Currently, the debate on the optimal strategy for electric vehicle (EV) charging in Europe centres around the controversy between alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC) charging technologies.
In this context, Tamas Gabor, Strategist in Sustainability & Mobility, tells Mobility Portal Europe:
“Europe is over-investing in DC compared to the current need and usage of electric vehicles (EVs).”
According to the expert, current batteries are not designed to handle 350 kilowatt-hour (kWh) speeds efficiently.
“This type of ultra-fast charging, while impressive on paper, does not align with the actual usage pattern of zero and low-emission cars.”
“95 per cent of the time, EVs are parked,” clarifies Gabor in this regard.
Therefore, AC, which is slower but more in line with everyday use, could be a more practical and cost-effective solution.
In the Netherlands, for example, the focus has shifted towards a greater proportion of alternating current chargers.
According to the specialist, there are approximately 4,000 DC devices in this country, a relatively small number compared to the over 20,000 installed in Germany.
“Relative to the total, DC equipments make up only three per cent of the infrastructure in the Netherlands, compared to 20-24 per cent in some European countries,” he notes.
This imbalance raises the question of whether there is truly a need for more investment in rapid charging or if AC could meet most demands.
Bart Scholte van Mast, Business Innovation Manager at go-e, supports this perspective by explaining that AC devices are more suitable for most residential environments.
“Low-power charging devices, that is, those operating on AC, can choose the best time to ‘refuell’ car batteries,” he says to Mobility Portal Europe at the International Summit.
These are not only more affordable but also better suited to home energy supply capacity.
He maintains that most electric vehicles, especially the more accessible models, are not designed to handle extremely high power levels.
Rapid charging has limited benefits when considering the battery’s lifecycle.
“Avoiding overcharging or excessively discharging, ideally around 50 per cent of its capacity, and avoiding high-power charging, significantly contributes to its longevity,” suggests.
In contrast, AC is less aggressive on the cell, causing less wear on the car’s power supply system.
However, it also faces challenges.
In urban environments, for example, the electrical grid infrastructure may not be prepared to support large-scale residential charging, and many people do not have the option to install a wallbox at home.
Scholte van Mast points out: “A large part of the population cannot park their car next to a wall, making the installation of devices impossible.”
So, is it worth investing in ultra-fast chargers?
“While they are a great marketing tool, their practical value is limited given the current battery technology and usage patterns,” indicates Tamas Gabor in a study he conducted.
What type of charging are governments prioritising?
The International Energy Agency (IEA) report shows that government priorities vary significantly.
In Norway, most public devices are fast chargers, while in the Netherlands, as mentioned, slow chargers predominate.
The need for an appropriate balance between both types of power is crucial to ensure optimal utilisation and user satisfaction.
Issues related to network capacity, actual utilisation, and charging efficiency suggest that a more balanced approach, including both AC and DC chargers, might be more suitable.
Meanwhile, on the roads, the European Union requires fast chargers every 60 kilometres along major transport corridors, marking a step towards the standardisation of charging infrastructure.
This will allow for a provision of 1.3 kilowatts (kW) of public access devices per registered EV and 0.8 kW per registered plug-in hybrid.
