Is the Tesla Model 3 Actually Going To Cost $50,000?

cartechboy writes How low can battery costs go, and how fast? That's the question automakers are dealing with when it comes to the future of electric cars. Tesla is betting big on electric and has already proven many skeptics wrong with its Model S sedan. The company is making even bolder claims with its upcoming Model 3 stating it'll have about 200 miles of range and a base price of $35,000. That's a nice goal, but is it possible. Battery skeptic Menahem Anderman wrote a new report suggesting that the pace of cost reduction for electric car batteries won't be as swift as Tesla's CEO Elon Musk suggests. This leads Anderman to predict the actual price of the upcoming Model 3 will be in the range of $50,000-$80,000.

Comments

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or no.

Maybe 40k

[Bing Tsher E]

With the rest of us kicking in the $10k subsidy, maybe 40k will be the cost.

Re:Maybe 40k

[Cabriel]

What are the two biggest price-determining factors in a market economy? Supply and Demand.

With Tesla's Giga-factory, Supply should be adequately covered.
With a $35 000 price point, I'm pretty sure Demand will be more than adequately covered.

I doubt drop in the cost of the batteries will remain constant/linear once the Tesla battery factory(ies) start production.

Re:Maybe 40k

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of you driving CO2-emitting cars should be paying a lot more than the tiny fraction of your taxes that goes to EV incentives.

Re:Maybe 40k

[BradMajors]

For the cost of Telsa's batteries to drop, Tesla's battery factory needs to run at full capacity. Tesla's factory will have the capacity to produce more batteries than required by the entire world's projected number of electric vehicles in 2020.

Re:Maybe 40k

[ArcadeMan]

But the entire world's projected number of electric vehicles in 2020 depends on the price of electric cars and their batteries.

I'm also assuming those projected numbers came out the ass of MBAs.

Re:Maybe 40k

[sexconker]

What are the two biggest price-determining factors in a market economy? Stupidity and greed.

Fixed.

Re:Maybe 40k

[sunking2]

Because it has the word Giga in it so it must be able to meet the capacities needed to lower costs?

Re:Maybe 40k

[Ralph Wiggam]

That's why the factory (which will be owned more by Panasonic than Tesla) plans on selling batteries to every industry that uses them, not just electric cars.

Re:Maybe 40k

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that these cars ARE CO2-emitting cars, unless you have arranged to get the power for your charger from renewable sources (difficult and expensive in most parts of the country). Here in Texas, these actually become a combination of coal, natural gas and nuclear burning cars.

Re:Maybe 40k

[im_thatoneguy]

Considering every petrol burning vehicle in the US uses far more than $10k in gas subsidies over its lifespan I don't have a problem with electric getting a substitute subsidy.

Re:Maybe 40k

[Anonymous Coward]

citation please, i would love to get these subsidies for my ICE cars.

Re:Maybe 40k

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Texas you can choose (powertochoose.org) to pay for 100% renewable energy.

Re:Maybe 40k

[catchblue22]

Except that these cars ARE CO2-emitting cars, unless you have arranged to get the power for your charger from renewable sources (difficult and expensive in most parts of the country). Here in Texas, these actually become a combination of coal, natural gas and nuclear burning cars.

I addessed this issue in this post. Short answer: even if the electricity is produced by coal, the large efficiency of electric motors, thermal power plants, and the electricity transmission system will ensure less emissions caused by an electric car than from a gasoline powered car. And my calculations didn't even take into account the emissions from processing oil into gasoline, which are especially high if the source is from tar sands. My calculations are referenced and I believe them to be reasonable.

Re:Maybe 40k

[Anonymous Coward]

But the EV car is not only getting incentives- it also IS NOT contributing it's fair share of road taxes which are paid mostly thru gasoline taxes.

If the day comes where taxes are paid by miles driven, the EV price/value proposition gets even worse.

Re: Maybe 40k

[TheMeuge]

Nuclear still exists. People seem to forget.

Re:Maybe 40k

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I should subsidize you feeling better about being green?

Re:Maybe 40k

[Anonymous Coward]

and the amount of lithium available, and the amount of oil available, at a reasonable price to dig it out of the ground.

Re:Maybe 40k

[Firethorn]

For the cost of Telsa's batteries to drop, Tesla's battery factory needs to run at full capacity.

Not entirely true. It's my understanding that the initial facility will be 'mostly' empty, giving it plenty of room to expand to both increase production and implement new technology. There are size limits when you get into truly massive automated production where you end up switching to parallel production lines. At that point there are sweet spots where every production line is maxed out, but the net effect is that each fully maxed out production line helps cover the 1 non-maxed, so the overall difference is minimized as the number of lines increase.

Another point would be to ask whether the projection for 2020 covers a ~$35k EV with 200 miles range. It could cause demand to explode.

Re:Maybe 40k

[macpacheco]

1 - Even if the whole USA grid were powered by combined cycle highest efficiency coal, much less CO2 would be emitted by the coal powerplant to propel a Tesla Model S or a LEAF by a mile than even a hybrid would emit CO2 from gasoline
2 - The average emissions of the USA grid is a little better than natural gas highest efficiency baseload, since about 1/3 of USA electricity production doesn't involve burning anything, and natural gas is taking over coal
3 - The more you charge your EVs / Plugin EVs from 11PM-5AM, the more likely you are to be using nuclear, wind or hydro, since nuclear is USA = 24x7 production @ 100% power, wind is more likely to be producing in the night (forcing even some baseload plants to powerdown temporarily), and hydro typically produces a minimum power level to avoid creating temporary drought conditions downstream of the hydro dam
We could choose to start constructions of more nuclear power plants, which would be a perfect combination with EVs, since EVs help increase minimum grid demand with overnight charging. EVs also help consume wind turbine electricity, which currently is causing a heap of problems in local areas with too much wind production when the wind is blowing.

Re:Maybe 40k

[macpacheco]

Until EV + plugin EV market share breaks through 5% this is an insignificant issue regardless.
However its very debatable if EVs should be charged some offset for taxes on petrol not paid, they are avoiding CO2 emissions which saves people's lifes.
Coal is quoted to kill average 200k worlwide, 13k USA yearly. Natural Gas over 10k worldwide. Petrol more than natural gas. Some of that are industrial accidents, but lots of that is air pollution. Reduced air pollution = much lowed demand for health care for those with asthma, bronchitis, alergies, black lung disease, lung cancer.
Refining heavy petrol uses about as much energy to produce a gallon of gasoline than a Tesla / LEAF can use to drive 17-20 miles.
Just taking into consideration total energy spent from oil extraction, refining and transportation, an EV will go at least half of what a gallon of gasoline would power a regular car (without even considering the energy of the oil itself).
Current EVs are just the first generation EVs that actually make some economic sense.
Next gen EVs will provide twice the range at today's acquisition costs or 30% cheaper price @ today's range.
They will still be more expensive to purchase than regular cars, but at that point, the extra cost will pay for itself in 5 years, since EVs are 90% cheaper to maintain, and 75-90% cheaper to power (depending on level of gasoline taxes in each country).
A Tesla in the USA is at least 80% cheaper overall per mile ignoring the acquisition cost than a regular high mpg / lowest maintenance cost car. In Europe it should be 90% cheaper, since gasoline there is over twice per gallon than in the US.
So no, EV price/value proposition will get much better. The EV industry don't need EV haters to buy them. All it takes is 2% of new car purchases being EV to pay for the EV revolution to continue.
EV + plugin EV production is still less than 200k / year in the USA, with around 16 million total yearly sales, or around 1% of sales.

Re:Maybe 40k

[dAzED1]

I've got solar. I don't imagine that those who are in areas where they burn dirty coal and dead babies for energy are big markets for Tesla. California accounted for 36% of Tesla sales in 2013 - and hey, what do you know, not only does California have a growing percentage from renewable, but there's incentives for installing solar in California too. Oh and even in most of the metro areas in Texas, you can choose to pay extra to get renewable for your portion added to the grid. So....yeah.

Re:Maybe 40k

[Aighearach]

citation please, i would love to get these subsidies for my ICE cars.

You already did! lolol

Re:Maybe 40k

[WalksOnDirt]

Nobody is using the size of cells that Tesla claims to be interested in producing. If they get cheap enough companies might design some products around them, but, for example, they will be too fat for a cell phone.

Of course Tesla might make other sizes, but I doubt they will be in any hurry to do that.

Re:Maybe 40k

[Moof123]

Also depends on experience. There are getting to be a critical mass of folks who know someone with a Leaf or a Tesla, and for the most part these early adopters are pretty darn happy and are evangelizing effectively against the drone of skeptics and naysayers. It is not dissimilar to the wave of gay support that happened when a critical mass of folks were out of the closet. Almost everyone now knows at least one friend or family member who is openly gay, and it takes the wind out of the sails of the haters.

Re:Maybe 40k

[Moof123]

I'd be happy to chip in my fair share of road tax. At 18 cents a gallon and about 10k miles a year driving, that works out to about $60 per year I ought to be paying towards road maintenance if you compare my Leaf to a 30 mpg econobox. Just don't try and stick a GPS tracker on my car like Oregon keeps thinking is a good idea. Make it part of my registration fees or something similarly simple.

Re:Maybe 40k

[Guspaz]

Companies doing grid storage don't care what size the cells are. They're going to buy pre-built modules or units, and Tesla considers grid storage to be one of the biggest potential markets for the output of their GigaFactory.

Re:Maybe 40k

[necro81]

Nobody is using the size of cells that Tesla claims to be interested in producing

Tesla uses 18650-size cells, specifically because they are the most common Li-Ion form factor in the world. If Tesla is planning on producing a different-sized cell at the gigafactory, please provide a link.

Re:Maybe 40k

[WorBlux]

And if you can get high-temp nuclear it gets even better. As the high temp can directly drive a gas turbine, with effecient-on demand access capacity from natural gas. (baseload of 30MW up to 60MW with stociometic mix of natural gas. And if production from renewables low-temp nuclear is enough to make the spot price of nuclear dip below a certain price, then you can use the heat on the high-temp nuclear to make ammonia, small hydrocarbons (for fertilizer or carbon-nuetral motor fuels (You'll not be powering semi's on electic, by you can convert them to run on dimethyl ether.) http://dieselnet.com/tech/fuel...

You could probably get rid of coal entirely, which by the way releases more radioactive isotopes per GW than nuclear does.

Re:Maybe 40k

[WorBlux]

It's be nice is someone came up with an in-home tech that could beat the price of lead-acid for energy storage. It'd also be nice if you could build subdivision not hooked into the local electric grid and rather just use an HOA managed solution.

Re:Maybe 40k

[WorBlux]

Light passenger vehicles contribute very little to road wear. A wheel tax or congestion-based toll plus impact fees are simple enought to recover congestion alleviation costs. If a per mile-tax comes along it should be heavily biased against large freight vehicles which do 90% of damage to roads not related to weathering.

Re:Maybe 40k

[im_thatoneguy]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/P...

Direct Subsidies:
$41-52 billion / 254 million vehicles = $161 / yr * 13 years = $2,100-$2,500. From the US.

Military Subsidies:
$20-250B in military expenditures to protect oil supplies / 254 million vehicles = ($80-900 /yr) * 13 years = $1,000-11,700

Health:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10...
32% of Fossil fuel burning (aka not coal) is transportation. It's estimated by the National Academy of Sciences that $120B /yr in health costs are absorbed by society due to pollution. $120B * .33 = $40B / 254 million vehicles = $157/yr * 13 years = $2050

So all told we're conservatively looking at:
$2,050 + $6,350 + $2,300 = $10,700

That's before you look at environmental impacts and climate change.

Re:Maybe 40k

[kuzb]

So you think the way to get people to drive EVs is to take more money away from them so it's harder to buy an electric vehicle?

Are you stupid?

Re:Maybe 40k

[WalksOnDirt]

In their conference call Tesla stated their intention was to continue using cylindrical cells, but that the size would be increased by about 30%. Sorry, I didn't save the link.

Re:Maybe 40k

[Shirley Marquez]

Texas is currently the largest producer of wind power in the US (reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) and likely to remain a leader because it has lots of wind and lots of wide open spaces. The state lags in solar power, despite also being an excellent location for it (southern latitude and lack of cloud cover), because the high capital cost of solar plants is hard to justify in a state where fossil fuels are cheap, and because investors have mostly preferred to fund wind projects. Small-scale solar (home installations) also lags in Texas because there is no statewide program of net metering, resulting in it being unavailable to most residents of the state. (Reference: http://www.nationaljournal.com... )

Renewable power generation is growing rapidly everywhere in the US. Although it will never reach 100% of electricity production unless we also build very large scale energy storage facilities (necessary because of the unsteady output of wind and solar installations), it can certainly become a major source of electric power. And Tesla's batteries can make it possible for renewables to be a larger part of our electric grid.

Re:Maybe 40k

[beltsbear]

Nope. The cost will drop just from them being made in that factory at half speed. Half the savings is from everything being close together, the batteries being made in the building then being put into packs in the same building. More cost savings comes from the fact Tesla is the majority owner, and finally all of the government incentives reducing cost. From just half capacity the cost of the battery will be low enough for a $40,000 car before government incentives. So basically from day 1 they will be fine. They will also be making utility scale batteries which will most certainly have a buyer with Solar City.

Contrary to the other skeptics, I think the plant will be fully booked. As soon as each line is built, it will be running at full tilt for customers including Tesla. They will build out the lines as fast as they can and may even need to consider a SECOND factory by 2020.

Re:Maybe 40k

[macpacheco]

Fast Sodium / LFTR Molten Salt reactors promise both high temps (Fast Sodium around 550C, Molten Salt 700-800C), plus promise at least 50% utilization of mined uranium for Fast Sodium or 98% utilization of Thorium for LFTR, current nuclear reactors use 0,6-0,9% of mined uranium. By increasing utilization of mined uranium / opening Thorium as a high efficiency fuel, the "Uranium shortage argument dies, even without increasing reserves, since we already have enough spent nuclear fuel / depleted uranium to power civilization for a thousand years with 90% efficiency uranium utilization. Compared to this, the argument that high temp reactors could increase efficiency from current 34% for newest water cooled reactors up to 50% is peanuts, but of course, welcomed.

Re:Maybe 40k

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also assuming those projected numbers came out the ass of MBAs.

You mean the MBA spoke them out loud?

Re:Maybe 40k

[WorBlux]

You do get greater effeciencies with high tech, but the ringer is that you can drive chemical processes at this high temp (with 90% heat capture) vs. having to drive these processes with fossil fuels on concentration or newables through multiple steps. We absolutely need cheap and green ammonia to both feed the world and reduce carbon emmissions.

Even with fuel effeciencies, there is capital cost effeciencies. Building a reactor and then having to sell the power at negative prices doesn't make much sense. Having a co-process availible makes a lot of sense. Addionally utility companies pay a premium to load following capacity. Sustainability requires that the economic picture of a poduction tech makes sense.

Re:Maybe 40k

[macpacheco]

Making amonia, hydrogen, methane from high temp nuclear, amazing possibilities, is 550C hot enough ? The ruskies already have at least one commercial reactor in operation capable of producing 550C stream.

Yeah, those pesky illogical wind turbine credits are killing all baseload generation in the USA. If only they would reformulate those credits as a percentage of the actual electricity revenues of wind generators, we could restore a minimum level of economic rationality to the market.
But... I did read a lot on the MSR front. Those reactors promise much simpler architecture. They could cost less than 1/3rd per MW than LWRs even at the 250-500MWe scale, their economics would be totally different, actually competitive with wind even with today's crazy credits, plus MSRs load follow without control rods or boron injections. Huge negative temperature coefficient, so if demand goes up, more heat is extracted from the primary loop, temps go down, reactivity goes up, demand goes down, less heat is extracted from the primary loop, temps go up, reactivity goes down. Was demonstrated ad nauseum in the 60s @ ORNL MSR demonstrator, they could control the reactor power by just changing airflow over the heat exchanger (demonstrator had just a heat exchanger dumping heat on the air).
I also took this online class:
    https://www.coursera.org/cours...
All of those active safety systems on LWR reactors, none are needed. MSRs need no computer based realtime control computers, even human operators aren't critical, its walk away safe.
It sounds too good to be true, but so far the only bad thing that was said about it was alleged corrosion problems, which was denied by the few retired ORNL techs that worked on the project 40 years ago.
The pesky problem is the NRC. Everytime I read something factual about the NRC, it just shows they are the biggest monkey wrench trying to kill nuclear power in the USA. And the radical greens call the NRC in bed with the nuclear industry.

Re:Maybe 40k

[WorBlux]

550 could probably get you h2 from water + electrolysis with about 45-50% effeciency. I think about 900 is where and Iodine-sulfer process to get hydrogen makes sense. (which is driven soley by heat). The Haber process requires lower temps, 350-500, but the hard part economically of it is getting the hyrogen. MSR's can follow loads somewhat, but you really don't want them to as the thermal stresses will greatly decrease the usable lifespan of the graphite cores. Some other problems - The graphite cores to degrade in the nutron flux, but also absord some transuranics, leading to a bit more of a waste issue than just the fuel cyel. The other issue is it's just barely a breeder with low nuetron speeds, and at the high nuetron speeds makes a lot of transurancis (is less prliferation resistant) Another is that fuel processing can't be done in the core, and continous processing is a challenge for the amount of salts that need processed. So even though I'm convinced it's possible, there is still a huge engineering challenge to get everything worked out to the point you have a break-even breeder. My hope is that Sea Land or something like it will offer to play host to the first reactor, and make a lot of money just by selling synthysis products. Letting china get there first has some disconcerting implication for the global balance of power.

Re:Maybe 40k

[macpacheco]

As to making transuranics on an MSR...
If the fuel is 5% U235+U238 then you'd be somewhat right. Properly designed MSRs waste far less neutrons than LWR / BWR. But still they couldn't be Plutonium breeders.
Except the primary fuel envisioned for an MSR is at least 80% Thorium (for the DMSR which is designed not to be a breeder). For LFTR it could be 100% Thorium + U233 at startup, which would have enough neutron surplus to both fully consume all of its produced transuranics while breeding U233 sustainably.
Th232+neutron -> Pa233 -> 1 month half life -> U233
U233 + neutron (85% chance) -> fission generating 2.3 neutrons
One neutron is used to fission another U233
One neutron is used to breed another Pa233 -> U233
Still has .3 neutrons budget
Proponents of LFTR state that a well designed LFTR should be capable of 1.07 breeding ratio.
If U233 doesn't fission, we get U234 which becomes U235 with another neutron.
In the end, there's 85% fission probability of U233, 80% fission probability of U235, another chance at Np237, then it finally becomes Pu239 with 2/3 chance of fission. So the odds of making Pu240 (Pu239 absorbs a neutron instead of fission) is around 0,2%, while using 5% enriched uranium odds are 33% or 150 times less chances.
Another important characteristic is having no Thorium in the core, instead all Thorium is in a molten salt blanket, as to greatly reduce the odds of Pa233 getting a neutron before decaying into U233 (making U232 and wasting neutrons).
I don't think core fluids would be in direct contact with graphite moderator, but I could be wrong. Of course that would be design dependent. The full blown LFTR proposal is still just simulations.
Water cooled reactors main problem with isobreeding is buildup of Xenon and Krypton inside the fuel, which are neutron poisons (huge cross section). In any MSR design gases bubble up into a capture bottle, so they hardly eat up neutrons, plus even with infrequent reprocessing removing fission products, lots of neutrons are saved. And what water cooled reactors must do to fight Xe135 buildup ? Must be designed with a neutron rich environment with control rods and boron eating up neutrons on purpose (so when Xenon builds up, Xenon can eat up those neutrons instead), and even still, LWR make a lot of Plutonium.

Its not by chance that WAMSR proposed design is a molten salt, spent nuclear fuel burner... If your statement is right, then WAMSR would be impossible. Of course WAMSR design is still pretty much a secret.

Re:Maybe 40k

[WorBlux]

Neptinium 237 is a proliferation risk in a single flued ractor

Additionaly making the purer U233 is a proliferation risk in the two fluid reactor. Because these deal with reprossing withing a zone hot enough to kill people you're not worried about rouge actors, but is an issue with nation-state types that might modify the machinery on the sly. The risk might even be far less than with LWR, but it's still there. It's not a reason not to do it, but it is a reason to maintain caution.

1.07 Doesn't seem to give a lot of fudge factor if engineering compromises have to be made. Without a specific design in hand to run simulation on I think it's hard to say. It's definately worth looking into but for the first few generation we might have to settle for .95 and top off the fissile material every few years.

And there both single and dual fluid configuration that could be used. If I recall correctly there are some design limitation on the two fluid that limit the maximum power of a single reactor. And the issue of how to seperate the two fliuds is a particularly difficult material engineering challenge.

The WAMSR as far as I can tell is a single-fluid burner like the DMSR

Re:Maybe 40k

[WorBlux]

Just be be clear it's the two-fluid design that has upper limits. Switching to a single-fluid lets you scale up the the gigaWatt scale. 30-100 MW designs are what Filbe energy is aiming at (drop in replacements to older base-load coal plants )

Re:Maybe 40k

[macpacheco]

GW scaling isn't important. Its better to have lots of sub 500MWe reactors than 2 conventional full sized 1300-1500MWe.
Allows better maintenance planning.

Re:Maybe 40k

[macpacheco]

U233 is the least desirable nuclear bomb material.
Besides I'm FAR MORE concerned about Coal proliferation.
There is a lot of non sensical arguments perpetrated by the NRC in their thirst for as much regulatory revenue as possible.
You do know that the NRC charges by the hour (like US$ 250/hr) for their regulatory work, without any predictability in that process ?
I don't see any problems with a two fluid LFTR in countries that already have nuclear weapons or have substantial plutonium stockpiles or that have the facilities to make plutonium if they so desire. Finally new nuclear weapon design is focused on U235 as nuclear fuel, which is actually cheaper and more convenient to use for nuclear weapon design due to its very high half live. U235 has 700 million half life, while U233 / Pu239 has half lives under 100k years.
There was a time when Uranium enrichment was expensive and complex job, today it's much easier to enrich than to produce plutonium or U233.
Let LFTR design flourish.
Then we can restrict countries without nuclear weapons / plutonium stockpiles for only deploying the simplified DMSR (single fluid, has enough U238 in the core to require any U233 to be enriched in order to make nuclear weapons). Massive coal deployment is taking place in countries that already have nuclear weapons (USA, China, India).

Still pretty affordable

[iluvcapra]

That's a $500 lease payment and basically in line with a BMW 3 Series, not exactly demotic pricing but there's a lot of people shopping for something in that range, particularly after tax creds and discounting gasoline.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[flarb936]

Thing is, in California electricity costs almost the same as gas. EVs in California are mostly about HOV lane access, carbon footprint, or status--not really cost savings.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[jellomizer]

In short someone who who could afford the car is someone who really shouldn't need the tax credits. An other case of normal politics.

The right makes it so the Rich doesn't have to pay taxes.
The left makes it so the Rich are the only one able to avoid paying taxes.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas forbid someone in Texas want to drive one.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[YoungManKlaus]

I think in California you have enough sun to put a solar charger up. After all thats when electric cars really start to pay, when you dont have to use grid power but can generate your own.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[MightyYar]

Average in CA is 15.2 cents per kwh. The EPA uses 33.7kwh/gallon of gasoline for equivalency calculations. So that would be over $5 per gallon. However, electric cars have much better efficiency than gasoline cars... perhaps as much as 3x. That will bring your "per-gallon" price way down. You will save money on fuel compared to a gasoline car.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[rogoshen1]

insert morpheus meme -- "What if i told you the rich run both parties, and neither has the middle/lower classes interests at heart?"

Re:Still pretty affordable

[macromorgan]

I live in Texas. I'd love to own a Model 3 when they come out. But I'm on a budget, so if the price is closer to $35k I can do it, but at $50k it's not possible (my budget for cars in the next few years will be around $25k, the lower per mile cost of a Tesla will factor in though). Additionally, being from Texas, I occasionally need to drive long distances and would hope the range can still come in around 250+ at that price point.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anubis350]

You're wrong in this case, there needs to be a bigger install base to allow the roll out of supporting infrastructure, from charging stations to competitors on battery manufacture. That's what the subsidies are about.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Shatrat]

It's not about what they 'need'. That word's almost as arbitrary and useless as 'deserve'. This is about incentivizing people who can afford to buy the Tesla Model 3 instead of the V8 sports car they might otherwise be showing off.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an example of the government subsidizing a technology in the hopes of it winning out over the current tech (gas) which is detrimental to society (health, pollution, security).

A better example of what you are trying to articulate is the income tax deduction for mortgage insurance. Poor people rent, and therefor never get to take advantage of the credit. Wealthier people have mortgages and are afforded the opportunity to shelter some of their income. Wage tax also disproportionately favor the rich, since they aren't as reliant on W2 income as the poor.... Plenty of valid examples to cite but tech subsidies are not one of them.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

But the right hates any threat to oil companies don't they? Make up your mind.

Re: Still pretty affordable

[imgod2u]

That math really only works if you charge during peak hours (which most people don't) and compare it to the cost/mile driven of a Prius. Which is about as stretched of an assignment as you can make

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Altus]

The reason to give the subsidy is to encourage people to engage in behavior that would not be economically beneficial to them otherwise. I probably wouldn't buy a tesla for 45K because that makes no sense for me. I won't pay that for a car and the savings on fuel will not get me even close to the point where it makes sense. With a 10K subsidy it would be a lot closer to making economic sense for me to buy this car. Sure it might end up a bit more expensive over the life or the car, or it might even end up being a good deal. I am far more likely to buy the car with a subsidy and if it is determined that we want to encourage people to buy electric cars the subsidy might be necessary to get that to happen.

It is similar with solar panels... where I live if I had to pay for them in their entirety it probably wouldn't pay off, or it might break even (not taking into account the time and energy I put into getting them installed... break even really isn't compelling) but if we want people to install them then we need to make sure it is worth their while and subsidies is how we make that happen.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[slashdice]

Did you go to public school in Texas?

Re: Still pretty affordable

[imgod2u]

Well let's see:

Your food.
The gasoline you buy.
The other cars you could buy.
Your bank account insurance.
Your home insurance.

The list goes on and on. I don't think you live in the Somalian government free paradise you think you do.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[schlachter]

Assuming the car is $35K and looking at household income in the USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

It looks like you can start to afford this car when you're in the 75th percentile, and comfortably afford this when you're in the 85th percentile of American households...assuming average housing/living costs.

If we go by the 85th percentile range, there's 45+ Million potential households that could afford/buy this car.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[afidel]

Thing is, in California electricity costs almost the same as gas

The top tier with southern california edison is $0.32/KWhr so filling the top capacity model S costs $27.20 and gives you a 300 mile range for a cost per mile of $.09. The average price of gas in southern California is currently ~$3.50 so to match the Tesla you'd have to achieve ~38MPG, which is quite a bit better than the 740i achieves, probably the most comparable vehicle to the Model S. Heck, the most fuel efficient large BMW in the US, the 535d, only achieves 30MPG combined. This also neglects the fact that if you have the money for a Model S you can afford to put up solar panels to avoid falling into that top tier of consumption so your real cost per mile could be significantly lower.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[afidel]

The tax credit is there to jump start the industry, and there are per manufacturer and total vehicles sold caps on the credit, compared to all the perpetual credits for the oil and gas industry that's actually extremely progressive.Oh, and you can buy a Nissan Leaf and take full advantage of the credit without being anything approaching "Rich".

Re:Still pretty affordable

[flarb936]

It's not necessarily true in LA because of the way electricity is billed. If you are going for pure usage based--you will easily blow through tier 4 usage limits when charging an EV every night. This brings you into the 34 cents per kwh level. (in Los Angeles) Which also is what the rest of your house will be billed at too. This also doesn't include taxes and so-called "delivery charges" which may bring your electricity into the 50 cents per kwh range. My Volt takes like 12-14 kwh to charge. And I get maybe 40 miles range on that. So that's like $4-4.50 to charge. Maybe $6 if you add in all the fees added on top of it. I get the equivalent of a little over a gallon of premium gas in range--so maybe $5-6 of gas for $4-6 worth of electricity. I suspect the Tesla gets more miles per kwh than the Volt, though. The only way to really save money on charging your car is to get a separate meter to your garage, and have that meter billed at the time of day rate--so during the day it's 34 cents and at night (like midnight to 9 AM or something) it's 11 cents kwh. And charge only at night.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Ryanrule]

then i would tell you that you are engaging in false equivalence, and likely vote repub.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're full of shit. cash for clunkers was a wealth transfer program from the poor to the rich and that's just one tiny program sponsored by Ds that transfers wealth from the poor to the rich.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[JeffAtl]

How easy is it to get a separate time-of-day rate meter in California? I tried to get a separate water meter for my sprinkler system (no sewer charge) and my county quoted a charge of $1,000. This is in GA and I've heard that the charge varies by county.

Can the Tesla or Volt be connected to the charger and configured to only charge during a preset time period?

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

In short someone who who could afford the car is someone who really shouldn't need the tax credits.

But you are assuming that the tax credits are intended to help the taxpayer. Tax credits are often used to encourage a desired behavior or desired research or something, and so it is in this case. The US Congress wanted to encourage research and development in electric cars, so the tax credits are really to help Tesla rather than Tesla's customers.

P.S. Your cynicism isn't unwarranted... if you really want to hold on to your wealth, arrange your affairs so that you are doing the same things a US Senator does. For example, if US Senators are making lots of capital gains, try to get your income as capital gains. Working for a salary (like I do) is for little people.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[CohibaVancouver]

What else can subsidize here?

Well, in your case, apparently grammar school.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[JeffAtl]

The top tier with southern california edison is $0.32/KWhr

Does this include taxes and the "delivery charge" that another post mentioned upthread?

Re: Still pretty affordable

[zodar]

~$3.50 for 87 octane, which you can't put in most higher-end cars these days.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[BradMajors]

Yes. No one buys a Telsa in order to save money.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[imgod2u]

Yes on the later question. In northern CA, they also offer "EV" plans where there are no more tiers. The base rate is higher (11cents/kWH after 11pm, peak of about 35cents/kWH during the day) than the tiered system (which starts at 5cents/kWH after 11pm with a peak of ~15cents/kWH, but grows exponentially).

But if you're charging an EV, you'll likely blow past the tiers anyway so having the EV plan works better. With a Model S, at least, you'll really only need to charge it at night and the software lets you schedule charging.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas strike you down for badmouthing Texas.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[zwede]

Texas forbid someone in Texas want to drive one.

That who and the what now?

I live in Texas. I bought my Tesla in Texas. Thanks to the dealer lobby the paperwork says I bought it from California, but in reality the dealership bribes accomplished nothing except a slight tweak to a piece of paper. My car was delivered to the Dallas Tesla Service Center where I picked it up. Oh, and I had a California instead of Texas temp tag on it until I got my real Texas plates.

All in all the Texas "Tesla ban" is a non-event.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to back that up or are you just feeding more into the two-party scam?

Re: Still pretty affordable

[operagost]

We don't live in a dystopian straw-man that only exists in the mind of the socialist; therefore, we must abandon all resistance to government control of the economy.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[zwede]

Can the Tesla or Volt be connected to the charger and configured to only charge during a preset time period?

Tesla has a schedule function where you can set the time it will start charging. It's also geo-fenced (GPS), so the schedule is for a specific location. Pretty neat in that if you plug it in at home it won't start charging until your preset time, but plug it in somewhere else and it starts right away.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[NatasRevol]

Guess what the price of gas is around LAX?

$5/gallon

Re:Still pretty affordable

[NatasRevol]

I was in LA a month ago, driving around for a week.

I think I saw a grand total of one gas station that had gas for less than $4.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[operagost]

Then you would be pretty thick.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming the car is $35K and looking at household income in the USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

It looks like you can start to afford this car when you're in the 75th percentile, and comfortably afford this when you're in the 85th percentile of American households...assuming average housing/living costs.

If we go by the 85th percentile range, there's 45+ Million potential households that could afford/buy this car.

You're off by a factor of 3 or so. There are roughly 115M households in the US. 15% of that is about 17M.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[AaronW]

I added a second meter for charging my Tesla. Other than paying an electrician to do the wiring I just had to fill out some forms to get a permit, add a second address for PG&E and pay for a disconnect-reconnect from PG&E. I don't think I paid more than $100 for the permit and second address. I pay around $0.12/KWh on my second meter when I charge between 11pm and 6am on weekdays or any time on weekends. It was trivial to set my Tesla to start charging at 11:05pm at whatever current draw I want (up to 80 amps in my case). Most EVs and plug-in hybrids let you choose the charging times. Now I did end up paying $4500 for all of the electrical work I had done, but this involved replacing the main breaker panel on my house, installing a second one with the two meters and running a 100A circuit around 100 feet to my garage with a fair amount of thick conduit and an emergency shut-off in the garage. The Tesla charger was another $1200, which as far as car chargers go is not bad especially considering that it handles 80 amps.

Before getting two meters I was able to get a special time-of-use EV rate so the cost wasn't that bad.

I typically pay $40-60/month for charging my car and I average around 15,000 miles/year.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Zenzilla]

Is that all you got? During the same time the R's were all in favor of propping up the banks. Why were they not in favor of propping up the auto industry? Was it because the auto industry employed people with low incomes and had unions? You would have to do a lot to convince me otherwise. You can argue all you want the CFC was a wealth transfer but it kept a lot of blue collared works employed during the worst recession of my lifetime. But keep saying that both sides are bad. I know it's not true and I vote.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[MightyYar]

Yes, but a gasoline engine can only use around 25-30% of the energy contained in a gallon of gas. Electric motors are around 3x more efficient, even when considering the charge/discharge losses.

Re: Still pretty affordable

[AaronW]

I just checked the prices last night, not that I use gasoline any more. $3.99/gallon for 87 regular. EVs also get a special rate through the utility so it's no where near $0.32/KWh if you charge at night.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[BoberFett]

Then why is the government rebating the individual purchaser of an expensive car rather than spending that money on building charging stations?

You've been hoodwinked.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

your right. instead of subsidizing solar all new housing should have solar as a requirement. California still has shit tons of sun so either way yes, people should be able to get electric cars.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[BoberFett]

Math/statitics fail.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[rogoshen1]

While I agree that keeping the auto industry alive is a vital thing for the US, your argument lends itself to something like this :

Would giving handouts to buggy whip manufacturers be good or bad in the long run?

Re: Still pretty affordable

[rock_climbing_guy]

Don't forget health insurance. The fed gov't predicts that insurance for a family of five will cost $20,000 in 2015, but don't worry, they'll subsidize it for you!

Re:Still pretty affordable

[fnj]

If we go by the 85th percentile range, there's 45+ Million potential households that could afford/buy this car.

Error. The number of households above the 85th percentile of income is nowhere near 45 million. From your own citation, the number is about 18 million.

Re: Still pretty affordable

[OhPlz]

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing.

Is your point that government is tangled up in so much stuff already that it doesn't matter what it gets involved in anymore? You see no issue here?

Re:Still pretty affordable

[afidel]

According to their terriff sheet summer consumption at 200% of baseline is $0.19564 for delivery and and $0.12396 for generation which actually comes out to $0.3196 per KWhr so I assume the $.35 includes some kind of taxes.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[mspohr]

Electricity costs much less than the cost of gas.
Electric cars use about 250 wh to go one mile. This costs about 3 cents at 12 cents/kwh (my cost of electricity in California is about 10 cents/kwh).
A gas car at 25 mpg and $4.00/ gal costs 16 cents to go one mile.
It's just math. 3 cents is less than 16 cents.
Looks like a big cost saving to me... the HOV lane, etc. are just added perks.

Re: Still pretty affordable

[geekoid]

Since all those subsidies is why america remains fairly stable, no, I don't see any problems.

They are tax dollar paid to keep thing stable.

Re: Still pretty affordable

[barc0001]

The countries that have *actual* government run healthcare shake heads sadly watching the spectacle.

Re: Still pretty affordable

[OhPlz]

So you want to keep the farm subsidies, the oil subsidies, etc? Is it just a free-for-all? Any new thing needs a subsidy?

What ever happened to American individualism and entrepreneurship? What ever happened to taking risk in order to earn the reward? Would we even need all these subsidies if we got rid of them? We'd have more money to go around. Why does the federal government need to take our money to then turn around and use it to "help" us pay for things?

Who is accountable? Anyone? We subsidized the heck out of the phone companies, where is our high speed Internet?

Re:Still pretty affordable

[afidel]

Right now there are plenty of stations listed on gasbuddy in LA proper, and the greater LA area at $3.47-$3.49, of course there are quite a few listed at $4.99!

Re:Still pretty affordable

[geekoid]

I would recommend using a solar just for charging. Don't have it wired to the rest of the house.
The other advantage of that, is that if you loose power, you would still have a source of power for your car and chargeable devices.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[geekoid]

The rebate isn't for Tesla. It's for any electric car. It's an incentive to get buyers to try new technology.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[geekoid]

"The reason to give the subsidy is to encourage people to engage in behavior that would not be economically beneficial to them otherwise."
Also, risk mitigation.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that is dirt cheap. How much is diesel?

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

+1. I am in Tier 9 in Nor Cal with average 25 cents per kWh on a 2000 sq ft house with AC @ 78F in the summer. Bill is $500 a month.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[floobedy]

I don't think that's right. I've known a couple of EV owners in CA who claim that the electricity costs are less than half what gasoline costs, per mile. The Chevy Volt uses 10 KwH of battery capacity to travel approximately 40 miles. That's 0.25 KwH/mi, which is $0.0375 per mile with electricity at $0.15 per KwH (in CA). Gasoline is about $4 gal and can take a car about 35 miles, which is $0.1142 per mile, which is ~3x as expensive as the EV.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

yup probably how your trailer is hooked up right now

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

unless you have storage... how will you charge your car at night, assuming you have a job during the days. also with E6 billing, you get much more of a bang for your KWs during the day and charge at night at lower rates.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Uberbah]

Why were they not in favor of propping up the auto industry?

Of course they were. No president or party was going to sit by and watch 3 million jobs disappear in a chain reaction if GM went under.

Was it because the auto industry employed people with low incomes and had unions?

The deal was easily something President Romney could have put together with some stooges from Bain Capital. GM was forced to declare bankruptcy before they could get bailout money, and a two-tier system of wages was set up for the workers, creating resentment and undermining the union. If that wasn't enough, liability was eliminated for lawsuits on pre-bailout cars - so the families of those killed by faulty ignition switches are left with whatever GM decides to give them.

Re: Still pretty affordable

[rock_climbing_guy]

Our PPACA law is a sick joke.

We already have Medicare Part D, which while it is laudable that it helps retirees buy medicine, it stipulates that the US gov't pay FULL PRICE for these meds. Just to give you an example of what that's like, I was once asked to pay $80 to fill a prescription I normally pay $10 to have filled. I politely told them to shove it. Uncle Sam would have written a check for $80.

According to the official figures, the US gov't spends more money per capita on health insurance than countries that provide universal coverage. It is a sickening example of cronyism and thinly veiled bribery.

Re: Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Or in any car, really. I don't think I have ever seen a car that does not require at least 91 RON and most need 95 or more.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[mythosaz]

Why would you "blow through" usage limits?

Your numbers are nuts.

If you drive an electric car a thousand miles a month (remember, it has a short leash - if you drive much more, you're depending on public chargers at your destinations to supplement your range), you're still only using 256 kWh, since the Leaf and the BMW both get about 3.9 miles to the kWh. With the minimal charging inefficiencies not withstanding, that means you've got $38.90 in extra power each month for a thousand miles of electric driving at the CA average of 15.2c/kWh. [Aside, with the national average cost of gasoline at about $3.60/gal -- more in CA -- you should be getting about about "100eMPG" in converting cents on the electric meter to cents on the pump.]

Your Volt looks like it has a 16.5kWh battery. It should cost you $2.50 a day (on average) to charge --- especially since anyone with a fish-tank timer on their charging plug can get 11 cents/kWh charging from midnight to 9am.

Of course you CAN pay more, but why? Your corner case with overages and daytime rates are atypical.

If your monthly power bill doesn't have room to some artificial cap for $1.29 a day in electricity, then you might want to consider unplugging your toaster.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[mythosaz]

Again with this "blow past tiers" nonsense.

Software on the car or not, a fish-tank timer is rated high enough and can turn your plug on at midnight when your cheaper rate kicks in.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Gliscameria]

Buy some solar panels to offset the raised usage and keep at a lower tier?

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need money to put up solar panels, especially in California.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

There's some more grass over there sheep!

I mean you did admit you would vote Demopublican, so clearly you are without any critical thinking skills.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

You showed the same thing when you used teenybopper terms like "sheep" and "demopublican". And that's coming from someone who's always been completely independent.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. It's a true equivalence. The only difference in the parties is their primary methods, and which cronies are receiving funds and power via those methods.

Say it with me now. Do it 5 times every morning and maybe it will begin to erase your brainwashing:

1) By definition, all winning politicians are sociopaths. Those that aren't will inevitably lose to those that are.
2) The purpose of every government throughout the history of man, up to an including the modern US government and the current set of politicians, is to concentrate power in the hands of an elite few and farm the productivity of the masses as if they were cattle.
3) If you're reading this, you're cattle, and the politicians are not your friends. Even when the public face of their interests seems to align with causes you care about, it's either a thin facade over something that's actually screwing you, or it's true but you've been brainwashed into thinking something horrible is something you wanted.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[davydagger]

the oil companies that make your gasoline and motor oil. I mean its not like they run on razor thin margins and need a tax credit to stay profitable or something.

But that would be communism or something.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy a bicycle you lazy twat.

Re: Still pretty affordable

[davydagger]

>entrepreneurship?

its somewhat a BS myth we constructed, but it never really worked like that. We tend to ignore the parts of history that seem to disagree with it.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[BoberFett]

That's my point. If you're going to claim the rebate is designed to help create a charging network, why not subsidize that directly rather than provide cash back to individual car buyers? As usual, government incorrectly identifies the problem and misapplies the wrong solution.

Re: Still pretty affordable

[Firethorn]

According to the official figures, the US gov't spends more money per capita on health insurance than countries that provide universal coverage. It is a sickening example of cronyism and thinly veiled bribery.

According to the official figures I've seen, the Federal government alone pays enough to not quite as much per person as the cheaper European states spend to cover 100% of their population. Add in the individual State funding and you could pay median European* healthcare costs on an individual basis without a single private dime.

As a (moderate) libertarian, I actually find this a good argument for national single-payer if it's implemented somewhat correctly. Because if done right it would actually REDUCE government spending, meaning by my 'yardstick' we actually have less government while people are better off. I, of course, have to point out that I think there are better options, but it's more a measure of just how big a cluster of screw-ups our healthcare system is.

*not to mention Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, etc...

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Firethorn]

Software on the car or not, a fish-tank timer is rated high enough and can turn your plug on at midnight when your cheaper rate kicks in.

I'm going to call bull on this one. You need a serious relay to switch that much voltage.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Cash for clunkers was an emergency economic stimulus and incentive program to clear out inventory due to the overproduction of cars prior to the crash. It saved countless jobs in not only the automotive-related industries but of course all the industries supported by the employees of that industry- it made modern updated cars affordable to millions who needed to replace their vehicles, injected desperately needed $ into the economy, and made cars 58-61% more fuel efficient for those who participated.

It is one of the bright spots in the otherwise anemic stimulus programs the US enacted. So, what's that about transferring wealth from the poor to the rich exactly?

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Firethorn]

$4500 is an awful lot to pay to save $100/month(estimated) in fuel costs. That's 4 years to simply pay for the electrical work before you even start touching any increase in car costs.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[macpacheco]

EPA estimated one gallon of gasoline contains 33.7kWh.
CA June 2014 average kWh price = 17 cents
33.7kWh of electricity * .17 = US$ 5.729 for one gallon of gasoline electricity equivalent

let's look at Tesla Model S mpg equivalent numbers:
    60kWh pack = 160 mile range, mpg equiv 152.59 mpg
    85kWh pack = 265 mile range, mpg equiv 138.56 mpg
a non plug in 2015 prius is rated @ 51/48 mpg !
With gas around US$ 4/gallon, you can see that even a Prius costs close to 200% more per mile to fuel with gasoline than a Tesla Model S costs to power with electricity.
If instead of a prius we consider a regular non hybrid car, then we're talking the Tesla being about 5x more efficient in dollars !
And that's disregarding solar panels. If you can invest on those, paying 5 years worth of electricity bills, you can get back at least 15 years worth of electricity back, so it could reduce your long term electricity costs by at least 2/3s.
Electricity can be self generated. Gasoline can't.
Of course, EVs today only make sense for high mileage consumers. If you drive little, you might be better off even buying a regular car.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Say it with me now. Do it 5 times every morning and maybe it will begin to erase your brainwashing:

You must think irony means "kind of like iron".

Re:Still pretty affordable

[macpacheco]

Are you considering that in 2 years the supercharger network will be fully realized and unless you need to drive into Mexico or into Canada wilderness, you will have free electrons for long range driving. 110 superchargers operational in the USA, with another 22 in construction + licensing process plus over another 100 planned for the next 2 years. Superchargers have been popping up quickly. Tesla isn't making TX a priority due to anti Tesla sales hostility, but they will invest on the supercharger coverage in TX, even if mostly for out of state visitors. Right now there are just 5 TX superchargers, but plans for 2015 are 16 superchargers.
Plus the trend is for having EV charging in every hotel in the long run, it's extra revenue for hotel operators are a modest investment (for a high amp 220V outlet with a meter).

Re:Still pretty affordable

[macpacheco]

There is no escape. We once needed every hand available to work in factories. Now factories need less than 1% the people needed to produce similar goods 100 years ago. We can keep inventing more complex goods, but in a decade automation will do it with few people.
We can also keep inventing more weird things for the services sector to do.
Plus with jobs going to China and other low labor cost countries, deindustrialization will destroy capitalism as we know it today.
Unless you are for a world where 50% unemployment is the norm, govt subsidies will only grow.
I wish we could do it with less govt, but savage capitalism is far worse than european style capitalism+social programs.
Weird thing is even my Brazil (a developing country) experienced significant deindustrialization after the rise of China. It's screwing up everybody that isn't paying peanuts to labor.
The real problem is NIMBY barriers to new business investment. Completely unrelated to subsidies policies.
People are too stupid, you get a little rich then you reject wind turbines, nuclear power stations, factories, high voltage electricity powerlines, and before you know it, your area is stuck on a deindustrialization route. Think about it.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[AaronW]

Much of the cost was the cost to replace the main panel which is something I have wanted to do for some time anyway since the old one was almost 50 years old. Additionally, the previous owners did a lot of less-than-legal electrical work on the house and I wanted it done right. I corrected a lot of mistakes but I wanted a licensed electrician to go over it as well (he found a few issues I had missed). I could have continued to use the 30A dryer outlet in my garage indefinitely or installed a 50A outlet for considerably less money but I chose to do it right. I might have been able to use my existing breaker box and just run the 6 gauge wire needed for a 50A outlet for a few hundred dollars but I chose instead to do something that is more flexible in the future. Besides, my existing breaker box was almost full. The upgrade allowed me to add some additional circuits for other things.

Afterwards I ended up rewiring most of the outlets in my garage and adding some new ones using a couple of 20A circuits since the previous owners had tied everything into a 15A circuit that the doorbell transformer was on. It's also nice now that my air compressor doesn't cause the lights to dim and I don't have to risk tripping a breaker all the time when using power tools. I also feel better running 10 gauge wiring on the long run between the main panel and my garage for those outlets. 50 years ago the power requirements for houses were a bit different than they are today and this allows me to continue to upgrade things as I see fit. The car charger uses 1 gauge aluminum wire for much of the run with 2 gauge copper in the conduit. I had a neutral line run as well so that the wiring could be used for other purposes in the future if needed such as putting in a sub-panel in the garage. I have a few more circuits I plan to add now that I have more room available in my main panel.

When I got the house I found boxes hidden under the sheetrock and splices made with just electrical tape without any boxes plus putting 20A breakers on circuits that can't handle more than 15A, light switches put on the neutral line, etc. Some people shouldn't be allowed electrical wiring.

Besides, my house is paid off in full. If it wasn't for that there's no way I would have bought that car, let alone run the charging circuit for it. Most owners just go for a 50A outlet, which is all the Tesla will handle without an optional charger upgrade.

Re: Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

The US already has single payer.. it's the VA. There are constant issues with it, the latest being secret waiting lists so that bureaucrats could get bonuses to reduce the number of people on the official wait list. At least it wasn't patient neglect this time, but these are patients they haven't even seen yet. Once all the hospitals and other facilities are government, you have no place to turn except for the government. That will destroy our health care system.
 

Re:Still pretty affordable

[OhPlz]

Are you agreeing with me? Do you support corporate welfare? Should taxpayers being helping the well-off buy Teslas?

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anubis350]

because it's not *just* for the charging network, it's to stimulate growth of the whole industry - and that starts with having an install base of the *cars*. Get enough EV machines on the road and there will be a lot of third party things made for them. It's better to stimulate the primary driving force behind that than one specific aspect

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Aighearach]

Assuming a person would buy as expensive a car either way, which is a reasonable assumption, you're saying after 4 years he's saving money.

So yeah, if you can afford the investment, it is cheaper to go electric in his location with his system.

Electric cars perform better, too.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Moof123]

You get about 4-5 miles per kWh. Even in California electricity is only ~18 cents a kWh, or about $0.04 of electricity per mile. Gas is about $4 a gallon, so a 30 mpg car is about $0.13 worth of gas per mile. In almost every state the ratio is about 3-4x cheaper for electric vs. gas. It is possible to put your car on a separate meter and get time of use billing on just the car so you can do a lot better than 18 cents per kWh if you use timers to charge in the way off peak hours.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Moof123]

For a level 2 charger you need 240V and a 20-50 A capacity depending on the EVSE you choose. A fish tank timer just won't do.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Where would that $10k subsidy come from though?

Taxes.

Where do those come from?

You. Or maybe me.

So, wouldn't it make more sense for the government to not tax you or subsidize you, and just let you buy that damn car?

No, because what people want is for someone else to pay taxes that subsidize the car they are buying.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[hackertourist]

Why go to the lengths of having a second official meter and a second address? That strikes me as more expensive than it needs to be, I'd have wired an unofficial meter in the circuit from the main breaker panel to the garage, that way you'd be able to monitor usage without all the overhead.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Uberbah]

then i would tell you that you are engaging in false equivalence, and likely vote repub.

Huh? Eric Holder started pushing for fines in place of prosecution for financial crimes when he was in the Clinton Administration, and proceeded to enact that policy as AG. Banks were allowed to steal millions in homes and trillions in wealth from Joe and Jane Shmoe, who covered the bank's losses with taxpayer-funded bailouts. You can't get your head much farther up the asses of the rich than that.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[dywolf]

being a home improvement, he'll get that back in house value, so i wouldnt chalk that up against fuel cost equivalence.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[dywolf]

no

Re:Still pretty affordable

[dywolf]

then i'd say yo're pretty dang foolish and blithely ignorant of reality.

which party rails against "the 1%"?
which party calls for higher taxes on the richest folks?
ya, they're run by the rich alright....

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully tesla find some banking partners. Currently there is little to no tesla financing options, let alone lease options.

Re: Still pretty affordable

[stdarg]

I agree with you except for your Somalia reference. You don't know what you're talking about. If you think Somalia is "government free" (obviously the paradise bit was sarcastic), then I suggest you go over there and start a church distributing free Bibles.

See how long before the local warlord hears about you and shuts you down and murders you.

Yeah that's right, Somalia's problem is actually too much government, and too many competing governments... not lack of governance. It is very closely governed.

Re: Still pretty affordable

[tbannist]

Once all the hospitals and other facilities are government, you have no place to turn except for the government.

Interesting note: There are countries that provide universal health care where the government owns all the hospitals and clinics and there are countries where it doesn't. Universal health care doesn't require that the government own the health care infrastructure. The government only needs to take over the primary health care insurance market.

Another interesting note: Many of the countries with universal health care still have for-profit supplemental health care coverage for the things that are not covered by the universal system.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Muad'Dave]

A fish tank timer (or more likely, a tiny microcontroller) across the "Start" button leads would work just fine. There's more than 1 way to skin that cat.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Muad'Dave]

The average price of gas in southern California is currently ~$3.50 ... the most fuel efficient large BMW in the US, the 535d, only achieves 30MPG ...

Isn't that a Diesel? I bet Diesel fuel is higher than the ~$3.50/gal you quoted.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[afidel]

Correct, I was just pointing out that even the best of the competitions offerings still fell well short of price parity, the fact that the fuel for the more efficient vehicle is more expensive just exacerbates the situation. Another factor swaying the per mile cost in favor of the electric is the fact that you're highly unlikely to reach the EPA rating in southern California traffic so real world numbers will be even more skewed.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[macromorgan]

I'm taking the supercharger network into account. My concern lay with the fact that if the car as a 100 mile range I'll be stopping every 75 minutes to charge for 30 minutes. It's not the end of the world (and admittedly a first world type problem), but still a big enough of a hassle.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[macpacheco]

What 100 mile range ? The 85kWh has 265mile range, the 60kWh has 160 mile range. Of course if you want to drive 75mph with AC/heat on, range is reduced, but you can drive slower when you're range critical and drive faster between superchargers / to/from home.
100 mile is LEAF range.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Firethorn]

As he mentioned, it was an electrical upgrade he was looking to do anyways due to his house not meeting his standards for electrical work. I'd have done more of the work myself, but I'm lucky that way.

As for 'saving money after 4 years', it'd actually be a bit longer - $4.5k costs like $225-450 a year in opportunity costs alone. Then I was figuring that there was at least some extra expense with the vehicle. With the revelation that his electrical wasn't to code(or even all that safe) otherwise and that he was deliberately building in room for expansion it all became a lot more reasonable.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Firethorn]

being a home improvement, he'll get that back in house value, so i wouldnt chalk that up against fuel cost equivalence.

Only if he can find a buyer specifically interested in the charging capability. That's getting easier and easier, but if we lose too many rebates and incentives it could bottom out, at least before Musk gets the gigafactory up and an 'affordable' model out.

Same deal really with my interest in having a vault in my house. Nice for most people to have some secure storage, but they generally don't value it at what it cost to put it in.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Firethorn]

How are you powering the timer/microcontroller?

I'm not disputing that it'd be easy to do - as a matter of fact I believe that most chargers/cars already have more complex logic installed to control charging in order to save money via drawing when electricity is at it's lowest rates.

Of course, if 'everybody' starts getting EVs said lowest rates might go away, but it'd still be cheaper than gasoline.

Re: Still pretty affordable

[athenaprime]

governANCE is not governMENT, which seems to be the original point--tossing out governMENT does not leave one free from governANCE, and in fact, almost ensures that the governance is going to eventually approach the most brutish and simplistic system available at the time.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[mythosaz]

For a level 2 charger, you'd already need to have spent $500-$1000+ on a home kit (and possibly installation, and/or a new 220 outlet), and the grandparent could have charged his Volt in two hours tops, giving him ample opportunity to charge during any window he'd like. Unless you've bought the absolute bottom-end of the home chargers, delayed/timed charging is generally an option on residential level-2 chargers. The only way to not charge timed on a level 2 charger is to buy the absolute cheapest ones on the market and put no forethought into your install.

That said, almost all electric car owners just use 110 and charge overnight, with the "dumb" charger the car manufacturer provided.

There are plenty of 15A fish tank timers that are suitable for togging the provided charger.

Re: Still pretty affordable

[stdarg]

The government is the actor that governs, and governance is the act of governing. They are complementary words to describe what goes on when one group establishes rules and laws that they impose on others (and themselves sometimes). At least that's what I meant.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Muad'Dave]

The uController could easily run for several _years_ on a pair of D batteries. It sleeps for all but a single second out of the day, and wakes up to 'press' the go button. You could just as easily power it from a wall tumor across the 220V line powering the charger (many/most are 110/220 tolerant).

The fish timer would be powered from 1 leg of the 220 V circuit to the neutral to provide 110V as it expects.

My point in posting was that there are alternatives to having to switch the full 220V / bazillion amp charging current directly. Sometimes subtlety wins out over brute force :-)

Re:Still pretty affordable

[OldSport]

You know your perspective is skewed when you throw around numbers like $1,200, $4,500 -- in a post about owning an $80,000 car -- with the word "affordable."

Re:Still pretty affordable

[schlachter]

Ok, 18M households is still a pretty sweet market.
45M drivers is what I was thinking.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[BoberFett]

By taking the taxes paid by some middle class people and giving it to other people who make the "right" decision. Fuck social engineering.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[davydagger]

I am just pointing out the hypocrisy some people have that insist that solar/electric is only feasible when subsidied. Something the oil industry readily admits is true about themselves.

Re:Still pretty affordable

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. It's a true equivalence. The only difference in the parties is their primary methods, and which cronies are receiving funds and power via those methods.

Say it with me now. Do it 5 times every morning and maybe it will begin to erase your brainwashing:

1) By definition, all winning politicians are sociopaths. Those that aren't will inevitably lose to those that are. 2) The purpose of every government throughout the history of man, up to an including the modern US government and the current set of politicians, is to concentrate power in the hands of an elite few and farm the productivity of the masses as if they were cattle, and control the populace using scare tactics and FUD, citing things such as "The War on Terror", "The Cold War", "The War on Drugs", etc.. 3) If you're reading this, you're cattle, and the politicians are not your friends. Even when the public face of their interests seems to align with causes you care about, it's either a thin facade over something that's actually screwing you, or it's true but you've been brainwashed into thinking something horrible is something you wanted.

FTFY. And totally agree.

Mustang Shelby GT 500

[sycodon]

For $80k, I'll just get that...or a small house.

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the house then practically pays for itself while you drive it to work...

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[sycodon]

Well, $80k will get you a pretty decent small RV, which I could drive to work!

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[onkelonkel]

I'm curious. Where do you live, that you can buy a house for $80k? Around here $80k might not qualify as the down-payment on a house.

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[NatasRevol]

where you aren't allowed to park it.

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[Anonymous Coward]

In Detroit he could get about 4 city blocks for $80k.

Less snarky: Here's a map
The closer to dark green, the lower the median price. There are many counties with a sub-$80k median and many more with a median slightly above that level (implying many individual houses listed at less than $80k)

Also, that's just the listed prices, except in a few rare cases, seller tend to accept lower offers. Especially when there is a surplus of housing on the market (like now).

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[sycodon]

I did say "small". :-)

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to flyover country (East Central Indiana), where $80k will get you a decent house and a few acres, and $175k will get a damn nice house with acreage.

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[sycodon]

And very nice roads to run your Mustang on. Watch out for cows though!

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[sycodon]

Ha!

Most likely not.

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[hurfy]

lol, the house across the street from me is listed at $80k right now. Disregard the smell and don't touch the garage lest it fall down on you, but the house is pretty solid.

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[Anonymous Coward]

In states that aren't ridiculously socialized and massively overpriced on cost-of-living. Try not living in CA, NY, IL, or any state too close to them that they've infected.

My example would be from Texas, which is higher-priced than many of the less-populated midwestern states, but strikes a nice middling balance in terms of available culture, entertainment, infrastructure, etc.

Here, two years ago I bought a single-story 1,800 sq ft home built in 1995. It has 3 bedrooms, 2 full bathrooms, sizable kitchen/dining/living areas, and a separate laundry room. It also has a detached 3-car garage, and sits on 1 acre of land with numerous trees. Came with a nice shed on one side of the property to boot, and a paved driveway leading to the garage and house. My neighbors are such nice people that nobody even locks their doors, and there's no crime to speak of. There's a convenience store and a couple restaurants within quick walking distance (~1/4 mile), there are two small towns about 5 miles away in two different directions (with a complement of restaurants, movie theaters, shopping centers, major retailers, etc), and I'm about a 30 minute drive (in traffic) from smack in the middle of metropolitan Houston where anything else you can imagine is.

I paid $135K for this place. My monthly mortgage payment, including escrows for insurance and property taxes, is $950. My utility bills for 50mbps VDSL, electricity, propane (for hot water, stove, and winter heating), water, etc come to less than $300/mo on average.

Stop living in places that fuck you over?

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[Damarkus13]

One has to wonder just how closely that map correlates with median incomes as well.

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[Anonymous Coward]

In fly over country you can buy an older home for 80k. There is nothing out here. We don't have electric cars, we have trucks & suv's. Winter here can suck, so AWD is really handy. It's a terrible place to live. you wouldn't like it...
It's much nicer where ever you live. These crazy people all have guns. Some have lots of guns. There is no reason to leave your area, the homes there must be worth paying that much for. Notice how many people are trying to buy that wonderful home. I'm sure this isn't an area any sane person would want to live & raise their kids.
Oh, I forgot to add we have tornados in the spring, no warning just there...

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[MachineShedFred]

News flash: there is a lot of land between the coasts of North America, and it's priced vastly cheaper than most of the coastal states.

There's also a lot of people between the coasts that enjoy not having the ridiculous cost of living you see in the Northeast, and California.

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[Cytotoxic]

It doesn't. Because large swaths of the city are depopulated the income is pretty much zero, along with the population. The 50 families that are making 65k on average are irrelevant in a neighborhood with another 350 empty homes. The city wants to close down entire sections and relocate the remaining residents to save on city services. Don't know if they will be able to make that happen. Shrinking population is pretty ugly - at least for a while.

But the cheap real estate and massive empty industrial buildings might attract a lot of growth at some point with the right governance. The question is will any of the infrastructure last long enough for the turnaround to happen. I don't think anyone is betting on it right now.

Re:Mustang Shelby GT 500

[Cro Magnon]

I live in the Midwest, and though most new houses cost more than 80K, many older houses are less. Sometimes quite a lot less, depending on the area.

Let's wait and see

[j2.718ff]

Speculation is fine, but do we really need more articles attempting to predict the cost of a car that doesn't yet exist? I might even consider buying one, but before I can take one for a test drive, and see the actual price.

Who to believe?

[brunes69]

Who should I believe?

Menahem Anderman a self confirmed "battery skeptic"

Elon Musk who runs the company that makes the best and arguably most successful electric car ever produced, and is constantly hitting production targets?

My money is on Elon.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Elon Musk. The guy who also created PayPal, arguably one of the worst companies on the internet.

Re:Who to believe?

[rolfwind]

Did it suck when he was there or only after he left? I don't recall anymore.

Re:Who to believe?

[barc0001]

From Wikipedia:

"In March 1999, Musk co-founded X.com, an online financial services and e-mail payment company.[13][14] One year later, the company merged with Confinity,[32][34] which operated a subsidiary called PayPal.[32] PayPal and X.com each had a person-to-person email-based payment system.[32] The original intent was to merge the two systems, but it never happened.[citation needed]

Musk strongly favored the PayPal brand over the X brand. After initially co-branding PayPal with the X brand, including making X.com a subdomain of PayPal,[32] he moved to officially remove the X.com brand for good. Following this, the board appointed PayPal founder Peter Thiel as interim CEO.[32] PayPal's early growth was due in large part to a successful viral growth campaign created by Musk.[35] In October 2002, PayPal was acquired by eBay for US$1.5 billion in stock, of which $165 million was given to Musk.[36] Before its sale, Musk, the company's largest shareholder, owned 11.7% of PayPal's shares.[37]"

TL;DR. Musk didn't create PayPal, he cofounded a company with a competing service that merged with the company that owned PayPal and while at the merged company pushed to use the PayPal platform as it was better. Then he left in 2002.

I really don't think we can lay the lion's share of PayPal's shittyness at his feet based on that. By that logic, Windows 8 should see Bill Gates hanged...

Re:Who to believe?

[disposable60]

If he hadn't been already for Vista
or WinMe
or Clippy

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

SpaceX is much bigger than the hyperloop.

Re:Who to believe?

[twistedsymphony]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Elon never planned to build the hyperloop. from the start it was nothing more than: "Here's an idea I have. I don't have time to build it or refine it but you're free to you use it however you like".

Re:Who to believe?

[geekmux]

Elon Musk. The guy who also created PayPal, arguably still one of the biggest, most successful companies on the internet.

There ya go, FTFY.

Not that he may have had much to do with that these days, but just stating the obvious. Business is business.

Re:Who to believe?

[beelsebob]

Given that he explicitly said he wasn't going to build the hyper loop... It seems to be working out pretty much exactly as he said.

Re:Who to believe?

[zwede]

By that logic, Windows 8 should see Bill Gates hanged...

Finally someone uses the correct term. Thank you!

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you understand the difference between a sports car, and a luxury car? What do 0-60 and quarter mile times have to do with being a luxury car?

Re:Who to believe?

[operagost]

or Bob
or OS/2 1.0
or Kin
or Zune (especially the brown one)

Re:Who to believe?

[sunking2]

Tesla is a money meth money laundering scheme. They lose money with each car sold, but it doesn't matter.

Re:Who to believe?

[mspohr]

Musk never said he'd build the hyperloop. He just said, here's an idea (free) to use if you want.
OTOH, SpaceX and Tesla Motors are doing quite well, thank you.

Re: Who to believe?

[brunes69]

It depends on how you measure success.

Does the leaf sell more raw units? Assuredly.

Does the leaf outsell all other gasoline cars in their market segment? No they dont, but the Tesla Model S has.

Is the Model S more profitable than the leaf⦠does the Model S make Tesla more money than the leaf makes Nissan? I have no idea but I bet it is at worst a draw.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree. Price is more or less proportionate to level of production. More of one kind of stuff, the less it costs to produce and sell. Tesla's soon-to-be mega battery factory will generate that factor to reduce the cost to produce and sell batteries for its cars (and possibly other manufacturers). It could well become a game changer for electric cars.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious troll is obvious.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

The very materials for the current batteries are drying up, and will cost more to build. So unless a new cheap materials comes along my money would still be on other fuels.

Both men in this are wrong..

Re:Who to believe?

[strikethree]

By that logic, Windows 8 should see Bill Gates hanged..

Sounds good to me.

The lesson here is: Never offer an incentive counter to your intent. ;)

They know...

[Anonymous Coward]

They will make the batteries, I guess they pretty much know how much they'll cost to make

No

[Dr J. keeps the nerd]

From the article's conclusion: In the most likely scenario, Anderman writes, “the price of the 2017 new model will be in the range of $50-80K.” The 60-kWh version of today's Tesla Model S large luxury sedan starts at $69,900, with an EPA-rated range of 208 miles. Given that the Model 3 will be a smaller car with one-third less range, using a next-generation battery to be produced in bulk at Tesla's planned gigafactory, that seems rather pessimistic.

Re:No

[wickerprints]

You must be some paid shill, because that wasn't even REMOTELY the point of the GP post. The point is that the existing cost of the Tesla Model S already hits Anderman's price range, so the Model 3, being smaller and another three years out from now to improve battery manufacturing costs, should easily sell for a lower price point. But you wouldn't understand because you need it explained in one-syllable words, written in crayon.

Re:No

[almitydave]

You must be some paid shill, because that wasn't even REMOTELY the point of the GP post. The point is that the existing cost of the Tesla Model S already hits Anderman's price range, so the Model 3, being smaller and another three years out from now to improve battery manufacturing costs, should easily sell for a lower price point. But you wouldn't understand because you need it explained in one-syllable words, written in crayon.

The new car: it's not as big, has less range, and its charge pack is made in bulk. How could it NOT cost less? (provide your own crayon)

Re:No

[Zeromous]

LOL how is this insightful?

Re:No

[randallman]

Also they will likely take less than the 25% margin they take on the model S. So if they shoot for a 10% margin @ $35K they need to build it for $31.5K vs. $26K for a 25% margin.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

The Model 3 will have about the same range as the MS 60. "200mi range".

However it will have a smaller pack thanks to the better mileage as it will be 20% smaller. Probably in the 48-55kwh range.

More importantly

[Charliemopps]

More importantly, the fact that the majority of the value in the car is in a perishable resource. That battery will NOT last forever, and when it needs a new one you'd be better off scrapping the entire car and buying a new one. How good is that for the environment?

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

must be good.
it is a GREEN car!
what is your problem ;-))

Re:More importantly

[Herkum01]

Your right gas cars are total non-perishable and never wear-out or need replacement parts, and gasoline can be recycled as well.

Re: More importantly

[imgod2u]

LiON batteries can be recycled...

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

The price will be offset by other maintenance/repair costs. You'll win out in the long run.

Traditional gas engine cars need a lot of maintenance. They run very hot. They have a lot of fluids. Lots of rubber bits that wear out. Lots of moving parts that need lubrication. Lots of mess. You also need a lot of electronics to get modern levels of performance and effiency.

Electric motor systems are much more reliable. Less cooling.. Less wasted heat. (Less thermal stress) Simpler transmissions. (Having full torque at zero RPM solves a LOT of problems) Less complicated overall. They're lighter too, so you need less energy all together.

Whatever you will spend on a new battery will be a lot less than what you pay to maintain your gas engine car over it's lifetime. There is already a robust market for rebuilt battery packs and that will baloon in the near future. (Not all cells go bad at the same time. Just replace the bad performing cells and you're good to go)

Re:More importantly

[pellik]

Actually that problem is some of the best environmental news of late. When the batteries are no longer suitable for cars they still hold tremendous value for renewable energy, and since the cost of the battery has already been covered by the car purchase it will serve to subsidize the cost of energy. Also, the battery is not part of the car in the same sense as other car parts, since they are designed to be quickly swaped at charging stations to speed up 'refuel' times, so the car owner isn't responsible for it's replacement cost in the way you're implying.

Re:More importantly

[bmo]

That battery will NOT last forever,

And neither does an internal combustion engine, either. Your point?

and when it needs a new one you'd be better off scrapping the entire car and buying a new one.

Citation needed. Seriously.

How good is that for the environment?

Awesome, actually. The battery can be recycled, and there aren't any heavy metals to deal with either.

--
BMO

Re:More importantly

[Scottingham]

Scrapping the entire car? No way! The chassis, interior, and motors will still likely be in great shape. Electric motors have a WAY longer lifespan than reciprocating engines. If anything, replacing the battery every 5-10 years or so should be seen as a good thing. The tech will have improved, so your range for the same car will improve accordingly. While the battery may no longer be good for electric car demands, they can still live a long life for grid smoothing or surplus renewable power storage.

Re:More importantly

[hajo]

Not really. While expensive, There is a reason Mr. Musk think we can hit his price point: By bringing down battery price by building his own largest battery fab in the world.

Tesla can switch a battery pack in minutes. (One of their business plans for the future is franchise stations where one would exchange batteries in minutes, the way one now gets gas). Except for crashes a car like the Tesla S has almost NO wear and tear compared to an internal combustion car. No gearbox, no oil, no injection systems no exhaust systems no cooling systems... The Tesla S's maintenance manual consist of such things as changing your wiper blades once a year etc...

As far as the pollution form the battery pack goes: While older battery technologies were stuffed with heavy metals, That is not the case with Li-Ion batteries. They are remarkably recyclable once used up.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

The Prius batteries have only lasted 10 years so far. With an average life span of a car around 12 years I don't think the batteries will be the issue.

Re:More importantly

[JerryLove]

The battery is warrantied for 8 years. What percentage of cars are not scrapped by 9 years old (not zero to be sure, but not a lot I would guess); and that assumes (falsely I would suspect) that there is a mass failure right at 8 years. If the average is even 50% farther (12 years); we are coming into a siginifgant "scrapped anyway" territory.

Heck. At 12-years on a BMW, there are any number of wearbale parts that replacement may exceed car value (tires, brakes (you have to replace the rotors with the pads on a BMW), etc).

That said: Nissan sells a 24kWh battery replacement for their ccar for $5500 (I don't have pricing on the Tesla as none are old enough to need to be baught). I would suspect that, right now, replacements are $20k. Even if not: Tesla is investing billions in bringing down battery costs, so we can expect it to be much lower in 8 years.

Further: all that assumes a new battery. What will the recycled ones cost? I Suspect not a great deal.

Finally: Assuming 15k miles per year; you will have driven 120k miles in 8 years. If you are in, say, a BMW750 (19 combined MPG) you've used a bit more than 6300 gallons which, at current $3.50 is $22,050. That means, in your gas car, you will spend more on the gas than a Tesla owner will on the battery. Assuming you don't drive much. Assuming that battery costs don't go down. Assuming that the batteries die at a mere 120k miles. And, unlike our gasoline, the battery is recycleable.

As a note: If you do replace the battery; the actual replacement itself is simple and requires few tools.

Re:More importantly

[SternisheFan]

More importantly, the fact that the majority of the value in the car is in a perishable resource. That battery will NOT last forever, and when it needs a new one you'd be better off scrapping the entire car and buying a new one. How good is that for the environment?

Even if the battery is easily swapped out?

Re:More importantly

[Areyoukiddingme]

That battery will NOT last forever, and when it needs a new one you'd be better off scrapping the entire car and buying a new one.

At today's battery prices, sure. But the whole premise of the gigafactory is today's battery prices need to be made obsolete, and a new factory could do it. Will do it, unless every number crunched by Tesla is wrong, and that doesn't seem likely.

Today, yeah, replacing a complete lithium ion battery pack is prohibitively expensive. Tomorrow? Likely it will be a lot less.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

... Less complicated overall. They're lighter too, so you need less energy all together.

Electric cars are lighter than gasoline-powered cars?

Re:More importantly

[RobinH]

Hey I'm skeptical too, but batteries are recycled, not just thrown in the trash heap. Plus, given the expected lifetime of a car, you'd only expect to replace the batteries once. It's not that crazy. After that the other components will be wearing out too.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Electric cars still need routine maintenance; brakes, lubrication, tires.

Re:More importantly

[schlachter]

The battery will not be more than 30% of the value of the car.
It will last for a least 10 yrs in the car.
It will be used for other purposes or recycled after those 10 yrs.
The car can last much longer than the battery. It doesn't need to be scrapped.
Replacement batteries will be much cheaper by the time they are needed.
The motor itself is likely to last much longer than a gas engine as it's much simpler.

Re:More importantly

[afidel]

Well, there are some original model Prius out there with over 1M kilometers on their less overengineered batteries so I think any speculation about throwing away a Tesla because of a worn battery pack are just a bit pessimistic.

Re:More importantly

[Cabriel]

And neither does an internal combustion engine, either. Your point?

Wait. If an IC Engine stops working, and it costs $15k-$45k to replace, don't people normally scrap their car and get a new one? Isn't that what's being suggested for the electric cars (in essence) when a battery fails, if it costs about the same as an IC Engine?

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

You are very uninformed. The average age of car or truck on the road is ** 11.4 years old **. This is just about 50% older than 8 years.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Electric motor systems are much more reliable. Less cooling.. Less wasted heat. (Less thermal stress) Simpler transmissions. (Having full torque at zero RPM solves a LOT of problems) Less complicated overall. They're lighter too, so you need less energy all together.

All of the weight savings gets transferred to batteries, and yet the best electric cars have maybe half the range of typical ICE cars. I'm pro E-cars, but lighter weight is a non-starter as an argument in favor of them.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

The above age I gave of of 11.4 years is true in the USA.
See this link for details: http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-ihs-automotive-average-age-car-20140609-story.html

Re:More importantly

[bmajik]

Heck. At 12-years on a BMW, there are any number of wearbale parts that replacement may exceed car value (tires, brakes (you have to replace the rotors with the pads on a BMW), etc).

Not unless the car has been damaged.

BMWs have very high resale value. 12 year old BMWs are currently 2002 models. Very few model year 2002 BMWs can be found for under $5000 in _any_ condition.

In fact, if you do a quick search on autotrader.com for model year 2002 BMWs, you'll see that there are 1200 listings with an average asking price of $9700

I happen to be quite familiar with the running costs of old BMWs. The drive train of a BMW will easily last 12 years without substantial work. The exceptions would be the plastic cooling system components, and, on some models, premature VANOS failure. Sadly, on the newer N54 engines the HPFP is a disaster, but that is not the majority of used BMWs, and certainly not MY2002 cars.

Even paying dealer prices, to replace brakes, suspension rubber, tires, cooling system, etc, will not cost you $9000.

The brake rotors and pads are a few hundred dollars per corner, and you could replace them yourself in your own garage with a jack and hand tools.

FWIW, I really like Tesla. I look forward to a time when buying one of their cars makes sense for me.

However, your consideration of the repair costs of a 12 year old BMW is way off. Thus, my response.

Also, Brakes and Tires are functionally identical between a BMW and a Tesla, and, on the Model S, the Tesla replacement parts are probably more expensive (I haven't priced them to be certain), because the Tesla has very large low profile tires and very large brakes, especially compared to the "average" BMW (instead of their X5 trucks with big wheels, or their high performance M models with larger brakes)

So comparing a 12 year old BMW and a 12 year old Tesla, the wear and maintenance parts differences are the Tesla's battery vs. the BMW's conventional drivetrain. The latter requires coolant flushes, oil changes, transmission fluid changes, air filters, etc.

The one maintenance surprise that I learned about when chatting with a Tesla service technician was that on the model S, the A/C refrigerant is serviced regularly, because it is an integral component of the battery cooling system.

Re:More importantly

[PIBM]

Canada: (average car age) has remained within a tight range over the last decade, averaging 8.4 years
EU: 8.3

Is the avg. car age affected by collectors in the usa, or what ???

Re:More importantly

[PIBM]

And here's for UK;

The average age of cars on UK roads has risen to 7.44 years, as drivers feel the pinch. This figure was revealed by British Car Auctions (BCA), and is up from 6.93 years in 2008. Around seven million cars on the road sit in the six to eight year old age bracket.

Re: More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Never heard of that chemistry. What is it?

Re:More importantly

[ArcadeMan]

Hurray! My car is way above average!

Re: More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm sure this process occurs by just sitting batteries in the sun for a while. No energy or materials are required at all and there's magically no waste!

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

People really need to stop blindly saying that maintenance costs will be lower to vastly lower for electric cars. There are many costs that will be the same.

Brake systems and fluids, steering systems and fluids, suspension components with rubber bits, springs and shocks, driveline differentials with their gear oil, etc. will all be about the same. The transmissions may be simpler, but they will still exist and contain lubricating fluids.

You won't have to change oil or work on the actual internal combustion motor, its emission systems, fuel system, etc. That is a big win, but there are potential increased issues with bigger batteries, charging systems, and the electric motor.

Systems related to heating and air conditioning will be different. All of the interior parts, body panels etc. will have the same issues current cars have that keep body shops busy.

I am excited about what electric cars are and will be, but I think some people need to temper their exuberance a bit.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are getting raped very hard and long by anyone that is selling you an IC Engine for $15k to $45k.

Here are some examples of crate motors that you can get from $1500 to $5000. Engines can re built as well saving the costs of buying a new one.

Re:More importantly

[swillden]

Also, Brakes and Tires are functionally identical between a BMW and a Tesla, and, on the Model S

Sort of. The tires, yes. The brakes are functionally identical, but should wear much more slowly on the Model S thanks to regenerative braking. How much less depends on driving style, obviously.

Re:More importantly

[zwede]

The charge/discharge cycles is what wears a battery much more than age (although age also has some effect).

The highest mileage Tesla Model S I've heard about has a bit over 100K miles on it. The owner reports it's on the original battery and has only lost a few percent of range (battery capacity) compared to new.

Re:More importantly

[oh_my_080980980]

Soo what you're saying is when a car fails to work you buy a new one. Who knew....

Re:More importantly

[operagost]

No tires? No suspension? No wheel bearings? No steering box?

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

The price will be offset by other maintenance/repair costs. You'll win out in the long run.

Traditional gas engine cars need a lot of maintenance. They run very hot. They have a lot of fluids. Lots of rubber bits that wear out. Lots of moving parts that need lubrication. Lots of mess. You also need a lot of electronics to get modern levels of performance and effiency.

Electric motor systems are much more reliable. Less cooling.. Less wasted heat. (Less thermal stress) Simpler transmissions. (Having full torque at zero RPM solves a LOT of problems) Less complicated overall. They're lighter too, so you need less energy all together.

Whatever you will spend on a new battery will be a lot less than what you pay to maintain your gas engine car over it's lifetime. There is already a robust market for rebuilt battery packs and that will baloon in the near future. (Not all cells go bad at the same time. Just replace the bad performing cells and you're good to go)

Well, electric cars including the tesla are not immune from maintanance you know...

They have liquid cooled batteries. This means a radiator, pump, fluid and sensors that can fail or need to be worked on.

They all have wheel bearings which wear and need to be replaced, along with ball joints, control arms, bushings, etc. I assume there is a differential with fluid that will need changing.

They have steering wheels which means a steering pump (electric or hydraulic - all have parts the will need work). Same with the brakes. Hydraulic lines, fluid, pumps and sensors.

Those fancy retracting door handles? Motors, switches and solenoids to be replaced (as someone who recently had a door lock solenoid recently fail it's no fun tearing a door apart to get to them).

How about the lovely body? Got a dent? Who's going to have body panels available? I understand the "frunk" needs to be closed in a certain way or you can get a crease on the hood. Lots of angry owners complaining about that online. ouch!

Toyota hybrid owners have a liquid cooled power inverter. Reports are they last about 60K. Replacement part and install tops $8,000. Luckily they issued a recall on these.

But yeah, electric cars at least remove the need for oil changes...

Re:More importantly

[AaronW]

The battery should also last a very long time. I have read the post from one owner who has already racked up over 100,000 miles and still has over 95% of his original battery capacity. Tesla has a battery replacement policy where you can pay up-front to get a new battery after 8 years and get a $1000 rebate each year you wait beyond that.

Instead I decided to take some of that money and buy some stock when it was at $38. I'm kicking myself that I didn't buy more.

The electric motor in my Tesla won't need a lube job for another 10 1/2 years according to the person I spoke with when I had service done. While there is still coolant, many of the issues with ICE vehicles don't apply. The brakes will last much longer since most braking is regenerative. I still need tire rotations and the cabin air filter and the windshield wipers replaced periodically though. I suspect that even the coolant will last a lot longer since a gasoline engine generates far more heat.

A lot of other components should last much longer. There's no transmission, only around a dozen moving parts in the entire drivetrain and few friction points. The AC compressor is electric and completely sealed and there's no flexible hoses. Power steering is electric, not hydraulic which should last a lot longer as well.

Also, it is far easier to reach stuff than in an ICE car. Most things are easily accessible by removing the plastic frunk liner or removing a panel under the front of the car. The entire drivetrain is also easily removable as a unit. Similarly the battery can be easily removed. The car is far simpler to work on.

Re:More importantly

[AaronW]

Brakes are different in the Tesla than in BMW. In the case of Tesla there is a lot of regenerative braking so the brakes should last a lot longer. Tires on the other hand... I have the performance version of the Tesla model S with the 21" rims. When I got my car there was no price difference between the 19 and 21" rims. Anyway, I managed to get a bit over 15K miles on the original tires. The negative camber Tesla uses tends to be a bit hard on the rear tires, plus I tend to accelerate rather hard.

Re:More importantly

[TwoEyedJack]

The Prius has an internal combustion engine that can power the vehicle even though the batteries are worn out.

Re:More importantly

[HornWumpus]

The 'shitty weather' parts of the USA will have average ages in line with Canada. It's the road salt that kills them.

Re:More importantly

[mspohr]

The entire car is built of aluminum so it should last a long time (and can be easily recycled into beer cans or new cars at low energy cost).
Li batteries can also be recycled... wait for it... into new Li batteries.

Re:More importantly

[geekoid]

"r, and when it needs a new one you'd be better off scrapping the entire car and buying a new one."
That's simply not true.

Even in you incorrect example, it's still better the a gas car, for a number of reasons.

Re:More importantly

[geekoid]

"and it costs $15k-$45k to replace,"
what? People dn't buy a new car becasue it's cheaper then buying an engine. They use the failing engine as an excuse to buy a new car.

Re:More importantly

[afidel]

I doubt it, my wife's last van is 11 years old and while it has some rust her sister is still driving it just fine, my 11 year old Vibe has hardly any rust and I live in the middle of road salt hell (NE Ohio), it's not the 70's anymore, cars don't rust out in 8 years.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Electric motor systems are much more reliable.

Not according to facts.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

If an IC Engine stops working, and it costs $15k-$45k to replace, don't people normally scrap their car and get a new one?

Why the hell does every electric car idiot think they know what car parts cost?

Here is a fully dressed racing motor. It's falls under your $15k.

Re:More importantly

[Razed By TV]

They're lighter too, so you need less energy all together.

Google tells me that a Tesla Model S weighs 4,464 or 4,647 lbs.
A 2008 Toyota Camry is supposedly 3307 lbs. A 2014 Camry is 3190.
I think any reduction in engine weight is made up for by the batteries.

Whatever you will spend on a new battery will be a lot less than what you pay to maintain your gas engine car over it's lifetime. There is already a robust market for rebuilt battery packs and that will baloon in the near future. (Not all cells go bad at the same time. Just replace the bad performing cells and you're good to go)

When your battery has diminished life due to age of the battery, you will not be replacing individual cells.
This post puts the cost of a battery for a Tesla S at $45k. Alternatively, it looks like you can pre-pay $12k when you get your car and get your replacement battery years later. http://www.teslamotors.com/en_...

I have no idea of what the availability is/will be for third party huge car batteries... It is a little bit of a specialty item.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

I own one Prius and one Leaf. They are similar sized and priced cars (the Prius is a bit more expensive where I live, guessing it's the other way around in the US)

Annual service on the Leaf - $450-500 every year
Annual service on the Prius - $8-900 every odd year, $1250 every even year.

Re:More importantly

[bmajik]

Sure, the regenerative braking probably reduces the wear on the brakes.

Point being, brake pads and rotors are normal replacement items. You should expect to replace them more than once in 12 years on a normal vehicle. I can wear down a set of pads in a weekend at the track. It depends a lot on how you drive.

I will agree that on the Tesla I test drove, I barely touched the brake pedal. The regen was turned up to maximum and that does a good job of slowing the car down if you are paying attention.

BMWs also tend to have static negative rear camber, and are RWD like the Tesla. But the wheels are smaller dia, which means the tires are more affordable.

I think over 12 years you will spend similar or more on Tesla model S brake and tire components as compared to an average BMW. I look forward to hearing from Model S owners 11 years from now...

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Replacing the battery on a Leaf costs ~$5000 if you trade in the old one (~$7000 if you don't).
They are supposed to last 7-10 years and the lithium in large batteries are 99-100% recyclable.

I own a Leaf and just got my battery-storage capacity tested (part of the annual service). Still rated at 100/100 after almost 3 years - including one sub-zero (F) winter.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

The motors and battery packs are still liquid-cooled, and gasoline cars have been around far longer.

We'll have to wait and see how the theory compares to the practice on reliability. I drive a 16-year-old gasoline car, and it has been extremely reliable. None of Tesla's cars have been around that long.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, very few BMWs that are from 2002 for under $5000, very few:

http://www.kijiji.ca/b-cars-trucks/ontario/convertible__coupe__hatchback__other+body+type__sedan__wagon-bmw-2002/c174l9004a138a54a68?price=500.00__5000.00

I mean, I'd only need several hands and feet to count them all on!

Re:More importantly

[Herder Of Code]

I like the idea of electric cars but yeah that price had me laughing pretty hard. I had an engine switched for 3k here ( that was a really cheap and dirty job ) but for 5k I could've gotten a much better quality replacement. Then again I wasn't going to invest 5k in a 12 years old econoline even if it ran fine.

Re:More importantly

[Herder Of Code]

It's the dry climate they have in many parts. I'm Canadian too and "newer" cars last an incredible amount of time now ( well by Canadian standards anyway ). I had a 2001 car that I gave to my sister in 2013 and it had some small rust spots on the hood but nothing like the flingstone floors and speed holes of the past that you would've had at that point.

I got a 2005 afterward and it's pristine except for a spot that was badly repaired after an accident that's starting to rust.

Re:More importantly

[MMC Monster]

Arghhh.

I have the 19" wheels and have about ~12K miles on them, I think. Will have to pay attention to them this winter. :-(

First winter in my Model S, and the last time I had a read wheel driver car through a winter was 2004-2005. :-)

Re:More importantly

[mjwx]

And neither does an internal combustion engine, either. Your point?

A ICE can be expected to outlast the car if it's from a decent manufacturer such as Toyota or Honda. You have 30-40 year old engines still running that have been repurposed into newer bodies (some from crappy manufacturers where engines failed like a GM or Ford, others into stock car frames and oversized go-karts). A battery is not expected to live for the lifetime of the car regardless. With a Honda Civic, the engine is going to outlast the rest of the car.

You're expected to need a battery replacement some time in the future, long before the things like engines, CV joints, drive trains, steering racks, door handles, electric mirrors, seat motors and so on fail. We know that Li-ion batteries degrade over time, your laptop battery in 3 years will not last as long as it does today so It's not unreasonable to want to know this cost in advance. With a prius or other hybrid, you can use that as a conventional fuel burning car after the battery fails, but not with a full EV.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

On my Toyota Camry, the first 2 years of scheduled maintenance are included.Then for the next 2 years, I got a packaged deal for $300. Of course there are things like tires which need to be changed periodically but that is the same for a Tesla. I do agree that Tesla has a lot less maintenance but my Camry have very little scheduled maintenance other than changing the oil and filter or rotating the tires.

Re:More importantly

[mjwx]

"and it costs $15k-$45k to replace,"
what? People dn't buy a new car becasue it's cheaper then buying an engine. They use the failing engine as an excuse to buy a new car.

Beyond this, an engine swap isn't going to cost $45K unless you're a complete idiot and are trying to fit an Aston Martin V10 (Aston V10's can be had for $30K).

A B series swap into a Civic will cost $10K at Australian rates if you get someone else to do the work. Less than this if you're swapping in the same model of engine.

Re:More importantly

[mjwx]

Heck. At 12-years on a BMW, there are any number of wearbale parts that replacement may exceed car value (tires, brakes (you have to replace the rotors with the pads on a BMW), etc).

You might as well have written "I dont know anything about cars". It would have been quicker and faster.

A set of racing spec brake pads and rotors (Project Mu) for my 14 yr old Nissan S15 cost A$1000, that's racing spec (800 degrees C) for sustained track use. A set of povo spec rotors and pads from Supercheap Auto will cost in the vicinity of $300 and this is Australia, one of the most expensive countries in the world.

Also you dont have to replace the rotors with the pads (whoever fed you that line was probably making a mint from you). A set of rotors should last several sets of pads unless you're doing a lot of track days on stock rotors and heating them up until they crack.

Even a replacement gearbox should only cost $2000 ish for most cars.

Now for average cars like a Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla, these are dirt cheap to keep running and repair, not that they often need repairs. There is an abundance of aftermarket parts for them (and BMW's) so even if you blow a radiator, it's going to be $400-500 to replace, hoses and all and most of that would be labour. People try to kill Honda Civic's and fail.

Re:More importantly

[AaronW]

I rarely use the brakes and typically only at very slow speeds. Even with my previous car, a Prius, people typically got at least 100K miles without needing to change the brake pads and Tesla's regenerative braking is a fair amount stronger than what my Prius was capable of.

The pre-paid service plan covers everything but the tires, so for at least the next eight years even if I do somehow wear down my brake pads they are covered. The service plan covers everything but the tires. The service also includes applying various fixes and changes that have been discovered since the car was manufactured, including minor things that affect things like rattles and noises. It includes a wheel alignment and check and replacement of all expendables. Combined with the warranty basically the only things I have to pay for are tires and some tire rotations.

So for at least the next four years I will pay $0 for brake pads.

http://www.teslamotors.com/ser...

It works out to around $475 per 12K miles, which for a car of its class is quite reasonable, especially given the level of service I get.

Re:More importantly

[AaronW]

While I don't get snow where I live from everything I've heard the Tesla does quite well despite being rear-wheel drive due to how smooth the electric motor is. I also understand the 19" tires last quite a bit longer. The 21" summer tires are crap in cold weather and especially in snow. I had to drive from Reno NV to the Bay Area last March and hit snow coming down and it wasn't too fun, especially since the 21" wheels cannot use chains. The traction control on the Tesla is better than most cars since the electric motor is much more responsive. I read that the TC is able to monitor and control the wheels around 1000 times/second. My experience is my model S is a hell of a lot better than the Toyota I used to drive. That car would lose power for a good second if I so much as ran over a pothole and good luck if a tire slipped on snow. My model S P85 is able to keep the wheels just on the edge for acceleration.

When I was driving back the snow was starting to really come down. I had just beaten the chain requirement. It was not fun with my tires but none of the problems were due to acceleration or traction control, more just from the fact that the tires had no grip and given that fact the car still did fairly well. Driving up to the summit to try and beat the snow was fun though. That car doesn't seem to care if it's a steep grade or not :)

Re:More importantly

[JerryLove]

You might as well have written "I dont know anything about cars". It would have been quicker and faster.

A set of racing spec brake pads and rotors (Project Mu) for my 14 yr old Nissan S15 cost A$1000, that's racing spec (800 degrees C) for sustained track use. A set of povo spec rotors and pads from Supercheap Auto will cost in the vicinity of $300 and this is Australia, one of the most expensive countries in the world.

Also you dont have to replace the rotors with the pads (whoever fed you that line was probably making a mint from you). A set of rotors should last several sets of pads unless you're doing a lot of track days on stock rotors and heating them up until they crack.

http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/D...
http://www.bimmerfest.com/foru...

In short: BMW uses thin rotors and the manufacturer recommends strongly against grinding them. It is therefore normal, assuming there was not a defect in the pad, that the rotor would be below spec or warped (and not grindable) when the pad wears out. It's not universal, but pretty normal.

The cheapest I've seen anyone claiming to sell the rotor is about $70ea (not sure that was the 330). The norm seems to be $120ea (looking at 2001 model 330 as that's what I used to own). So there's $480 and I've not gotten the pads yet, nor have I paid a mechanic to install them.

I suppose I have a choice. I can believe the manufacturer, dealer, and mechanic I usually used on my old BMW, as well as the bulk of what's said by owners on the forums... or I can believe you.

Due to regenerative breaking: this is one of many maintenance costs that will be significantly lower on a Tesla S than its competitors; offsetting a potential battery replacement later.

Re:More importantly

[JerryLove]

Yea. I wish I could have managed anything like that for my 330i.

I remember when I was spec'ing out my new car (looked at a new 528, but ended up getting a 4-year-old 535) that the Lakeland BMW dealer had a 2005 550i asking $13k. I considered getting it but for the thousands I had had to put into my old 330i. I opted instead for something I could get under CPO. I've already had the fuel injectors replaced, the battery replaced, the part that was supposed to make the battery last longer but instead broke and fried the batter replaced, the windshield-wiper motor replaced, and one or two other things I'm not thinking of right this moment.

My old 330, among other things (those plastic bits you mentioned in the cooling system being one of them) lost the GenMod.

Re:More importantly

[Moof123]

New battery for the Leaf is $5500, and should be good for at least another 100-150k miles, more if you are in moderate climates. So the second 100k miles on a second battery will only cost you electricity of about $0.03 to $0.04 a mile, and about $0.06 a mile worth of battery cost. Still cheap.

Re:More importantly

[Moof123]

A new Leaf battery will set you back $5500, not $15-45k. That price may drop further in the future.

Tesla's have bigger batteries and go through a lot stress per mile than a Leaf (less percentage discharge for the same number of miles driven), so they are likely to last several times longer than the ~100-150k miles you can expect out of a Leaf's battery.

Re:More importantly

[Gavagai80]

For fancy muscle cars, this may be true -- the gas versions cost a lot to maintain. For regular people cheap cars, there aren't that many costs. Saving the $30 a year I spend on an oil change will take centuries to pay for a battery replacement.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

The chassis, interior, and motors will still likely be in great shape.

Really? That isn't at all true of most 10 year old cars where I live. What makes electric cars any different?

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

it's still better the a gas car

The retard speaks but no sense can be made of its rantings

Re: More importantly

[12WTF$]

Yeah! Someone who didn't missed the "hakuna matata" message in Lion King.
Recycling EV batteries is the virtuous circle of LiFePO4

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? What do people in your area do to their cars? A ten year old car that has had its regular maintainance and is washed once in a while should really not have much wear and tear.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

The average life span if a car is well over twenty years.

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

That is in Canada. North American car prices are much lower.

Re:More importantly

[Cro Magnon]

I got 10 good years from my Saturn. And no rust problem.

Re:More importantly

[Muad'Dave]

My Mini is perfectly average, then. It's a 2003 (got it in March), so it's almost exactly 11.4 years old and only has about 84k miles on it. My previous car was 17 when I passed it on to a local enthusiast. It had something like 77k miles on it (A 1987 Conquest TSI - cool car!).

Re:More importantly

[UnderCoverPenguin]

I recently had to have the engine in my car replaced. Total was $3000. The best price I could find a similar used car was $8000. Given that the rest of the car was (and still is) in very good and fully operational condition, the $5000 savings made sense.

Re:More importantly

[david_thornley]

In my recent experience, it takes maybe eight years to lose that newish feel to a car. Sometime after that, they tend to go downhill. I'd be surprised to find that a nine-year-old car that hadn't been through something bad (a bad accident or a fire or something) was going to be scrapped.

Re:More importantly

[samwichse]

A Prius with a bad traction battery is going NOWHERE. The car doesn't move unless there's a good battery in it.

Honda IMA cars can go if the batteries are worn out though (and have to often :( ).

What they dont tell you ...

[Anonymous Coward]

First show a proper cart of how the batteries charge capacity decreases with time.

Second what proportion of the cars cost is the batteried which will have to be replaces in N years time

Do the batteries used have some interchangeable standard (even legal) so that replacements DONT become exclusive to the original manufacturer.

What is the 'carbon' footprint of the vehicles manufacture and how does that compare to the typical combustion engine cars manufacture and lifetime use.

Re:What they dont tell you ...

[zwede]

First show a proper cart of how the batteries charge capacity decreases with time.

Miles driven is a much better metric as charge/discharge cycles ages a battery more than age.

Such a chart was done on the Tesla forum where owners reported miles and the max range after a charge. The chart showed a very small deterioration with well over 90% capacity remaining after 100K miles (the highest mileage reported).

Second what proportion of the cars cost is the batteried which will have to be replaces in N years time

We haven't found the limit for Tesla batteries yet. How will we know what a replacement battery will cost in X years where X could be upwards of 15-20 years?

What is the 'carbon' footprint of the vehicles manufacture and how does that compare to the typical combustion engine cars manufacture and lifetime use.

All aluminum (easily recyclable) car with very few moving parts and no tail pipe emissions vs just about anything else... I'd think it compares very favorably.

Re:What they dont tell you ...

[HornWumpus]

Aluminum bodies mean every fender bender is a replaced fender. Shitty material to make cars out of.

Re:What they dont tell you ...

[afidel]

VS what, a car from the 1970's? Everything from the mid 80's on is a complete fender replacement in the case of an accident. It's the price we pay for fuel economy. Heck, many fairly minor accidents result in the vehicle being totaled due to crumple zones, that's the price we pay for safety. In both cases it's a minor percentage of the total cost of the vehicle fleet.

Re:What they dont tell you ...

[HornWumpus]

If it's wrinkled it gets replaced. But there are still many dents that get pounded/pulled out, bondoed and painted. Impossible with aluminum.

$50K would not be that out of line

[enjar]

The Model S was aimed squarely at BMW 7-series, Mercedes S-Class and other similar upscale large luxury sedans. The people who can afford those like new gadgets, new technology and the like -- and have the disposable income to afford them. It would not surprise me at all if they had sufficient income to have a "second" car that they use for occasions where they will exceed the range of the Model S, in addition to a "family hauler" for the wife and kids to get around in.

If the Model 3 comes in at $50K, that will put it in line with equivalent models from the same marques they were going after with the Model S -- Audi A4, BMW 3-series. It's at the top of the range for a 3 or A4, but not absurdly so. Plus there are tax credits and in many cases the electricity is free at the SuperCharger station, or substantially cheaper than gasoline. If you are lucky enough to work at a place like I do, the electricity is free so you can charge while you are at work.

Tesla is a luxury brand. It's not being marketed to Prius and Yaris owners. Although the cost of a plug-in Prius gets pretty steep pretty quick ... to the point I'd take the (likely) much better looking Model 3, if it takes after the looks of the Model S. The other "eco" cars are kind of dowdy.

Re:$50K would not be that out of line

[AaronW]

I replaced my 2006 Prius with a Tesla model S. I ended up selling my Prius because I just wasn't driving it. For those times when I need a car like that, it's cheaper to just rent a car than to pay the registration on my Prius, plus I no longer have it taking up space in my driveway. Surprisingly a lot of owners moved from non-luxury cars to the Tesla model S.

Re:$50K would not be that out of line

[enjar]

Was the main driver for your purchase of the Prius environmental/social awareness or economic/thriftiness? I like to drive, but I'm also thrifty and "environmentally aware". I also like interesting engineering. The Prius just turns me off in so many ways -- the electronic nannies that prevent anything resembling "fun" that you might have in a car, although the engineering is pretty neat. The rest is straight from the Toyota "transportation appliance" style book. It's well-made, well-engineered and very reliable ... but bland. People would congratulate me on my "responsible and adult" choice if they even noticed the car at all.

The Tesla is in a whole other league. Styling comes from someone who knows what a decent car looks like. The car seems to have something of a performance bent. The engineering comes from people who make rockets as their other job. Would I want to be seen in one? Hell yes. Would anyone call me "responsible and adult" for showing up in one? Not likely -- they would want to go for a ride!

Re:$50K would not be that out of line

[Anonymous Coward]

I replaced my 2006 Prius with a Tesla model S. I ended up selling my Prius because I just wasn't driving it

So exactly what pathogen caused one to suddenly develop an obsessive/compulsive urge for driving, when previously "because I just wasn't driving it"?
If the Tesla is found to contribute in any way to these primal urges, it may in fact be most environmentally acute to refrain from purchasing Teslas in place of Toyota products. As the latter doesn't appear to contribute to wanton desires to drive about aimlessly for no good reasons.

it's cheaper to just rent a car than to pay the registration on my Prius, plus I no longer have it taking up space in my driveway

Excuse my ignorance, but how has Tesla managed to circumvent registration and parking space?

35K CDN would be awesome

[future assassin]

Atm I drive to and from work 100-150KM depending if I have to pick up stuff for my shop. I pay $265 for my Yaris and I give myself $300 in gas which is paid by the shop. At this rate I'd just sell the Yaris, put the money into the Tesla and have work use the gas money towards the Tesla and the payments I'm already making on the Yaris. No more fill ups and save $0.15/L+ in gas tax untill the gov surcharges me for the use of a electric vehicles. There's the cost of electricity but that should be no where near what gas is.

Re:35K CDN would be awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully you can fill the Tesla outside of peak usage hours.

Re:35K CDN would be awesome

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Wait, your employer pays your fuel costs? And you're driving a Yaris instead of an F-450?!

I'll never understand Canadians.

Re:35K CDN would be awesome

[future assassin]

No, I own the shop but since I use the car mostly for work the company pays the gas. Basically I get paid $300 less which means less income tax from me and for the company to fork over each month.

Re:35K CDN would be awesome

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Ah, that makes sense then. For a second I thought Canadians were even more considerate than I knew them to be!

Re:35K CDN would be awesome

[afidel]

My wife's friend who works for Rigid gets a company truck and a fuel card that covers his gas for work, he's supposed to report personal use but I believe if he doesn't they just use a standard IRS formula and take it out of his annual bonus.

Re:35K CDN would be awesome

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Generally speaking, commuting to and from work is considered personal use. I travel to client sites frequently for work and get reimbursed at the federal rate (currently $0.56/mile for cars), but there's no way I'd get reimbursed for commuting to my normal place of business.

Alternately....

[timeOday]

Another possibility is that the model 3 will eventually hit its price point but miss its delivery date. If demand for the S remains strong enough to gobble up battery production, Tesla could just keep making those, while reduced battery prices increase profit, and/or reduce the selling price to extend demand even further, thus pushing back the Model 3.

.

The basic oddity of the Model 3 plan is Tesla's intention to jump all the way from the $80K S down to half of that on the next model. An electric car doesn't really need to be as cheap as $35K, since the S has demonstrated demand for a higher price if the car is good, and since the average price of a new car is already $28,400, and those cars will burn tens of thousands of dollars of gas over their lifetime.

One way or another there is going to be a financial incentive to feel their way down the price point more gradually, although I hope they remain committed to, and are able to pull off, the revolutionary approach.

Broken crystal ball

[I will be back]

And those "Analy tics" was predicting low iPhone 6 sales.

Why dilute the brand?

[gelfling]

They need to make a $200,000 Tesla with the best possible performance and every bell and whistle they can think of.

Re:Why dilute the brand?

[King_TJ]

I get your point, but I don't think that's the business model.

It looks to me like Tesla put out the high-dollar "elite" sports car as the first product, in order to generate enough revenue (higher profit margins on each one) to build more of a company aimed at the mass market.

So this isn't about "brand dilution" so much as the company knowing who it wants its customer to be -- and gradually lowering prices on the cars as the technology and profits from previous sales allow it to get there.

Tesla isn't trying to compete with Ferrari, Lamborghini, and the like. It wants to reach a point where it's considered a superior brand competing with brands like Nissan, Toyota, GM, Ford and Chrysler.

Re:Why dilute the brand?

[gelfling]

They SHOULD compete with supercars. No one, ultimately, is going to be able to compete with Ford or GM if they ever actually decide to make electric cars with the same seriousness they devote to building trucks.

Re:Why dilute the brand?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla isn't trying to compete with Ferrari, Lamborghini, and the like. It wants to reach a point where it's considered a superior brand competing with brands like Nissan, Toyota, GM, Ford and Chrysler.
 
Considering that Tesla's flagship of "performance" is nearly bested by the high end (WRX) of the low end (Impreza) of the Subaru line I think Tesla kinda failed, don't you?

Re:Why dilute the brand?

[ArcadeMan]

GM is committed to crush all competition.

Unfortunately, when they saw their own electric cars had the potential to become more popular than their non-electric models, they decided to crush their own electric cars instead.

Re:Why dilute the brand?

[ArcadeMan]

I forgot to put a link for those who never heard what happened.

Go watch Who killed the electric car? or just search for "crushed EV1" in your favorite search engine.

Re:Why dilute the brand?

[zwede]

They SHOULD compete with supercars. No one, ultimately, is going to be able to compete with Ford or GM if they ever actually decide to make electric cars with the same seriousness they devote to building trucks.

That's the whole point of Tesla. Musk has stated several times that they want to push the big guys (Toyota, GM, Ford, VW etc) into building real electric cars, not just compliance vehicles. Tesla doesn't want to be the only on the market, they want to be one of many. That's why they opened up their patents.

Re:Why dilute the brand?

[Anonymous Coward]

what are the numbers for this impreza ?

Re:Why dilute the brand?

[geekoid]

I actually know what happened, and the documentary would be laughable if so many gullible fools didn't fall for it.

Re:Why dilute the brand?

[ArcadeMan]

Care to tell us what really happened? Otherwise, your reply is as laughable as your opinion of this documentary.

GM really did crush all their EV1 for no obvious reason, I don't see anything to laugh about that.

Re:Why dilute the brand?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, now I know exactly what kind of arsehole you are: the Seagull:

Flies in squarking and making a lot of noise, shits over everything before flying out again.

Not much of an existence I suppose but if it floats your boat..

Is that after all the possible credits?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like Tesla, but on their website they post prices that reflect the tax credits and other incentives, but conveniently skip sales tax, licensing, etc.

I've seen plenty of local dealers with prices on Autotrader that they then claim is after "$XXXX trade-in." What a joke.

50-80k is an insane estimate

[netsavior]

Tesla Model S is 69k, the model 3 is going to be less expensive and be less "premium" for lack of a better word. If your back of the napkin estimates don't TOP out at 69k then you have no basis in reality. The article sort of points this out and says an 80k price is "pessimistic" I am going to argue that it is psychotic, and invalidates everything else this soothsayer had to say.

Re:50-80k is an insane estimate

[schlachter]

Model S might start at $70K but it can be optioned up to $100K.
The Model 3 will be similar. It might start at $35K but it will option up to $50K.
You could still have a starting price of $35K but with an average selling price of $45K.

Re:50-80k is an insane estimate

[ArcadeMan]

What if I want a Model 3 but without the battery and the electric motor? I'm going to mod mine, Flintstones-style.

Re:50-80k is an insane estimate

[Jeremi]

What if I want a Model 3 but without the battery and the electric motor? I'm going to mod mine, Flintstones-style.

Perhaps you would be interested in a BMW i8?

Re:50-80k is an insane estimate

[MMC Monster]

Pretty much like the last BMW 3 Series I bought, in other words.

Seriously. BMWs are great cars to drive, but they nickel and dime you on the options at time of purchase.

Re:50-80k is an insane estimate

[FlyHelicopters]

The starting price of the Model S is $70, but I doubt very many are sold that way.

Decently optioned, they are $100k cars.

Re:50-80k is an insane estimate

[mdielmann]

Keep in mind that pretty much the most expensive option for Teslas tends to be a larger battery pack or a bigger (or extra) motor. It's not merely a trim pack or more speakers.

Re:50-80k is an insane estimate

[Zeromous]

My Rav optioned up to 40k, so I dont really see the issue here. I'm not rich and that's my car.

Re:50-80k is an insane estimate

[Anonymous Coward]

The 208-mile Model S (EPA Raiting) is $69,000. Switching to steel to shave cost will add weight to the Model 3. I doubt a smaller, steel Model 3 weighs any less than an aluminum Model S. I think the $50k is a best case scenario unless Musk can drive battery prices down significantly (50% less).

The real action will be elsewhere.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

If the gigafactory pans out and the battery price actually falls low enough to support mid-luxury sedan (BMW 3 class, Lexus 3xx) at 35K, the real action will be elsewhere. All his patents have been made public domain, gigafactory proves the ability to make battery cost that low. There will be shortage of investors for more giga factories. Nissan Leaf would go from 25K to 18K. That is the price point where that segment becomes a very very serious threat to gas car market. Till we hit Peak Lithium of course.

Re:The real action will be elsewhere.

[Anonymous Coward]

His patents aren't public domain. To quote Elon, "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology."

That effectively means you only get to use Tesla's patents as long as you don't try to use your patents against Tesla. It's a quid pro quo.

Re:The real action will be elsewhere.

[afidel]

Nissan Leaf would go from 25K to 18K
Or, much more likely it would be available for $18k with the current range or $25k with double the range. In fact Nissan is seriously talking to existing owners about how much they would be willing to pay for a model with double the range as they see Tesla coming down range at them.

Anderman obviously doesn't read /.

[Ryyuajnin]

"Stanford Team Creates Stable Lithium Anode Using Honeycomb Film" "The linked article suggests that the 200-mile-range, $25,000 electric car is a more realistic concept with batteries made with this technology" http://beta.slashdot.org/story... http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...

Some guy: "I have a controversial opinion"

[bigsexyjoe]

Who the fuck is this ass-clown? Why do I give a fuck what he thinks?

Who to believe?

[slashdice]

How's that hyperloop working out for you? Big on talk, even bigger on fine print.

Still too much

[mark-t]

When somebody can make a decent range electric car that doesn't look like a piece of shit *coughleafpriusvolt*, and isn't priced at nearly double what you'd otherwise spend on a decent-looking brand new car made by another auto manufacturer, I might consider buying one... Tesla is the only player so far in the electric vehicle market that has made attractive cars with respectable range. But until Tesla can actually compete with gasoline cars on the amount it will actually cost to own one, they are just never going to be anything but a luxury automobile. That's not to say that they won't sell... they certainly will, But they are selling their name... not the vehicle. And there are lots of people out there who will pay top dollar for a brand name. However, not everyone can practically afford a luxury car, even though they can quite comfortably afford an otherwise really nice looking car that isn't a hybrid or EV.

Re:Still too much

[Anonymous Coward]

But until Tesla can actually compete with gasoline cars on the amount it will actually cost to own one, they are just never going to be anything but a luxury automobile. That's not to say that they won't sell... they certainly will, But they are selling their name... not the vehicle.

But they are selling the vehicle, just against the Mecedes S Class, not Accords or Explorers (yet).

Now, will they still hold their own in the SUV market? Who knows, but the S is a success against its competition.

Re:Still too much

[mark-t]

I don't argue that they sell, but really... if they were just selling the vehicle, it would cost half of what it does.

Tesla, and Mercedes, can charge what they do because there are enough people out there that are willing to pay top dollar for a brand name.

In Tesla's case, it's also because it doesn't really have a competitor that offers anything resembling the same automobile features... all the other EV manufactures can't boast anything close to Tesla's range, and most look like crap (and the few that don't have abysmal range, not good for anything but commuting, and if I could afford to own a second car, I would be able to afford to own a Tesla in the first place).

Re:Still too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla was correct to build a luxury car first, simply because people will pay a lot more for a luxury car than what it would otherwise be worth (there is higher markup).

If they had tried to start with an affordable car instead they too would be trying to sell a $30,000 economy car with limited range.

the usual question is, who will buy it?

[nimbius]

If theres a magic number for tesla, somewhere theyre hoping to get in order to dramatically increase sales of their technological wonderland on wheels, theyre sadly mistaken. Your target demographic in the future does not fucking care.

According to the AAA, From 2007 to 2011, the number of cars purchased by people aged 18 to 34, fell almost 30%, and according to a study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, only 44% of teens obtain a drivers license within the first year of becoming eligible and just half, 54% are licensed before turning 18. Speaking as a millenial, let me be frank when I address the clearly shocked and disappointed Baby Boomer parents that find my lack of enthusiasm infuriating.

You're right, i want electric vehicles to staunch global warming and climate change. and I sure do like that cellphone I'm always carrying. However, You're delusional if you think I want a new car . You wrecked the economy, crushed the housing market, and saddled me with student loans that can never be forgiven and that will garnish my wages even after death. until last year, i didnt have a chance in hell of getting health insurance. Most of my friends work more than one job, not many of them earn a programmers salary like me and even if they did theyd be furious to find out most of it (after the universities generous cut) is going to an apartment owned by a capital investment firm that doesnt care about my broken shower. I've never met my landlord but i sure as hell know who my loan officer is. A car represents tax, title, license, maintenance, and fuel money I dont have. It represents parking tickets and accident insurance and a parking space. Not only do i lack the cash to buy this car, but chances are likely i'll never have the credit rating you did.

so drop it low. I dont care. I live downtown and I reverse-commute to the exurbs because the traffic is easier and im not as frightened of minorities as your generation was. I own a bicycle and take the bus if theres inclimate weather. The car is a 2001 crown victoria fleet vehicle I purchased used from the city with a broken door lock switch and a sagging headliner and honestly, i dont care. cars do not exemplify who I am or my success as a person and as more companies become copacetic with telecommuting, they'll only become less relevant to me.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[enjar]

First off: You aren't Tesla's target demographic.

Second: You and your downtown-living millenial pals sound like the kind of people who would love to summon up a vehicle when you wanted it with your phone, have it do your bidding (commute, take you to a concert, out to eat, etc), and then disappear somewhere else. It would be Someone Else's Problem. You'd pay for it with a subscription if you used it a lot or pay a higher charge if you didn't. And Someone Else would deal with the other stuff. This is where the "self-driving" and "electric" vehicles are going to come together and end up being a nice compromise between the cab market and the city bus market. Having a nice car in an urban environment is really not a great value, anyway -- there is no place to park, the thing gets rammed by people trying to squeeze in a parking spot, and with parking being an expensive nightmare (in time, money, or both), public transit or a bike are more useful options.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[sinij]

I disagree.
 
My lucrative career affords me more cars than anyone else in my group of early 30s friends. I also genuinely like cars. I have multiple roadsters, a sports coupe, a classic car, and so on. I frequently let people take them for a ride.
 
Not a single person out of "we don't care about cars" turned down an offer to take out Porsche 911 or Big-Block Corvette for a spin. This leads me to believe that such "don't care" responses are rationalizations. Thing is, our generation got shat on by baby boomers. As such, very few of us could afford anything but a boring appliance for a car. I too wouldn't care about used Corolla.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[MrL0G1C]

Well I thought that was insightful, I see some complete cocksucker modded you down.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[charyou-tree]

You're delusional if you think I want a new car . You wrecked the economy, crushed the housing market, and saddled me with student loans that can never be forgiven and that will garnish my wages even after death. until last year, i didnt have a chance in hell of getting health insurance. Most of my friends work more than one job, not many of them earn a programmers salary like me and even if they did theyd be furious to find out most of it (after the universities generous cut) is going to an apartment owned by a capital investment firm that doesnt care about my broken shower. I've never met my landlord but i sure as hell know who my loan officer is. A car represents tax, title, license, maintenance, and fuel money I dont have. It represents parking tickets and accident insurance and a parking space. Not only do i lack the cash to buy this car, but chances are likely i'll never have the credit rating you did.

So you're saying, that because sales stats show young people didn't buy very many cars during the worst recession since the Depression, that young people don't want cars?

That's like saying teenage boys don't really want pussy because they can't get any. Your entire post is one bitter rationalization of how you don't really want the things you don't have money to buy.

I live downtown and I reverse-commute to the exurbs because the traffic is easier and im not as frightened of minorities as your generation was.

Nice touch tossing in the ad hominem racism attack at the end there.

I hope tomorrow is a happier day for you.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[Nethead]

Fuck you Nimbius. No one made you take out those student loans. You were smart enough to get into collage, one would guess that you were smart enough to actually read and understand the loan forms you signed. You rant at some nebulous "you" in your post but never take any blame for the decisions you made to put you where you are in life. Now get off my lawn you whiny brat.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[geekoid]

Poor person complains something he can't afford is something no one wants in order to feel like he's better then others.
News at 11.

Don't blame baby boomers for the economy, bucko. I know it's a neat meme, but it was lowering regulations that destroyed the economy.
It was rich people trying to get even more at the expense of everyone else, INCLUDING baby boomers.

And for the record, no one saddled you with loans but you. Not to say we don't need to fix the college costs, as well as end bank account garnishment, but you signed the papers.

I'm not sure what logic you use to say baby boomers crushed the housing market. That was done by the rapid purchasing and flipping form people born after 64.
Plus, the housing market cycles like that.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[asylumx]

I want to agree with you so badly but this line is unforgivable:

You wrecked the economy, crushed the housing market, and saddled me with student loans that can never be forgiven and that will garnish my wages even after death.

I don't know who you think "you" is but when I'm reading it, it's me, and I resent that you would try to blame me for these and one of them, I resent that you'd try to blame anyone other than yourself. It's unfortunate you took that approach because the rest of your post was fairly reasonable.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[geekoid]

That's becasue he blames others for his loan, talks about thing that were done by millennial(housing) and then blames baby boomers.
It's not really accurate at all.

All the crap he talks about? that's due to change since about '99.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for you. You are not the entire market, that is for sure. Maybe you are the one that needs to talk to some people outside your bubble.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying, that because sales stats show young people didn't buy very many cars during the worst recession since the Depression, that young people don't want cars?

Car sales started dropping 5 years before the recession. The reason the car companies needed a bailout was because this trend completely blindsided them. They just assumed all Millenials would want to buy a car eventually, and were totally unprepared for reality.

Urban crime has been plummeting since its peak in 1991, and kids have been flocking to the cities. Even wealthy Millenials, who can readily afford a car, aren't buying them because a combination of public transit, ZipCar, Uber, and traditional rental agencies cover all their needs.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds you're doing something very wrong if you're earning a programmer's salary yet can't get health insurance nor pay off your student loans. Anyhow if you really didn't care you wouldn't be launching on this tirade in the first place.

Also I made not much better than minimum wage for my entire 20's yet have a great credit rating: it's easy when you use a credit card responsibly for several years.

First off: You aren't Tesla's target demographic.

Second: You and your downtown-living millenial pals sound like the kind of people who would love to summon up a vehicle when you wanted it with your phone, have it do your bidding (commute, take you to a concert, out to eat, etc), and then disappear somewhere else. It would be Someone Else's Problem. You'd pay for it with a subscription if you used it a lot or pay a higher charge if you didn't. And Someone Else would deal with the other stuff. This is where the "self-driving" and "electric" vehicles are going to come together and end up being a nice compromise between the cab market and the city bus market. Having a nice car in an urban environment is really not a great value, anyway -- there is no place to park, the thing gets rammed by people trying to squeeze in a parking spot, and with parking being an expensive nightmare (in time, money, or both), public transit or a bike are more useful options.

I've never understood "reverse commuters". If you're going to work out in the 'burbs then live out in the 'burbs, a nice apartment out there is going to be cheaper than what you're paying for in the city. But then again there's no reasoning with a hipster.

I disagree.

My lucrative career affords me more cars than anyone else in my group of early 30s friends. I also genuinely like cars. I have multiple roadsters, a sports coupe, a classic car, and so on. I frequently let people take them for a ride.

Not a single person out of "we don't care about cars" turned down an offer to take out Porsche 911 or Big-Block Corvette for a spin. This leads me to believe that such "don't care" responses are rationalizations. Thing is, our generation got shat on by baby boomers. As such, very few of us could afford anything but a boring appliance for a car. I too wouldn't care about used Corolla.

Yep. Whenever you have a nice car and somebody rips on you for it, it's usually out of jealousy.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure Tesla marketing is aware of the demographic statistics for car buyers. It's not like this is some kind of hidden knowledge.

Young people are still buying cars, it's not so black and white. You (and I) may not be, but two of my friends are engineers making a solid 60-100k right out of college and are in the market for a car. A more affordable Tesla would be right up their alley.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[Anonymous Coward]

>You wrecked the economy

Your proof that all people of a certain age did this?

>crushed the housing market

[citation needed]

>and saddled me with student loans

They put a gun to your head? I don't remember doing that to you.

>that can never be forgiven and that will garnish my wages even after death.

Was this hidden from you? Yet you chose to take them on.

>until last year, i didnt have a chance in hell of getting health insurance.

Nobody your age is able to get health insurance? [citation needed]

>Most of my friends work more than one job

So did the generation before you

>not many of them earn a programmers salary like me

Same as the generation before you

>most of it (after the universities generous cut) is going to an apartment owned by a capital investment firm that doesnt care about my broken shower

Same as the generation before you

>I've never met my landlord but i sure as hell know who my loan officer is

Neither did I, and I'm the generation before you. However, I looked at how shitty student loans were, worked out the likely increased income after college/uni vs. without, and decided that if I just suck it up and work hard, I'd make more money. It's worked out well for me since I'm debt free except for a mortgage on a fully detached home. Those in university aren't having as much luck. After nearly a decade of solid experience in a serious job, I compete well with those from university except at a handful of weird companies (cough, google) that prefer to hire fresh uni grads over older experienced folks (university or not!). It doesn't worry me, since they represent about 10% of the job market, and frankly, those jobs tend to have co-workers that suck (eg: You).

>A car represents tax, title, license, maintenance, and fuel money I dont have

I also owned no car because similar to you, I was broke. I did get my license, though, because it was cheap and it gives you access to a lot more jobs.

>Not only do i lack the cash to buy this car, but chances are likely i'll never have the credit rating you did.

LOL. [citation needed]

You need to learn some humility and you need to stop blaming others for what sucks in your own life. ALL of us your age had a rough time. And all of us your age blamed our parents and grand parents. And once you stop blaming them, your life will improve, both mentally, and income-wise. NOBODY wants to hire a whiner, and most employers (apparently not yours!) can spot a whiner a mile away.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[sinij]

You must be another boomer in denial. Your generation are like locust, squandered wealth built by great generation, shipped manufacturing and job overseas, raked up debt and managed to saddle my generation with outrageous education loans and depressed salaries.

Hurry up and die off already.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[sinij]

If you are a boomer, then no, the blame is squarely on your shoulders. Your wars, your outsourcing, your deficit spending, your government pensions, your lack of infrastructure spending, your derivative shell games. It didn't happen on its own.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying, that because sales stats show young people didn't buy very many cars during the worst recession since the Depression, that young people don't want cars?

That's like saying teenage boys don't really want pussy because they can't get any. Your entire post is one bitter rationalization of how you don't really want the things you don't have money to buy.

 

Yep, just like how one article after another was claiming that "millennials" (damn I hate that term) prefer to live in apartments because statistics show that so few of them are buying homes. Then recently a new survey actually asked this age group and found that the majority actually do want to be homeowners but can't simply afford it.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[Locando]

I love how you accuse him of an ad hominem attack (against no one in particular) right after you said:

Your entire post is one bitter rationalization of how you don't really want the things you don't have money to buy.

Was that not supposed to be an ad hominem attack, or is it just that it's OK when you do it?

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[Anonymous Coward]

All the crap he talks about?

Glad to see you chimed in given your own extensive experience with talking crap.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just admit it - you're a bit of a loser.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[david_thornley]

Change since '99? Who was driving that change? Student loan? It's becoming increasingly necessary to have a college degree for a shot at a good job, and the expenses go up considerably faster than inflation. Housing crisis? I really don't think millennials were old enough to have that much effect.

My son is growing up in what is, in many ways, a worse situation than I grew up in. That's not the American Dream.

Re:the usual question is, who will buy it?

[RyoShin]

Speaking as a millenial, let me be frank when I address the clearly shocked and disappointed Baby Boomer parents that find my lack of enthusiasm infuriating.

Now tell them the one about how many of us don't care about actually owning our own home.

Re: Fuck Beta

[Ryyuajnin]

Shove it up your ass!

Re:Fuck Beta

[Ryyuajnin]

Ahh... Go shove it up your... ;)

Recycling may well figure in here

[joh]

A "bad" battery won't land in a landfill. At least the raw materials will be recovered (there's a lot of Li that you don't have to buy then) and there's also lots of mechanical and electronic parts that will be still fine. Refurbishing and recycling could save a lot of cost compared to new batteries.

Building lots of them will also make them cheaper, as with everything.

Yiu haven't answered my question.

[westlake]

Your right gas cars are total non-perishable and never wear-out or need replacement parts, and gasoline can be recycled as well.

I need to know what an electric car is going to cost me over its projected service life. I need to know the up-front cost of replacing a battery. I do not want to base my purchasing decision on "green" energy subsidies that may disappear after the next election.

Re:Yiu haven't answered my question.

[oh_my_080980980]

That's why you ask questions when you buy a car *eye roll* - FYI no one ask those questions when they buy a gasoline car.....

Re:Yiu haven't answered my question.

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is a gas engine can survive indefinitely on "minor" repairs and good maintenance and everyone already knows that. Each year may bring some repairs but you don't have a looming day where your car is nearly worthless. I have had my gasoline car for over 8 years and have spent $150 on repairs (one sensor malfunction) and less than $1000 on oil changes (the only other expense I have had that an electric car would not also have). An electric car's battery can 100% stop working and need replacing. I don't know the cost but I would assume it is a high cost "repair" given that people often cite that the battery makes up more than half the cost of the car.

Re:Yiu haven't answered my question.

[Dynedain]

You can do this pretty easily, and I'm sure Tesla has done the math already for you (assuming you take them at their word).

1) Take lifetime costs for your typical car in a similar price range (so you can assume parts and service costs are equitable).
2) Check Tesla's fluid replacement schedule - much longer intervals, and much fewer fluids to replace. Only user-serviceable fluid is the windshield washer. Everything else is effectively sealed like a VW transmission.
3) Subtract anything involving drivetrain maintenance or rebuilds.
4) Subtract anything involving replaceable parts (hoses, belts, sparkplugs, filters, etc) as the Tesla has extremely few equiavlent parts
5) Subtract anything involving engine maintenance or rebuild.
6) Subtract anything involving exhaust maintenance. Don't forget smog checks!
7) Subtract out traditional battery replacements - you'll be accounting for it below in the battery swap - no double counting!
8) Keep tires and brakes the same, as that doesn't change.
10) You can leave in the alternator. In fact, double it, because you have regenerative braking system to account for.
11) Add a battery swap if you think it's needed - but be fair, and make sure your gasoline-equivalent lifetime goes as far as the lifetime of the Tesla *after* the battery is swapped. eg - if the swap is at 100K miles, make sure to set the lifetime of both cars to 200K miles to cover the full useful life of 1 battery swap. Don't forget to include any "core" credits for recycling that massive battery back.

Re:Yiu haven't answered my question.

[AmiMoJo]

Tesla give you a long warranty and tested their battery pack up to 750,000 miles. It seems pretty reliable. Worrying about battery replacement costs is like worrying about engine replacement costs in an ICE car. At worst used ones are already available for a few thousand, similar to a high end engine.

Someone is betting against Elon?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll see that bet... at 45,000,000 to 1 odds.

car sellers are bad even at selling

[bzipitidoo]

This year, I went to the annual auto show in Dallas. What a total waste of money and time. The automakers who bothered to attend sent very junior people who didn't know anything. But they looked young and pretty. And that was their main selling point too: pretty. Pretty girls selling pretty cars. One of the few interesting cars there was a Nissan Leaf.

Don't know why they bothered having the show. If the show was an indication of the state of automobiling, I'd say they are out of ideas, and too gutless to try what few ideas they do have. Dealerships trying to stifle competition through legal technicalities makes them look really weak. Car makers need some serious shaking up, and Tesla may be the spark that sets off the forest fire. I hope batteries improve to the point that gasoline powered cars can no longer compete, and the public begins unloading them, rather like the way they unloaded SUVs in 2008 when the price of gas spiked, but more permanent.

Re:car sellers are bad even at selling

[geekoid]

Pretty girls selling pretty cars.

same ol', same ol'

Re:car sellers are bad even at selling

[Beardo the Bearded]

One of my buddies is buying a Leaf.

The problem is this: once you test drive an electric car, you're done with shitty ICE forever. Nothing has better torque, better acceleration... and that's what the gold ol' 'murkin cahs are sold as, muscle.

Put them up against something electric, and these so-called "Muscle cars" are just saggy old curlbros trying to get big arms to draw attention away from their massive beer bellies.

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is no more Troll than the original post.

get an Elio instead...

[tekrat]

84MPG, only $6800 -- that's not a typo.
http://www.eliomotors.com/

Yes, it's an enclosed motorcycle, but it drives like a car. You will not need a helmet in almost all states. It will solve more problems than the Tesla will, which is a just a Green toy for Rich people. This is an actual vehicle for you and me, regular people that earn less than 6 figures a year.

Re:get an Elio instead...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Estimated production date: September 2015"

How about recommending products which are out and have been reviewed?
Or are you shilling for this company? If you are, at least do us the decency of being open about it.

Re:get an Elio instead...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, a car for regular people who never need more than 2 seats... It might fill a niche but a 2 seater economy car where one seat is behind the other doesn't seem like something that will appeal to many people. It also doesn't appear nearly as compact as a Smart car so it wouldn't be as useful in an urban environment. Not really seeing the appeal here.

I love my Leaf

[Anonymous Coward]

My 2012 Leaf cost $15,600 used, with 8,000 miles as a rental. It looks and runs like brand new, and I don't have to recoup the difference between the purchase price and that of a similar gasoline car.

Gasoline alone used to cost $240 per month in our old car. The payment on the Leaf is $245. Electricity is about $50. Based on our acual usage, I pay about $ .07 USD per mile.

Re:I love my Leaf

[schlachter]

You can lease a brand new 2015 Leaf S with 0 down for $250/month with 12K miles/yr...which is nice because it's fully warrantied, has a longer range and more features than the older Leafs, and you don't have to be stuck owning it when battery prices drop and ranges increase further.

Wow. Cry me a river why dont you . . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"You wrecked the economy, crushed the housing market, and saddled me with student loans that can never be forgiven and that will garnish my wages even after death"

You can, in order:

Blame the banks and government for shady lending practices
Blame the banks and government for shady lending practices
Blame yourself for taking on student loans to pay for your education. Guess what ? No one else gets a free ride through college either. ( Unless you're smart enough to earn a full scholarship, or let the military pay for much of your school for you )

I tire of the never-ending whining of the millennial generation about how they can't afford anything and how unfair it is that they're not earning six-figure top pay the moment they graduate from college. Way too much of an entitlement attitude I think.

Welcome to reality son :D Where you really can't afford everything you've ever wanted right now, where debt follows you around forever and where you might have to put a few years in at a company before your pay is where you want it. Just fyi, the majority of recent-grads aren't swimming in excess cash either. Wait till you get tired of that apartment and all the bullshit that comes with downtown living and buy a house. Think you have no money now ? LOL

Want kid$ ?
Want to retire someday ?

The worst part about it is it's mostly the fault of my generation ( X ) giving their kids everything they ever wanted all of the time. They got accustomed to that lifestyle and when they finally get out into the real world ( those that actually leave home anymore ) reality comes down on them HARD. They never realized how much money things really cost until it's coming out of their own pocket. ( Then it's unfair of course ) Why is my credit card maxed out ? Why is my credit score so terrible ? What do you mean I have to make insurance premium payments on my healthcare every month ? Why the hell does the government take 25% of my paycheck ?

Oh, to finish up. Consider living outside of the downtown area. It's typically cheaper, although you'll need to buy a vehicle because riding your bike or the bus to work every day for a 100 mile round trip commute gets really old. Really fast.

So, have fun with life as it really exists and get off my lawn :P

A Paid announcement?

[mauriceh]

Sounds like maybe someone is paying Mr. Anderman to be a "naysayer".
Make money on driving competitors stocks down ?
Now who could profit from that?

Electricity cost is going up 24% soon

[Anonymous Coward]

It don't matter. In New England we were forced to start to go with renewable energy. National Grid claims this can cause electricity to go up 24%. We should not be forced to adopt something that is overpriced. Electric demand should set the rate... not a subsidy for renewable energy. If you want to build a wind farm you should build it to be cost effective. If you ask me I think the new rate was padded. damn idiots taking advantage of subsidies. If this happens I plan to go off the grid. 10kw surplus solar panels and turbine generator.. and of course batteries. all equipment would be used bought off ebay. I really prefer driving my Jeep Wrangler anyway.

You are doing it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

All electric companies have lower rates for electric vehicles. For example, edison allows you to set up a separate meter for electric vehicle and pay only $0.11/kWh.

BMW expense

[Firethorn]

$500 lease payment + $150 in gasoline (15k miles, 30mpg, $4/gallon gasoline, rounded down). You might want to round up to account

Once you factor that in, you're looking at $350/month cars, which are still nice ones if not BMW 3 series.

My Tacoma was $300/month while the payments lasted, and it's not exactly long on features, and bought in '08.

Check with the power company...

[Firethorn]

How easy is it to get a separate time-of-day rate meter in California?

I'd rate it as 'very easy' - there are companies that will do the install and I found an article on Los Angeles EV rebates. It pays you $250 for a separate meter, which they say will cover 'months' of charging. From what I remember electric meters are cheaper than water meters.

The Tesla can indeed be configured to charge only during a preset time, or hooked up to a system that allows the power company to turn it off when needed for even more discounts.

Anderman is a troll

[WindBourne]

Seriously, this guy has written about Tesla for a number of years. Yet, he has always been negative on them, and WRONG.

The global EV market will grow from 65,000 units in 2012 to 450,000 in 2020; and yet, pure evs nearly doubled in 2013 to 111K and on-track to double last years sales in 2014. Heck, at the end of 2015, Tesla ALONE will be producing 50K cars / year.
and here, he gripes about Tesla as being a large unknown, and not likely to hit its numbers.

Basically, Anderman is NOT about batteries, but just an industry troll, with lousy ability to make accurate predictions.

I can't do it so he can't either?

[Anonymous Coward]

I pretty much am hoping Tesla fails miserably. I don't like their cars and I can't stand what appears to be their ethics regarding lithium consumption and recycling. I hate what they're going to do to Nevada.

That said... I think that if you're making your own batteries using chemicals you'll source however you can and CapEx for battery production is almost nothing because the government is basically picking up the entire tab on it, he'll have no problems making batteries far less expensive than his competition.

I guess this guy accomplished what he really set out to do. He got into the headlines... too bad he ended up looking like a whiner baby who feels threatened by Musks crazy way of poisoning the planet.

Re:

[kurkosdr]

The prices the article mentions are before or after incentives? If someone makes an electric car that costs, say $30000 after incentives, the government will greatly reduce the incentives, as they will evolve into a huge financial liability.

$50-80K ... unless subsidized ...

[fygment]

which would be a pretty good investment by the government, backed by the electrical industry, industry willing to gamble on building the infrastructure for electrical vehicles, and environmental interest groups/industries.

It is easy to come up with possible ways of subsidizing the Tesla to keep its cost low, possibly lower than the $35k proposed. It is a technology a lot of people want to see succeed.

Tesla's Broken Promises

[Anonymous Coward]

Elon Musk was supposed to have a third generation vehicle available by 2014 for less than $30,000. That was what he promised five years ago. We're still a Model X away from that. He might be able to hit $35,000, but I think 2018 is optimistic.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/24/plugged-in

It comes fromythe top1% mostly

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, they pay the majority of the taxes, right? (here the fact they make the majority of the money makes no difference).

So basically, most of this subsidy is coming from the top 1% of earners.

Which isn't you, dearie.

PHEVs will be better til at least 2030

[allquixotic]

Unless there is some enormous revolution in battery technology that makes state-of-the-art Lithium Ion / Lithium Polymer batteries look as antiquated as lead-acid, AND is cheaply and easily mass-manufactured, Plug-in Hybrids (PHEVs) are going to be a better option for most people through the 2010s and 2020s.

The reason is simple: When the range of your vehicle can be measured in a few hundred miles, you are going to need to refuel or recharge quite often. Problem is, the only place you can guarantee the availability of charging apparatus (and the permission to use it) is on your own personal property. If you're very very lucky, you might be able to secure access to this at your place of employment -- but if you switch jobs, all bets are off.

Since gasoline stations are omnipresent almost anywhere in the civilized world, not only in the U.S. but worldwide, having your vehicle ultimately rely on gasoline as a "fall-back" or "range extender" means that you could, in a pinch, get in your car that's out of battery juice and has 1 gallon of gas in the tank; go to the nearest refueling station; fill up; drive several hundred miles; and repeat that several times to get from one end of the country to the other. You'd only spend a total of about 30 minutes refueling throughout your long journey.

So a PHEV can be relied upon to have "virtually unlimited range" (assuming you have unlimited money to pay for the gas) if you have a sudden, pressing need to go a long distance. You cannot rely upon a pure EV because you have no idea where you'll be able to find a recharging station, and even if you do, assuming it's compatible, it will take at least 45 minutes to an hour to get a good charge going (until EV batteries are based on supercaps or something that can recharge in seconds, but that's yet to be commercialized, much less mass-manufactured).

200 miles isn't a lot. Back and forth to work; run some errands; drive across part of a mid-Atlantic state to visit a relative; and you've driven 200 miles. Better hope grandma can bring out a long extension cord to charge up your car on the 120V overnight (assuming the current draw doesn't pop her 1970s-era circuit breaker faster than an electric lawnmower will).

I want to see more PHEVs with a range long enough for your ordinary commute on pure EV, but with a range extender (basically a gasoline-powered electric generator) that can give you range competitive with traditional gasoline vehicles. The nice thing about PHEVs is that you can make the battery a little bit smaller than the enormous ones Tesla needs for a 200-mile EV, which cuts down the cost into the 30k range quite easily. Tack on a medium-sized government subsidy and you're looking at sub-30k prices for a vehicle that might only use gasoline weekly or bi-weekly if the driver can fit their round trip commute in on the EV.

This is possible TODAY. To avoid the appearance of a shill I am deliberately not mentioning any manufacturers or vehicle models. But I really don't think people will be able to buy pure EVs until there is an Earth-shattering revolution in battery technology that would enable 1000+ mile range OR near-instantaneous charging; and even then, we'll need to build up a near-omnipresent charging infrastructure before you'll see very much adoption.

Meanwhile, with PHEVs, smart owners can continue to demand that the infrastructure for EV charging will build up, while still having a fallback if absolutely needed. The fallback of gasoline gets about half the MPG (i.e., costs twice as much) as using electricity produced on the grid, so drivers have a financial motivation to ask their workplace, local convenience stores and gas stations, etc. to have advanced high-speed chargers. This demand and the resultant market response will help build up the infrastructure WHILE we are getting our ducks in a row to prepare for the full-on EV revolution. Therefore, we avoid the chicken and egg problem by phasing in the demand, and we don't inconvenience consumers in the near term by allowing them

Re:PHEVs will be better til at least 2030

[WorBlux]

Most families have more than one car, and most people drives less than 50 miles per day. A pure EV can be cheaper then a PHEV, Plus the PHEV has the maintainace requirement of a conventional car. If my family had the typical two conventional vehicles and were looking to buy a new vehicle I'd look at a EV before a PHEV. You're thinkin about it with one person as one car, but for many the family rather than the individual is the basic economic unit.