Forums

Level 3 Charging Station

Level 3 Charging Station

I am having a level 3 charging station installed at my business. It is a 480 Volt 63 Amp DC charger. "Blink"

Since the Tesla has chargers on board that convert AC to DC, does it have any effect hooking up a DC charger? Is it even allowed? Are there any advantages or disadvantages to having that much juice entering the vehicle? (other than time) Does a DC charger have any negative effects on the life of the battery?

Thanks in advance for any input.

Eric

Volker.Berlin | June 21, 2012

Timo, I appreciate your efforts to get back to some substantial discussion. My take on FF is that I'll deal with it when it's there. Until then we have solar/wind/hydro (and many flavors of each), which aren't comparable to FF in many regards, one of them being that they work today. I'm not going to stop anyone from saving the world by getting FF to work (assuming I could). It's just that I try to focus on solutions that can mitigate the problems we have today, until the better solution is available. In the mean time, we can as well use the opportunity to further improve those majorly flawed but readily available technologies.

Brian H | June 21, 2012

Some technologies (wind, tide, solar) are so inherently dilute, variable, and inefficient that "further improving" them is throwing good money after bad. Observe the massive subsidy cutbacks even in countries that Believe: Spain, Germany, UK, France. Meanwhile, Denmark looks desperately for customers to take its demand-unbalanced windpower surges off its hands at fire-sale prices, or even free. Poland no longer permits import of swinging German windpower oversupplies, as it is harder on the grid to accommodate than what the power is worth, even if it were free. Greece is stupidly over-invested in several forms of unusable green power, using "other people's money" (mostly German and Austrian, I hear) which must be but cannot be and will not be repaid (except by rapid prestidigital circulation of Euro-paper with the ink still damp).

Fools and their money are soon parted. The longer it takes, the bigger the extraction.

Volker.Berlin | June 21, 2012

Brian H, I agree with most of what you said. Problem is, and there our opinions differ, I don't believe that we have any better options. I am not at all convinced that throwing money at FF makes it "good money". In any event, research in all directions, including FF, does happen and will continue to do so. In the mean time, we have to cover our energy consumption somehow. Coal and nuclear are equally unacceptable, albeit for different reasons. What's left? First of all, reducing energy consumption, there's still huge potential there. And for the rest, a decentralized mix of renewables combined with a massive expansion of grid capacity is the best option that we currently have, IMO.

Volker.Berlin | June 21, 2012

Brian H, I'm sure you're up to snuff with the DBM/Kolibri "magical battery" debacle. If not, read some background about the people and the companies involved. I can't help the impression that LPP is a scam of similar quality, albeit, at a much larger scale. I may be wrong and that would be great.

Fools and their money are soon parted. The longer it takes, the bigger the extraction.

No doubt about that. The art is knowing in advance who turns out to be the fool. Believing certainly helps to fill the void that is created by uncertainty.

Brian H | June 21, 2012

A bigger scale? Lerner has been full-bore hands-on with this for close to 20 years now. Every penny of the meagre resources used has been put into very parsimonious hardware and computer modelling and bare-bones staffing. When and if "scientific break-even" is achieved this year, there will be no "fooling" the world about the data: LPP is famous for the openness of its information flows -- it is unparallelled in the field, from the acquisition of a patent with detailed specifications to reactor design and photography to results reporting to milestone projection and reporting to submission of papers on experimental results and hardware design to refereed papers.

If there is a project which acts less like a "scam", I've not heard of it. Or one which is less deserving of superficial cynicism like yours.

Timo | June 22, 2012

Brian H, you said that solar, wind etc. are inefficient and then say that we should not improver them. That is contradicting comment, isn't being inefficient just the reason to improve them?

Solar is a good way to produce energy. Just not for everybody and not everywhere. It's basically free energy, so you just need to make production and installation cheaper. More efficient/m^2 isn't the goal, it is more efficient/$$$.

Just like hydro, you don't need to catch entire kinetic energy of the water to produce energy for free. Same with wind, geothermal and so on. Those are just energy sources, and you should tap to them just as much as is reasonable, not any more.

Solar is most effective when it is distributed widely. Very many small units, not few huge ones. This reduces the energy demand when sun is shining even in part of the area. What Germany and many "projects" do is wrong. What for example SolarCity is doing is right.

For wind, huge wind farms is just wasted land/water area. Something like Urban Green Energy small omnidirectional windmills that anybody could buy is right. Far less noise pollution, less dead birds, less ruined nature.

Zero energy building is another way to improve life. Just plain less wasted energy.

For these recharging stations, if you could get even part of the energy used from Solar, it is worth it. Throw in couple of those Urban Green Energy windmills to get wind and you get the greenest recharging station ever build.

Brian H | June 22, 2012

Dilute and remote is dilute and remote. Even if solar panels were free, they wouldn't be worth installing on a mass scale (grid supply size). Too much maintenance, transmission, variability, and real estate cost.
Wind is a con job; windmills are far more variable than even solar, they will not last more than about ¼ as long as claimed, maintenance is simply not feasible on a large scale (manpower willing and able to work at those heights 'without a net' doesn't exist), the output is so ragged and needs so much backup that grids start losing money trying to accommodate it when it much surpasses 10% of total load, etc.
Water power, which is just elaboration of the oldest natural source, water wheels, doesn't actually scale enough. The freshwater flows don't exist in adequate quantity, and sea water eats equipment, or makes it so expensive that ROI is risible. What works in special locations for a year or two won't be functioning in 5 yrs.

So as far as "improving" renewables, the upper limits are very low, very expensive, and do not work together nicely. For Britain, e.g., to meet its legislated windpower goals by 2050 it would have to line the entire coast 5 miles deep with units, plus coat every Scottish and Welsh mountain -- and it would still be periodically becalmed in a blocking high and have to replace the entire supply with purchased power from foreign sources (which do not exist).

The entire concept and project is retrograde and reactionary, against the energy driver of advancing civilization -- which for thousands of years has been to develop more and more compact and concentrated energy sources. There is a reason wind mills, water wheels, and steam engines were seized on eagerly and then displaced and discarded later when better smaller stronger sources were found.

Brian H | June 22, 2012

P.S.
In all the history of renewables installations, the number of (e.g.) coal plants which they have replaced is approximately zero. Gas plants can replace coal, but renewables require full back-up conventional power, running at low efficiency levels and ramping up and down crazily to load-match. Dumb, dumber, dumbest.

BryanW | June 22, 2012

Not to pour gas on a fire, but I read the LPP home page, http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/ and could not help but immediately think of Drs. Pons and Fleishmann.

BryanW | June 22, 2012

New energy sources, cheaper, cleaner, safer, are always worth researching when there is demonstrable evidence in the possibility of success. Cold fusion had incredible potential, in 1989. Hasn't worked out.

I agree with Volker's "work with it when it gets here" approach.

On May 25th, 2012, per LPP's own reports...

"This achieved two out of three conditions—temperature and confinement time—needed not just for fusion energy, but for fusion energy using advanced, aneutronic fuels that have long been considered out of reach. We did all this with an innovative device costing less than one million dollars. If we are able to achieve the third condition, density, we could be on track to commercializing fusion within five years."

So, in 2012, 2 of 3 conditions met... then the qualifiers start, "IF we are able..." then "we COULD BE on track to commercializing fusion within FIVE YEARS."

Thus, if they announce they have met the third condition, then they might be able to get commercialization within 5 years.

So, we can't have magic energy today, or tomorrow, or in 5 years, but maybe in 5 years from when LPP announces success with their third condition.

Of course, we need energy today, and tomorrow, and before LPP can get us magic, so let's work with maximizing what we have.

Timo | June 22, 2012

Cold fusion was a scam or misinterpreted chemical reactions. This is not like that, the physics are well known, problems are in engineering not in science. This is a bit like space elevator where we know what we need, but have no methods of producing big enough quantities of required materials in reasonable timeframe and price. This replaces the "quantities" with dense enough magnetic field and "materials" with fast enough energy release from capacitors and "price" with timing to hit the plasmoid with that field at the exact right moment.

Brian H | June 22, 2012

Bryan;
Commercialization encompasses more than you think. That would mean modules ready to manufacture, and ship. That's incredibly fast, decades sooner than other options. Most of that time would be in the engineering and production design process.

The P&F example is far different; the physics explaining the excess heat that orginally burned down their lab overnight is still up for grabs, unknown. The LPP physics is conventional and known, with only a new emphasis on the exploitation of a particular regime of magnetic containment. See here for an explanation: http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=...

Etographer | July 5, 2012

Follow up:

I had a pre-construction meeting with PGE and the contractor last Tuesday (July 3) Construction should start within 10 days and will be completed by the end of July! It will take 10 working days to complete, while the majority of the construction time will be due to curing time for the concrete.

Cheers!

Eric

Pages