6 ms·

This article is about a company using the connector, so clearly a piece of evidence against what you're saying.

kotaKat 4y ago
Aptera has been founded, killed, and re-founded again. They haven't mass-produced a single vehicle in over 17 years, instead relying on crowdfunding via deposits for... almost that entire time.
clouddrover 4y ago
Tesla wants government subsidies for its chargers. To qualify for the subsidies your charger must charge more than one brand of EV. Instead of simply putting CCS plugs on their chargers, Tesla is cynically continuing the North American problem of multiple different EV plugs so they qualify for the program without putting CCS plugs on their chargers. It's why they announced the Tesla plug as being open, supposedly for real now as opposed to their previous faux openness: https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-standard https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s... North America will continue to have the idiot problem of moronic dongles and adapters and wondering if a charger will work with your car. It's such a drag on EV ownership. ICE cars can fuel at any fuel station because fuel standards make it possible. Not having that same level of compatibility for EVs just makes EVs worse. Europe's got it right, North America's got it wrong.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  CCS supports 3 phase power, which is common in Europe. Tesla’s standard does not, which is fine because it’s not common in North America. If the US wants to standardize, they can pay Tesla for the network they paid to build out. To expect them to adopt another standard at their own cost doesn’t jive with property rights in the US. Europe plays to their own tune in this regard (for better or worse), and Tesla’s advantage is theirs in North America because they funneled revenues into their network (while other automakers didn’t; VW did with Electrify America as required with the US Dieselgate settlement). https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/vws-2-billion-penalty-for-diesel-scam-builds-ev-charging-network-across-us.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/vws-2-billion-penalty-for-di... Aptera made a reasonable decision based on the North America Supercharger footprint. https://supercharge.info/map https://supercharge.info/map https://youtu.be/E-NrDH6mWYA https://youtu.be/E-NrDH6mWYA touches on the comparison between CCS and Tesla is a fairly neutral approach (imho).
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    The way North Americans will "pay" for it is by simply using the chargers and paying for the charge, just like they do with any other charging network. It really isn't more complicated than that. Incompatibility is not a good or worthwhile thing. But it is funny to see you mount a defense of incompatibility via the internet, a network based on open standards and built from the ground up with compatibility in mind.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      If supporters of open standards want open standards, sometimes they will have to pay for them. It’s unreasonable to dump the costs onto others out of ideology. DC fast charging barely breaks even due to hardware and demand charge costs, Tesla makes it work because their margins are robust where legacy automakers can barely turn a profit on EVs. It’s a utility cost center, not a profit center. Perhaps government building out the network, and then charging an access fee for every unit sold by all automakers would’ve been a solution, but that time has passed. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nearly-all-high-voltage-ev-charging-stations-lose-money-report/561026/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nearly-all-high-voltage-ev-... https://scripts.betterenergy.org/reports/GPI_DCFC_Analysis_July_2019.pdf https://scripts.betterenergy.org/reports/GPI_DCFC_Analysis_J...
      - clouddrover 4y ago
        > It’s unreasonable to dump the costs onto others out of ideology. You think compatible infrastructure is ideologically driven? It is not. It is driven by pure practicality. What, you think every appliance in your home should require incompatible sockets? You think every road should only be compatible with particular brands of cars? You think mobile phones should use incompatible communications so a phone is stranded on a particular network? Such things are beyond dumb and are wasteful. Both the articles you linked to are from three years ago when there were fewer EVs on the road. There are still few EVs on the road relative to other cars. You're not thinking long term. Your claims don't match the reality that small charging networks like FastNed are growing and expanding: https://fastnedcharging.com/en/locations https://fastnedcharging.com/en/locations Or the reality that supermarket chains are putting in chargers which are faster than anything Tesla currently offers: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/business-electric-vehicles/lidl-opens-first-cut-price-ev-charging-station-france https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/business-electric-vehicle... These things are possible because Europe has a common charging standard. Common infrastructure standards drive investment and development.

Aptera has been founded, killed, and re-founded again. They haven't mass-produced a single vehicle in over 17 years, instead relying on crowdfunding via deposits for... almost that entire time.

clouddrover 4y ago

Tesla wants government subsidies for its chargers. To qualify for the subsidies your charger must charge more than one brand of EV. Instead of simply putting CCS plugs on their chargers, Tesla is cynically continuing the North American problem of multiple different EV plugs so they qualify for the program without putting CCS plugs on their chargers. It's why they announced the Tesla plug as being open, supposedly for real now as opposed to their previous faux openness: https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-standard https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s... North America will continue to have the idiot problem of moronic dongles and adapters and wondering if a charger will work with your car. It's such a drag on EV ownership. ICE cars can fuel at any fuel station because fuel standards make it possible. Not having that same level of compatibility for EVs just makes EVs worse. Europe's got it right, North America's got it wrong.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 4y ago
CCS supports 3 phase power, which is common in Europe. Tesla’s standard does not, which is fine because it’s not common in North America. If the US wants to standardize, they can pay Tesla for the network they paid to build out. To expect them to adopt another standard at their own cost doesn’t jive with property rights in the US. Europe plays to their own tune in this regard (for better or worse), and Tesla’s advantage is theirs in North America because they funneled revenues into their network (while other automakers didn’t; VW did with Electrify America as required with the US Dieselgate settlement). https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/vws-2-billion-penalty-for-diesel-scam-builds-ev-charging-network-across-us.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/vws-2-billion-penalty-for-di... Aptera made a reasonable decision based on the North America Supercharger footprint. https://supercharge.info/map https://supercharge.info/map https://youtu.be/E-NrDH6mWYA https://youtu.be/E-NrDH6mWYA touches on the comparison between CCS and Tesla is a fairly neutral approach (imho).
- clouddrover 4y ago
  The way North Americans will "pay" for it is by simply using the chargers and paying for the charge, just like they do with any other charging network. It really isn't more complicated than that. Incompatibility is not a good or worthwhile thing. But it is funny to see you mount a defense of incompatibility via the internet, a network based on open standards and built from the ground up with compatibility in mind.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    If supporters of open standards want open standards, sometimes they will have to pay for them. It’s unreasonable to dump the costs onto others out of ideology. DC fast charging barely breaks even due to hardware and demand charge costs, Tesla makes it work because their margins are robust where legacy automakers can barely turn a profit on EVs. It’s a utility cost center, not a profit center. Perhaps government building out the network, and then charging an access fee for every unit sold by all automakers would’ve been a solution, but that time has passed. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nearly-all-high-voltage-ev-charging-stations-lose-money-report/561026/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nearly-all-high-voltage-ev-... https://scripts.betterenergy.org/reports/GPI_DCFC_Analysis_July_2019.pdf https://scripts.betterenergy.org/reports/GPI_DCFC_Analysis_J...
    - clouddrover 4y ago
      > It’s unreasonable to dump the costs onto others out of ideology. You think compatible infrastructure is ideologically driven? It is not. It is driven by pure practicality. What, you think every appliance in your home should require incompatible sockets? You think every road should only be compatible with particular brands of cars? You think mobile phones should use incompatible communications so a phone is stranded on a particular network? Such things are beyond dumb and are wasteful. Both the articles you linked to are from three years ago when there were fewer EVs on the road. There are still few EVs on the road relative to other cars. You're not thinking long term. Your claims don't match the reality that small charging networks like FastNed are growing and expanding: https://fastnedcharging.com/en/locations https://fastnedcharging.com/en/locations Or the reality that supermarket chains are putting in chargers which are faster than anything Tesla currently offers: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/business-electric-vehicles/lidl-opens-first-cut-price-ev-charging-station-france https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/business-electric-vehicle... These things are possible because Europe has a common charging standard. Common infrastructure standards drive investment and development.