesla charging format isn’t an “open standard” format. Whatever format becomes the future true standard for EV charging, it won’t be Tesla’s.

Link to Tesla’s “Patent Pledge” and terms of service:

https://www.tesla.com/about/legal#patent-pledge

No you are reading that wrong. It’s not that you have to give up all of your patents and neither is Tesla doing that. Under “Legal effect”: “the Pledge is not a waiver of any patent claims (including claims for damages for past acts of infringement) and is not a license, covenant not to sue, or authorization to engage in patented activities or a limitation on remedies, damages or claims. Except as expressly stated in the Pledge, no rights shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel or otherwise.” What it says is that you give up patent aggression, i.e. trying to stop your competitors by suing them over patent BS. You are still allowed to defend yourself with patents if you are attacked by a third party and so will Tesla. It’s the same idea as the Open Invention Network (OIN), a patent pool set up to protect open source software from patent trolls. Companies can “donate” their patents to OIN whereby they promise not to use them aggressively, in return they get protection from everybody else in the pool to not get sued. Yet if you are sued by a third party patent troll you… Read more »

i knew the “pledge” that musk made was nothing but a public relations stunt when i first heard of it. it just didn’t sound legitimate.

this “patent pledge” is so stupid that *nobody* would take this offer. it is “patently” asymmetrical – tesla puts conditions on your use of their patents but expects you to unconditionally waive your rights to enforce your patent rights against them. so tesla would presumably get unconditional use your patents.

the tesla “patent pledge” is not a serious offer. anyone who wanted to use tesla patents would just negotiate with tesla to get a license to use them. notice that the “patent pledge” does not grant a license to use tesla patents.

How is it asymmetric that you get to use Tesla’s patents and Tesla gets to use yours?

CCS is only i3 and SparkEV for now (soon Bolt) while Chademo has Leaf, SoulEV, iMiev, some Tesla with adopter.

However, I think only Tesla will survive long term. There are too many hands in the cookie jar such that some companies can hijack them for their nefarious use, such as giving out free charging to spur their crappy car sales, which is detrimental to all EV using that standard. Tesla can give out stern warning and do other things to keep such behavior in check for the good of its network.

If DCFC could generate significant revenue by itself, there will be competition so that hijack by one company would be difficult. But today, DCFC business wouldn’t make too much profit, and limit the competition.

I wish. But it requires that Tesla’s solution becomes a standard controlled by some sort of standards body where no single manufacturer is in charge (as it were, hehe).

It not about standards, but incentives and implementation. Tesla has vested interest in selling EV and keeping their DCFC useful to support that goal is an incentive.

Nissan, etc. wants to sell more cars, damn the other guys. Then they can hijack few barely profitable DCFC companies by offering “free charging” for their cars and advertise as such. Meanwhile, other companies suffer unless they also offer “free” (like BMW did). Then the dominoes start falling and the whole house of cards fall under the weight of “free”.

Free is but one example. Even to upgrade the power, there’s far more incentive for Tesla to do so than the other guys. To paraphrase Bill Gates, “50 kW or 90 miles range in 30 minutes should be enough for everyone”.

The eGolf has CCS too. So will the Ionic.

Ooops. Sorry eGolf.

And the e-UP! 😉

Any one can give free charging, the cost is just adsorbed by the manufacturer. Tesla already does it, the only difference is Tesla had instead SC to match their volumes of sales. In CA there is reported that even SC can be tied up by locals who prefer a free charge to using their own power.

If your work puts in a charger, and offers it for free, then every one buys an EV, that work charger will have the same issue. The problem is not free charging, it is the limited number of chargers. The solution is more chargers, whether that is at “service stations” (which is what current charger bays are equivalent to) or something entirely different like every parking meter also having a built in charger that you pay for when you park.

If there was a power point on the curb of every parking space, I’d be happy because I could just plug my EVSE in every time I park and be topped up all the time, what a simple solution.

I have to say that free does create its problems.

More chargers is part of the solution, but if a per minute billing solution is used (particularly for DCFC) then the problems associated with free charging will largely go away.

Something can’t be proprietary and a standard at the same time. It’s one or the other. Tesla’s supercharger network is proprietary.

Wrong. You can certainly have a proprietary standard. A standard is just any well-defined technical thing to allow for interoperation between different devices. But they don’t have to be publicly available. Like Apple’s “Lightning” connector is standard but still propriety.

What you are thinking about is an “open standard”. And open standards come in varying different gradations. USB is a good example of an open standard.

You’re laying out what is nothing but a semantic argument over the meaning of the term “standard”. It’s true that the term is often mis-used; there can’t be competing standards. As in the “Highlander” show: “There can be only one”.

If there’s more than one, then it’s not actually a standard, even if people call it that. That’s why I’m careful to use the term “format” when referring to competing EV charging formats, such as CCS, CHAdeMO, and Tesla Supercharger.

There is zero “interoperation” even between Tesla European and North American Model S/X versions. Tesla Roadster uses something else again. There was some promotional trip around the world by Tesla fans, they had to use Chademo adapters, not incompatible Tesla chargers :/

It is just semantics, but people usually assume “standard” as something used by more than 1 person or company and ideally adopted by standards organization, even if you have to pay nominal fee to access full standard documentation.

You gotta love “multiple standards”…lol

That’s the great thing about standards, there are so many to choose from. (Old engineer joke.)

Also:

“standard” is a four letter word…

that is a common occurrence, you frequently see this in the data networking field, for example. it happens when multiple camps are promoting different technical solutions. the competing standards groups promote their standards and the market ultimately determines which one “wins”.

I’ve said several times, Tesla’s supercharger network is their BIGGEST competitive advantage.

Yes, But will they give up that competitive advantage by allowing their proprietary format to be adopted as the industry standard?

I could be wrong, but I’m guessing “No”. Certainly their terms of service for other auto makers using their format doesn’t lead one to believe they’ll allow it to become an open standard.

… right now. It won’t be forever, both CCS and CHAdeMO will grow and outgrow the Superchargers eventually.

US numbers for 2016 to date from InsideEVs sales charts show that CCS is slightly ahead of Chademo, and both have less than half the sales of Tesla. A bit of an assumption there in that not all cars come equipped with the DC option, but it at least shows that it’s a very different picture in the US, likely mainly because of the Outlander.

Leaf 10650
soul 1352
imiev 86
Total Chademo: 12088

i3 6205
golf 3189
spark 2979
Total CCS: 12373

Model S 22171
Model X 13448
Total Tesla 35619

Didn’t we just get a report that 100k sales of Leaf in US? Are you suggesting that only 10k of them have the DCFC plug? That does not sound right to me. I would have expected a lot more Leaf to have DCFC plug.
Are we talking about vehicles or charging stations?

He’s listing U.S. sales to date this year.

How many of those Chademo cars are still driving around US roads? Didn’t a lot of the early Leafs have issues, or get traded in, and possibly shipped overseas?

Some have gotten battery replacements under warranty, but I doubt hardly any are off the road.

What if the model 3 is coming and another 500.000 cars per year will have Supercharging standard – Tesla will probably be the leader 😉

‘Course the Teslas can use Chademo w/an adapter. I don’t recall if they made a CCS adapter yet.

IMHO, Tesla “Joined” the CCS standard for the sole purpose of being a part of the design and inside intel so they can develop and sell a CCS to Tesla adapter. A Tesla SC to CCS was also mentioned. I thought it was stupid weird but if they outfit the Model 3 with CCS only and provide the adapter then there you go, an EV that covers Tesla and CCS quick charger.

Don’t ask me for a link because I heard it from a co-workers sister’s friend’s ex’s brother who works at the Fremont Plant.
🙂

I seriously doubt Tesla would make the Model 3 with a CCS port and then include an adapter to plug into the Superchargers.

More likely would be to make an adapter that’s CCS to Tesla SC.

The talk of an adapter that’s Tesla SC to CCS was just recently mentioned in press about 350 kW CCS possibilities.

Tesla has been a member of the CHAdeMO Association for years and never once contemplated putting CHAdeMO on their cars!

They only recently joined CCS (since there wasn’t even a CCS “group” until quite recently) and I can assure you that they aren’t considering putting kludgy CCS on their cars. Not a chance.

There were many attempts by German politicians and German auto manufacturers to try and mandate CCS both within EU and Germany itself. Fortunately, all those efforts have mostly failed. The only legacy rule is that after a certain date, all the future public charging stations would have to include a CCS charger plug.

Tesla is not considered public, and virtually all CHAdeMO installations in Europe already have CCS.

Obviously, none of this applies to the US as there is no effort whatsoever to mandate any charging protocol.

Virtually all known efforts to promote and fund DC charging public infrastructure in the US specifies that they include both CHAdeMO and CCS.

Because of that, auto manufacturers who sell vehicles are free to choose whatever protocol they like. Naturally, this upsets the “CCS shills”. Poor babies.

economics might ultimately force tesla’s hand on this. right now, electric vehicles are small potatoes, so standardization efforts are more forward looking nature. but the idea that tesla by itself is going to be able to scale a privately owned charging network as the electric vehicle market begins to mature doesn’t seem likely to me. to the extent that third party charging services become economically viable, they are going to want industry standards, not proprietary solutions. this is why i state that so much of the current tesla business model does not seem viable long term. the current model is a kind of “all in house” one, which involves maintaining a network of tesla-owned dealerships and a network or tesla-owned charging network. the dealership and charging networks may be sufficient for tesla’s current small sales volumes, but expanding these for higher volumes means massive cash outlays. this is why i tend to believe that bob lutz is correct in his current view of tesla. where i don’t agree with bob lutz is that i believe that the people at tesla realize that the current model might be useful for building the business, it is not viable for maintaining the business… Read more »

The real dominance of Tesla SC vs. Chademo or CCS would be shown not by number of Cars, but by distance charged per month. To my experience most Chademo and even more CCS chargers are barely used and if used are slow compared to Superchargers.

I believe that the Tesla model for EV charging infrastructure is what the EV charging infrastructure, from now and on into the future, should be. I strongly believe that the focus of nearly all of the money available for developing charging infrastructure from governments, businesses and other sources should be used on developing a network of quick charging stations connecting cities across the nation. However, Tesla already has a network of charging stations nationwide, and this charging infrastructure extends to most of Europe, Japan and other countries where Tesla sells its vehicles.

Read my blog. “One Charger to Rule them All”
http://evworld.com/blogs.cfm?blogid=1394

Agree that a nationwide fast charge infrastructure rollout is the most important public charging infrastructure that can be build, and it needs to be every ~50 miles all across the country just off major highways.

But on your blog article (which I read) your assertion of saying that having three plugs means three times the charging infrastructure is needed is not quite the case IMO.

I would assert that having three standards does not need to significantly increase the amount of chargers needed per EV. Tesla has their Superchargers to serve their EVs and dual standard CHAdeMO and CCS fast chargers serve EV’s with those ports.

CHAdeMO is bidirectional. This is a great feature.

I wonder if CSS is the same way?

There’s no reason that future CCS won’t also be bi-directional. Yes, of course, CHAdeMO was designed that way from nearly it’s inception.

in Europe CCS will be the standard as it is now adopted by most manufacturers
And for a good reason : one well-designed inlet.

For both AC slowcharging (3.7-22kW) when you got the time, at night, at work, or wherever you park your car for a few hours.
And DC fastcharging ( up to 150 kW in the near future) for longer stretches.

Most Europeans will be charging their car at home, with 11kW during their daily snort, which will be more than sufficient for over 90% of all rides

CCS is already standard, long time ago. Chademo is also European standard now, IEC 62196 Type 4.

I didn’t heard anybody has plans to drop one or another from existing or new double standard chargers. Except Japan that always was single standard.

CHAdeMO is an official standard in both Japan and the European Union.

CCS-Combo 2 is official EU.

GB/T is official in China.

The United States has no official mandate for any particular protocol. Obviously, we don’t have GB/T or CCS-Combo 2 here, but we do have three protocols that are all expanding.

In virtually every region listed above, they have chargers with other standards, like Tesla… even in China and Japan.

Tesla was pushing as many sales as it can in Q3 trying to make possible share sale in Q4, while Leaf slowed down a bit. Next month everything will get back to normal.

The race for DCFC standard for long range BEVs has not yet begun, since there is only one entrant… the Tesla Supercharger. Both CCS and CHAdeMO have yet to introduce > 200 amp versions of their standards. Presumably, in late 2017, they join the race.

Right now, there are plenty of 200 amp dual standard EVSE’s. They will likely be the first to fold. Nissan should switch to CCS for the 2nd generation Leaf to avoid leaving an unpleasant situation for their owners.

CHAdeMO was designed for 200 amps at its inception. This last summer, that was raised to 350 amps:

CHAdeMO specification is:

50kW = 500 volts max * 125 amps max (really 62.5kW capable)

100kW = 500 volts max * 200 amps (max initial design)

150kW = 500 volts max * 350 amps (2017 launch, really 175kW capable)

350kW = 1000 volts max *350 amps = (proposed summer 2016)

tesla is not sitting on its laurels. i read that they are looking into a 750kW charging system. of course, such a system would not be 240v, it will be in the kV range.

Obviously, the CCS shills tend to forget that Tesla: 1) Isn’t adopting CHAdeMO or CCS anywhere, period. There was some talk of promoting GB/T in China, but I don’t think that was anything more than talk, no doubt to gain some favor in China. 2) Isn’t going to be confined by whatever those “other guys” will be doing with respect to charging speed and innovations. 3) will follow regulatory requirements, but so far, the German politicians and German auto manufacturers have not done so well in encumbering Tesla with their kludgy CCS stuff. No where else on earth is somebody attempting to slow up Tesla (and Nissan) as much as the Germans. Unless Tesla goes to a strictly robotic charging system that could permit a really heavy cable, humans will have to handlle the plug, it doesn’t seem wise to go much over the current cable weight, and liquid cooling only aids the process a bit. Let’s say they do the “relatively simple” approach, and just double the maximum charge voltage from 400 to 800. That requires about 1000 amps to make 750kW !!! But, they could just as easily make the maximum charge voltage to be 1200 or 1600… Read more »

as i stated, tesla is talking *kilovolts* for a 750kW charging station. as i recall, the voltage was in the 1,500v-2,000v range at the charger head. no, i don’t believe people would be handling such a charger receptacle either.

the motivation for going toward megawatt charging stations is to get the recharging time down to a level where it is comparable to the time to refill a gas tank. if you go to bigger batteries, you hopefully be able to achieve a satisfactory range without requiring deep charging of the battery.

some of the ideas you mention, which involve a fully automated charging system, sound interesting. the idea of attaching multiple cables to a car doesn’t really sound practical when you think about the idea of having to lay out multiple charging receptacles on the car.

Strange… post went awry. Didn’t like my greater and less than signs.

There will likely be a smaller set of greater than 200 amp dual standard EVSE’s, leaving CHAdeMO as a distant 3rd place by 2020.

Nice academic discussion. However, longer range EVs (200-300 miles) will use fast chargers less often. As a matter of convenience, owners with EVS of any range will charge at home or business. Fast chargers will be used only during long trips.

The increased range of EVs will sort out the fast charge standards. VW is talking about a 500km range (~300 miles) in a few years.

Regardless of the number advantage of the Tesla fast chargers, there will be more long range, non Tesla EVs in a few years. If these can’t use Tesla Superchargers their sheer numbers are meaningless to these owners.

From the practical perspective comparing the number of the installed fast chargers of different types is meaningless. OK so one can travel across the US in a Tesla but how many people need to do it?

For EV’s to displace gasoline fueled cars, they have to work in all environments, all situations, all possible trips.

Not “most”, or what works for you personally.

I have driven coast-to-coast in a Tesla.

i suspect that many people will need fast charging at some point in time. you need a car that you can drive *every* day. so the issue is, do you drive more than you can recover by home charging? a bigger battery gives you more buffer for driving more than you can recover by home charging. but that buffer can run out, and when it does, you are going to need some kind of fast charging. hopefully those occasions are going to be rare because when you do have to use fast charging it will be a pain in the neck compared to refilling a gas tank because the recharge will take a lot longer. here again, a bigger battery can help because it can reduce the need for deep charging, resulting in less time spent at the fast charger when you do need to use it. i don’t see BEVs as being viable for long distance travel beyond those in the ev enthusiast segment. that would limit the appeal of BEVs because even though you don’t typically buy a car with a set number of long distance trips in mind, people don’t like to buy knowing that there are… Read more »

Is this US only? In Europe one of the most popular EVs, the Renault ZOE, uses AC for rapid charging so doesn’t get counted for this chart.