Comments on: EU To Ban CHAdeMO EV Chargers By 2018

By: meandmyview

meandmyview — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 12:54:00 +0000

I keep hearing about this “ban”, but no actual reference to where this ban is stated. If the EU says that a country shall have X number of CCS chargers installed, this is no ban against Chademo. A charging station serving CCS can’t cost much less than a charging station serving CCS and Chademo. The real expence is the AC -> DC convertion. Adding an extra protocol & plug should not be much of an additional cost.

I am sure the german car industry would love to make it seem like a ban. For the consumer, however, being able to select between Japanese or German (or whatever) EV’s will be the best alternative.

By: fernsemer .

fernsemer . — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 20:34:00 +0000

All this discussion as though it has to be one or the other standard. It may well prove to be a moot point. The new standard that is also known as a ‘frankinplug’ may well be better than a Chademo. But as an EV driver I really don’t care. I want to be able to charge up! When I pull into a charge station I’ll be looking around for the plug that supports what I’ve got. Much like when I pull into a Gas station I’m looking for the pump that supports the kind of fuel I need. Be it gas or diesel.

By: Wouter Misdom

Wouter Misdom — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:32:00 +0000

@JamesWimberley:disqus

The combo standard is superior over de CHAdeMO. Cars equipped with a CHAdeMO inlet still need a type 1 (Yazaki) or a type 2 (Mennekes) inlet next to it, so that they
are not dependent of DC charging stations (making it clumsy to implement and
far more expensive). A car equipped with a combo inlet doesn’t. The CHAdeMO
standard also happens to use CAN-bus communication. This is an aspect European
car manufacturers are not happy with! You just don’t want the cars internal
communication system being brought out of the vehicle. A third an up most
important thing is that the CHAdeMO standard cannot be used in conventional
electrical transition vehicles, the combo standard can. Making it cheaper to implement for car manufacturers, and thus stimulating the electrical vehicles market. The combo will win this race… it’s simply better. Oh and by the way… most of that 2703 ChadeMO charging points are stationed in Japan so I don’t no how thats a problem of Europe or the US if the are no longer used here.

By: Tom G.

Tom G. — Wed, 14 Aug 2013 19:52:00 +0000

And lets not stop with the plugs which we SHOULD have agreed upon years ago. And for crying out loud; can we please have a standard for INDUCTIVE CHARGING systems I might want to install in my garage?

Just what the heck have ASME, ASTM, ANSI and ISO standards groups been doing for the last 10 years? What’s the matter guys; society and technology moving a little too fast for you guys, LOL.

By: Justin Barkewich

Justin Barkewich — Wed, 14 Aug 2013 01:07:00 +0000

Beta or VHS…..a Trac or cassette…..DVD or Blue Ray….IBM or Apple….its all a matter of progress…if the new “standard is better” then bring it on!

By: Rif

Rif — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 23:09:00 +0000

Nissan use the Type 1 and Chademo plug. Renault does not use the Chademo plug.

The Renault Fluence ZE used the Type 1. The new Renault Zoe use the Type 2 / VDE plug. From now on the cars will have Type 2 / VDE plug and for DC charging it will be VDE with CCS plug.

By: patb2009

patb2009 — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 20:48:00 +0000

why not require that after 2018, any Chademo only stations must also have an adapter for CSS? 90% of the cost of a L3 charger is the big feed and the conrol electronics, having a second tap and umbilical is trivial.

By: JamesWimberley

JamesWimberley — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 20:44:00 +0000

Do you have any reason to think this applies to CHAdeMO? If I were Renault, I’d offer the standard gratis to a nonprofit foundation. A change damages the resale value of existing Leafs, and hurts the brand’s reputation. Perhaps that is why the others, who don’t yet have pure EVs for sale, are backing a rival.

By: Marion Meads

Marion Meads — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 19:40:00 +0000

Technical reasons are one reason for dropping one standard. Another is the openness and the no-royalty burden of the standard. If the other standard would be charging royalty, or it comes with an extension or future amendment of the standard being controlled by only a few party, then it should be dropped like a hot potato.

By: JamesWimberley

JamesWimberley — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:24:00 +0000

“If anther standard has to die to make room for the one that would be king, then so be it.” That’s an argument for a single standard. Fine. It’s not an argument for one rather than the other. Normally you’d go for the one with the bigger installed base, unless there are compelling technical reasons to the contrary.