Home EV Charging Losses: Level 1 vs Level 2 and Cold Weather

Compare wall energy, charging time and annual cost at 120 V/12 A and 240 V/16–48 A, including charger part-load losses, vehicle overhead, battery heating and current.

#AC charging #annual cost #battery heating #energy balance #Level 1 #Level 2 #onboard charger

Compare how much paid electricity becomes stored battery energy when you charge at home. This EV charging losses calculator compares 120 V/12 A Level 1 with 240 V Level 2 at 16, 24, 32, 40 and 48 A. You can also choose another Level 2 current or use a 208 V supply. It is intended for EV owners, engineering students and engineers investigating charging efficiency, overnight charging and winter energy use.

Enter the usable battery capacity and the starting and target charge percentages. Set the outdoor temperature and the initial battery temperature separately: a pack that has just been driven can be warmer than the air. Then enter the vehicle’s AC input limit, awake load and estimated pack resistance. The loop resistance includes both conductors, contacts and the charging cord; it is a resistance at operating temperature, not a cable length.

Read the supply comparison for session time, wall energy, wall-to-stored efficiency and annual electricity cost. The battery operating conditions table compares peak cell temperature, C-rate and time above 90% charge. The selected-current results and loss table also compare your chosen Level 2 setting directly with Level 1. Press play to follow the selected session in the charging schematic. The curves show preheating, rising stored energy and changing lumped cell temperature.

Level 1 versus Level 2 charging efficiency depends strongly on fixed overhead. Computers, pumps and contactors consume energy for the entire charging session. Higher current shortens that time, while wiring I²R loss and battery resistance loss increase with current. The onboard charger efficiency curve adds a separate part-load penalty. In cold weather, the heater can consume much of the available Level 1 power; a long session then spends more energy maintaining pack temperature.

To investigate charging to 100%, increase the target and compare currents again. The model reduces the battery’s accepted current near full charge, while electronics and heating remain active. Peak C-rate, peak lumped cell temperature and charging time above 90% are operating indicators, not predictions of capacity fade. Cell chemistry, actual BMS limits and time spent parked at high charge also matter.

Annual cost uses your tariff, annual energy stored and a mix of the entered cold-session conditions and a 20 °C reference. All contributing sessions, including the selected current, must reach the target; a reference with zero weight is excluded. The default $0.18/kWh is an illustrative tariff dated 6 November 2026, not a quoted local price. Installation cost, demand charges, time-of-use scheduling, cabin preconditioning, post-charge standby and DC fast charging are excluded.

The default vehicle and thermal parameters are illustrative. The conversion curve is fitted to an open charger test report and scaled by charger rating; it does not identify your vehicle. This tool does not size circuits, verify receptacles or approve installations. Installation work belongs to a qualified person; check against the standard and local rules in force.

How it is calculated

The energy boundary is the home meter to additional usable battery energy. Source power is VI PFVI\,PF, wiring loss is I2RwI^2R_w, and EVSE electronics are accounted separately. The actual AC current falls when the charger rating, battery acceptance or taper limits the demand.

With x=PAC/Prx=P_{AC}/P_r, charger loss is Pr(f0+f1x+f2x2)+δ1PACP_r(f_0+f_1x+f_2x^2)+\delta_1P_{AC}; δ1\delta_1 applies only to Level 1. The default coefficients fit 22 points in TI PMP22650/TIDT249 (September 2021), section 3.4, printed p. 9, at approximately 240 V input, 350 V output and 20 °C coolant, excluding the two reference-case points. Those held-out checks allow 0.7% relative efficiency error. The measured curve excludes external 12 V bias; the awake-load input includes its DC-equivalent demand.

The pack uses Uoc=Vn(0.9+0.2s)U_{oc}=V_n(0.9+0.2s) and Rb=R20exp⁡[β(20−T)]{1+(2s−1)2}R_b=R_{20}\exp[\beta(20-T)]\{1+(2s-1)^2\}. At every step, the stable positive root of Pb=UocIb+RbIb2P_b=U_{oc}I_b+R_bI_b^2 gives battery current. Accepted current is the smaller of available-power current and a warm pack-current limit, derated linearly between the minimum charging temperature and heating setpoint and tapered linearly above the chosen charge percentage to a finite termination fraction. Stored-energy fraction obeys s˙=UocIb/Eusable\dot s=U_{oc}I_b/E_{usable}.

The heater has priority over charging, with Kh=Cth/(900 s)K_h=C_{th}/(900\,\mathrm{s}). Its requested power is max⁡[0,Kh(Tset−T)+G(T−Ta)]\max[0,K_h(T_{set}-T)+G(T-T_a)], bounded by heater capacity and available DC power. Thermal dynamics are CthT˙=Ph+Ib2Rb−G(T−Ta)C_{th}\dot T=P_h+I_b^2R_b-G(T-T_a). Midpoint integration advances energy fraction and temperature, accumulating every energy flow with the same quadrature and shortening the last step at the target. Both electrical and thermal balances are checked.

Annual cost scales the weighted cold/reference-session wall energy by annual stored energy divided by the exact requested positive session stored energy. Every contributing warm session must complete, including a separately selected current. C-rate is battery current divided by nominal Ah capacity Eusable/VnE_{usable}/V_n. Kieldsen et al. (2016), section 3.4, supports separating battery and auxiliary losses. Unlike the sample averages in their equations 4–5, session efficiency here is a ratio of integrated energies, including taper.

Assumptions

The household supply is single phase with constant RMS source voltage, power factor and operating-temperature loop resistance. The EVSE’s electronics load is supplied at the meter boundary. The battery heater is resistive with unity electrical-to-thermal conversion, with no heat recovery from the charger.

The pack is one lumped cell-temperature node. SOC means fraction of stored usable energy, not an exact coulomb-counted cell SOC. Pack resistance, thermal capacity, heat conductance, temperature coefficient, voltage curve and BMS acceptance are adjustable illustrative assumptions, not a calibration of a production EV. Charger fixed and quadratic losses scale with rated power; transplanting a 7 kW test curve to another rating is an assumption.

The additional Level 1 penalty defaults to zero. INL's 2012 Volt results compare different powers as well as different voltages and therefore cannot isolate a universal voltage-only penalty. Set an additional penalty only from appropriate measurements. Charging stops at the target; balancing dwell, parked high-SOC exposure, cabin heat and subsequent standby are excluded. Warm reference sessions begin at 20 °C outdoors and in the pack.

Where it applies

For comparative AC home-charging scenarios, not a vehicle-specific range, battery-life or installation certification. The TI fit is grounded in 240 V, 350 V DC, 20 °C coolant tests; other ratings, 120 V operation, very low loads and other pack voltages are extrapolations. Coefficients and the optional Level 1 correction should be calibrated to measured vehicle data. The curve checks validate the conversion subsystem only, not complete winter charging sessions.

Default integration steps are at most 60 s, shortened for thermal control, short sessions and the final target; cold-case wall energy and duration are checked against 30 s steps. Display curves use shape-preserving interpolation of solved samples, with 241 display points per trajectory; the schematic linearly interpolates the selected trajectory. Integration ends at seven days or a stalled heating equilibrium. If an entered-temperature session or a contributing 20 °C annual reference cannot reach the target, results are withheld and the inputs must be changed. Warm references are excluded from completion validation only when the cold-session share is 100%. Annual session count divides annual stored energy by the exact positive session increment; no denominator floor is applied.

The pack model omits entropy heat, spatial hot/cold spots, changing capacity, detailed electrochemistry and active cooling. A conditional message flags temperatures above 45 °C because those cases need a cooling model. The BMS cutoff and taper are assumed controls, not cell charging instructions. Peak lumped cell temperature, current and time above 90% do not determine a percentage of battery wear. Electrical losses become heat; heater energy may remain temporarily stored as pack sensible heat and is not counted as usable battery energy.

SAE J1772 terminology follows US AC charging levels as summarized by DOE AFDC; this calculator implements no installation-code sizing rules. Tariffs are user inputs, with an illustrative default dated 6 November 2026.

References

  • Kieldsen, Thingvad, Martinenas and Sørensen (2016). Efficiency Test Method for Electric Vehicle Chargers, EVS29. https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/137328554/efficiency_paper.pdf
  • Carlson / INL (April 2012). Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity Benchmark Testing of the Chevrolet Volt Onboard Charger, INL/EXT-12-25761. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2015/01/f19/EfficiencyResultsChevroletVoltOnBoardCharger.pdf
  • Texas Instruments (September 2021). PMP22650, TIDT249: GaN-Based, 6.6-kW, Bidirectional, Onboard Charger Reference Design, section 3.4, printed p. 9. https://www.ti.com/lit/ug/tidt249/tidt249.pdf
  • Ruan and Dahleh (2025). Temperature-Controlled Smart Charging for Electric Vehicles in Cold Climates, arXiv:2501.01105v1, section III. https://arxiv.org/html/2501.01105v1
  • US DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, AC Level 1 and Level 2 descriptions, accessed 6 November 2026. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity-stations

Inputs

InputSymbolUnitDefault
Usable battery capacitycapacitykWh60
Starting charge (%)soc_start20
Target charge (%)
A target of 100% includes the modeled taper.
soc_target80
Outdoor temperatureambient_T°C-10
Initial pack temperatureinitial_T°C-10
Selected Level 2 currentcurrent_L2A32
Level 2 supply voltagevoltage_L2V240
Level 1 loop resistance
Total out-and-back path at operating temperature, including contacts and the charging cord.
resistance_L1ohm0.2
Level 2 loop resistance
Total out-and-back path at operating temperature, including contacts and the charging cord.
resistance_L2ohm0.08
Charger AC input limit
Use the vehicle's AC input limit, rather than its DC fast-charge rating.
charger_limitkW11.5
Vehicle awake load
DC-equivalent load including charger bias, computers, pumps and contactors.
awake_powerW200
Nominal pack voltagepack_voltageV360
Pack resistance at 20 °C
Whole-pack DC resistance at half charge; use measured vehicle data when available.
pack_resistanceohm0.08
Pack thermal capacityheat_capacitykJ/K400
Pack heat conductanceheat_conductanceW/K15
Battery heater limitheater_limitW3000
Battery heating setpointheat_target°C10
Annual energy storedannual_energykWh3000
Cold-session share (%)
Share of annual stored energy charged under the cold-session conditions; the remainder starts at 20 °C.
cold_share25
Electricity price ($/kWh)tariff0.18
Show advanced parametersadvancedfalse
Power factorpower_factor0.99
EVSE electronics loadevse_powerW3
Fixed charger-loss fraction
Fraction of rated AC power lost whenever the charger operates.
loss_fixed0.005598
Linear charger-loss fraction
Loss proportional to charger input power.
loss_linear0.0135446
Quadratic charger-loss fraction
Full-load quadratic loss as a fraction of rated AC power.
loss_quadratic0.0218905
Additional Level 1 loss fraction
Extra loss beyond the power curve; use voltage-matched vehicle measurements.
l1_penalty0
Cold resistance coefficientresistance_beta1/K0.025
Taper starts at charge (%)taper_start90
End-of-charge current fractiontaper_floor0.02
Charging resumes above
A simplified BMS cutoff, not a cell manufacturer's charging permission.
minimum_T°C0
Maximum integration stepdt_maxs60
Charging progresscharge_clock0.5
Warm pack charge-current limit
Battery-side current ceiling before cold derating and the high-charge taper.
pack_current_limitA80

Results

With the default inputs above, the calc gives:

ResultValue
Lowest annual energy cost240V/40A
Energy added to battery36 kWh
Level 1 wall energy66.84 kWh
Selected Level 2 wall energy43.09 kWh
Selected Level 2 charging time5.89 h
Selected wall-to-stored efficiency (%)83.5
Annual saving with selected Level 2 ($)172
Selected peak battery C-rate0.116 1/h
Selected peak cell temperature10.1 °C
Selected charging time above 90%0 h
Selected peak battery current19.34 A

Checked against sources

Each case below was calculated by this calc and agrees with the value from its source (within the tolerance where one is shown).

TI 350 V output: part load

Source: TI TIDT249 (September 2021), section 3.4, printed p. 9: measured no-bias AC/DC efficiency at 1667.43 W input, 350 V output and 20 °C coolant. This point was held out of the quadratic loss fit. Relative tolerance 0.7% allows the fit's approximation error. Checks only charger conversion, not a complete charging session.

Inputs: Show advanced parameters = yes; Level 2 supply voltage = 239.6 V; Selected Level 2 current = 6.961 A; Power factor = 1; Level 2 loop resistance = 0 Ω; Charger AC input limit = 7 kW; the others as above.

ResultSourceThis calc
Charger conversion efficiency at bulk input0.9524 ± 0.0070.9577

TI 350 V output: high load

Source: TI TIDT249 (September 2021), section 3.4, printed p. 9: measured no-bias AC/DC efficiency at 6056.1 W input, 350 V output and 20 °C coolant. This point was held out of the quadratic loss fit. Relative tolerance 0.7% allows the fit's approximation error. Checks only charger conversion, not a complete charging session.

Inputs: Show advanced parameters = yes; Level 2 supply voltage = 237.5 V; Selected Level 2 current = 25.498 A; Power factor = 1; Level 2 loop resistance = 0 Ω; Charger AC input limit = 7 kW; the others as above.

ResultSourceThis calc
Charger conversion efficiency at bulk input0.9619 ± 0.0070.961

Related Resources

Responses

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

L ading...