2026-09-07
UUGreenPower
0
“Highly efficient EV charging module” is useful only when the percentage, model and test condition can be compared fairly. Peak, rated and full-load wording may describe different points. The buyer’s decision is whether the evidence is comparable for the quoted model, not which catalogue number looks largest. Use one primary artifact: an Efficiency Comparison Table.
Define comparable table columns
Set columns for the exact claim, operating condition, model/source and decision status. Copy the peak, rated or full-load wording exactly; keep model suffix, version, voltage, current, load, temperature, cooling, measurement method and next owner in the same row.
“Peak” is the highest reported point under stated conditions; “rated” is a separate definition; “full-load peak” is a distinct phrase. Do not merge unlike definitions into one score.
Set the comparison question before collecting percentages. For example, ask whether a named 40kW module meets the required voltage, load and ambient point. Put that requirement in the record first, then show each supplier row as comparable, conditional or open. A result outside the buyer’s operating point should not win simply because its percentage is higher. If two reports use different measurement boundaries, retain both values and explain the boundary instead of normalizing them.
Keep the catalogue rows visible
The UUGreenPower Product Catalogue lists the following model-level wording. Keep the page and other operating-envelope fields beside each row rather than copying a value across the family.
Named model and catalogue page | Efficiency wording | Conditions that stay with the row |
UR100030-IP65(EU), p.5 | Peak efficiency >96%; rated efficiency ≥95% | 30kW; 150–1000VDC output; 300–1000VDC constant power; −40°C to 75°C; derates from 55°C |
UR100040-IP65(EU), p.5 | Peak efficiency >96%; rated efficiency ≥95% | 40kW; 150–1000VDC output; 300–1000VDC constant power; −40°C to 75°C; derates from 55°C |
UR100040-LQ(EU), p.6 | Peak efficiency >97% | 40kW; 150–1000V output; 300–1000V constant power; −40°C to 75°C; derates from 60°C |
UR150027L(EU), p.6 | Peak efficiency ≥97.5% | 40kW; 200–1500V output; 300–1000V constant power; −40°C to 75°C; derates from 60°C |
UR100040SW-SiC(EU), p.8 | Peak efficiency >97%; rated efficiency >96% | 40kW; 150–1000V output; 300–1000V constant power; −40°C to 75°C; derates from 55°C |
UR100040SW-SiC(EU)-G2, p.8 | Full load peak efficiency ≥97%; peak efficiency ≥97.5% | 40kW; 150–1000V output; 300–1000V constant power; −40°C to 75°C; derates from 55°C |
These are catalogue statements, not a common laboratory ranking. The UR150027L(EU) output range reaches 1500V, but its constant-power range remains 300–1000V; the higher output limit does not establish full-power behavior above 1000V.
Align voltage, load and thermal conditions
Efficiency is meaningful only beside its operating point. Confirm input and output voltage, load or power point, current, ambient temperature, cooling and measurement method. Keep output range and constant-power range in separate columns. A result at one favorable point must not be compared directly with a rated value covering a different range.
The named liquid entries list derating from 60°C; the named SW and SiC-SW entries list derating from 55°C. A derating start is not a complete curve and cannot be used to predict performance, lifetime or reliability. For SW and SiC-SW entries, preserve the catalogue wording Cooling: Air, Cooling Air or “Air cooling.” Do not rewrite it as “Direct Air Cooling.”
Version control belongs in the same record. Keep the data-sheet revision, test-report revision, hardware or firmware version and any approved deviation beside the percentage. If a substitute model or revised document appears, reopen the claim and condition rows rather than carrying the earlier value forward because the power rating looks similar.
Handle SiC and G2 wording conservatively
SiC-SW entries can be compared at the wording level and by their stated conditions. The catalogue alone does not establish lower cost, smaller size, higher switching frequency, better reliability, longer life or lower total cost of ownership. Those are separate evidence questions.
Keep the G2 phrase Full load peak efficiency ≥97% exactly as written. Its technical meaning, test point and applicable production version remain to be confirmed for this project. Until then, do not interpret it as a universal full-load or system-efficiency claim.
Keep module and system efficiency separate
A module percentage is not complete-charger efficiency. The finished charger may add protection, cables, contactors, controls, cooling auxiliaries and other losses. If a project needs a system result, request a configuration-specific measurement and identify the complete boundary. Do not infer energy savings, operating cost, payback or uptime from one module value.
When comparing two named 40kW entries, first align voltage, load, temperature, cooling, version and measurement definition. If a row cannot be aligned, mark it conditional rather than ranking the technologies. A buyer may still choose a route for cabinet, thermal or procurement reasons, but that is a separate decision.
Also state whether auxiliary consumption, input protection, control electronics or other conversion stages are inside the reported boundary. If they are excluded, keep the exclusion beside the percentage. This prevents a module result from being compared with a complete-charger result that includes different losses.
Close the table before release
Before using the phrase “highly efficient EV charging module,” ask:
1. Are the model suffix, version and catalogue page named?
2. Is the percentage clearly peak, rated or full-load, with its definition?
3. Are voltage, load, temperature, cooling and measurement conditions visible?
4. Are output and constant-power ranges, and the module/system boundary, separate?
5. Do the SW, SiC-SW and G2 statements stay within the confirmed catalogue wording?
IP65 Charging Module vs. Complete-Charger Enclosure: What Does the IP Rating Actually Cover?
2026-09-07 NextEV Charging Module Certification Evidence: What Should an RFP Request at Each System Layer?
2026-09-07
