Level 3 Charging Station

I am having a level 3 charging station installed at my business. It is a 480 Volt 63 Amp DC charger. "Blink"

Since the Tesla has chargers on board that convert AC to DC, does it have any effect hooking up a DC charger? Is it even allowed? Are there any advantages or disadvantages to having that much juice entering the vehicle? (other than time) Does a DC charger have any negative effects on the life of the battery?

Thanks in advance for any input.


Eric, I can only assume that there should be no problem. I know that does not help you much, b/c you are looking for definitive information. It should become available very soon.

In the mean time, suffice to say that the announced "Tesla Super Chargers" that are intended to charge your battery 50% in 30 or 40 minutes, will go precisely that route: Feeding DC directly into the PEM, bypassing the built-in converter(s). Each of the built-in AC/DC converters can digest a maximum of 10KW, and you can have two at most ("Twin Chargers" option). The "Super Charger" must feed about 80KW to achieve the announced charge times. Does not compute.

All said, the Model S should accept your DC just fine, even if it is 480 Volt.

Tesla Model S has a proprietary connector & charging protocol. The AC part is compatible with SAE J1772 and Model S comes with an adapter. Little is known for the DC part, but it is expected that Tesla can make a "dumb" adapter for the new SAE Combo plug for DC charging. "Dumb" meaning no embedded controller or electronics required to do protocol conversion.

Your Blink DC charger comes with a CHAdeMO connector. This is not compatible with the Tesla DC charging protocol and it will require a "smart" adapter to fake the CAN bus traffic expected on the CHAdeMO side. Such an adapter might only be possible for Tesla to build, and they haven't yet committed to that task. Their point of view is that both SAE DC Combo and CHAdeMO solutions "suck".

Thus, no way yet to charge a Model S with your Blink DC charger.

Bite the bullet and also have Tesla put in a Supercharger? They might even do it for free!

The Supercharger network is, after all, fundamentally a marketing tool and expense for the company.

I would prefer to have a Tesla DC charger. It is pretty crazy, but my local Electricity Company (Pacific General Electric) now, PGN thanks to Enron approached me to install 1 level 3 charger and 2 Level 2 chargers at no cost to me (I don't even have to pay for the electricity). It is part of the Gov't and Ecotality partnership to build up electric charging ports. As it was explained to me the level 2's are about 8k each and the level 3 is about 50k. After installation charges it is close to 100k in product or services. Its a pretty sweet deal. I would love to talk to tesla and have made efforts, but have failed to connect.

Basically, PGN likes my location because I am right off of I-5 and I have a transformer that can handle the load.

Where on I-5 Etographer? i.e., what mile marker in which state?
What is your business, and if not a restaurant, are there decent restaurants nearby?

Exit 271
Woodburn, Oregon
Our business is a restaurant named "Elmer's"

The charger's are in te permit phase at the county and should be coming soon!

@David are you an Oregonian?

No. Washingtonian. But I travel down to southern California at least once a year. Is Elmer's a chain? I'm sure I've seen the name before.

Crap, just what I need, another excuse for my wife to make me stop at the outlets.

do we get a tesla discount at Elmer's????free toast, side of pancakes

One of the sales reps at the Tesla store (either Santana Row in San Jose or Menlo Park store) said they do not recommend using a super charger more than 1 out of every 50 normal charges (on average). So, if you've had 200 charges, you could use 4 super chargers in a row.

I imagine that this is due to accelerated wear on the battery when charging at that fast rate.

I had thought about getting a commercial charger at home but after reading that the Supercharging is bad for the battery and should only be used sparingly in the case of extended road trips I have chosen not to.

@Etographer - great news! We eat at your restaurant often on our way between Vancouver WA and Bend OR. Perfect location. Lets hope that Tesla give us some reasonable way to use CHAdeMO.


The HPC with twin chargers will charge at 62 mph (70 amps) and will not degrade the battery. However, there has been some analysis done on the Roadster which indicates that 40 amps is the most efficient because only a minimum amount of extra energy is needed to cool the battery. Perhaps surprisingly, a lower rate of charge also uses more electricity (I believe that's because of line losses).


I can only echo others in that I tried to get a Tesla DC charger to use in conjunction with solar power and was told that the Tesla DC charger was only available to commercial entities. I could use our business as a front for that but was also advised, as were others, NOT to use the DC charger routinely because doing so will adversely affect the batteries. I was also told specifically NOT to use any DC charger other than the Tesla version.

Etographer, what is your reservation number? I've stopped at Elmers there several times and would love to see your car charging. Of course I stop at Starbucks there a few more times.

@Everyone. I am there M-F in and out we have the Salem Franchise as well, but my office is in WB. I would love for anyone to come in and ask for me. My name is Eric.

@David Elmer's is a Regional Chain and I am a franchisee.


P5377 but don't look for it until late this year. I am opting for the 60kw. Partly because I will have charging options in my lot.

Feel free to contact me for my cel #. I love to talk about EV's etc.



I had the HPC and twin chargers on my configuration because I liked the look of the wall charger. My configuration specialist said that unless I was using the car for business and would be driving routes in excess of 300 miles a day that it's an unnecessary expense. She was also the one that said that the supercharger should not be used every day.

The new charging section says basically the same thing.


That's basically correct. It's not actually needed in most cases. The reason, other than frequent long driving days, is to allow other Tesla owners to charge reasonably rapidly when they are visiting your area. I suspect it will take several years for Tesla to get a decent supercharging network out there (unless you live in California and like vacationing on the Interstates--I avoid traveling on the Interstates whenever possible, state highways are much happier) and until that time comes it's up to Telsa owners to help make up for the deficit.

Until the charging section came up, I didn't realize that the supercharger bypassed the built in chargers. My bad on that one.

@Brian H

The Supercharger network is, after all, fundamentally a marketing tool and expense for the company.

It is also creating a de facto standard that supports only their cars and also a tool to get bigger viable market (the people that would not buy their cars because they absolutely need the longer range) without making cars too expensive.

It is expense to company, but a smart one that pays itself back.

Yes, Elon's hints make me think there will be no charge for the electricity on the stations; it's a trivial amount, really. Perhaps $20/charger/day.

The SC degradation suggests that using standard AC charging overnight on the road is a good idea wherever possible. OTOH, if we expect batteries to jump significantly in quality and range/$ in a few years, why not go ahead and exploit the existing one as fast as possible; why save it when it will soon be obsolete?

I wrote to autoblog that Tesla creates a lot of mini-solar power plants around the country with this. That's the right way of delivering solar power, not with a huge solar power plants, but with rooftops and other places otherwise already used. If charging pays even small amount of maintenance of those it is worth it (service ranger goes to station which is reporting lower input and cleans the panels).

Solar supplying the Supercharging stations? I doubt it; they'll each be pumping out about 1-2 MWh per day per connector.

With the lack of cars charging solar is more than enough to cover energy expenses, you just need to store the energy "in the grid" (IE. when not used, feed the grid, when used use the grid). At least in sunny regions.

You forget that more than 99% of driving is done within Model S range, and for even that 1% most don't need full charge. Even with all cars being BEV:s there would be very few doing fast charging at any given moment. Those would never be busy like gas-stations.

5 cars a day would be ~300kwh. Figure the acreage of panels and duration of sun per day needed for that. Good luck. Solar is great if you're isolated from the grid, and/or have lots of sun, and/or can leech off non-solar grid customers (subsidies). Otherwise it's dilute, expensive, and unreliable.

5 cars a day full charge is a lot, I would estimate it is more like half a battery pack a day average for several years unless number of BEV:s increase fast.

24hours a day, maybe 10 hours worth solar, 300kWh requires 30kW of power average. 1000W/m^2, 15% conversion 150W/m^2. 200m^2. ~14x15 meters. That's not a lot.

Solar is not expensive if done right. It is in fact quite cheap. Problem is not the cost, it is the required area and maintenance (keeping the panels clean mainly). A lot of rooftops and distributed stress is a right way of doing that, not some huge power plants.

That's not full charge, that's about 70% for 5 Sigs. Don't quibble.

For each charge station 210 square meters of PV? Dream on. And only a couple of hours a day get "full sun". And every cloud kills output.

As for rooftops, it's been calculated that using every rooftop in the US would cover just a fraction of residential demand, and none of the even larger industrial and transportation demand, at an install price about 5X the existing conventional sources of power. Stupidity on Stilts.

Which is about four Sigs too many.

Why would a cloud kill the output? Didn't you read my message?

Stupidity is to count using the most expensive PV in equations. That's like counting battery costs using a lab-only product, you get million dollar 85kWh battery. Solar can be cheap. It isn't full solution to everyone everywhere, but it helps quite a lot. A lot more than you seem to realize. Residential demand at summertime could be covered completely by solar just by using rooftops (and smart building). At winter use something else.

For our calc, 300kWh/day would cost around $270k if cheap panels were used. At 300kWh a day produced it makes $3000 / day worth of electricity. That's over million a year. Even with rainy days and winter cutting production to low figures it still pays the initial installation cost back in just few years. Then if you get the maintenance cost covered by passing BEV charges, it's very good business.

@Timo: are you saying $3000 / 300kWh = $10/kWh?

Brian H:
my normal house uses around 25kWh per day. Less in moderate weather when I'm not heating or cooling it. Friends of mine with PV systems report around 4kWh generated for each 1Kw of panels. I'm in Australia, but that is around the national average.

300kWh average per day would need 300/4 = 75kW PV system.

My house has around 200m2 of roof space.

Commercial panels readily available today generate 190W in 1.2m2. This means that you'd need about 480m2 of panels.

The cost of solar has reduced dramatically - and will continue to drop dramatically as the technology improves. Like an electric car the savings in solar are not the initial purchase price but the ongoing reduced costs. Aside from cleaning, they don't require maintenance and generate power for free.

Back in 2010 Bloomberg predicted price parity with fossil fuels within 10 years..

In my case a 2.4kW system would completely offset my daily driving in a model s.

EdG, oops, divided when I should have multiplied (by 0.1). Should be $30 not $3000 obviously. I wondered why that looks like a lot. Like "why the ... everybody is not already using it-a lot". $10k year. Not so good anymore. (note to self, when in doubt double-check everything).

I wonder if I made similar mistake with price... 75kW * 4 = $300k. Unfortunately not. Takes 30 years to pay back with electricity only, you would need to charge something from charging.

X Deutschland Site Besuchen