When the cost of supercharging exceeds that of battery swapping, what is the advantage of 800V promoted by auto companies?

Background information on high-power fast charging (HPFC)

The high-power fast charging technology mainly based on the 800V platform has been widely promoted by automotive companies, and is considered one of the best solutions for energy supplementation in pure electric products. However, HPFC has always been contrasted with battery swapping in the market, with the belief that battery swapping is a heavy asset and lacks promotional capacity.

HPFC has been promoted for a long time, but whether in terms of the number and speed of implementation on the vehicle-side or charging pile-side, it has fallen far short of expectations, which is the focus of this article: “The limitations of the development of high-power fast charging.”

It should be noted that I am still optimistic about HPFC and energy supplementation technologies such as battery swapping, but we need to make it clear to consumers that HPFC cannot yet become the core advantage of automotive companies in the current stage.

Below, we mainly discuss the problem of the difficulty of implementing HPFC.

Understanding the background of high-power fast charging

The contradiction between user demand and charging mode has deepened, making “difficult charging” and “slow charging” for electric vehicles a painful charging experience. More charging piles need to be built to resolve difficult charging, reducing the vehicle-pile ratio.

There are two ways to solve slow charging:

  • Battery swapping
  • High-power fast charging

As battery swapping requires body structure support and self-laying of swapping stations, only NIO, among C-end automotive companies, currently does this.

Direct current charging power P = I (current) V (voltage), so there are two routes for high-power fast charging:

  • High current
  • High voltage

Only Tesla is doing high-current fast charging currently. Jikua and Tesla currently have high-current solutions, but Jikua cannot yet match Tesla’s level.

The problem with high-current fast charging is serious heating, with the amount of heat generated = I² R, where heat is the current squared times resistance. Therefore, when the current increases by a factor of 1, the amount of heat generated increases by a factor of 4. High-current fast charging requires high heat dissipation requirements and a more efficient heat dissipation mechanism.

In comparison, high voltage is much simpler. For the vehicle-side, let’s put it aside for now; the transformation of the pile-side only requires replacing the previously low-voltage parts with high-voltage resistant parts and modifying the charging module. The overall change is relatively small, and the cost is relatively controllable.

This is also one of the reasons why domestic automotive companies are all turning to the 800V high-voltage platform, such as XPeng, GAC Aion, LanTu, Ideal, etc.

Firstly, it is important to distinguish between what is commonly referred to as fast charging, which refers to piles with a power of 180kW. For example, XPeng’s single-gun charging pile generally has a charging power of 120kW, and the double-gun is 180kW, while HPFC refers to the charging piles based on the 800V high-voltage platform, which can reach a power of around 480kW.

However, it should be noted that “fast charging” and “HPFC” are not regulated terms, but rather an industry differentiation in literal terms. Therefore, throughout this article, we mainly discuss HPFC based on the 800V platform.

Charging for 5 minutes and driving for 200 kilometers” has been promoted, but there are rarely high-power charging piles on the road, only a few demonstration stations from State Grid, charging companies, and automotive companies.

This is the current state of HPFC.Compared with the deployment of Ionity in Europe and Electrify America in the United States, China has been slow to develop 800V high-power ultra-fast charging, with no progress to be seen.

So why is the development of 800V high-power ultra-fast charging in China so slow?

To answer this question, we need to consider two aspects:

Firstly, power semiconductor devices at the vehicle end need to be upgraded.

Because the 800V scheme increases hardware requirements, vehicles on the 400V platform need to be upgraded to silicon carbide, and the hardware for ultra-fast charging at the vehicle end must meet the standards. However, a shortage of chips has always been a problem in the automotive industry, which will affect the configuration of 800V. Another factor on the vehicle end is the power battery that is adapted to the 800V scheme.

Although these two points have an impact, they are not the core factors.

Secondly, the power distribution network cannot afford it.

The problem at the power distribution network end may be the key to whether 800V can be implemented smoothly. To understand the problem of the power distribution network, you need to read on.

Charging Station Construction from the Perspective of Power Distribution Networks

For the power distribution network, the maximum load of the charging station is determined by the charging power and the number of charging piles in the charging station. By looking at an actual plan, we can see the impact of charging station construction on the power distribution network.

Two power supply points are shown in the figure, namely the D27 and D31 substations, highlighted by the blue circles.

The capacity of the D27 substation is 1 * 31.5MVA (apparent power), and the capacity of the D31 substation is 2 * 10MVA. There are 19 load nodes in this area, including 3 important load nodes such as precision manufacturing facilities and hospitals.

As fast charging requires powerful instant power, when there is a high demand for charging, it may cause voltage fluctuations in the feeder lines, affecting the normal operation of important loads.

Therefore, when there are important loads in the feeder lines, capacity constraints need to be imposed on the charging station’s access to the power distribution network.

The e10, e13, e14, and e18 charging stations all draw power from existing feeder lines through branch lines, while only the e5 charging station, highlighted by the purple circle, requires a new feeder line.

The e5 charging station is expected to have 26 charging piles, each with a maximum charging power of 120 kW, and a total power of 3.12 MW. Any feeder line connected to the power grid will be overloaded, and although D31 is closer to e5, its capacity is too small. Therefore, a new feeder line needs to be built from D27.

When designing the feeder lines, the total annual cost of the feeder line path needs to be considered, and the available capacity of the feeder line resources should be maximized, in order to reserve capacity for the future and avoid wasting resources by repeated construction.

The cost and available margin of feeder 1 are both the optimal options, which is naturally the first choice, but if both have pros and cons, analysis on a case-by-case basis is needed.

The more charging piles, the higher the service cost of the charging station, but the lower the time cost for users waiting, and the comprehensive cost is the minimum value of “the sum of service cost and waiting time cost”.

The minimum comprehensive cost also means that “the optimal charging power is used and the capacity of the charging station is also optimal”.

For the power grid, 3 sets of 120 kW fast chargers are better than 1 set of 360 kW supercharger because the number of car owners that can be serviced per unit time of 1 set of 360 kW supercharger cannot match that of 3 sets of 120 kW fast chargers.

Simply put, under the same capacity, the power grid tends to set more fast chargers rather than high-power superchargers. Moreover, more importantly, besides considering the comprehensive cost, 800V supercharging will magnify the problems during the charging process.

What problems? Continue reading below.

The Impact of Charging Piles on Distribution Network

Charging piles have the following effects on the distribution network:

Peak-to-Valley Load, Overloading of Lines and Transformer Load

The peak-to-valley difference has the greatest impact on the distribution network.

Due to the disordered charging behavior of electric vehicles, it often coincides with the high load curve of residential daily load, which is as high as 85% according to research by the Beijing Institute of Economic and Technological Research of State Grid. Simply put, residential electricity consumption and electric vehicle electricity consumption are combined, and the power grid cannot bear such a large power in a short time.

Therefore, it will cause peak addition, which is exactly opposite to the idea of the power grid using electric vehicles to level peaks and fill valleys.

Taking a certain typical residential area’s basic electricity load as an example, during the evening rush hour, whether it is charging at home or at the charging station on the way home, it will cause the high load peak to overlap.

If the charging behavior does not change, the total peak load value will increase by 49.3% and the peak-to-valley difference will reach 73.6% in a few years. And such a high load peak will seriously affect the safety and stability of power supply. Additional costs are needed to improve the lines and transformers, and the power grid needs to lay new feeders and purchase transformers.

The energy loss in the distribution network mainly comes from transformer losses, including no-load (active and reactive) losses and load (active and reactive) losses.

In the case where the transformer cost and usage time are known, the resource idle cost of the distribution network can be obtained based on the unused rate of the transformer (the ratio of unused capacity to total capacity).

Due to the huge difference in the peak-to-valley difference, the feature of peak load is short in duration and high in amplitude, which represents a high resource idle cost of the distribution network and a low utilization rate of equipment.In the urban power distribution network, there already exists a problem of insufficient capacity in some areas of the substation. Due to the resistance to the construction of the distribution network and the difficulty of expanding the substation’s capacity, it cannot be idle or wasted.

The charging power of 800V super charging is higher, with a higher peak value, and worsens the gap between load peaks and valleys, making the capacity more tense, and leading to even greater waste of the power grid.

Voltage Deviation and Voltage Limit Violation

Voltage deviation affects the quality of electrical energy. When it becomes severe enough to exceed the voltage limit, it can also affect the safety of the distribution network.

Due to the changes in the load of the power supply system, the voltage of each node in the system will change accordingly and deviate from the rated value, which is called “voltage deviation”.

Voltage deviation (%) = (measured voltage – system nominal voltage) / System nominal voltage * 100%

According to regulations, the voltage deviation for three-phase power supply with 20kV and below is the nominal voltage of ±7% (between 0.93pu and 1.07pu).

As the charging power of the charging pile is very large, it can cause an increase in voltage deviation and even exceed the specified limit. Exceeding the limit is referred to as “voltage limit violation”.

Therefore, the feeder line of the charging pile should not be placed together with users who have high requirements for electrical energy quality, such as precision manufacturing or hospitals, as it is prone to problems.

According to the simulation model of the State Grid, when connecting the charging load, voltage limit violations occurred in the blue boxed area, with the time of occurrence being between 8 am to noon, and the voltage dropped below 0.93pu, threatening the safe operation of the distribution network.

Voltage deviation and voltage limit violation will also increase the energy loss (line loss) generated by the transmission of electrical energy through transmission lines. Line loss rate is an important indicator for evaluating the economics of the power grid. Line loss rate = (line loss / power supply) * 100%

It has increased from the original 7.85% to 10.14%.

Compared with regular charging piles, the voltage deviation caused by 800V super charging is much more severe and is more likely to exceed the voltage limit.

To put it plainly, if the entire city is full of 800V super charging stations and they are all used intensively, according to the existing basic infrastructure of the distribution system, it may lead to the whole city’s instant power outage and the burning of various electrical appliances.

This is similar to using a dozen electric hair dryers at home at the same time, which may cause a power outage.

Car manufacturers who aspire to develop 800V super charging, of course, know the existence of this problem. The solution proposed by them is to “equip energy storage” to mitigate the impact on the distribution network.

But is it as simple as that?

The Cost of 800V Super ChargingWe talked about the potential threat of 800V to the power grid earlier, but we all know that companies and the power grid must have corresponding solutions. Currently, the solution is “configuring energy storage.”

To clarify this matter, we need to understand “battery swapping stations.”

When many people mention NIO’s battery swapping, the most common keywords are “heavy assets, slow deployment, and difficult scalability.”

In summary, the layout cost of battery swapping stations is too high, C-end operation is difficult to achieve, and the potential for scalability is insufficient, which will eventually drag down NIO.

Now let’s take a look at the cost of 800V supercharging, which may surprise many people.

Currently, the procurement cost of a charging pile is mostly between 0.35-0.4 yuan / W.

Due to the high voltage of 800V supercharging, the charging module uses SiC instead of IGBT, since IGBT loss is too high. SiC is 2.5-3 times more costly than IGBT. However, since SiC has better heat dissipation and heat resistance performance than IGBT, lower power consumption, and smaller volume, there will be a reduction in cost.

The estimated cost of SiC charging module will be 1.5-2 times more expensive than IGBT.

Since 800V supercharging requires 360kW or even 480kW, and the current needs to reach 450A to 600A, air-cooled charging is not enough, so liquid cooling must be used, which will increase costs.

Therefore, the procurement cost of charging piles will increase to about 1.8 times, estimating at 0.63-0.72 yuan / W.

The estimated cost of a 360kW supercharging pile is between 230,000 to 260,000 yuan.

According to Liu Kai, the director of the Technology and Certification Department of the China Charging Alliance:

“On the power grid side, taking the detail of the power supply application as an example, the upper limit of the capacity of a single transformer that is only allowed to be used for “not allowing the use of box-type transformers; requiring the construction of a distribution room” has different requirements in different regions, such as 630kVA, 1250kVA, 1600kVA, etc.”

kVA is an apparent power, kW is an active power, and active power is the apparent power multiplied by the power factor cosФ.

According to the “Method for Adjusting Electricity Charges Based on Power Factor,” the power factor standard is 0.90, which applies to high-voltage power users above 160kVA. To avoid being punished due to too low power factor, a more conservative calculation of 0.85 is taken:

  • 630kVA * 0.85 = 535kW
  • 1250kVA * 0.85 = 1062.5kW
  • 1600kVA * 0.85 = 1360kW

What do the above calculations mean?

Taking the 360kW supercharging pile as an example, two 630kVA is sufficient, three 1250kVA can be installed with difficulty, but only four 1600kVA can be installed or below.The area and application difficulty of transformer substation and distribution room are different. Therefore, Liu Kai hopes to establish a unified and fast declaration process and management list. That’s why many charging piles of State Grid in highway service areas have four charging piles and the total charging power can be accomplished under 630kVA with transformer substation.

Take XFC supercharging station of J_Way Research (a subsidiary of GAC Group) as an example, which consists of 1 480kW charger and N 120kW chargers (usually 4 – 5).

What is flexible charging mentioned in the promotion?

All intelligent charging modules and monitor systems are integrated in the charging station. By using computer control technology, centralized control and management of intelligent charging modules can be conducted, and dynamic allocation of charging can be realized.

Simply put, the total charging power is fixed, and if we want to reach the theoretical limit of charging piles, we need to share the charging power if more than one person is charging.

The advantage is that it can reduce the capacitance and lower the transformer’ requirements because the charging power is not the sum of all charging piles’ power; local power supply should be considered before being distributed to charging piles.

For instance, for XFC supercharging station with 1 480kW charger and 5 120kW chargers, the total power is 480 + 120 * 5 = 1080 (kW), and the power factor is 0.9; so the capacitance requirement is 1080/0.9 = 1200 (kVA), and the transformer should be 1250kVA.

However, the local capacitance is not capable of meeting such high requirement, for instance, only 630kVA, and the power factor is still 0.9. Therefore, the total power is only 630 * 0.9 = 567 (kW).

The meaning of flexible charging is “to allocate this 567kW to all charging piles, and even if all charging piles are in use, the maximum total charging power is still 567kW.”

Besides, A480 must use the V plus 70 super-fast charging version of EA.T and only dedicated vehicles can have chance to reach over 200kW. Currently, only the 3C version is in mass production, and the voltage is only 400V. The 6C version claimed by the manufacturer has not yet been mass-produced.

For other vehicles, it’s just a fast charging pile with higher current limit that has more power than the average 120kW charger.

Take one A480 charger and five 120kW chargers of XFC supercharging station as an example:

Assume that 480kW is 0.65 yuan / W, and 120kW is 0.35 yuan / W, then there is no need to expand the capacity.

  • 480 * 1000 * 0.65 = 312,000

  • 120 * 1000 * 0.35 * 5 = 210,000

  • The estimated construction and installation costs are 600,000 yuan, including transformers, cables and other equipment.The total cost of a supercharging station with one A480 and five 120kW charging piles is about 1.122 million yuan, which does not include land lease cost.

According to the news of the cooperation between Juhuan Technology and Tianshu Energy, it is expected to invest over 1 billion yuan to jointly build 1,000 stations, with an average unit cost of over 1 million yuan per station, similar to that of an XFC supercharging station.

This is the calculation of only the charging pile and other construction costs under the premise of no energy storage, no expansion, and no land lease. If a supercharging station with all supercharging piles is to be built, the cost of one station is at least 2 million yuan including energy storage.

What is the cost of a 2nd generation battery swap station?

Let’s take a look at the announcement of NIO’s administrative penalty in May 2022:

“The Housing and Urban-Rural Development Commission of Shunyi District, Beijing ordered NIO to stop work and correct it, and imposed a fine of 1.25% of the engineering contract price on NIO, with a fine amount of 15,625 yuan. The total amount of the engineering fee is 15625 / 1.25% = 1.25 million yuan.”

Therefore, the cost of a 2nd generation battery swap station without battery and land lease is about 1.25 million yuan, which is not far from the cost of an XFC supercharging station of 1.122 million yuan. However, according to my understanding of the supply chain, the cost of NIO’s 2nd generation station is far lower than the estimated number.

More importantly, an XFC station occupies 12 parking spaces, which is much larger than the 4 parking spaces occupied by a battery swap station plus the 2 parking spaces estimated in the turnaround. Therefore, once all these are included in the land lease, the cost of the two stations is not necessarily different. In addition, the impact of 800V supercharging on the power grid still exists, and flexible charging only reduces the impact. The power grid still has to bear all of it.

As XPeng Motors explicitly stated that 480kW supercharging will be equipped with energy storage, why doesn’t XFC do it?

The reason is quite simple: it is expensive!

Cost of energy storage

The 800V supercharging limitation of XFC is too much, and many of them are theoretically feasible but difficult to achieve in practice. Most of the time, it is similar to ordinary charging piles, and cannot achieve the high speed as advertised.

The main reason is: cost.

Juhuan claims that its supercharging station construction is the same as that of an ordinary fast charging station, and 90% of the existing power capacity is used in the current station in Guangzhou. It can be seen that it is very clear that if it really wants to achieve the declared charging power, the cost of power grid expansion or energy storage will be much higher than the above. Power grid expansion involves many units, and the cost of expansion varies greatly depending on the local situation. The easier-to-expand areas are around 1200 yuan/kVA, and the more difficult-to-expand areas may increase by several times.The expansion depends on the situation in each area, and the difficulty varies. Vehicle manufacturers do not have the autonomy, instead, the decision-making power of energy storage is in the hands of vehicle manufacturers, which is controllable and autonomous.

In the 2021 1024 Tech Day, He XPeng said, “In high-speed surroundings and relatively remote areas, it’s hard to have large capacity capacitors, which means when you want to supercharge, there isn’t enough power. Our self-developed energy storage and charging technology is primarily to solve this problem.”

What He XPeng said is essential, but no one cared at the time. It was precisely because XPeng Motors knew that the current capacity would not suffice for 800V supercharging that energy storage should be added in the supercharging station.

What is the cost of energy storage?

Currently, the proportion of energy storage equipped with supercharging stations in China is not high, but in the US, many supercharging stations already come with energy storage.

Taking Electrify America in the US as an example, this station that has 350kW high-power supercharging will equip a Tesla 350kWh energy storage system, which delivers a power of 210kW (210kW/350kWh).

Tesla’s official website doesn’t have a price for this type of battery, but there are two options in the commercial energy section:

  • The 6.5MW/12.8MWh option costs: $7283,570 USD
  • The 3.9MW / 15.5MWh option costs: $7740,790 USD

Roughly calculated, 1MW is about $270,000 USD, and 1MWh is about $430,000 USD. This value is an estimate and contains construction and other costs, therefore there will be some deviation.

1MW = 1000 kW

So, a set of Tesla’s energy storage system for Electrify America costs about $210,000 USD, which is approximately 1.4 million RMB when calculated at a rate of 6.7.

Compared to China, it’s quite expensive.

1kWh of Tesla battery costs around $430 USD, and the cost of the power conditioning system (PCS) is about $270 USD per kW. When calculated at a rate of 6.7, 1kWh is about 2,880 RMB, and 1kW is about 1,800 RMB.

From the chart, it can be seen that the cost of energy storage in China for lithium iron phosphate is between 1000-1300 RMB per kWh, and for ternary lithium, it is between 1200-1600 RMB per kWh, which is only half the price of Tesla energy storage systems.

The cost difference of the PCS is even greater. The cost of 1 kW is between 320-500 RMB, which is only 1/3 to 1/5 of the cost of Tesla PCS.

Taking all costs into consideration, the investment per kWh for the Huangtai 100MW/200MWh energy storage power station of Huaineng is ¥2,136, based on which the cost for 175kW/350kWh is about ¥750,000.

If it is as advertised by XPeng that it can satisfy uninterrupted charging for 30 cars, the capacity must be more than 350 kWh.

Taking the XPeng P7 long-range rear-drive version as an example, the battery is 71 degrees, and the charging interval ranges from 30% to 80%, requiring 35.5 kWh per car.

Therefore, this is 35.5 * 30 = 1,065 kWh for 30 cars, which is approximately a 1MWh energy storage container (circled in red in the figure).

Calculating it as 1MWh, the cost for a 500kW PCS is approximately ¥2.136 million per kWh, which is approximately ¥213.6 million for 500kW/1MWh.

The result is that the cost of an energy storage container is already higher than that of a supercharging station.

Although it is possible to earn money by using charging and discharging to provide auxiliary services to the grid, from the economic indicators of the energy storage power station above, the investment return rate is not high.

The cost of energy storage is by no means as low as everyone imagines, and it is not easy to build a supercharging station.

Therefore, when everyone criticizes NIO’s battery swap station for being a heavy asset, have they ever thought about the heavier asset of high-power supercharging with energy storage?

Furthermore, NIO has already transferred the cost of the battery swap station’s battery to consumers through BaaS, while the energy storage of supercharging can only earn money through daily charging and discharging and auxiliary services.

Moreover, the actual charging efficiency of high-power supercharging station from Electrify America is not as fast as everyone imagines.

The figure shows the charging power of Lucid Air at Electrify America’s 350kW and 150kW chargers. Lucid Air uses a 900V platform and claims to use Wunderbox’s boost technology to provide car owners with the best charging experience.

It can be seen that Wunderbox’s boost technology can even achieve a charging power of 173kW on a 150kW charger.In 350kW ultra-fast charging, there is indeed power above 300kW, but it will gradually decrease after charging exceeds 20%. At 42%, the charging power is already less than 200kW, and at 50%, the charging power is almost the same as that of a 150kW charging station.

In other words, the high-power supercharging station has a very short power maintenance time, and users can only enjoy high power under specific circumstances, such as specific stations, specific vehicles, specific temperature environments, and good electrical capacity environments.

What about the most important difference in charging time?

charging time chart

From the perspective of charging time, the charging target of 5 minutes for 200 kilometers advertised by automakers can be achieved.

The 350kW ultra-fast charging can add 100 miles (about 161 kilometers) of driving range in 5.5 minutes, and charge to 21.7kW⋅h (the Lucid Air battery pack is 113kW⋅h, with EPA range of 520 miles).

Taking the XPeng P7 long-range RWD version as an example, with an 81kW⋅h NEDC range of 706 kilometers, with 21.7kW⋅h charging, the added NEDC range is 189 kilometers. Moreover, the XPeng P7 uses a 480kW ultra-fast charging station with greater power, so charging for 5 minutes can theoretically increase more than 200 kilometers of driving range.

However, please note that this can only be achieved under the most ideal conditions.

At 200 miles, the charging time difference between the two charging stations is the largest, with a gap of 6 minutes. Combined with what was mentioned before, when charging to 50% battery level, the charging power of the two is almost the same, and the 50% battery level corresponds to 260 miles. It can be said that after charging to 50% battery level, the charging time difference between the two is not significant, and the charging time remains at a little over 6 minutes.

In other words, fast charging for only the first 50% of the battery will be very strong, but once it enters the latter 50%, there is not much difference in charging time.

The EA1 Vplus 70 3C version mentioned earlier uses a three-dimensional porous graphite negative electrode material and requires its own charging station to achieve such fast charging efficiency.

But you may say that only the first 50% is needed, and users do not need to fully charge the battery. However, the time saved by fast charging for the first 50% may be more than ten minutes faster than ordinary fast charging, while the speed improvement of the entire charging cycle may be less than 20 minutes, which is valuable and motivates automakers to strive for it.

However, automotive manufacturers, especially new and small ones, may have insufficient resources. Firstly, the integrated cost of constructing supercharging stations, configuring energy storage, land rent, etc., has exceeded that of battery swap stations, and automakers cannot afford such heavy assets. Secondly, due to regional differences, many automakers may not be able to enter some large cities.Besides car companies, if you want to set up high-power charging stations, it is likely that you will need to increase capacitance. However, this is beyond the control of car companies, and in order to add several minutes, it would cost billions of dollars to renovate urban power infrastructure. This power is indeed insufficient.

You may say that high-power charging is a trend, what if it is driven at the policy level?

This method is feasible, because since China entered the 21st century, the rural power grid has undergone three systematic transformations, and promoting high-power overcharging at the national level is indeed feasible. However, there is still a realistic problem, that is: time.

The Significance of the 800V Platform

Many times, car companies’ propaganda has misled the significance of the 800V platform, as if the high-power overcharging can quickly charge the vehicle and solve the problem of slow charging, which is the value of the existence of the 800V platform.

Obviously, this understanding is not comprehensive.

The biggest significance of the 800V platform for electric vehicles is “energy saving”. Due to the higher voltage of 800V, the current only needs half of 400V under the same power.

As mentioned earlier, heat generation = I²R, half the current means that the heat generation is only 1/4.

Although the electric motor efficiency of electric vehicles is very high, the corresponding heat dissipation components still need to occupy space. Now that the heat generation is even smaller, the corresponding heat dissipation components can also be reduced.

Moreover, the 800V platform needs to use SiC components. The thermal conductivity and heat resistance of SiC are much better than IGBTs, and the heat dissipation components can be further reduced.

SiC can further reduce the volume of motors and electronic controls, freeing up more space.

The 800V platform has better energy efficiency and lighter weight, which increases the range and benefits of electric vehicles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, as mentioned at the beginning, high-power overcharging is indeed a relatively good energy supplement solution, and it is indeed the main development direction of car companies from the current perspective. I don’t doubt this from the overall trend.

However, the problem is that car companies have regarded high-power overcharging as a life-saving straw for product sales, thus making consumers bear the cost of the vehicle end. In fact, the implementation of high-power overcharging, mainly based on 800V, faces many difficulties:

  • Full fast charging stations require energy storage under existing power infrastructure conditions, which will lead to construction costs exceeding that of battery swap stations;
  • The more fast charging stations are set up, the greater the pressure on urban power capacity. Does the power grid have the motivation to make such a large investment to renovate infrastructure?
  • Even if it can be renovated, how does the State Grid Corporation ensure power supply in different regions?
  • The location of station placement in various cities is also a major problem. It is very difficult to obtain land leases in core urban areas.Even if the above-mentioned issues can be solved through technology and policies, there is still a time issue to consider. That is to say, based on current pure electric vehicles with 800V architecture, it is difficult for users to fully utilize the advantages brought by 800V during the golden period of the first 1-5 years after purchasing the vehicle.

This article is a translation by ChatGPT of a Chinese report from 42HOW. If you have any questions about it, please email bd@42how.com.