Pro Charging Station to NEMA 14-50

[GDN]

If you heard someone say the slower charging was easier/better on the battery they were referring to L2 is better than L3 (also known as DCFC) and that is correct.

However, all L2 home chargers are about the same. Charging at 48 amps isn't really any better/worse than 80 amps. It is all just about the same down in that range. The difference that matters is L2 is easier on the battery than L3.

Having said there is also research and there are charging sweetspots for being less wasteful of electricity. I believe the 110 is more wasteful than 240. There is a sweetspot somewhere in the 240 charging world that used more of the electricity vs being wasteful and losing more to heat, etc.

Sponsored

 

[adoublee]

It is true that a slower charge will be more beneficial for the battery long-term. To that point, it's going to be healthier for the battery to trickle charge the vehicle with the 120v EVSE at approximately 3 miles/day usage than it would be to use the Pro charger.

In fact, installing the Pro charger for that usage is a lot of money, time, and energy to only use it for about 15 minutes a day compared to just plugging the "portable" EVSE into a standard outlet that already exists in the garage for about an hour per day.

Using the 120VAC portable charger will waste a lot more energy as a percentage of energy delivered to the battery than what would be delivered from the Pro charger. At some point "general rules" like "the slower the better" break down and charging the Lightning from a 120VAC plug to extend battery life is one of those situations.

 

[ExCivilian]

I believe the 110 is more wasteful than 240.

Yeah...sure. There's a theoretical difference that won't be realized in actual use. It's a rounding error in EV charging. Compare that to the cost of installing wiring for a 100A EVSE and this conversation is now in ridiculous territory.

At some point "general rules" like "the slower the better" break down

No, the rule still stands. It doesn't break down simply because you're discussing a different potential cost difference. If you want to spin the conversation into that then explain how spending thousands of dollars on the 80A install makes "cents," which is the difference between charging at 120v vs. 240v.

 

[GDN]

Yeah...sure. There's a theoretical difference that won't be realized in actual use. It's a rounding error in EV charging. Compare that to the cost of installing wiring for a 100A EVSE and this conversation is now in ridiculous territory.

Actually this is where you are wrong. This comment is about efficiency and just how much of the electricity you are using is charging the battery vs being wasted in heat or lost. There are sweet spots that get you more of the electricity into the battery vs wasted.

Over many charging sessions and years this can add up. It can be much bigger for some depending on just how much you are paying for that juice.

 

[ExCivilian]

Actually this is where you are wrong. This comment is about efficiency and just how much of the electricity you are using is charging the battery vs being wasted in heat or lost. There are sweet spots that get you more of the electricity into the battery vs wasted.

I didn't say anything about efficiency. I was discussing what was better for the battery not one's wallet. The efficiency argument is a non-sequitur and it's senseless anyway.

Over many charging sessions and years this can add up. It can be much bigger for some depending on just how much you are paying for that juice.

Every person making this argument in this thread has not done the calculations because if you had you'd realize how ridiculous you are being making that argument. Post your calculations and I'll wait patiently...

...in the meantime, encouraging someone to spend thousands of dollars to install a special socket, affix a 2 foot by 1 foot charger on their wall, and haul a heavy cable around their garage just to charge a 6 mile commute is beyond ridiculous in and of itself. To base that argument on "saving" a few cents per month is even more so.

(and that's ignoring the fact every EVSE Ford provides is capable of charging at 240v completely eviscerating the "efficiency" argument)

 

[adoublee]

No, the rule still stands. It doesn't break down simply because you're discussing a different potential cost difference. If you want to spin the conversation into that then explain how spending thousands of dollars on the 80A install makes "cents," which is the difference between charging at 120v vs. 240v.

I didn't say anything about costs. I'm correcting your statement that battery life is a reason to charge from a 120V outlet. It's like saying it is a rule that it is safer to drive slowly, so driving 25 miles per hour on the highway is safer than 55 miles per hour.

Personally, I'd be tempted to use the mobile charger if I didn't have to pay for a 240V/30A source to serve it. I don't think the OP said if they plan to leave in the near future or not, only that they lease. Depending on a 120V outlet at 1.92kW max charging with a Lightning would be hell, no matter how short a typical commute. One nice drive and you be looking at DAYS of continuous charging to try and catch back up.

 

[ExCivilian]

I'm correcting your statement that battery life is a reason to charge from a 120V outlet.

It's a side-benefit--not the only or even most important consideration. I wrote an entire paragraph that you're skipping in order to straw-man my position that it's pointless, expensive, and unnecessary to install an 80A Pro charger for a 3-6 mile commute.

First of all, the efficiency differences between 120v and 240v are being vastly overstated in this thread. They aren't even worth discussing but I did invite you and others making that claim to back it up with the math--something you still haven't done.

I've built two EVSEs through the openEVSE project so I've seen the numbers printed on the pieces and done the math myself. One could also just google the question since it's not like this is the first time the topic has been discussed in the past fifteen years of people driving EVs.

Losses (power, cost, or any other losses) between charging at 120v vs. 240v are attributed to parasitic draw, not inefficiencies, because 120v takes twice as long than 240v at same amps. That effect gets amplified in EV charging because no one wires in a 15/20A 240v outlet. An EV charging at 240v is also likely charging at double the amps than if it was on a 120v charger. Savings do occur, but they're due to the vehicle only needing to be "on" for four hours instead of sixteen, for example. This effect would be much less noticeable if one is only reducing the charge time from an hour to 15 minutes.

Lastly, you and others are giving poor advice to this specific question. In order to charge with the Ford Pro this person has to violate a bunch of safety codes, violate their lease agreement, and DIY the job on top of everything. And no offense to the OP, but this question doesn't give me a lot of confidence they should be self-installing an 80A EVSE.

The person leases the building and only has permission to install a 14-50 outlet. The Pro can't be installed to a 14-50 socket by code. The tenant can't install a permanent EVSE per lease agreement. Modifying this with some DIY pigtail is dangerous and unnecessary...and at the end of the day this is all done to hang a 2 foot by 1 foot box in the garage.

None of that advice makes any sense but you're going to argue that my response to just use the 120v charger for a 3 mile drive is questionable because I added the fact of a side-benefit of tending the battery better. More senselessness. And for the record, none of what you said about my response make it "incorrect." It's a fact that charging batteries at lower rates is healthier for them than faster rates; it's not relevant whether it loses more "power" during the charge or whether it's more/less costly--it's still factually true that the slower charge rate is healthier for the cells.

 

[adoublee]

Losses (power, cost, or any other losses) between charging at 120v vs. 240v are attributed to parasitic draw, not inefficiencies, because 120v takes twice as long than 240v at same amps. That effect gets amplified in EV charging because no one wires in a 15/20A 240v outlet. An EV charging at 240v is also likely charging at double the amps than if it was on a 120v charger. Savings do occur, but they're due to the vehicle only needing to be "on" for four hours instead of sixteen, for example. This effect would be much less noticeable if one is only reducing the charge time from an hour to 15 minutes.

Wrong. RMS voltage of 240VAC being much closer to pack voltage than 120VAC is why it is more efficient, not just because a higher power circuit supplies the same power in a shorter time. Plus, wasted power is the circuit resistance times the SQUARE of the current draw, with twice as much current for 120V as 240V at the same loading.

In order to charge with the Ford Pro this person has to violate a bunch of safety codes.

I'll bet you don't know this to be true. There isn't even an installation manual available yet.

None of that advice makes any sense but you're going to argue that my response to just use the 120v charger for a 3 mile drive is questionable because I added the fact of a side-benefit of tending the battery better.

It doesn't tend the battery better in real life, and the OP never said they weren't ever going to drive more than 3 miles between charges. That is simply their commute - the distance to their place of employment about 5 days a week. So your advice to use a 120VAC/20A outlet long term to support living with a Lightning is definitely questionable.

 

[RonTCat]

If you heard someone say the slower charging was easier/better on the battery they were referring to L2 is better than L3 (also known as DCFC) and that is correct.

However, all L2 home chargers are about the same. Charging at 48 amps isn't really any better/worse than 80 amps. It is all just about the same down in that range. The difference that matters is L2 is easier on the battery than L3.

Having said there is also research and there are charging sweetspots for being less wasteful of electricity. I believe the 110 is more wasteful than 240. There is a sweetspot somewhere in the 240 charging world that used more of the electricity vs being wasteful and losing more to heat, etc.

I am not sure where the sweetspot is, but yes, 240vac is more efficient than 110vac charging.

 

[adoublee]

Actually, I'm the person who said it, and it applies regardless of the level of charging. However, the difference between Level 1 at maybe a 40 A Level 2 will be such a slight increase in degradation that the efficiencies of the chargers will come into play. You might start to see some long-term differences if you were to go the full 80 A over several years (and going the full delta SOC from 100% to 0% on a constant basis).

Personally, I am not worried about it, and looking to see if I can install the 80 A (100 A breaker) because I plan on buying the next generation in three years.

Question for the electricians here...If my main breaker is four breakers connected together and one says 200A and another says 22KAIC (no markings on the other two), what type of service do I have? I also found two together each marked as 50A I see 'spare' off to the side, I'm assuming I'm good for the Pro charger, correct?

It's a 200A service with main breaker that is essentially formed with two smaller 2 pole breakers the current splits between. 22KAIC is the maximum fault current it is rated to be able to interrupt without catastrophic failure - just a breaker performance rating you don't really need to worry about. The 50/2 breaker with wire could be used to power the Pro with max (will be continuous) current set at 40A which at 240VAC is 9.6kW charging. It being there doesn't mean it is guaranteed you want draw more than the service size for all loads of the house, but you will probably be fine and the main breaker is there to protect the service from an overload (you will know to limit something if your main breaker trips).

 

[MickeyAO]

It's a 200A service with main breaker that is essentially formed with two smaller 2 pole breakers the current splits between. 22KAIC is the maximum fault current it is rated to be able to interrupt without catastrophic failure - just a breaker performance rating you don't really need to worry about. The 50/2 breaker with wire could be used to power the Pro with max (will be continuous) current set at 40A which at 240VAC is 9.6kW charging. It being there doesn't mean it is guaranteed you want draw more than the service size for all loads of the house, but you will probably be fine and the main breaker is there to protect the service from an overload (you will know to limit something if your main breaker trips).

So two 50 A breakers doesn't mean it can handle the 100 A if in parallel? I only know DC current on batteries, where if I had two 50 A cables in parallel, it could handle 100 A.

 

[adoublee]

So two 50 A breakers doesn't mean it can handle the 100 A if in parallel? I only know DC current on batteries, where if I had two 50 A cables in parallel, it could handle 100 A.

Depends on what you mean by two breakers. You refered to the the main as four breakers but it is really two 2-pole breakers together in one. If it is two poles or two whole positions together, that is making it a higher voltage (240) at the same current, because positions alternate between 120V legs.

 

[hturnerfamily]

why are we even arguing about this?? people are going to do what they want to do, nobody here is going to sway them, right or 'wrong', as some will submit. Some of us are DIYers, some of us are never going to try to do ANYTHING ourselves..... so what??

 

[beatle]

For the OP, if you install the Ford EVSE, ensure they run 6/3. You'll likely only need two conductors for the EVSE (no neutral), but a 14-50 requires a neutral.

Also, 120v sucks and is grossly inefficient. My charging efficiency is 85-90% on 240v and 55-65% on 120v. As others have mentioned, "slow" charging refers to the difference between L1/L2 and L3 (DCFC). Even 19.2kw on the SR battery is like 0.2C which is super low and not unhealthy for the battery long term.

 

[sotek2345]

Another thing I have not seen mentioned is that you CANNOT precondition the vehicle (at least the Mach-e) on a 120V EVSE. There just isn't enough power to pre-heat the battery. There isn't even enough to heat the cabin - it pulls from the battery if you ask for a remote start. Our EVSE had a fault (Grizzl-e replace on warranty) and we had to rely on the Ford mobile EVSE on a 120V circuit. It was not fun, and I would never own an EV without 240V charging available at home.

Sponsored