Gen 3 Tesla Wall Charger Launched, Now With WiFi

[Administrator]

Tesla has just launched a third generation Wall Connector (home charger) yesterday. It features an updated design as well as WiFi function.

The Wall Connector continues to charge at 48 amps but it now features a WiFi connection which will allow for over-the-air (OTA) firmware updates, as well as remote servicing/diagnosing.

The third gen Wall Charger now features a tempered white glass faceplate instead of the previous versions' black and silver faceplates).

Here are the full specs and some photos:

Gen 3 Wall Connector Features

• Up to 44 miles (77 km) of range per hour of charge
• Compatible with Model S, Model X and Model 3
• Up to 11.5 kW / 48 amp output
• Customizable power levels on a range of circuit breakers
• Compatible with any home electrical system
• Wi-Fi connectivity (2.4 GHz 802.11 b/g/n)
• Approved for indoor and outdoor installation
• Lightweight 18' (2.6m) cable length
• Tempered white glass faceplate

Advertisement

 

[Cyberpartyboy21]

I would assume this would be compatible with the Cybertruck?

 

[drcarric2650]

My vision is to pay around $1K for a charger system, that will allow for reverse usage, that is the vehicle can power your house when the power is out. This would fit in very well with solar and wall battery, and would allow for higher amperage charging to your vehicles.

 

[David R Kirkpatrick]

My vision is to pay around $1K for a charger system, that will allow for reverse usage, that is the vehicle can power your house when the power is out. This would fit in very well with solar and wall battery, and would allow for higher amperage charging to your vehicles.

VtoG is not too easy. Perhaps the easiest way is just to connect an extension cord to the plug in the bed of the CT and run it to your refrigerator...

https://www.wired.com/story/no-you-cant-power-your-house-with-your-electric-car/

 

[David R Kirkpatrick]

My vision is to pay around $1K for a charger system, that will allow for reverse usage, that is the vehicle can power your house when the power is out. This would fit in very well with solar and wall battery, and would allow for higher amperage charging to your vehicles.

Here is a $4000 solution (not counting installation and internet connection). Not approved for Teslas yet...
https://electrek.co/2020/01/06/wallbox-quasar-tesla-nissan/

 

[drcarric2650]

Here is a $4000 solution (not counting installation and internet connection). Not approved for Teslas yet...
https://electrek.co/2020/01/06/wallbox-quasar-tesla-nissan/

Yes, I would like to see something like that by Tesla, I'll keep my fingers crossed for a similar product released by Tesla in a couple of years.

 

[ajdelange]

That box only charges Nissan Leafs and is limited to 7.4 kW. The latest HPWC which charges at 11.5 kW costs 1/4 of what this box does. Before this is usable with the CT (or any other Tesla) Tesla has to change its charging interface to accept this box which is essentially a very small super charger. This is, of course, doable if Tesla wants to do it. The manufacturer of this device has had conversations with several manufacturers. Tesla has not been one of them. I think Tesla is interested in demand leveling and emergency power fpr the home. But I think they want customers to use Power Walls for that, not only from an sales perspective but because using the car battery for those functions would shorten its life. I don't expect to see Tesla on board soon.

 

[David R Kirkpatrick]

That box only charges Nissan Leafs and is limited to 7.4 kW. The latest HPWC which charges at 11.5 kW costs 1/4 of what this box does. Before this is usable with the CT (or any other Tesla) Tesla has to change its charging interface to accept this box which is essentially a very small super charger. This is, of course, doable if Tesla wants to do it. The manufacturer of this device has had conversations with several manufacturers. Tesla has not been one of them. I think Tesla is interested in demand leveling and emergency power fpr the home. But I think they want customers to use Power Walls for that, not only from an sales perspective but because using the car battery for those functions would shorten its life. I don't expect to see Tesla on board soon.

I believe that I heard that the slow drain and charge of VtoG lengthens battery life when compared with driving use. The Japanese brands have had this home backup capability for some time.

 

[ajdelange]

The comment was based on the fact that with most battery chemistries the thing that limits life in the number of charge/discharge cycles. It would seem that a battery that charges during the night and discharges every day for load leveling and is, in addition, subject to the charge and discharge cycles associated with driving is going to endure more cycles than a car that is only driven.

Yes, I believe this technology is being used on an experimental basis is Holland and Asia. I can see it being used in microgrids but I just can't convince myself that I would ever use it. The house is there to keep the car charged and ready to roll at any time it needs to roll. If I needed to load level with batteries I'd install PowerWalls (ans probably would anyway if I could figure out where to put them and how to interface with my generator). And, as I said in an earlier post, I'd think that's what Tesla would want me to do which is why I don't think Tesla will be modifying their design to allow this (though it wouldn't take much effort) any time soon.

Don't get me wrong. I've guessed at what's inside the Quasar box (two bridges interconnected with a high frequency, and thus physically small, transformer which is bidirectional depending on how you gate the transistors) and think its pretty cool. In any case time will tell as to whether this will catch on but I certainly wouldn't put out $4 K for one of these now as it is not compatible with any vehicle I own or plan to own and even if it were it would be too slow.

 

[Saskateam]

I do see why Tesla has changed its charging characteristics. The average person only drives a short distance a day. When homes get to be a 2 ev home charging at 80 amps each in the evening when the house uses peak load there is no room on a 200amp service. Longer trips are for the supercharger to handle.

 

[David R Kirkpatrick]

The comment was based on the fact that with most battery chemistries the thing that limits life in the number of charge/discharge cycles. It would seem that a battery that charges during the night and discharges every day for load leveling and is, in addition, subject to the charge and discharge cycles associated with driving is going to endure more cycles than a car that is only driven.

Yes, I believe this technology is being used on an experimental basis is Holland and Asia. I can see it being used in microgrids but I just can't convince myself that I would ever use it. The house is there to keep the car charged and ready to roll at any time it needs to roll. If I needed to load level with batteries I'd install PowerWalls (ans probably would anyway if I could figure out where to put them and how to interface with my generator). And, as I said in an earlier post, I'd think that's what Tesla would want me to do which is why I don't think Tesla will be modifying their design to allow this (though it wouldn't take much effort) any time soon.

Don't get me wrong. I've guessed at what's inside the Quasar box (two bridges interconnected with a high frequency, and thus physically small, transformer which is bidirectional depending on how you gate the transistors) and think its pretty cool. In any case time will tell as to whether this will catch on but I certainly wouldn't put out $4 K for one of these now as it is not compatible with any vehicle I own or plan to own and even if it were it would be too slow.

You are right. Why use car battery for lights when you need it for transport? We installed Powerwalls (4) and they actually are much better than a generator...more dependable, no noise, faster switching and more uses than just backup. You have to anticipate need and either reserve a portion of battery or the whole battery for backup if you might need it. The batteries have a “Storm Watch” setting that fills batteries when a storm is approaching. One problem is that it does not see wind as a storm, and it is often wind that takes down branches and hence power lines around us.
It is my understanding that the chemistry of the Powerwall batteries is not the same as car batteries because of the different use cases.
One other important lesson that I’ve learned is that more solar panels does not make the sun shine more. lol.

 

[ajdelange]

Today no one can buy a Tesla that charges faster than 48A. This box handles that. There are still Teslas out there that charge at 72A and fewer still that charge at 80. Presumably the people that own those cars already have HPWC installed with those programmed for their car and service. No, you aren't likely to have installed a 100 A charging circuit in a house with 200 A service. In fact I got some arched eyebrows when I installed a 100 A circuit in a 200 A panel in a house with 400 A service.

Now were I to buy a 3 and install another Gen 2 charger (if I could get one) on that same circuit, set up my X to charge at 72 A and then come along with my 3, set it for 48A and plug it in too it would only get 8 amps until the X was finished or I lowered its charging rate.

Starting from scratch and for purposes of illustration lets say I install 125 A sub panel with three 60 A breakers each going to a Gen 3 charger. When I plug in my X set for 72 amps it will now get 48 A. If I plug in my 3 also set for 48 amps it will also get 48A. But if I plug in a 2nd 3 set for 48 A it will only get 4 A because the capacity of the system is 0.8*125 = 100A. This assumes the Gen 3 sharing algorithm is the same as the Gen 2 which gives the first car what it asks for and the others whatever is left over. Thus 3 Gen 3 HPWC connected to 3 60A circuit breakers in a 125 A panel will actually give you more charging capacity than 3 Gen 2 HPWC connected to a 100 A breaker (the biggest allowable) in a 125 A subpanel. The cost is an separate breaker and circuit (possibly requiring a conduit) to each HPWC though No. 6 is sufficient for each. The main loss is that owners of older S and X models with the augmented charger options will not be able to charge faster than 48A. The implications for the CT???

As to required charging rate for particular driving habits: The average American drives 27 - 40 miles per day and that certainly doesn't put much demand on chargers - on average. But as with everything else electric hardware must be sized for peak demand. Many of us use the strategy that we want to leave on a trip with 90 or 95% SoC on board and thus may want to top up fairly quickly when a trip is planned. Upon getting back into town from a long trip with 10% SoC I will certainly go home and recharge there because I can do it in 4:40 at a 72 A rate rather than go to the trouble of going to a SC and paying treble or quadruple for the electricity. At a 48 A rate it would take me 6:54. I can live with that. So I can't agree that the total charging burden for long trips is on the SC network. But even with the reduced peak capacity HPWC I would be fine.

 

[ajdelange]

We installed Powerwalls (4) and they actually are much better than a generator...more dependable, no noise, faster switching and more uses than just backup.

You left out a big advantage, IMO: you don't have to change the oil!

You have to anticipate need and either reserve a portion of battery or the whole battery for backup if you might need it.

I'd use them for load leveling and, as the generator is there, use that for backup. Last year power went out 10 times but only 3 of the outages were for more than an hour. OTHOH last year we had one that lasted 38 hours and have had them last for as long as 10 days. The power walls really don't hold that much (13 kWh) and don't have much peak capacity (8 kw which only takes me up to my 90th %ile load so I'd need 3 or 4 ot go as long as 9 hrs with my winter average load. But that's plenty to cover the 5 and 6 minute outages which are much more frequent,

One other important lesson that I’ve learned is that more solar panels does not make the sun shine more. lol.

It does, sort of. You probably do great in the summer (I get 80 to > 100% of utilization) and terribly in the winter (15 -20%) so I am adding more panels but in orientations which are the best I can get for the winter months. Don't care that they won't perform well in the summer. I don't need them in the summer.

 

[David R Kirkpatrick]

You left out a big advantage, IMO: you don't have to change the oil!

I'd use them for load leveling and, as the generator is there, use that for backup. Last year power went out 10 times but only 3 of the outages were for more than an hour. OTHOH last year we had one that lasted 38 hours and have had them last for as long as 10 days. The power walls really don't hold that much (13 kWh) and don't have much peak capacity (8 kw which only takes me up to my 90th %ile load so I'd need 3 or 4 ot go as long as 9 hrs with my winter average load. But that's plenty to cover the 5 and 6 minute outages which are much more frequent,

It does, sort of. You probably do great in the summer (I get 80 to > 100% of utilization) and terribly in the winter (15 -20%) so I am adding more panels but in orientations which are the best I can get for the winter months. Don't care that they won't perform well in the summer. I don't need them in the summer.

Yes, we have 4 Powerwalls that really can supply 100% of our needs for 6 months in summer and back up for our outages in winter (sounds like we have the same schedule as you for those!). In the winter the sun disappears behind our mountain and no amount of PV will pull it back in sight...only dancing around the fire and praying to Surya works.

 

[ajdelange]

No, I don't have anything for mountains.