Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
Your right gas cars are total non-perishable and never wear-out or need replacement parts, and gasoline can be recycled as well.
insert morpheus meme -- "What if i told you the rich run both parties, and neither has the middle/lower classes interests at heart?"
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.
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.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Yes. No one buys a Telsa in order to save money.
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.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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.
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...
I don't read AC A human right