GM Adopting NACS Tesla Charge Ports on Its Vehicles Starting 2025!

[PilotPete]

I just looked it up. There are 278 million passenger/light trucks registered. We will need a ratio of 1/3 or 1/4. Chargers per EV I am guessing. Superchargers are the problem more is not the solution.

There are 150,000 gas stations in the US. Assuming ten pumps per station, that's still a ratio of about 200:1 for the existing ICE fleet.

By the time we have even 100M EVs on the road, I expect DCFC to charge 10%->80% in 5 to 10 minutes, which is comparable to ICE refilling.

We will never have, nor need, 1 Supercharger for every 4 cars. That's ludicrous (and not in a good way).

The biggest difference is none of us has a gas pump at home. How many people will need a charging station on a regular basis? I can see this becoming a “feature” at apartments and condos as well. There may be some growing pains as we make this transition, but after that, I’ll be surprised if there are that many charging stations.

I’m not a high mileage driver. And with the ability to leave the house at 75% or more, I’ll only charge on a trip. And in my line of work, I rarely drive on a trip that takes 4+ hours of driving.

Sponsored

 

[Tinker71]

The biggest difference is none of us has a gas pump at home. How many people will need a charging station on a regular basis? I can see this becoming a “feature” at apartments and condos as well. There may be some growing pains as we make this transition, but after that, I’ll be surprised if there are that many charging stations.

I’m not a high mileage driver. And with the ability to leave the house at 75% or more, I’ll only charge on a trip. And in my line of work, I rarely drive on a trip that takes 4+ hours of driving.

My RT commute is 62 miles. My lfp M3 likes charging to 100%. I charge every 2nd. Sometimes 3rd day. I try to change off peak even though there isn't an incentive to do so. Without a home charger I would hate my EV experience.

 

[cvalue13]

The IRA rules say chargers supporting NACS must also support CCS in order to be eligible for the funding. But not the other way around.

think through this, and you’ll understand why

start with:

if Tesla opts to buy CCS chargers to charge non-Tesla vehicles, it can turn everywhere in an open market of competing manufacturers of an open platform that is software/vehicle agnostic

if everyone else in CCS universe wants to opts to buy Tesla Superchargers to charge Teslas, it can turn only a monopoly that is a closed platform in a closed market without competition for a single-manufacturer solution

a bunch of wrong-headed crying about “Tesla is being treated asymmetrically” when just a few months ago the spirit cheer was “Tesla is brilliant for having an asymmetric moat around its charging environment”

the effective solution add would be to force Tesla to open its platform, which tax incentive laws cannot do legally, and the fanboys would have screamed bloody repatriation

With this level of analytic thinking, no wonder the world looks like an attack

 

[Greshnab]

Thank God those "super smart" autocrats didn't mandate the CSS standard for the US. NACS is a MUCH better solution. I bet they considered mandating CSS. But maybe they were too stupid to even understand the difference between CSS and NACS. The law writers are stupid people, IMO. Stupid yet arrogant. What a horrible combination.

I would be willing to bet they are STILL continuing to debate making CSS the standard.. even though most people clearly see the writing on the wall

 

[Greshnab]

if everyone else in CCS universe wants to opts to buy Tesla Superchargers to charge Teslas, it can turn only a monopoly that is a closed platform in a closed market without competition for a single-manufacturer solution

a bunch of wrong-headed crying about “Tesla is being treated asymmetrically” when just a few months ago the spirit cheer was “Tesla is brilliant for having an asymmetric moat around its charging environment”

your logic has a base flaw .. NACS is NOT a closed system.. it is an open system who's patent owner has allowed the public to build on it... GM has already stated they fully intend to build NACS standard charging stations.

without that key point the rest of your attempts to insult others falls apart.

 

[charliemagpie]

Lucky we have standardized petrol pumps... Surely someone should find fault with this , if bedazzling with BS is your thing.

 

[Knucklehead]

When a laissez-faire government sits on its hands and does nothing, there are negative consequences. Always.

Choose your poison.

I don't choose poison administered by autocrats where I have no choice and no alternative. Government is a monopoly. Freedom is better. Choice is better. Free people deciding on their own is better. Not perfect, but better than autocratic control. So I choose freedom and the negative consequences that come along with freedom.

 

[Knucklehead]

Weirdly you guys are complaining about the government being always bad...

...and then arguing for the result the government is taking.

What is the negative consequences when safety regulations are required? The negative consequences for pricing pollution and climate change into products?

-Crissa

Government is a necessary evil. We need some. But the more we have, the less freedom we have. Free people choosing and making their own decisions provides better outcomes.

Safety and pollution regulations drive up cost, hurting those who can least afford to buy food. I am not advocating eliminating all safety and pollution regulations, but holy guacamole. We have way too many regulations already. We don't need more.

The cost of buying and fueling a car is high. A BEV will not be cheaper to fuel if regulators get their way. They mandate we drive BEVs, and then they shut down power generating plants, driving up the cost of everything, including driving that brand new BEV.

Going backwards on some regulations would have a tremendously positive economic impact, helping those who need the most help. The wealthy can shrug off a tax increase or higher electricity costs, the poor cannot.

 

[cvalue13]

your logic has a base flaw .. NACS is NOT a closed system.. it is an open system who's patent owner has allowed the public to build on it... GM has already stated they fully intend to build NACS standard charging stations.

without that key point the rest of your attempts to insult others falls apart.

I fully understand the patents are available. so if there’s any base flaw, it’s not that.

I’ll leave you to think through why saying the patents being available makes Issue moot is the equivalent of saying “why don’t poor people just move to nicer neighborhoods”

breadcrumbs are already found in prior post

 

[Crissa]

Government is a necessary evil. We need some. But the more we have, the less freedom we have. Free people choosing and making their own decisions provides better outcomes.

The cost of buying and fueling a car is high. A BEV will not be cheaper to fuel if regulators get their way.

I am sorry that historical data proves you wrong.

https://www.publicwaternow.org/most_expensive_water

And this gets political, but at least non-toxic. But people make decisions which benefit them in the moment, not decisions which result in the cheapest over time.

Not having safety is a cost. Not being able to trust that you can recharge your vehicle during its lifetime is a cost. It will even cost you more to buy a NACS fitted vehicle if CCS1 fitted vehicles are abandoned because the charging network isn't reliable for them.

You guys are arguing to raise costs.

-Crissa

 

[Knucklehead]

I am sorry that historical data proves you wrong.

https://www.publicwaternow.org/most_expensive_water

And this gets political, but at least non-toxic. But people make decisions which benefit them in the moment, not decisions which result in the cheapest over time.

Not having safety is a cost. Not being able to trust that you can recharge your vehicle during its lifetime is a cost. It will even cost you more to buy a NACS fitted vehicle if CCS1 fitted vehicles are abandoned because the charging network isn't reliable for them.

You guys are arguing to raise costs.

-Crissa

" Cal Am can charge us for water we did not use to make up for their lost revenue under the California Public Utilities Commission rules. "

Who makes the rules? Government.

Why is it getting more expensive to provide water? Could it be due to regulations and mismanagement by various levels of government? Of course I didn't research the actual drivers for the increase in cost at Cal Am, but the chances are very high costs are higher due to government regulations and actions (or lack of action). Is the government forcing them to build a water recycling facility? Hmmm... that doesn't sound very cost effective to me.

Also, cheaper is not necessarily better. If it costs more to provide clean, safe drinking water, and if public utilities do not pass the cost along in water bills to consumers, quality will suffer or they will need more funding from taxpayers. Did the study take that into account? It doesn't seem so.

The web site has an agenda, based on the URL. It does not look like they did any research into reasons for higher cost and it is easy to see why. Surely it would contradict their agenda.

But back to NACS - it is likely EA and the others will add NACS plugs on their stations as the market transitions. There will still be competition with Superchargers, and there is no reason to expect costs will increase due to the switch to NACS. In fact, since I will be able to charge my MME using the Tesla network, competition for my charging time will be higher. Competition is the best driver for lower cost and higher quality.

 

[Crissa]

" Cal Am can charge us for water we did not use to make up for their lost revenue under the California Public Utilities Commission rules. "

Who makes the rules? Government.

Weirdly blaming a company's egregious pricing on government.

It's not government that give them the monopoly on water - it's ownership of the water. Government protects ownership, sure. But you're not attacking that, are you? Because everyone has the market choice to buy water from someone else...

Seems like you're just blaming the bad parts of the market system you just claimed was the best, on government.

(Going to just ignore your ad hominem on the group, since you can find any number of news articles supporting their information. https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=monterey+water+is+very+expensive We're not supposed to argue like that here.)



Anyhow, the parallel was the chargers, safety, and making sure that those who bought EVs or do buy them will be able to charge them for the foreseeable future. Which... Shouldn't the government do?

-Crissa

 

[Knucklehead]

Anyhow, the parallel was the chargers, safety, and making sure that those who bought EVs or do buy them will be able to charge them for the foreseeable future. Which... Shouldn't the government do?

-Crissa

No, emphatically no. The free market should do it.

 

[Crissa]

No, emphatically no. The free market should do it.

I'm sure you're loving your free market charging for non-Tesla EVs right now. Your free market roads. Your free market safety systems...

-Crissa

 

[CyberGus]

Sponsored