Green Car Congress  
Go to GCC Discussions forum About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« DOE-released report finds significant growth in fuel cell industry in 2011, forecasts continuing growth through 2012 | Main | New hull design boosts fuel economy of ultra-large container ships up to 20% »

Print this post

BRUSA starts production of 22 kW NLG6 on-board fast charger for three-phase current

7 September 2012

Brusa_NLG6
The NLG6 22 kW on-board charger. Click to enlarge.

Starting this month, BRUSA Elektronik AG will be the first company to produce an on-board battery charger for electric vehicles that is capable of operating on a three-phase current with a power of up to 22 kW. As a result, the fast charger will be able to fully charge the pack in a current typical battery-electric car in less than one hour without a special DC infrastructure.

Cars from a major European car manufacturer equipped with this charger will be available to customers for the first time by end of this year.

Two factors determine the charging time of an electric car: the size of the battery pack and the power of the charger. While the battery pack size varies depending on the type of electric car, the on-board chargers in Europe normally operate with a maximum power of 3.7 kW. Thus the charging times range typically between 6-8 hours.

Until now, fast charging with the power of 22 kW and above was only possible by using off-board DC charging infrastructure requiring more extensive space and expense. In its new fast charger NLG6, BRUSA Elektronik AG has successfully integrated the required power electronics in a single and compact device that moves the fast charging infrastructure on-board electric cars of any size.

The fast charger itself requires no cost-intensive off-board infrastructure but can generally be used at all three-phase power supplies. Modern house connections and most public charging points in Europe are already equipped with the required power supply of 400 volt and 32 amps. The fast charger can also be used with lower rated power sources (e.g. 3.7 kW).

It was a big challenge to increase the power of our chargers by six times and not overly exceed the dimensions of standard chargers. We believe that through the immense reduction of the charging time, the acceptance of emobility will noticeably change.

—Philipp Matt, Head of Engineering at BRUSA.

Features of the NLG6 include:

  • Active HV interlock monitoring in compliance with LV 123
  • Control Pilot and Proximity Detection in compliance with IEC 61851
  • 4 x output driver (12 V/5A) for mechanical interlock
  • Evaluation of external PT1000 resistance thermometers
  • 3 x PWM output signals (12 V/ 20 mA) for control of external LED
  • Compatible with the new “Combined Charging System” (IEC 61851)

The fast charger NLG6 also comes with safety measures including the principle of galvanic isolation to ensure maximum safety for the user in case of a hazard, such as damaged high-voltage connections. Because BRUSA chargers do not harness existing components such as the controller’s power electronics or parts of the motor itself to charge the battery as seen in other applications, a definite separation between the car and the grid is provided. As a result of this, all safety-related standards and EMC requirements from both worlds are met.

The NLG6 has successfully been tested by the VDE association on its CE conformity and behaves towards ground fault protection devices according to regulations.

The power density of 1.9 kW/kg makes the new fast charger one of the most efficient devices on the market. Using PLC (power line communication) technology, the fast charger is able to communicate through the charging cable and thus enabling various functionalities such as internet connectivity (e.g. when mobile network is not available) or intelligent charging (Smart Charge Communication according to ISO15118).

To be able to compensate for the increased availability of renewable energy sources and decentralized power production, grid stabilizing measures will gain importance in the future. The NLG6 is well prepared to bring stability into the grid with intelligent features such as idle and peak power regulation and bidirectional operation, the company notes.

BRUSA Elektronik AG is in its final preparations to start the large-scale production of the new fast charger. Cars equipped with the BRUSA fast charger will be available to the customers in October 2012.

September 7, 2012 in Batteries, Electric (Battery), Infrastructure, Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef017744904abe970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference BRUSA starts production of 22 kW NLG6 on-board fast charger for three-phase current:

Comments

At 22 kW that's about 88 miles range per hour charging time.

I think we need 50 kW as an industry minimum standard (Chademo is 62 kW DC).

22 kW is pretty impressive IMO; for on-board functionality, changing the requirement for a charger to just an outlet, it's outstanding.

North American voltage is typically in multiples of 120; the corresponding value here is 480V 3φ.  If this unit could be made "omnivorous" and able to take 120V 15A 1φ, 208/240V 30A 1φ, and 480V 30A 3φ it would be a "plug in anywhere" solution.

If it can also handle V2G, it would only take 50,000 connected vehicles to provide 1 GW of instantaneous power capacity.  This would allow a very small vehicle fleet to provide all the spinning reserve needed to back up even a large nuclear powerplant

@Clett:
Yeah, I have no idea what vehicle they are going to fit this to, as the Renault Zoe will be capable of 43kw as well as 22kw:
http://green.autoblog.com/2012/03/10/renault-zoe/

1 hour to recharge a battery is too long and this is not a fast charger. Nobody will travel far with a bev
if you cannot recharge in less then 15 to 20 minutes. Even theoricly you will never travel with a bev because a fast charger infrastructure is just fancy theory and in practice you will be lucky to just find a 110 volt plug where you need it, LOL.

This isn't the "got to cover in 500 miles today" charger. Those are being installed along the highway. We'll need them so infrequently that it makes no sense to install monster chargers inside our cars.

Grabbing an extra 25 miles during a 15 minute coffee stop from nothing but a 240vac outlet, now that would be useful....

" a fast charger infrastructure is just fancy theory and in practice you will be lucky to just find a 110 volt plug where you need it"


It's not that I hate to burst your bubble, AD. In fact, it's kind of enjoyable....

Right now you can access a map on your smart phone that shows you 11,000 places in the US where you can charge your EV wile away from your home plug.

Level 3, rapid chargers are being installed along our major travel routes. Within a year you should be able to drive from Canada to Mexico along Interstate 5 with a 50 mile range EV. Chargers will be positioned every 35 miles.

The same thing is happening around the country.

We're at EV Year 1.8. The Leaf hasn't been on the road for a full two years. Things are moving along quite nicely....

Thinking more about this charger.

It's valuable for grid managers. It makes EVs a bigger player in the dispatchable load category. With large chargers and smart switching grid managers could dump more peak power into EVs and take larger loads offline when there's an anti-peak.

It would greatly increase the usability of a 100 mile range EV for someone who often drives over 100 miles per day but under 200. A salesperson, for example. If they could plug in during their lunch break they could double their range.

Work/school parking lots could charge more EVs per day. Let people plug in for the morning or afternoon. That might help some of the 40% who don't currently have a place to charge. Even grabbing 50 miles while you eat your 30 minute lunch out would make EVs functional for many.

Future extender range BEVs with 100+ KWh battery pack will need chargers with 100 to 200 KW capacity.

Alternatively, the on board 120+ KWh battery pack could be split into two 62+ Kwh packs during charging using a twin 62+ Kw charger.

Bob Wallace,

I would prefer evaluation BEV vs EREV infrustructure cost. EREV 40 miles AER capable to satisfy 70% of our needs with slow ovrnight charging at home. Investment into slow charging infrustructure at work place would add additional 10% AER on average. It would be not huge investment since only some small percentage of automobiles comute more than 40 miles per day on regular basis. I predict that fast charging would add very little in EREV case. May be aditional 3% of AER on average. So in EREV case fast charging is barely needed and could be avoided since it will not profitable enough. In case BEV with 80 miles AER would add those same 3% additional AER. But it is necessary because of range anxiety and would promote BEV acceptance. The rest of longer distance would be covered by othe transport which would incure additional costs. Naturaly I am arriving to the conclusion that BEV in general could not compete with EREV until BEV AER would be 300 miles with same price as conventional EREV and still would be needed huge investment into day and night fast charging. More reasonable way of increasing average electric miles traveled and at the same time avoiding fast charging investment and backup car investment need would be increasing EREV AER and reducing range extender cost but still keeping range extender option based on gasolin, diesel or alcohol. For today is only one pracrical electric mainstreem option - Chevy Volt. Let's pray it will not fail and may be Ford C max would spur development.

Darius:
That sounded like an interesting comment you had to share, but it is really difficult to read and make sense of due to the lack of paragraphs.
It would be a lot easier to understand if you would format more! :-)

Is the Chamaleon 43kW charger used in the Zoe in production yet?.. perhaps its missing some features of this Brusa charger such as galvanic isolation.

I'm not going to get all that excited about Ev's until they can go 500 miles on a charge and recharge in 15 minutes.

(Unless gas gets to $10 a gallon, that is.)

A.D. is against anything BEV related. It's in his fuel cell DNA. THat's fine but 22 Kw charger is a good start. A person can plug in for a coffee break to an hour at a meeting, and have enough charge to get pretty far. A lot of people will stop for shopping on the way home from work...an opportunity charge designated parking spot would be great for any store/restaurant/coffee shoppe.

I would like more clarification on the other bottlenecks in the charge process. eg. cooking your pack etc.

Davemart,

Thank you for attention. Actually I tried to make this statement like theorem and prove it. So it is one statement - fast charging is not needed for electrification which could be based on EREV which is only viable solution. May be I am not talented enough expressing my thoughts.

_____________________________

I would prefer evaluation BEV vs EREV infrastructure cost.

EREV 40 miles AER capable to satisfy 70% of our needs with slow overnight charging at home. Investment into slow charging infrastructure at work place would add additional 10% AER on average. It would be not huge investment since only some small percentage of automobiles commute more than 40 miles per day on regular basis. I predict that fast charging would add very little in EREV case. May be additional 3% of AER on average. So in EREV case fast charging is barely needed and could be avoided since it will not profitable enough both to the consumer and provider.
In case BEV with 80 miles AER would add those same 3% additional AER. But it is necessary because of range anxiety and would promote BEV acceptance. The rest of longer distance would be covered by other transport which would incur additional costs.
Naturally I am arriving to the conclusion that BEV in general could not compete with EREV until BEV AER would be 300 miles with same price as conventional EREV and still would be needed huge investment into day and night fast charging.
More reasonable way of increasing average electric miles traveled and at the same time avoiding fast charging investment and backup car investment need would be increasing EREV AER and reducing range extender cost but still keeping range extender option based on gasoline, diesel or alcohol.
For today is only one practical electric mainstream option - Chevy Volt. Let's pray it will not fail and may be Ford C max would spur development.


There are options other than better batteries; electrified highways is one.  If you only need 10 miles of electric range to get to the main road, the battery gets pretty cheap.

Yes, electrified roads and highways would be the ideal solution for future efficient electric cars equipped with on-the-move wireless charging and requiring only 10 KWh to keep going.

However, very heavy traffic and too many very heavy vehicles such as buses and 18 wheels trucks requiring 100+ KW to cruise could overload the distribution network.

Of course, selected electrified lanes with limited charging rates could be an acceptable solution.

Engineer-Poet,

The optimum of battery size is always questionable. There is no 4 times price difference of 10 miles battery pack and 40 miles battery pack. The smaller battery the more cycles anticipated there shorter battery life (5000 cycles) and momentous capacity shall be the same. In order to have 100 kW battery capacity battery starts to be complicated or kWh shall be increased.
Active element is getting cheaper but the rest 70% stays almost same. Therefore 10 miles battery is on too deep on low side. 20 miles battery starts to be realistic choice and optimum could be somewhere above, lets say 35 miles. When decreasing batter cost, price and weight optimum should move further north. Of course, individual choice matters but it will be between 20 and 50 miles AER depending on daily commute range.

HarveyD,

I predict wireless charging will take of as luxury option for EREV and further moving to mainstream especially facilitating public charging. Large consumer segment parking their automobiles on the streets during nights. Wireless charging option could be ideal for them at reasonable price.

@Lucas,
Gas is already almost $9 per gallon here in Europe.

EREV = PHEV? I assume so. I found no definition for that abbreviation on line. At least one that fitted the discussion.

I do agree that PHEVs would allow us to do about 70% of our driving on electricity alone and that they are the best choice for many at the moment. (I am one of those who need more than a 100 mile range EV.)

In the longer term I expect the cost of the extra batteries needed to give us ~175 mile range to fall below the cost of an ICE. When that happens I expect PHEVs to fade away.

Let's consider the battery. A container full of relatively inexpensive chemicals. Easily mass produced, requiring no fine machining and careful assembly like a fuel engine.

An EV has no fuel and exhaust system. Likely no cooling system. (A123 seems to have eliminated battery cooling needs.)

Both the EV and PHEV have same-sized electric motors, regenerative brakes, etc.

PHEVs are likely a developmental stage we will go through on our way to EVs. (Or a really great battery could be waiting behind the curtains and PHEVs will be only a flash in the pan.)

Bob Wallace,

IMO EREV better describing PHEV - Extended Range Electric Vehicle - the longer electric range the cheaper range extender needed.

Concerning battery. Is it 100 miles daily commute? Are you traveling all the day or you are making one long stop per day at you office? What guaranteed electric range is needed for you per day keeping in mind that at least 20% extra is needed? Would be 200 miles guaranteed miles would be sufficient and you will never be stuck taking into account battery degradation? What payback of large battery would be instead of slow charging during day? Before buying BEV you should careful consider each of those questions.

Concerning battery development. There is no any new batter chemistry under development which would be at $10.000/pack cost, 200 kg weight with 60 kWh effective storage capacity with or without water cooling. Such battery would be ALMOST satisfactory for your needs. And this ALMOST could cost a lot. Such battery could be charged within 1 hour but very expensive 60 kW fast charger infrastructure would be needed which will be using peak electric power. Using such power could be more expensive than using gasoline or any renewable fuel. So on my opinion EV could never overcome EREV (PHEV) simply due to economic reasons. But 100 miles AER mass produced economic PHEV could be achieved in foreseeable future - lets say 2030-2040. But there will be very limited market for such setup. I predict mainstream will be 30-50 miles AER PHEV and gradually shifting north.

EREV/PHEV - what might be "best" is not necessarily what is commonly used. Remember the video tape wars? Beta?

----

Here's a battery technology under development.

Envia

Projected cost $150 per kilowatt. 60kW = $9k.

400WH per kg, so 150kg for a 60kWH pack.

(Hope I didn't make a math mistake....)

Currently more than 450 cycles with <25% capacity loss. 1,000 cycles expected with development.

450 cycles in a 200 mile range EV is a 90,000 mile battery pack. They don't have to increase cycle life much to get to the "average lifespan" of US cars.

Verified in testing of prototype cells at the Naval Service Warfare Center’s Crane evaluation division.

Envia is not going to manufacture but license to other manufacturers. They recently signed agreements with GM.

----

I don't know how fast Envia batteries can recharge. The Toshiba SCiB lithium-ion batteries used in the Honda FiT EV and Mitsubishi MiEV can recharge 95% in less than 20 minutes.

Rapid chargers are something that we are installing along our major travel routes. They aren't actually "very expensive" - try pricing out a new gas station.

Charging on a long trip with peak power - $0.30/kWh X 0.3kWh/mile = $0.09/mile. That's about the same as driving a 50mpg ICEV/PHEV on $4/gallon gas. Remember, your first "200" should be like driving for $1/gallon.

Have you ever torn down and rebuilt an engine? Are you aware of now many unique parts are in the typical engine? Each of those has to be carefully designed, manufactured and installed. OTOH EVs have hundreds of exactly the same parts. Think about the batteries that you drop into your flashlight, all alike.

There are no really expensive materials in EV batteries. I doubt that they use more energy to manufacture than all the steel and stuff that goes into ICE parts. I can't see a reason why batteries will not become cheaper than the ICE in a PHEV.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2013 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group