strategy for european ev & phev conductive ... - Park & Charge

STRATEGY FOR EUROPEAN EV & PHEV CONDUCTIVE
CHARGING INFRASTURCTURE: ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION
By www.protoscar.com , and Eduard Stolz - Park&Charge
September 10th, 2009
BASIC QUESTIONS
1. Why is there no common EU agreement on charging standards for EVs?
2. Are there technical or other reasons? Or only different points of view?
3. What shall be done, considering the situation, in order to achieve a common
agreement regarding charging standards for EVs?
EU-GRID
Unfortunately Europe has several grid systems. The main 2 systems are:
- TN (Terra-Neutral) e.g. in the German speaking countries
- TT (Terra-Terra) in the countries, where homes are typically supplied by gas
(for cooking and heating – e.g. Italy, Spain, France, Benelux)
Those grid systems are characterized by a different quantity of phases typically
delivered to a household and different levels of current typically delivered per phase.
NB: by the way, in TN Countries, user over-proportionally own a garage or private
parking spot (50%-70%), compared to TT countries, where this percentage can shrink
down to about 20%.

Protoscar conclusions:
- There is no ONE point of view from an “EU power utility” perspective:
instead there are (at least) two points of view from a EU power utility
perspective.
- Both points of view are equally legitimate, and should both be considered.
SAFETY ASPECTS
According vehicle-charging infrastructure standard IEC 61851-1, during charging of
an EV, a double electric safety has to be guaranteed (since vehicles are totally
insulated sitting on their rubber tires). Typically those two systems are the FI and the
fuse. In case of a TT grid, the FI assumes the function of the fuse, and therefore a
second safety system has to be provided (e.g. by a PLC protection or pilot-contact). In
the TN grid the fuse would be the second safety device, although –because of the
insulated cars sitting on it’s rubber wheels- does it not really work until a short circuit
is caused between ground and car body.
Protoscar conclusions:
- Both grid systems need effective dual safety protection while charging EV.
This only can be guaranteed by an FI and an earth-safety control. Earth safety
control can be guaranteed either by a PLC protection or by a pilot-contact.
- Either there will be a system able to accommodate both, the control pilot and
the PLC protection or there will be different systems (read: plugs) probably
driven by each country.
- Until there is no agreement, today the only really legal EU-wide charging rate
would be limited to MODE-1, meaning 240V, 8A = 1,6kW (although the
limitation to 8A is not really a guarantee in terms of safety).
Cyriacus Bleijs’s (TC-69 Chairman) conclusions:
- The IEC standard IEC 61851-1 also defines higher security options that check
for the continuity of the earth line. This method is imposed in the USA and
requires a fourth wire as defined in the SAE standard J1772. The present
option in the USA is to use a cable that is permanently wired to the wall thus
avoiding the need to define a wall mounted socket that has a fourth pin. This
solution does not seem to be acceptable for most of Europe unless the
charging spot is under surveillance or in protected private property. The car
owner will normally supply the cord set under all circumstances, both at home
and on the curbside. Sockets with pilot wire pins are proposed however it is
considered that basic charging for two wheelers and low cost vehicles should
be compatible with readily available plugs and sockets. Using such four-pin
sockets could seriously impede the introduction of electric vehicles, as it
would require specific installations that would also be more expensive.
HOME-CHARGING FROM A ENERGY PROVIDER POINT OF VIEW
Premises:
- Home charging (or/and at the work place) will be the main –and crucialcharging
mode for all European EVs and PHEVs.
- Smart charging will be necessary in terms of load optimization/peak sawing.

In TN-countries, 2 or 3-phase is available in most of the households. A typical value
for current assured is 25 - 40A. This is sufficient for heating, cooking, washing and
even charging an EV with a power of up to 3x32A=22kW.
In TT countries, 1-phase only is available in most household. Typical range for
current assured is 16-20A. In the best case (if no other appliances are used in the
meantime), a max. charging power of up to 3.7kW is available for charging
EVs/PHEVs. And for being charged, EVs/PHEVs need an additional safety function,
such as a PLC protection or pilot-contact.
Protoscar conclusions:
- TN-countries can support up to 3x16A (11 kW), or 1x32A (7.4 kW) chargers.
Higher power is -in some cases- technically feasible but related to VERY
HIGH cost for network connection (see EKZ sample: cost over CHF 19'000.-
(!) to connect a new household with 100A compared to 3’000 CHF for a
common 3x16A).
- TT-countries can generally NOT support more than up to 3.7kW chargers. At
least not in the next decades. For EVs charging in those countries, the only
alternative to up to 3.7kW home charge is public fast charging.
- up to 3.7kW on board chargers (with possibility to further limit the current)
will be the only EU-standard for EV-home charger. Higher, and multiphase,
will –if the market pays for the service- be offered only as an option
(eventually by companies installing “big batteries”, such as TESLA or
Daimler).
- More than 11 kW (16A on three phases) or 7.4 kW (32A on a single phase,
Mode 3) will not make sense even for optional on-board charger.
- For home charge, 3,7kW (1 phase) shall be the maximum power supplied.
Wiring is nationally and even locally different in terms of quantity and size of
cables and cannot be standardized.
PUBLIC CHARGING FROM A ENERGY PROVIDER POINT OF VIEW
Public charging systems for EVs/PHEVs will most likely not be considered as “public
lighting masts”: a basic tariff will be applied by the local energy distributor depending
on the guaranteed power. EKZ samples show fix “connection” cost as follows:
- 3x100A: 19'000 CHF – 12'000 €
- 3x25A: 5’000 CHF – 3’000 €
Remaining investments are in the following range:
- Wiring+installation: 5 x 16 mm 2 or 5 x 25 mm 2 , 250–300 CHF / m – 170–200 € / m
- Basement: 800-1600 CHF - 500-1'000 €
- Charging station: 1’600-22'000 CHF - 1'000-15'000 €
Protoscar conclusions:
- There is absolutely no business-case, where a public charging station could be
connected to more than 3x32A (total of 3 x 7.4 kW = 22kW). Particularly
considering that most EVs and all PHEVs will have no optional on board
charger with more than 3.7kW power.
- In terms of wiring, 5x16 mm 2 cables (and 5x25 mm 2 for over 50-100m length)
would enable all charging needs, including optional chargers with power up to
22kW (max. of 3 EVs at public charging station, charging simultaneously).

- The choice of the appropriate energy payment solution (from flat-rate to taxincluding-rates)
has a great impact on the technical solutions and on the
businesscase.
FAST CHARGING (40 kW-100 kW, DC)
From a business-case point of view, fast charging only works if the (untaxed) energy
is paid similarly as (taxed) gasoline by the users, in the order of magnitude of
10Euro/100km. But even so, grid-connection costs and hardware investments, as well
as maintenance require a big (too big?) number of daily users in order to assure a
breakeven.
From a user point of view, the convenient electricity cost compensates for the higher
upfront cost. If energy would cost as much as fuel, EVs would not be convenient.
Trough fast charging however, users save time, and time means money. Therefore for
a fast charge (which will be used occasionally only) a higher price can be acceptable.
But it’s for fleet users, that fast charging assumes more importance, if it enables
multiple use of the vehicles.
But anyway fast charging is necessary for demonstrating that charging-time
“problems” or “range-extension” can be technically solved NOW, but at first can only
be introduced if paid by third parties (governments). Once the EV-demo-phase is
over, only solutions with a positive business-case can be justified in a free market.
And as soon as this happens, the only solution for fast charging is a SPVN type
system (battery-based “peak-shaving” system with fast charging facility for EVs as a
“secondary service”).
One open point remains the implication of fast charge on battery live: nobody has real
data yet.
Protoscar conclusions:
- In the next years, demo programs will need fast charging demonstration
“immediately”. The systems will be either TEPCO type (because at least 6
OEMs have adopted this system already) or OEM specific “prototypes” (for
NON-TEPCO compatible EVs).
- As soon as available, only self-sustaining systems (like SPVN) will make
sense because of their positive business-case.
- Fast charge is not needed by PHEVs – they will not be able to use it.
- As soon as fast charging is successfully demonstrated, there is no more need to
analyze the only alternative able to shorten charging time, which is batteryswap.
ON BOARD CHARGING FROM A OEM POINT OF VIEW
Some (AC-propulsion derived drivetrains like TESLA or MINI-E) use a “bidirectional”
inverter, used for controlling the energy flow from the batteries to the
motor while driving and from the (US type) grid to the batteries while charging: for
the EV, this is the same as if there would be a “long regenerative” drive.
But the majority of all EVs do have a dedicated separated on board charger.

Protoscar conclusions:
- Today this piece of power-electronics has a cost of approx. 600 Euro/kW. A
charger of 7.4 kW already cost over 4'000 Euro. Latest after the publicly-paid
demonstration fleets, charger of more than 3.7kW will have to be offered as an
option only, on EVs.
- Charger of more than 3.7kW are really not useful and therefore will not be
offered for PHEVs, where up to 3.7kW is more than enough.
ON BOARD CHARGER FROM A USER POINT OF VIEW
Since ever the two “limitations” of EVs are range and charging time. Today both can
technically be overcome but then the problem becomes cost. From a private EU-user
point of view (fleet user may be different), if an additional kW of charging power
(helping to reduce charging time) costs 600 Euro and one additional kWh of battery
(helping to increase range and/or battery lifetime) also costs 600 Euro, according to
Mendrisio’s VEL-1 experience all (private) user would choose the battery option and
no (private) user would choose the charger option.
Protoscar conclusions:
- From a private-user point of view, there is no big reason to pay 600Euro/kW
for additional charging power.
- For sure not above certain levels (11kW+).
INTERFACE STANDARDS FROM A OEM POINT OF VIEW FOR EUROPE
In terms of car-grid interface, both in Japan and USA the cord and the plug is attached
to the wall, not to the car. This also is one of the reasons why the YASAKI plug has
to be so robust (it has to resist a car driving OVER the plug, if this is forgotten on the
ground….).
The other two plug-standards discussed in EU are the multiphase “Mennekes”
Standard with 5 or 7 pins, allowing up to 63A and therefore 44kW, and the EDF
proposal based on mono-phase (or three-phase for bigger vehicles) “national” plugs,
with integrated PLC protection (meaning a higher security options that check for the
continuity of the earth line).
Protoscar conclusions:
- Today, in terms of EV charging the legally allowed solutions (although double
safety is not always really guaranteed) are shown in the following table:

- The reason of today’s discussion mainly are to find a solution for introducing
an effective second safety device on top of the existing IEC standards.
- For DC fast charge, TEPCO/YAZAKI-type plugs will become a “de facto”
standard. Therefore it makes sense that also Europe (after Japan and USA)
adopt this standard for DC fast charging.

PLUG STANDARDISATION FROM JAPANESE OEM AND MAIN JAPANESE POWER
UTILITY POINT OF VIEW (PLUG IS ATTACHED TO CORD, OFF BOARD)
NISSAN, TEPCO TEAM UP ON ELECTRIC-CAR CHARGING STATIONS
TOKYO, Aug 06, 2009
Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. (FUJHY), Mitsubishi Motors (MMTOF), Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
(NSANY), Nissan Motor Co. (TSE:7201), Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (TSE:7211), Fuji Heavy
Industries Ltd. (TSE:7270) and Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TSE:9501), known as Tepco, said
Wednesday that they have joined hands to promote the development of charging stations that
allow electric vehicle batteries to be recharged quickly.
The three automakers and the top Japanese power utility plan to establish an organization for
the promotion of a charger infrastructure in the current fiscal year.
Inviting other automakers, as well as charger equipment makers and municipalities, to join the
group, the four firms hope to standardize charging methods to enable electric vehicle users to
safely recharge batteries regardless of the charger's manufacturer.
"The development of battery charger infrastructure is crucial for electric vehicles," Nissan
Senior Vice President Minoru Shinohara told a news conference Wednesday. "We will unite
across different industries and work together." Tepco Executive Vice President Hiroyuki Ino
said, "In the future, we would like to utilize abroad the know-how that we will gain from
developing charging facilities in Japan." Mitsubishi Motors and Fuji Heavy began selling
minicar-based electric vehicles last month. Nissan is working toward launching an electric
vehicle next fiscal year.
PLUG STANDARDISATION FROM USA OEM POINT OF VIEW (PLUG IS ATTACHED
TO CORD, OFF BOARD)
SAE 2009: SAE J1772 plug standard could be finalized by this fall
Apr 21st 2009
The SAE task force that is currently working on a standard for a conductive connector for
plug-in vehicles could finalize that work as soon as this fall. The proposed plug standard is
currently going through certification testing at Underwriters Labs and that work is scheduled
to be completed by the end of May. If the testing is successfully completed, the standard will
go to balloting which could result in the standard being adopted within a few months.
General Motors Gery Kissel, who is the sponsor of the J1772 task force is presenting at the
SAE World Congress this week and he spoke with AutoblogGreen about the plug standard.
Among the companies that are participating or supporting the standard are GM, Chrysler,
Ford, Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Tesla. The plug was also submitted to the International
Electrotechnical Commission in Europe for approval. The proposed standard connector was
developed initially by supplier Yazaki and adopted by the task force in January 2008.

The connector is designed for single phase electrical systems with up to 240 V and 70 A such
as those used in North American and Japan. The round 43 mm diameter connector has five
pins and will support communication over power lines, to identify the vehicle and control
charging. The connector is designed to withstand up to 10,000 connection/disconnection
cycles and exposure to all kinds of elements. The supporting manufacturers have committed
to using the new plug including GM for the Volt and its derivatives. Tesla has even
committed to changing over to the standard plug and retrofitting existing vehicles.
STANDARDISATION FROM GERMAN OEM AND MAIN POWER UTILITY POINT OF
VIEW (PLUGS ARE ATTACHED BOTH SIDE OF PORTABLE CORD)
Einheitliches System bei Elektroautos vorerst gescheitert
Energie/Auto/Elektromobilität/
070219 Sep 09 - Frankfurt/Main (ddp). Mit dem weltweit einheitlichen Stecker für
Elektroautos wird es offenbar so schnell nichts. Das im April auf der
Hannover-Messe großartig angekündigte Projekt kommt nach
Informationen der «Frankfurter Rundschau» wegen Kleinstaaterei selbst
in Europa nicht voran. «Die Bremser sitzen in Italien», berichtet die
Zeitung unter Berufung auf den Verband der Automobilindustrie (VDA)
in ihrer Montagausgabe. Wie es heiße, soll sich dort ein
Elektro-Konzern widersetzen, der Energieriese Enel hingegen würde mit
den deutschen und anderen Europäern mitziehen. Aber auch die USA und
Japan stellten sich quer und wollten ein System durchsetzen, das zu
ihrem Stromsystem passe.
Deshalb will das Deutsche Komitee Elektrotechnik zum 1. Oktober
zunächst eine nationale Anwendungsregel veröffentlichen.
ddp.djn/wsd
MORE INFORMATION AND PICTURES ON PLUG STANDARDS:
http://teg.net/EV/charging.html