Skip to content

The "standard" car charger is usually overkill—but your electrician might not know that [32:26]

Technology
134 66 349
  • I think #1 is suggesting to move the neutral over to another hot phase and change the outlet to a 240v nema 6/three prong (I think) with two hots and a ground instead of the 4 prong.

    The 240v at the same amps gives you higher watts so faster charging without an expensive new conductor. I'm

    Changing a 120v line over to 240 is likely also against code even if the physical cable can handle it. 120V cable is typically white/black/green, and the electrical code prohibits using the white one as a hot leg. That’s why 240V cable of the same AWG is red/black/green. The red & black legs both carry 120V.

  • You should give it a shot. The dudes videos are super captivating.

    For me, they're captivating for about 5 minutes. Then the dry humor and constant cries of outrage become irritating. He could probably make 15-20 minute, info-dense videos without all the extra "personality".

  • #1 is a terrible idea if you ever need to hire an electrician in the future, plan on selling your house, etc. The National Electric Code prohibits using white, green, or grey wire for a hot/load connection. The 120V cable will contain a black wire for the hot connection, white for neutral, and green for ground. To properly convert it to 240V you would need a cable that consists of black & red wires for the two 120V legs.

    If your home ever suffered an electrical fire then this sort of jury rigging is precisely the sort of thing any competent insurance inspector would spot, and insurance carriers would deny coverage for since it clearly isn’t code compliant, which means a licensed electrician didn’t install it and it wasn’t properly inspected.

    #1 is a terrible idea if you ever need to hire an electrician in the future, plan on selling your house, etc. The National Electric Code prohibits using white, green, or grey wire for a hot/load connection. The 120V cable will contain a black wire for the hot connection, white for neutral, and green for ground. To properly convert it to 240V you would need a cable that consists of black & red wires for the two 120V legs.

    I'll be the first to admit I'm no certified Sparky, but wire relabeling is used in a number of situations fully in accordance with NEC. My understanding is that some of this is in NEC 200.7. It requires relabeling both ends, but I don't think there's any code violation with it. If what you're saying was true, wouldn't that mean any -2 NM (Romex) would be code incompatible with 240v loads? I don't think that's true.

    Edit: here's a Sparky doing exactly that

  • A 240V 20amp circuit I think would meet the needs of 99% of commuters in the US. If your average miles/kWh is around 3.3 and you're charging at 80% of the 20amp breaker limit (as you should be), even factoring in 10% losses in power transmission, you're still charging somewhere around 11 miles per hour. Easy 100+ miles overnight with zero infrastructure change outside of a couple wire nuts and a cheap charger. Hell, depending on local codes, you might get away with slapping in a nema 6-20 receptacle to make it even easier...

    Hell, depending on local codes, you might get away with slapping in a nema 6-20 receptacle to make it even easier…

    If you do a receptacle, you've got to then do a GFCI. Check out the price difference between a GFCI breaker and one that isn't. If you hardware the EVSE, you don't need GFCI because GFCI is built into nearly all EVSE. If we're doing this exercise to keep low costs, adding GFCI outside of the EVSE jacks up the price.

  • What kind of range do you have on that? I've been debating installing a l2 charger because overnight charging is usually good enough. I tend to get about 15-20 miles range tops on pure electric.

    30-35 miles, depending on the season.

  • I think “might be overkill” would be a better title and position than “usually overkill.”

    There is absolutely a subset of EV drivers that could get by with a level 1 charger (ignoring time of day rates), but most people would fall behind anytime they drive further than the average number of miles. Sure, taking 10 hours to recharge your Chevy Bolt overnight when you’ve driven 40 miles is doable; 64 hours when you’ve returned home from a longer trip isn’t.

    I own a PHEV, and installing a level 2 charge has been one of the best quality of life and financial changes.

    Agreed, and that headline is needlessly inflammatory . Looking at my EV mileage , I could almost certainly get away with just plugging into a standard outlet. However the level 2 charger means that even if I screw it up, I can be mostly charged in a couple of hours. It’s been really effective at helping me get over what range anxiety I had. It’s really helped keep car usage as a somewhat impulse thing, rather than a process: I’m ready to go anywhere anytime.

    It also means I can charge multiple EVs, if I wanted to.

  • What kind of range do you have on that? I've been debating installing a l2 charger because overnight charging is usually good enough. I tend to get about 15-20 miles range tops on pure electric.

    The way I explained it to my brother:

    • technically just plug in to an existing outlet will work. Even if you didn’t keep up every day, you would get tot the weekend and make it up then
    • but your garage already has a dryer outlet. Adapters are cheap and it will charge 4-5 times as fast
    • but 50a level 2 charger is the same size as a stove outlet. Maybe a little longer wire run, and the “outlet” is more expensive, but it’s well worth the cost for the freedom, the flexibility, the convenience … and may even add to your house value
  • Hell, depending on local codes, you might get away with slapping in a nema 6-20 receptacle to make it even easier…

    If you do a receptacle, you've got to then do a GFCI. Check out the price difference between a GFCI breaker and one that isn't. If you hardware the EVSE, you don't need GFCI because GFCI is built into nearly all EVSE. If we're doing this exercise to keep low costs, adding GFCI outside of the EVSE jacks up the price.

    Fair enough! Anyone with existing 240v receptacles of any kind is a lucky duck, regardless.

  • Good video. Accurate information.

    Two notes:

    1. For North American homes: I agree with the overlooked value of a downrated circuit for EV charging, but I don't think he talked about a possibly better option for downrating: Using an existing 120v circuit (at whatever current rating) already wired in the garage . Remove the outlet, install EVSE (charger), and swap the breaker for a 240v one (at a current rating matching the original. So if you have a 120v 15A circuit (white romex) you can use the exact same wire for a 240v at 15A. If you have a 20A (yellow romex) you would end up with a 240v 20A. You get more than double the speed of charging with zero new wires added, only changing the breaker and removing the old outlets. Note: If you have multiple outlets in your garage all fed from this same circuit, this would mean all of your outlets in the garage are now 240v and not usable for regular 120v items.

    2. He didn't like Smart chargers. Thats a valid opinion, but smart chargers can do some nice things that I like. Some will also talk to each other if you have two chargers, such as if you have two EVs. They can be configured to share the same wire to the breaker box, so you can plug both cars in at night, one car will charge, then when that is complete, the other will charge automatically without having to unplug one car and then plug in the other. It will charge the least charged car first ensuring the best balance of charge to both cars assuming both cars can't be charged to full in one night. If you have solar panels, some smart chargers can talk to the solar system and be instructed to only charge when there is excess power that would otherwise go to waste. It can do this automatically so if clouds go overhead and not enough juice is available from the sun, the charging stops. As soon as the clouds clear and there is an excess again, charging resumes automatically. For outdoor charging, you can also configure most Smart chargers to only charge you authorized cars. So you don't need to worry about someone rolling into your driveway when you're not home (or a bad neighbor) and running up your electricity bill.

    For me the smart charger was a key feature, and I never understood why that is never talked about. I have 200a service which was plenty for one fully powered charging service, but with the likelihood of electrification in upcoming years I was hesitant to have two. It was pretty clear I needed to prioritize smart charging so I’d have that possibility.

    I can also configure it to only charge my allowed vehicles, should that ever become an issue

    So far my family only has the one EV, so we only need the one charger. But I like that if we needed a second charger it could be on the same circuit and they could dynamically share the power to maximize charging

  • For me, they're captivating for about 5 minutes. Then the dry humor and constant cries of outrage become irritating. He could probably make 15-20 minute, info-dense videos without all the extra "personality".

    It's called edutainment

  • I think “might be overkill” would be a better title and position than “usually overkill.”

    There is absolutely a subset of EV drivers that could get by with a level 1 charger (ignoring time of day rates), but most people would fall behind anytime they drive further than the average number of miles. Sure, taking 10 hours to recharge your Chevy Bolt overnight when you’ve driven 40 miles is doable; 64 hours when you’ve returned home from a longer trip isn’t.

    I own a PHEV, and installing a level 2 charge has been one of the best quality of life and financial changes.

    I think “might be overkill” would be a better title and position than “usually overkill.”

    It factually is not.

    most people would fall behind anytime they drive further than the average number of miles.

    Assume you drive it all the way to empty, then park it and plug it back in at 7PM. Leave it for 12 hours until you leave again in the morning at 7AM. A typical small EV will charge at ~5MPH on a 110V, 1.2kW connection (faster on a 20A circuit). So 5MPH x 12 hours means you already have 60 miles of range again for the next day. And I would say that's a pretty extreme scenario.

    Realistically you would never drive it to 0% and you would probably leave it parked longer than 12 hours.

    I use L1 almost exclusively, BTW.

    Probably if you have a Hummer or something you might want something a bit faster.

  • For me, they're captivating for about 5 minutes. Then the dry humor and constant cries of outrage become irritating. He could probably make 15-20 minute, info-dense videos without all the extra "personality".

    Similarly Doug DeMuro could make 5 minute car reviews but he's really good at the long-form ones and has become a millionaire because of it. His quirks and features are not for everyone, but a majority of people like it, quirks and all.

    I think Technology Connections is just like that, and I respect that you're one of the people who may not like the personality part, but the information is pretty solid.

  • I think “might be overkill” would be a better title and position than “usually overkill.”

    It factually is not.

    most people would fall behind anytime they drive further than the average number of miles.

    Assume you drive it all the way to empty, then park it and plug it back in at 7PM. Leave it for 12 hours until you leave again in the morning at 7AM. A typical small EV will charge at ~5MPH on a 110V, 1.2kW connection (faster on a 20A circuit). So 5MPH x 12 hours means you already have 60 miles of range again for the next day. And I would say that's a pretty extreme scenario.

    Realistically you would never drive it to 0% and you would probably leave it parked longer than 12 hours.

    I use L1 almost exclusively, BTW.

    Probably if you have a Hummer or something you might want something a bit faster.

    It factually is not.

    Factually, it's not either. Both are statements of opinion, although I'd say saying the word "usually" should have some degree of proof behind it.

    My statement of "might be" recognizes that there are many instances that L1 makes sense, and I agree with the video that for those for whom it does shouldn't needlessly install a 240v outlet. Sounds like you're among those.

    I'd say that, sadly, most EV drivers drive more than 40 miles per day on average, and that the moment you drive more than 60 miles per day you'll have difficulty recharging to full. Most days, you'll have no trouble recharging overnight. But if you're like me, you might take a day trip over 100 miles away a handful of times per year. When that happens, I'd arrive home with very little battery left; am I supposed to have the ability to charge for 50 hours?

  • It factually is not.

    Factually, it's not either. Both are statements of opinion, although I'd say saying the word "usually" should have some degree of proof behind it.

    My statement of "might be" recognizes that there are many instances that L1 makes sense, and I agree with the video that for those for whom it does shouldn't needlessly install a 240v outlet. Sounds like you're among those.

    I'd say that, sadly, most EV drivers drive more than 40 miles per day on average, and that the moment you drive more than 60 miles per day you'll have difficulty recharging to full. Most days, you'll have no trouble recharging overnight. But if you're like me, you might take a day trip over 100 miles away a handful of times per year. When that happens, I'd arrive home with very little battery left; am I supposed to have the ability to charge for 50 hours?

    Factually, it's not either. Both are statements of opinion

    It is not. Hence "factually". We know for a fact how far people "usually" drive.

    But if you're like me, you might take a day trip over 100 miles away a handful of times per year. When that happens, I'd arrive home with very little battery left; am I supposed to have the ability to charge for 50 hours?

    I just explained this in the comment you replied to.

  • Factually, it's not either. Both are statements of opinion

    It is not. Hence "factually". We know for a fact how far people "usually" drive.

    But if you're like me, you might take a day trip over 100 miles away a handful of times per year. When that happens, I'd arrive home with very little battery left; am I supposed to have the ability to charge for 50 hours?

    I just explained this in the comment you replied to.

    I just explained this in the comment you replied to.

    You explained how it's doable when you drive 60 miles, which I admit will be most people most days (12 hours of charging at 5 miles per hour charged.) Average EV has 293 miles of range currently; even if you arrived home with 20% battery remaining and you only wanted to recharge to 80%, that's (at 5 miles per hour charged) over 25 hours. Empty to full is over 58 hours!

    At least once every few months we take a day trip to the nearest "big" city, which is 105 miles away. Typically a Sunday. Leave on a full battery, arrive home nearly empty. 8 hours of charging, and I maybe have enough for the next day. I will run a deficit until the weekend.

    Again, I'm certainly not saying that a L2 charger is a must for all people, or even most people. But I would not agree that L1 is enough for most people.

  • I just explained this in the comment you replied to.

    You explained how it's doable when you drive 60 miles, which I admit will be most people most days (12 hours of charging at 5 miles per hour charged.) Average EV has 293 miles of range currently; even if you arrived home with 20% battery remaining and you only wanted to recharge to 80%, that's (at 5 miles per hour charged) over 25 hours. Empty to full is over 58 hours!

    At least once every few months we take a day trip to the nearest "big" city, which is 105 miles away. Typically a Sunday. Leave on a full battery, arrive home nearly empty. 8 hours of charging, and I maybe have enough for the next day. I will run a deficit until the weekend.

    Again, I'm certainly not saying that a L2 charger is a must for all people, or even most people. But I would not agree that L1 is enough for most people.

    You explained how it's doable when you drive 60 miles

    Read it again. I said 60 miles the day after driving it to 0%. People don't "usually" need this.

    Average EV has 293 miles of range currently; even if you arrived home with 20% battery remaining and you only wanted to recharge to 80%,

    Thats 176 miles of range. People don't "usually" need that.

    At least once every few months we take a day trip to the nearest "big" city, which is 105 miles away.

    You said all of this already and I already replied to it.

    I'm certainly not saying that a L2 charger is a must for...most people. But I would not agree that L1 is enough for most people.

    🤔 Wat. Do you think there's like a L1.5 or something?

  • You explained how it's doable when you drive 60 miles

    Read it again. I said 60 miles the day after driving it to 0%. People don't "usually" need this.

    Average EV has 293 miles of range currently; even if you arrived home with 20% battery remaining and you only wanted to recharge to 80%,

    Thats 176 miles of range. People don't "usually" need that.

    At least once every few months we take a day trip to the nearest "big" city, which is 105 miles away.

    You said all of this already and I already replied to it.

    I'm certainly not saying that a L2 charger is a must for...most people. But I would not agree that L1 is enough for most people.

    🤔 Wat. Do you think there's like a L1.5 or something?

    Let’s agree to simply not tell people what they do and do not need.

  • I agree with this youtube comment:

    As an electrician (in Australia), I agree with your basic premise. However, if you are asking me to install an EV charger, unless you tell me “I want it to charge slowly with a limited current capacity”, I am going to assume it is to charge an EV under ALL situations - fast to slow, for whoever may drive one today or in the future, even with a potential new homeowner. We generally do our work with the priority order (1) safety - nobody gets an electric shock and nothing catches fire; (2) avoidance of nuisance i.e. the thing you just installed doesn’t work and keeps tripping the breaker 😑 (3) avoiding needing replacement electrical work for at least 25 - 50 years

    Also I live in a townhouse with no garage. Our charger is between the neighborhood sidewalk and our parking spaces, so I'd prefer keeping it plugged in as little as possible to minimize any issues with foot traffic (neighbors, delivery people, garbage pickup, etc). I've seen other townhouse EV owners literally run an extension cable over the sidewalk to do an L1 charge for their EV and that's just asking for trouble.

    Personally, I'm on an electricity plan that gives me free usage at midday when solar is flooding the grid, so it's useful for me to be able to charge as fast as possible in that window.

    Faster charging is useful for more than just finishing before your next drive.

  • Let’s agree to simply not tell people what they do and do not need.

    I'm not telling anyone what they need. I'm telling you what people usually need. Which is the topic of the conversation you started.

  • Highly recommend Technology Connections for anyone interested in easy to understand, relatable breakdown videos of technology.

    Mostly old-ish technology, which is far more interesting because they had to be more innovative.

  • 238 Stimmen
    36 Beiträge
    179 Aufrufe
    M
    It should be taught at schools that there is no such thing as human race, it's a fucking disgracing non-scientific term. Skin color is just that - a skin color.
  • 10 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    23 Aufrufe
    T
    "Science" under capitalism has always been funded and developed by/for fascists. The originals in the USA were the founding enslavers. The nazis had their time. Now it's the zios. R&D for genocide as usual.
  • 295 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Z
    The NUMBER FUCKING 1 RULE when we first got online. That all the normals repeated over and over and over. Then the se ond they get social media all that shit was flushed like a morning turd.
  • SpaceX's Starship blows up ahead of 10th test flight

    Technology technology
    165
    1
    610 Stimmen
    165 Beiträge
    432 Aufrufe
    mycodesucks@lemmy.worldM
    In this case you happen to be right on both counts.
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • Why doesn't Nvidia have more competition?

    Technology technology
    22
    1
    33 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    82 Aufrufe
    B
    It’s funny how the article asks the question, but completely fails to answer it. About 15 years ago, Nvidia discovered there was a demand for compute in datacenters that could be met with powerful GPU’s, and they were quick to respond to it, and they had the resources to focus on it strongly, because of their huge success and high profitability in the GPU market. AMD also saw the market, and wanted to pursue it, but just over a decade ago where it began to clearly show the high potential for profitability, AMD was near bankrupt, and was very hard pressed to finance developments on GPU and compute in datacenters. AMD really tried the best they could, and was moderately successful from a technology perspective, but Nvidia already had a head start, and the proprietary development system CUDA was already an established standard that was very hard to penetrate. Intel simply fumbled the ball from start to finish. After a decade of trying to push ARM down from having the mobile crown by far, investing billions or actually the equivalent of ARM’s total revenue. They never managed to catch up to ARM despite they had the better production process at the time. This was the main focus of Intel, and Intel believed that GPU would never be more than a niche product. So when intel tried to compete on compute for datacenters, they tried to do it with X86 chips, One of their most bold efforts was to build a monstrosity of a cluster of Celeron chips, which of course performed laughably bad compared to Nvidia! Because as it turns out, the way forward at least for now, is indeed the massively parralel compute capability of a GPU, which Nvidia has refined for decades, only with (inferior) competition from AMD. But despite the lack of competition, Nvidia did not slow down, in fact with increased profits, they only grew bolder in their efforts. Making it even harder to catch up. Now AMD has had more money to compete for a while, and they do have some decent compute units, but Nvidia remains ahead and the CUDA problem is still there, so for AMD to really compete with Nvidia, they have to be better to attract customers. That’s a very tall order against Nvidia that simply seems to never stop progressing. So the only other option for AMD is to sell a bit cheaper. Which I suppose they have to. AMD and Intel were the obvious competitors, everybody else is coming from even further behind. But if I had to make a bet, it would be on Huawei. Huawei has some crazy good developers, and Trump is basically forcing them to figure it out themselves, because he is blocking Huawei and China in general from using both AMD and Nvidia AI chips. And the chips will probably be made by Chinese SMIC, because they are also prevented from using advanced production in the west, most notably TSMC. China will prevail, because it’s become a national project, of both prestige and necessity, and they have a massive talent mass and resources, so nothing can stop it now. IMO USA would clearly have been better off allowing China to use American chips. Now China will soon compete directly on both production and design too.
  • 272 Stimmen
    131 Beiträge
    187 Aufrufe
    eyedust@lemmy.dbzer0.comE
    This is good to know. I hadn't read the fine print, because I abandoned Telegram and never looked back. I hope its true and I agree, I also wouldn't think they'd do this and then renege into a possible lawsuit.
  • 32 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    36 Aufrufe
    J
    Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state: Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it. No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions. It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted. From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175 influence the sentence From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.