The problem of overpriced electric vehicle charging equipment
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/automobiles/nissan-leafs-true-believers-wont-leave-well-enough-alone.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
This is an excellent article but it omits the root cause of the problem: the authors of the National Electrical Code (NEC). They placed all sorts of unique "safety" requirements on EVSE (Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment) that were never placed on extension cords -- which is all these EVSE things really are. For example, they require that the cord not be energized until it's connected to the EV, and they prohibit the use of 240V dryer or range outlets for charging EVs even though they've been used safely for decades for RV hookups.
Gasoline pumps seem far more dangerous than extension cords. But they're not required to sense the presence of a car before letting gas flow. Nothing but common sense keeps you from squeezing the handle and spraying the gas on the ground.
The use of 240V vs 120V isn't a safety issue because, in North America, a "240V" circuit is really just two 120V circuits. It's only 240V between the two live pins, which you are very unlikely to touch at the same time. Nearly all shocks occur when a grounded person touches a hot conductor. The voltage to ground from each conductor of a 240V circuit is only 120V. Whatever shock hazard there might be is completely mitigated by ground fault interrupters (GFIs), which have been required on nearly all kitchen, bathroom, garage, basement and outdoor circuits for years.
The SAE J1772 standard for EVSE does have some features that are actually useful, such as telling the car how much current it can draw. And it interrupts the power flow before you actually remove the connector from the vehicle so it won't break under load and arc at the connector contacts. But these features currently come at a high price; even the portable EVSEs, which also implement J1772, cost much more than they should but at least Nissan bundles them with the car.
The article is right that the permanent EVSE units -- which are much more expensive than the portable units -- are way overdesigned. The WiFi connection does provide some minimal user remote control as an obvious afterthought (it's rather poorly designed) but the NYT article doesn't mention the real reason it's there. It's so Ecotality, the company that got that huge grant from the feds to install these things, can collect detailed usage data. The collection of this data is part of the user contract, so it's obviously valuable to them. But they don't compensate you in any way for this invasion of your privacy; the only way to avoid it is to pay full retail for a unit and forego the federal subsidy. Seems to me that either the federal government drove a poor bargain, or somebody there is in bed with Ecotality. Or both. Wouldn't be the first time.
Fortunately, the data collection is only to continue for another year or so. After that I fully intend to block this data from reaching their servers and to show everyone else how to block it too.
This is an excellent article but it omits the root cause of the problem: the authors of the National Electrical Code (NEC). They placed all sorts of unique "safety" requirements on EVSE (Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment) that were never placed on extension cords -- which is all these EVSE things really are. For example, they require that the cord not be energized until it's connected to the EV, and they prohibit the use of 240V dryer or range outlets for charging EVs even though they've been used safely for decades for RV hookups.
Gasoline pumps seem far more dangerous than extension cords. But they're not required to sense the presence of a car before letting gas flow. Nothing but common sense keeps you from squeezing the handle and spraying the gas on the ground.
The use of 240V vs 120V isn't a safety issue because, in North America, a "240V" circuit is really just two 120V circuits. It's only 240V between the two live pins, which you are very unlikely to touch at the same time. Nearly all shocks occur when a grounded person touches a hot conductor. The voltage to ground from each conductor of a 240V circuit is only 120V. Whatever shock hazard there might be is completely mitigated by ground fault interrupters (GFIs), which have been required on nearly all kitchen, bathroom, garage, basement and outdoor circuits for years.
The SAE J1772 standard for EVSE does have some features that are actually useful, such as telling the car how much current it can draw. And it interrupts the power flow before you actually remove the connector from the vehicle so it won't break under load and arc at the connector contacts. But these features currently come at a high price; even the portable EVSEs, which also implement J1772, cost much more than they should but at least Nissan bundles them with the car.
The article is right that the permanent EVSE units -- which are much more expensive than the portable units -- are way overdesigned. The WiFi connection does provide some minimal user remote control as an obvious afterthought (it's rather poorly designed) but the NYT article doesn't mention the real reason it's there. It's so Ecotality, the company that got that huge grant from the feds to install these things, can collect detailed usage data. The collection of this data is part of the user contract, so it's obviously valuable to them. But they don't compensate you in any way for this invasion of your privacy; the only way to avoid it is to pay full retail for a unit and forego the federal subsidy. Seems to me that either the federal government drove a poor bargain, or somebody there is in bed with Ecotality. Or both. Wouldn't be the first time.
Fortunately, the data collection is only to continue for another year or so. After that I fully intend to block this data from reaching their servers and to show everyone else how to block it too.