We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Policy, Subsidies, and Deployment Delays

  • Several comments argue that EV charging deserves subsidy treatment similar to agriculture and oil; others respond that oil would be fine without subsidies but agriculture would not, due to price‑stability needs.
  • A long subthread debates the 2021 federal charger funding:
    • One side claims “billions spent, almost nothing built.”
    • Others counter that most funds are only authorized through 2030, standards were only finalized in 2023, and permitting plus product cycles naturally take years.
  • Permitting and NEPA are criticized as “over‑regulated” bottlenecks; others say safety/quality rules and open standards were a necessary prerequisite to avoid unreliable, fragmented networks.

NEVI Program and Cost Controversy

  • Official stats cited: EV chargers have doubled during the current administration, ~1,000 new public ports/week, ~200k total, but only 61 NEVI‑funded fast‑charge ports online across eight states as of mid‑2024.
  • Critics highlight ~$2.4B allocated vs 61 ports, implying ~$39M/port; others argue that “allocated ≠ fully spent,” many sites are still under construction, and using that ratio is misleading.
  • There’s skepticism about whether government PR is conflating all new chargers with those funded by the infrastructure bill.

Charger Cost Structure and the Article’s Proposal

  • Article’s claim: galvanic isolation stages are ~60% of fast‑charger capital cost; replacing them with redundant grounds + fault detection and a buck converter could slash costs and modestly improve efficiency.
  • Multiple commenters question the 60% and $300/kW figures, asking for real BOMs and noting Tesla’s much lower per‑stall costs in at least one bid.
  • Others point out that even today’s six‑figure DC fast chargers can be profitable via usage fees; high unit cost doesn’t automatically mean subsidies are required.

Safety, Engineering, and Power Loss Debates

  • Core tension: galvanic isolation is a passive, “fail‑safe” protection, while ground‑monitoring plus electronics is active and can fail in software or silicon.
  • Engineers highlight overlooked failure modes: ground break during operation, catastrophic shorts, opening high‑voltage/high‑current faults quickly enough, and the risk of semiconductors failing short.
  • The article is criticized for glossing over “<20%” power loss vs “50% of charger losses” without clear absolute efficiency numbers.
  • Some note you’d still need substantial conversion hardware (buck stage) even without isolation, so savings may be smaller than implied.

Lightning, Faults, and Risk Framing

  • Lightning protection is discussed: consensus is that neither isolated nor non‑isolated designs are meaningfully “lightning‑proof”; in both cases surge currents mostly follow low‑impedance paths to ground, often just destroying cables/electronics.
  • More general point: “regulations are written in blood.” Critics of the proposal argue feeding ~7 kV into consumer‑handled connectors without passive isolation is unacceptable; advocates say similar safety is achievable with fast ground‑fault protection, as in some non‑isolated systems.

Standards, Compatibility, and Ecosystem Friction

  • A major practical objection: the proposed second ground conductor implies a new, non‑backwards‑compatible DC fast‑charging standard, stranding ~tens of millions of existing EVs.
  • Commenters note the industry just went through a CCS→NACS transition in the US; asking automakers and charger vendors to adopt yet another incompatible system is seen as unrealistic.
  • Others emphasize that Tesla’s proprietary approach worked for one OEM but wasn’t directly usable as a universal public standard; government‑backed standards had to handle uptime, live status reporting, payments, and cross‑OEM interoperability.

Alternative Infrastructure Ideas

  • Some advocate focusing less on ultra‑fast charging and more on:
    • Ubiquitous cheap Level‑1/Level‑2 “destination” charging (especially for renters), including simple paid 120V outlets in parking lots.
    • Standards for robust, user‑supplied cables (common in parts of Europe) so vandalism damages personal cables, not public hardware.
  • There’s disagreement over Level‑1 viability: one side says 120V at ~1–2 kW is too slow except at home/long‑stay parking; another argues that with widespread outlets and typical daily miles, it’s sufficient for most needs.
  • Hard‑wired fast‑charge cables are defended as necessary for liquid‑cooled, very high‑current systems.

Battery Swapping vs Fast Charging

  • A large side‑discussion contrasts battery swapping with fast charging:
    • Advocates: swapping can eliminate wait times and decouple vehicle cost from battery ownership; examples in China are cited.
    • Skeptics point to huge standardization, safety, and capex hurdles: pack weight/packaging, crash structure, connector diversity, storage of many packs, and the risk of receiving degraded or damaged packs.
    • Consensus trend: swapping looks more plausible for standardized fleets (e.g., trucks) than for diverse passenger cars; fast‑charging plus home/destination charging is likely to remain dominant.

Range Anxiety, User Experience, and Environmental Context

  • Commenters note that improving charger density alone doesn’t fully solve range anxiety; long charge times and limited range on road trips remain pain points.
  • Many stress that daily life with home charging is dramatically more convenient than visiting gas stations; for frequent long‑distance towing or in sparse regions, ICE still often wins practically.
  • Environmental claims: multiple comments assert EVs reduce emissions even on fossil‑heavy grids due to better drivetrain efficiency and centralized pollution control; others are less convinced, emphasizing convenience, current grid mix, and battery impacts.
  • Several note that electricity’s flexibility (can be generated from many sources) and national energy security concerns are major drivers of EV policy, separate from climate arguments.