Tesla won the plug war - and that's good news!

Well, they pulled a rabbit out of my hat and now I have egg on my face. In a move that truly surprised this server, many automakers have announced their commitment to adopting the charging connector, previously patented by Tesla, for their vehicles in the North American market; a connector that, assuming things continue to go in the direction they seem to be going, is on its way to becoming an honest and complete industry standard with its own SAE J number, J3400. And now it's your turn to be surprised: I'm totally for it! Yes, although I am personally quite upset by this result, it is only because it is a blow to my ego.

I really didn't think this was going to happen, which you can definitely see from some of my past statements, but now we know more details, assuming they're true, which is a monumentally important caveat to this entire video. This is

good

news

. Ultimately, I just want the industry to unite around a single charging

plug

. And well, I was wrong about which one would win the

plug

war. At least, probably: the dust hasn't fully settled yet and things could change but... honestly, the Tesla connector is better. Take note, Tesla Stans, I said it. And with what has recently come to light, there is really no downside to the rest of the industry adopting the connector standard hereafter known as the North American Charging Standard, or N.A.C.S. or NACS.

There are four things I would like to accomplish in this video: First, explain what makes the NACS connector uniquely suited for use here on this continent. And just to make this clear, this is just a North American development and standard; If you're somewhere else, this video doesn't really apply to you. Secondly, I want to talk about the change in the standard that is leaving me quite calm about all this. Third, I want to address why automakers are making the switch and why they probably shouldn't count their chickens before they hatch. And fourth, I'm going to get a little spicy and share my broader thoughts and opinions on the state of the third-party charging industry.

I freely admit that overall Tesla always had a better plug, but I really hope we don't try to copy everything they do. First things first, what is NACS? Why is it different from the industry standard known as CCS? And why is North America best suited to use it? To save time, I'll keep this explanation fairly superficial; There are links to my other videos if you want more information. This is the charging port of my car. This connector is generally known as J1772 and is for AC charging. It has five pins: three large ones for handling power (line 1, line 2 and ground), plus two small ones for communication and control.

This connector has been around since 2009 and supports a maximum of 19.2 kilowatts of power, although few cars accept that amount. Due to practical limitations, charging via this port simply isn't that fast, although it doesn't need to be - the whole idea of ​​AC charging is that it's really simple to implement. What we call “car chargers” are really just smart power cables that supply the same AC line voltage that runs through the walls to the port in your car. The actual charging module, that is, the electronic element that converts the AC power into the correct DC voltage to charge the battery, is part of the car.

This makes wiring a new AC charging point for an electric car very simple and economical, and will work with any car regardless of battery pack size, pack voltage rating, cell chemistry or manufacturer. . The charging speeds you can get through this port are more than enough for charging at home or at work, where your car will sit still for several hours at a time, but they're not fast enough for a road trip. Battery packs the size of modern electric cars need something on the order of 150 kilowatts to charge quickly, and even more if we want charging times to be reduced to 15 minutes.

Luckily, we thought of a solution. Under this small flap are two gigantic power pins. They are there to facilitate high power direct current charging and to achieve this we actually connect the car to an external battery charger. An external DC fast charger will connect through these pins directly to the car's battery pack. That charger can be figuratively and literally huge, with a huge grid connection capable of delivering 350 kilowatts or more. Using a signaling protocol defined on the charging connector's communication pins, the car's battery management system will request a specific DC voltage and current from the external charger, and that charger does as instructed to recharge the package.

With this technology, the only significant limit to charging time is, well, the state of battery technology. The addition of these DC pins gives this charging connector its name, CCS, which stands for Combined Charging System. It is a J1772 AC port combined with two DC pins underneath. In Europe, exactly this same increase was made to the IEC 62196 type 2 connector, also known as the Mennekes connector. Although the North American CCS1 and the European CCS2 share many of the underlying technologies, the AC portion of the connectors is different thanks in large part to the fact that European homes are typically wired for three-phase power, which is not a given. here.

All consumer devices, including large appliances such as stoves or, yes, electric vehicle charging equipment, are single-phase only, so our AC charging connector only supports single-phase power. And yes, I know about J3068, but I'm going to ignore it in this video because, for all practical purposes, it just doesn't matter. Watch it if you want. But then… there is Tesla. When the Model S was being planned, the CCS did not yet exist. In fact, in the early days, neither did the J1772 connector. Then Tesla came up with his own thing. And that's all. Or at least one of his faces.

This is an adapter I have to switch between the Tesla connector and J1772, and what you're seeing here is the input side of the connector, which is typically found in a car. If I managed to get to the Target charger location to get pictures of the plug side, you're seeing it now. Now you'll notice that it has the same five pins as the standard J1772 connector, they even have identical functions! But two of them are much larger than the rest. Not only are they thick, but they are also quite long: about 30 millimeters. If you haven't already guessed what's going on, Tesla did a trick and uses the same two power pins for *both* AC and DC fast charging.

These power pins are massively oversized for AC charging, as in that case the line voltage is sent to the car's onboard charger via these pins, which performs DC rectification and steps up the voltage before sending it to the pack. of batteries, as in a J1772-equipped car. . But when you perform DC fast charging, or as Tesla calls it, supercharging, a contactor in the car closes that diverts these large pins to a set of thick wires that go directly to the car's battery pack, and the external supercharger Now it pushes the electrons everywhere. his own. It's a very clever system, I must admit.

And the most important thing is that it only works because we only have single-phase AC charging here. The NACS connector is conceptually identical to the J1772 AC-only connector. In fact, for AC charging, it even uses the same signaling protocols on the two communication pins. The only difference between these two plugs are the hilariously large AC pins that do double DC duty. This scheme couldn't really be done and at the same time support three-phase charging, at least not without redesigning the Type 2 connector. And that's why the Type 2 connector would get exactly the same DC pin boost that we see here with CCS1.

Now, as smart as Tesla's idea is, it is not entirely without disadvantages. With CCS, the AC and DC sides of the connector and therefore the car are completely isolated. The AC pins go to the built-in charger and the DC pins go to the battery pack, so it's impossible for the wrong voltage to get to the wrong place. Combining them like Tesla did requires a little more consideration on the part of the car to make sure the wires don't get crossed. But, to be fair, it's not that much. Adding a contactor to the onboard charger would allow you to isolate it during DC charging, or you could also design the onboard charger to tolerate the voltage of the DC pack on its input side during fast charging, which is what Tesla currently does if my understanding is correct. .

But combining both functions also has many advantages. The largest is the smallest connector size, which makes handling and inserting the plug much easier, especially in DC charging. What makes things even easier is the shape of the connector, which somewhat self-aligns, which is further helped by the bevel on the input side. The closing mechanism here is also much better. If there's one thing I've never liked about the J1772, it's the external mechanical latch that floats above the actual mating surface of the connector. It wasn't a big deal at first, but when DC fast charging came out, a way to lock the connector to the car became necessary.

This was done by a simple trick: often a pin protruded just above the latch, preventing it from moving. I mean, it works, but it's never felt that secure, and we've seen a lot of broken latches on public charging equipment, which is at best annoying and at worst a safety hazard since will prevent the connector from blocking. The NACS connector uses a much more elegant system: there is a recess (or hole) in the plug that will catch a pin on the input side. It is much more mechanically robust and eliminates moving parts on the plug side. The car still needs some kind of actuator to release that pin so the plug can be removed, but so does the CCS, so it's no worse.

The only thing I find a little disturbing about this latch design is that a dead car could get caught in a charger if it can't release the handle. But there are ways around it, like the manual release lever you'll find in my car behind this little cover in the cargo area. Note to all automotive designers and engineers: clearly marked manual overrides for electronic latches are a

good

thing! And for the love of all things holy, don't design them to reduce the bill of materials. Thank you. Now before I get to the section where I talk about the change that makes me feel pretty comfortable about the move to NACS, I'm sorry, but I just need to update everyone on the timelines here.

I can't help it. I didn't think other automakers would be interested in Tesla's little connector for two related reasons: First, it was proprietary and Tesla retained control over it until late last year, and yes, people are going to discuss that in the comments and insisting that Tesla offered use of its connector and indeed its charging network as far back as 2014, but that offer came with many strings attached, most clearly demonstrated by the fact that no one ever accepted. And second, because I owned it until last year, we really didn't know anything about its capabilities other than what Tesla was kind enough to tell us.

Meanwhile, CCS had published specifications. Wild, I know! And guess what? It was more powerful than the Tesla connector had demonstrated. In fact, in terms of charging stations that are actually on the ground, they still are. The DC pins of the CCS can handle 500 amps and were designed to support a load of up to 1000 volts, which was crucial for automakers considering 800V battery architectures. That high current and high voltage allowed for charging stations. 350 kilowatt CCS, and have been on the ground (albeit in small quantities) since 2017. Meanwhile, Tesla's V3 supercharger, which only supports a maximum of 250 kilowatts, has not arrived. until 2019.

So, for literally half a decade at this point, the choice for other automakers was between a connector controlled entirely by one of their competitors that had only demonstrated 250 kW charging, and a connector controlled by a standards body industry leading that is Specified for 40% higher power output, compatible 800V battery architectures and all while retaining compatibility with existing Level 2 AC charging equipment. It was perfectly rational, and I would argue correct, for other automakers to simply ignore the Tesla connector. However, three major barriers have now fallen: First, Tesla has actually, in fact, published details about its connector design. Last November they announced that “today we open our connector design for electric vehicles to the world.

We invite thecharging network operators and vehicle manufacturers to install the Tesla charging connector and port, now called the North American Charging Standard, in their equipment and vehicles.” I will add that it is not clear if they have actually released their patents on the connector; I'm not a lawyer and my search was inconclusive, but since the SAE is adopting the connector as a standard, I'll assume in good faith. that have. Secondly, and related to this, we now know that the connector can support 1000V charging. This was a big open question for years because to this day none of Tesla's cars have 800V battery packs. , so we've never seen its connector pushed beyond about 500 volts.

Through a small, backward-compatible revision to its design that pushes the conductors a little further into the connector body, it now supports 1000 V. Interesting that they had to redesign it, right? But at least they did it. I'm still very skeptical of Tesla's claim that the connector can handle 900 amps, but it seems capable of handling 500 very well, so it's at least on par with what CCS can do. The third thing that has changed is what makes me more at peace with the push to standardize the NACS. In the future, NACS will speak the same language as CCS. Until now, Tesla Superchargers communicated with Tesla cars in a completely locked and proprietary way, but as they took steps to make their plug a real standard, they decided to add support for the same communication protocols that CCS uses.

That means that eventually the only difference between a car with a CCS port and a NACS port will be... the port itself. And that means simple adapters can be used to switch between connector types. At the time of writing, that's what companies that have announced their intention to change charging ports will offer their customers with CCS-equipped cars; Once some things are sorted out regarding billing and what not, they will be able to plug in a Tesla Supercharger using the adapter and charge power. Now, as good as this is, there are some Pandora's boxes here. Because CCS separates the AC and DC sides, drivers will need to carry two adapters: one for DC fast charging and the other for AC charging (like this one).

This is a bit confusing and raises some potential concerns about what would happen if you used the wrong adapter. However, there are a lot of checks that are done on both the car side and the charger side before the contactors close, so this may not be a problem at all in practice. But it's something to keep in mind and I hope a sensible means of detecting that the wrong adapter is being used is implemented. The other can of worms has to do with how much current such an adapter can safely handle. They'll have relatively short links inside them and in theory they could just be huge aluminum rods or something, so I'm pretty sure handling 500 amps won't be much of a task, but that brings us to the other thing: Tesla in the past and to this day simply... ignored the conventional current limitations of a given conductor.

Now, in fact, I have come to agree with that practice. A hard and fast current limit makes sense for your home's wiring that extends inside walls and can span dozens of meters. But a current limit can be safely exceeded for short periods of time and often by quite large margins when the conductors are relatively short. Tesla's approach has been to place temperature sensors in strategic locations and monitor how hot those drivers are getting. And as long as they don't get too hot, they turn into ham. I used to think this was pretty coincidental, but it doesn't bother me anymore.

Once again, Tesla supports, write it down. But in a land of adapters, I see that strategy becoming problematic. Perhaps the thermal conductivity of the links inside the adapter body is enough for the sensors on the handle and car to detect overheating and therefore I have no reason to worry. But perhaps it would be smarter to know if you are using an adapter and limit the current to a safe number. I won't really care since I have an 800V car that maxes out at about 300 amps despite drawing 240 kilowatts, but I thought I'd mention this in case no one thought of it.

Anyway, with a reiteration of the monumental warning from the beginning, as long as communications remain the same and passive adapters allow people to charge at any outlet, there really isn't much reason to be upset. And I really am not! I will eventually buy one of those adapters if I need it and having a CCS equipped car will be nothing more than a minor inconvenience. Assuming, of course, that the CCS is disappearing, which is likely, but not certain yet. So why are automakers suddenly eager to make this change? Well, there's a pretty simple answer: the CCS charging networks available here in the US suck.

There's only one comprehensive network that allows you to travel anywhere in the country (which isn't even that comprehensive, sorry Dakotas) and, uh, that network doesn't have a great track record. I've never personally gotten stuck in this, but I went on a trip in April where to start the chargers I had to log out of the Electrify America app and log back in to Every Single Stop, and more than half of those stations had broken NFC readers, so I couldn't activate the chargers by touching my phone. It wasn't great, and that experience is happening to too many new EV owners.

Meanwhile, the Tesla Supercharger network largely… just works! It's not perfect, no, but most locations have much more redundancy than any EA station and the overall experience is excellent. However, I think automakers are in for a surprise if they're not careful. The problems CCS networks have experienced have almost *nothing* to do with the connector itself. In my travels with my Hyundai, I have experienced almost no charging problems...once I manage to activate the charger, that is. While I can get to that point, which is often much harder than necessary, I just plug it in and it has worked with only a few exceptions, and each of them were due to the messy way the CCS stations are set up, which which caused a misaligned plug that did not engage properly.

While that in itself is a problem, it is the least of the problems we see. The main problems with CCS networks are poor maintenance, horrible uptime, largely terrible applications that are often the only way to start loading, and last but not least, lack of testing and interoperability certification when new car models are launched. Let me go through them one by one. Starting with maintenance. The fastest DC fast chargers have liquid-cooled cables. That allows those cables to have thinner conductors than normal, which in turn allows them to be lighter and easier to handle. This is really good, but there are tons of chargers where the liquid cooling part is broken.

When that happens, the charger will throttle back to stay within drivers' safe limits, which tends to result in abysmally slow charging speeds. To make matters worse, until recently some networks didn't even warn you that the charger you were about to plug in had cable cooling issues, making it a fun game of guessing whether you'd get the advertised charging speeds or not. Electrify America has finally started indicating which chargers might be power limited in the app, but I can attest that this is not entirely accurate. This is without a doubt the most common maintenance problem I have experienced, but it is not the only one.

There are many computers with power modules that are starting to fail, causing reduced production, strange behavior on overloads, or completely destroyed chargers. Vandals will cut the cables and the response may be too slow. As mentioned above, connector latches can fail, which I have seen several times. And insulation breakdown can lead to failed insulation tests that take individual cables or entire chargers offline. This type of wear and tear is to be expected, but apparently most charging providers simply don't have the maintenance teams or infrastructure to take care of it in a timely manner. Related to this is the whole issue of uptime.

As I write this, two... no, wait, three stations around Chicago are completely offline. That's not cool! And many more places have at least one dead charger. That's not a big deal when your site has 8 or more chargers, but most Electrify America locations have only 4. The drop of a single charger at one of those locations results in a 25% loss of capacity, which It is simply not acceptable. Now, to be fair to EA, they began their infrastructure rollout when charging equipment manufacturers were just getting started, so they have a lot of legacy hardware from several different companies, and that makes their operations exceptionally challenging.

But that is in no way a reason to give them a thumbs up. Then we have the applications. Whether they refuse to keep you connected or simply don't work, it's not a great feeling to rely on a Jenga tower of an IT stack and working cell service to get you to your next location. Electrify America at least includes credit card readers on their fast chargers, but they didn't go with the beefier units, which was brave considering the chargers are largely out in the open. App activation may be a necessary evil for Level 2 charger banks, but given how monumentally expensive DC fast charging equipment is, a robust credit card reader (or at least a NFC that actually works for contactless payments or Apple Pay or whatever) is a must.

And if you think plug and charge is a great solution, I have different opinions, which I'll get to later. And then we have the interoperability tests. Or lack thereof. Partly because the CCS protocol is a hodgepodge of oddities, there are plenty of opportunities for errors to appear in the exchange between the car and the charger, which can lead to a failed charging session. And for some reason, automakers have simply let third-party charging providers find those bugs on their own. Which is very stupid. And bad! Everyone should lend their latest models to companies like Electrify America, EVgo, Chargepoint, etc. even before reaching customers.

But apparently this rarely happens, and charging providers have to find someone with the latest cars and hope they'll be kind enough to stop by for testing. So great job automakers, you did this to yourselves! At least in part. I know I'm repeating myself here, but the CCS connector itself had nothing to do with these problems. Simply putting a NACS plug on the end of the same cable will not magically fix the charger on the other end nor the company that operates it. CCS's problems are almost entirely due to poor management by all parties who do not seem to understand the importance of providing a good and reliable charging experience.

That's what Tesla does well, and Tesla really deserves huge kudos for avoiding this problem and building its own charging infrastructure. But that's why I'm warning automakers and, well, everyone hoping that the NACS connector is some kind of panacea. It would be nice to have a better connector, sure, but the connector isn't what's wrong with the third-party charging industry, far from it. Still, I welcome the change and think it presents a true best-of-both-worlds situation. My problem with Tesla's connector and its entire charging ecosystem was always that it was a proprietary connector that worked (intentionally or not, it doesn't matter) to prevent other vehicles from using its infrastructure.

I also didn't exactly like the idea of ​​the same company that sells you the car being the one that sells you its fuel to use it and I was very worried that a Tesla-only, Ford-only and Volkswagen-only charging landscape would become the norm. . Honestly, I was quite disturbed by how few people seemed to realize what a dark place we'd be in if we allowed that to happen, and that's why I was totally fine with letting charging networks grow organically and compete with each other. Unfortunately, that didn't happen fast enough or well enough. Ultimately, the implementation of CCS was flawed and too slow.

And since there aren't that many CCS chargers available yet, if there's a time to ditch that connector it's now. I mean, I saidthat about the Tesla connector in 2018 because I thought the launch of the CCS station would be accelerated beyond the pace at which Tesla could advance. But… it just didn't happen. I was wrong and here we are. Now that the SAE is taking over NACS and Tesla has apparently relinquished control, combined with the fact that they are inviting other drivers to use the Supercharger network, well, my problems are gone. At least, mostly. I realize I've left a pretty big hole in the script when it comes to competition between third-party freight providers.

To make up for that, here are some puppy pictures! It could have made it seem like changing connector types means other automakers are handing over the charging monopoly to Tesla. However, that is definitely not what is happening. In the short term, I imagine Tesla will be a very popular charging network, but in the long term, this is ultimately *good* for the competition and consumers. CCS networks have been terrible precisely because they don't compete with Tesla. Drivers they provide charging can't access Tesla's more reliable network, so until now CCS drivers have had to put up with how terrible the other networks are.

They literally have no choice. But soon they will. Once CCS drivers can choose Tesla's network, all other charging providers will have to get their act together or no one will use them and they will die. To be clear, I don't want them to die, and as long as they have half a brain somewhere in upper management, they will grab onto the lifeline Tesla just threw to them. Making NACS a real standard and having it speak the same protocols as CCS means that a simple cable swap will allow Electrify America or anyone else to sell their services to Tesla drivers (at least most Tesla drivers. ..

I won't go into the fiasco). Those are the Tesla cars that can't speak CCS). Honestly, releasing their connector into the wild is easily the most altruistic thing Tesla has ever done, and I applaud them for fulfilling their stated goal of accelerating electrification and not just their own sales. But now, let's go back to what I had already written. Let me prepare the next sentence. While the transition to NACS may be pretty seamless, there's still one pretty big problem, and that's cars like mine. Hyundai and Kia decided to develop an 800V battery architecture for the E-GMP platform.

It's an incredible battery and (at least when using the right charger) I've repeatedly experienced real-world charge times of less than 20 minutes. And while we now know that the Tesla *connector* can support charging at that voltage, literally none of the Tesla chargers in the US support battery voltages above 500 volts. However, this will slowly change: V4 superchargers can generate that voltage. However, none have been deployed in the United States so far. Consequently, companies that have invested in 800V architectures, mainly Hyundai/Kia, Porsche and Lucid, are in no rush to subscribe to the NACS standard because even once adapters are available, trips to a Tesla supercharger will be painfully slow. or it just won't work at all for those cars.

Many 800V cars have some chance of being charged with 400V class DC fast chargers, but it's usually just a trickle. Until Tesla actually launches a large number of 1000V capable charging sites, having support for NACS charging simply doesn't matter for cars with 800V battery packs. This, of course, is only in the immediate term. And there has been some interesting

news

! A new as-yet-unnamed joint venture between BMW, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai/Kia, Mercedes-Benz and Stellantis was recently announced that aims for a fairly ambitious charging network in the US. This network will support both CCS and NACS, presumably with each dispenser having two cables.

And honestly, it's something that's important to address. The cable and plug are a small fraction of the expense of building a charging station. Therefore, adding support for both standards, especially since the communications will be the same, is trivial and in fact Electrify America has already announced its intention to add the NACS connector to its chargers as it is literally just a cable swap . The recently announced charging joint venture may wish to continue supporting CCS for its members' existing vehicles, or perhaps because it is currently a requirement to obtain government funding under the NEVI program. Anyway, the reason for CCS support on this new network doesn't really matter, but since supporting both types of plugs on the same charger is pretty easy, I'm not quite ready to say that the death knell for CCS has sounded .

But again, NACS is certainly a better charging experience, so how long support for CCS will continue is an open question. Once there really is no downside to choosing to support NACS, then most automakers will probably go that way. The future, as always, remains to be determined. And now, the final section where I get a little spicy. As if he had successfully hidden it before. So, Tesla definitely has the most reliable charging network right now and for Tesla owners, it's a great experience. Tesla wrote the software on both sides of the equation, which not only ensures reliability, but also allows them to do things like use the car's infotainment screen for all charger-related needs.

Like, for example, pay to collect. You can place your credit or debit cards in your Tesla Wallet (or whatever they call it) and then choose which one you want to use for the charging session, all from the comfort of the driver's seat. Since all of this is handled by the car's hardware, the chargers themselves don't need any kind of user interface. They just have the plug, and when you plug it into your car, the charger knows which car it's plugged into, if and how billing is classified, and then starts the charging session automatically. That's... cool, I guess.

But, and this may well be an unpopular opinion, I don't care about that! Absolutely. In fact, I'm quite against that becoming the norm and vehemently disagree with people who think that this type of technology, known more generically as plug and charge, is something that every car and charging provider should support and adopt. And do you want to know why I feel this way? Because maybe it went unnoticed, but we have been solving the payment for decades. Call me a caveman if you want, but I still carry this thing with me and it has these little plastic rectangles, and when I have to pay for things, I insert - or sometimes, sometimes even just tap - those little rectangles into a Payment Terminal and wow, works!

Every time! Something that seems to happen a lot in the world of electric cars, and specifically in the world of Tesla, if I'm honest, is the presumption that new and different always equals better. Meanwhile, foreigners are often more bewildered than excited. To hopefully clarify what I mean here, if I walked up to someone with a gas-powered car and said, “Hi, I see you like fueling up at Shell. Are you tired of having to use your payment card at every refueling? Well, simply create an account with us and with this little chip next to your car's filler hole, our pumps will automatically authorize payment and begin filling! …do you think they would be that excited?

In fact, ExxonMobile tried it in the late 90s with Speedpass, remember that? It was a device that stuck on your keychain, so it wasn't the same as plug and charge, but since it only worked at certain gas stations and didn't solve any problems, it wasn't everything. so popular. Plus, it ended up having some security vulnerabilities, go figure. And that's the crux of my cantankerous opinion: does plug-and-charge really solve any problems? For someone who is used to the Tesla ecosystem, it sure seems that way. Everyone agrees, including me, that plug and charge is much better than the clunky app experience we are often forced to deal with on other charging networks.

And to put my cards in play, I've used EVgo's auto-charging system (which is technically different in basic ways that aren't worth mentioning here, but it's basically the same) and, yes, I agree that it's quite Well. Experience simply plugging in the car and the charging session starts automatically. I understand why you like that. But is that something I really need? No! At most, it saves about 10 seconds. At least not if normal payments were actually an option that worked. The current landscape, where Tesla's deep integration between the vehicle and charging network faces third-party networks that often rely on annoying, broken apps and, if you're lucky, may have a faulty payment card reader, presents us with an obviously false choice.

But for some reason, a lot of people don't see it that way. For example, I have encountered countless people, both online and in person, who firmly believe that Tesla's approach of eliminating as many points of failure as possible in its chargers, to the point of eliminating the user interface entirely, It's the reason your network is so reliable. And therefore plug and charge support is the way all other networks should go. I think this is a reasonable position in a vacuum, but consider, so to speak, how incredibly strange and crazy the current charging landscape really is. Virtually every public charging location, Tesla or not, exists on the outskirts of a parking lot somewhere.

They rarely have canopies to protect equipment from the elements. They are almost always unattended, making them susceptible to vandalism. And even when they're co-located with another company, taking care of chargers isn't something Walmart employees care about or even have time for. Why is this important? Because I think we need to recognize that today's charging locations place user-facing equipment in exceptionally hostile environments. Tesla has done a good job of making charging reliable in such conditions. But in my opinion, those conditions are a result of the transition period we are in and are not something I would expect to remain the norm.

In fact, I really hope that's not the case. Do you know what I really miss when I take road trips in my electric car? Those little buckets with windshield wipers. I still have to stop by gas stations just to clean my windows! And sure, having a Walmart near the chargers is usually pretty handy, but there's usually a pretty long walk to the entrance to ensure shoppers don't take up charging spots in regular parking spots. And boy, I wish I could plug in my car while being protected from the rain and snow like, you know, gas stations almost as a rule do.

Canopies. It's like a roof over your head! And I also hope that drivers with disabilities can have an assistant to help them plug in their car when they need it, just like gas stations do today. Oh, and direct loading can be useful. Tesla wouldn't be dealing with Cablegate if they thought about it. While I know some EV drivers hate the idea of ​​charging locations starting to look like gas stations, I'm sure that will happen eventually, at least on major highways. They'll probably look a little different, maybe they'll have salons and restaurants instead of convenience stores (although I don't know exactly what's wrong with a convenience store), but people (including me) want a dedicated, good store. .

Lighted and staffed to charge their cars, a place where they are protected from the elements while they plug in, a place where they can use the bathroom and grab a bite to eat, and a place where they can wash their windshield. If that sounds like a gas station but with chargers instead of pumps, that's because that's exactly what it is. Why do you think gas stations look like that? It's because they have the amenities that drivers need and want on site. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Truck stop chains like Love's, Pilot and TravelCenters of America are uniquely positioned for EV charging across the country.

Luckily, some of them are starting to take advantage of that. And interestingly, gas stations have never had to resort to strange ways of paying for the gasoline they sell. Self-service dispensers have robust payment card readers that rarely fail. And even if they do, the attendant on duty can try to fix basic problems or at least flag it for repair. Heck, you can even walk in, talk to that attendant, and pay for your gas… in cash! Do you remember those things? Sure, if you want to sign up for whatever loyalty program that particular brand of gas station offers, that's an option, but it's not necessary.

If all car chargers accepted payments like a gas pump does, all thisdiscussion wouldn't even be happening! And personally, I don't want to sign up for another service that has my payment details and personal information. If you like the idea of ​​plug and charge, great. But I see it as a nice option, not a requirement. And I will actively avoid using charging networks that require me to sign up for something just to use it. Knowing I'm repeating myself, choosing between chargers that support plug and charge and those that simply accept normal payments is a false choice. If you're really that concerned about charger reliability, then I suppose you can limit it to contactless payments at the dispenser and use one of those little payment islands like those often found in parking lots for other payment methods.

Or, you know, have an assistant. Like a gas station. If you are setting up a business that sells vehicle charging, don't make it weird, don't make people jump through hoops, just be a normal business please. And I know that accepting card payments on the site has costs, don't assume I'm unaware of that. I just see it as a basic cost of doing business and trying to avoid it is hostile to customers. I don't want to normalize that reality. Where I think plug and charge really has the most merit is in public AC charging. Solving the charging problem for those who can't charge at home has always been the biggest obstacle to EV adoption, and I'm personally quite concerned that we'll see urban DC fast chargers as the solution.

That's certainly an option, and there are a surprising number of people who are making that work, but... it's not a smart use of resources. If people can't charge where they keep their cars, that's the problem we need to solve because that infrastructure is much cheaper and easier to implement. The question has always been how to pay for that infrastructure and charging. Landlords are never that excited to spend money to make their tenants' lives easier, so they're not exactly eager to install chargers. And that problem is even more serious in neighborhoods with on-street parking. Personally, I wish energy companies would step in and create their own low-power charging networks for these situations, and I think plug and charge fits the bill in that regard.

A bank of Level 2 chargers on the street that knows which vehicles are connected to them could simply transfer the cost of a vehicle's charging session to that vehicle owner's electric bill. And with smart electric meters, those chargers could tap into the power supply of existing buildings without affecting the energy bills of those buildings' occupants. Governments and electricity companies, you are free to use this idea! In fact, please do it. Of course, there are other ways to make that plan work: RFID tags on key fobs would be another way to start a charging session, and that might even be cheaper and easier to implement than plug and charge.

I don't know. All I hope to convey here is that I really think plug and charge makes more sense for AC trickle charging than it does for DC fast charging locations along highways. I'm pretty sure DC's fast charging locations will imitate gas stations before long, and with the amenities and services they'll likely provide beyond charging cars, they'll have to accept regular card payments anyway. But that's the end of that rant. Again, if you like to plug and charge, go for it. I just don't want us to get to a place where that's the only way to initiate a charge.

I'd rather do it alone, please. You don't sign up for anything extra. I don't have to fiddle with my car's infotainment screen when I want to use my work card for a work trip. Just normal payments. Find out! Literally every other industry has done it, and I don't buy their excuses. Uh, to summarize this video, it looks like NACS is the charging port of the future, and I think that's perfectly fine. It's always been a better plug and now that we know it matches the capabilities of the CCS, there's no reason not to use it here in North America.

And no one with a CCS-equipped car has reason to fear being left behind. Adapters will come in one form or another. I really, really hope we don't continue down the path we're on with weird charger activation methods. Accept normal payments! Even vending machines now accept cards almost as a rule. And overall, things are getting better! We still have a lot of problems to solve with electric vehicles, but the plug war seems to be over. Speaking of ends, this is the end. Okay, I lied. One footnote I want to include that I almost forgot is Vehicle to , is a way to conveniently get the energy stored in its battery packs out of the car. for purposes other than driving.

For example, my car offers vehicle-to-charge charging and this adapter will allow you to power anything that uses a standard household outlet through the vehicle's charging port. This is great for emergencies and in a test I determined that I could use my essentials for about a week from my car if necessary. We may never know exactly why Tesla hasn't bothered to implement this feature in its vehicles. But at least they'll sell you a Powerwall. However, there is no technical reason why Vehicle to Load or Vehicle to Grid technologies cannot be implemented through the NACS connector. That's why I didn't talk about it, but I guess some people would like me to talk about it.

I have... mixed feelings about vehicle-to-grid, as I think it's pretty complicated when it comes to battery wear, but I certainly think vehicle-to-grid is a must-have feature. Whether it's AC power feedback through the charging port like my car does, or connecting an external inverter to the car's battery pack through the DC pins like Ford does with their Intelligent backup power, the NACS port is certainly capable. It just has to be implemented by an automaker bold enough to do it. Okay, now this is the end.