Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Raises Prices At Its Supercharger Stations
Tesla is increasing the cost of the paid Supercharger access, but a spokesperson for the company says that it "will never be a profit center." Electrek reports: When introducing the program, Tesla said that it aimed to still make the cost of Supercharging cheaper than gasoline and that it doesn't aim to make its Supercharger network a profit center. Instead, they want to use the money to keep growing the network which now consists of over 1,180 stations and close to 9,000 Superchargers. But this week, the rates were updated across the U.S. Some states saw massive increases of as much as 100 percent -- though most regions saw their rates increase by 20 to 40 percent. For example, Oregon saw an increase of $0.12 to $0.24 per kWh, while California, Tesla's biggest market in the U.S., got an increase from $0.20 to $0.26 kWh and New York's rate went from $0.19 to $0.24 per kWh. A spokesperson for Tesla said in a statement: "We occasionally adjust rates to reflect current local electricity and usage. The overriding principle is that Supercharging will always remain significantly cheaper than gasoline, as we only aim to recover a portion of our costs while setting up a fair system for everyone. This will never be a profit center for Tesla."
Oregon saw an increase of $0.12 to $0.24 per kWh, while California, Tesla's biggest market in the U.S., got an increase from $0.20 to $0.26 kWh and New York's rate went from $0.19 to $0.24 per kWh.
Can someone smarter than I compute/explain how much this translates to MPG in a ICE vehicle that gets 25 mpg at current gas prices (current average is $3.00 a gallon in the U.S.A.)
Thanks in advance. Signed, AC.
esla said that it aimed to still make the cost of Supercharging cheaper than gasoline and that it doesn't aim to make its Supercharger network a profit center. Instead, they want to use the money to keep growing the network which now consists of over 1,180 stations and close to 9,000 Superchargers.
So they're just reinvesting their profits back into the business then. I don't have a problem with that, and I think it's the appropriate thing to do in their case, but don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
bull. fucking. shit.
oregon has some of the lowest electric rates in the country, the FORMER charge of 12c/kwh was still a healthy profit over energy costs.. but doubling the price 'at the plug' is pure greed and even somewhat exploitative of oregon's "greenness" and popularity of the cars in that state (i.e. "how much are those 'treehuggers' up there willing to pay?").
Haw-Haw!
Suckers.
Keep in mind that the supercharge network is intended to help people traverse long distances. For the 99% of the time that you drive your vehicle as a city car, your home charging is still the same cost it was before. Tesla has made no secret of its desire to get people off superchargers for their daily charging needs, so this announcement should carry nearly zero impact for people who are using the network as intended.
Tesla has never had a profit - except for that ONE quarter and that was from some accounting tricks.
Tesla is a money loser and has been for over 14 years. And if it can't make money now while is pretty much has the EV market, they're gonna get their asses kicked. They are burning through about a HALF A BILLION dollars every quarter in operations: marketing, salaries, and other expenses. That money is gone- forever. So, when stupid people say, "Tesla isn't losing money, they're investing in factories.", they are showing their complete lack of understanding of Tesla's business and its problems. And they either never read a Tesla financial statement or they are just ignorant.
If it weren't for the periodic and frequent cash infusions that Musk gets from investors - like this last round of JUNK bonds - Tesla would be out of business in a few months. In other words, Tesla is not a viable business.
I predict in a year or two, we'll be discussing the bankruptcy of Tesla.
And how some folks picked up the assets for pennies on the dollar, hired folks who know what they are doing, and will be actually making money - like what happened to Iridium.
As someone who owns 3 ICE and oneeElectric car (Leaf), I have run the numbers and the Leaf wins by a long shot. I spend roughly $38 per month to go the same distance the SUV used to cost $245. Maintenance is almost zero, and the original battery is doing great at 30000+ miles.
When I go on long trips, I still use the other cars, but within 50 miles, the Leaf is fine. I have only charged away from home twice, once because I forgot to plug it in.
Never has a term been so apt.
Are non-Tesla entities allowed to make supercharger stations? It's a non-issue at this point, but eventually the electric vehicle market will grow large enough to make independently owned charging stations viable.
Not only do you want competition to make sure Tesla never decides to start gouging at the stations, but when more electric vehicles come on the market it would be much better if they all shared a common charging interface. No one wants to wander around town looking for a compatible charge-station.
I stole this Sig
Gas stations make profit by selling convenience store items, at higher prices than grocery stores. Its "convenience" they are selling. Gasoline is all basically a set price so they sell within pennies of each other
Tesla, in the long run, electric charging will become the same. It probably understands that there is no patent you can make on an electric charging cable, the industry will move towards standardization of charging interface cable, and thats not something they can control. Nor is it their core business.
OK, granted I have driven less than 3000 miles a year for a decade. Yes, I get the low mileage discount on my car insurance ;) My 1999 Ford Expedition only gets 12 mpg, but my office is 2 miles away, tbh I work in my home office most days.
;)
;)
I love my expedition, even with 12"+ of new snow I can open my garage door and just go where I want to.
I do blow out the driveway if the wife needs to go to work
I know I am an old Neanderthal heck I don't want modern electronics (usb, nav, etc, etc) in my vehicle. It is going to be the first things to die/go obsolete. Also, just looked my Expedition and a Tesla are within 500 lbs of each other. I bet I will still be going when the Tesla is stuck and doa (until it gets towed and a recharge)
OK, I have rambled a bit. But here is my point, what is the lowest cost Tesla and will it still be in use 18 years from it's purchase date?
I could use an electric vehicle! I am the perfect individual! I can go a week working from home! I drive very little! Why would I buy a 50k - 60k vehicle with a short life span ( 3-5 years). When I can just go out and buy another used Expedition for 3-5k?
Just my 2 cents
For anyone who was unable to see this coming, just slap yourself now. This was an obvious move, and I don't buy a for-profit entity not letting ANY feature of its business that COULD be a profit-center NOT being a profit-center. What, you might ask, do I have against Tesla? Besides that they're using Nikola Tesla's name, goodwill he generated during his life, his fame, etc., and probably more than just a few of his inventions to profit while benefiting only the rich, which was antithetical to what the man himself stood for his whole life, and oh, also, the fact that when I first heard of the company some years ago, I checked out their website and could find NOTHING on it thanking or even acknowledging the person who could easily be called the father of the twentieth century. I see the naming as a cynical attempt to trade on the name of an infinitely better person than the "genius" who founded the company. Did he even get Tesla's estates/families/survivors' permission to use his name? Even if he did, it's just in bad taste. It would be like a chemical company calling itself "Mendeleev, Inc.," or a publisher calling itself, "Gutenberg, Ltd."
There are millions of Jeep Wranglers on the road today and none of them get more than 25MPG. Typically, it's probably less.
Also, I have a 370Z that averages right at 25-26MPG.
My Chrysler Crossfire SRT-6 I used to drive got around 27, but required premium gas too.
So yeah -- 25MPG average seems legit to me. Lots of cars get more, but plenty get less.
OK, I have rambled a bit. But here is my point, what is the lowest cost Tesla and will it still be in use 18 years from it's purchase date
The lowest cost brand new Tesla is $35K (Model 3). If you want a used one then wait a few years. Also learn how to use Google.
Why would I buy a 50k - 60k vehicle with a short life span ( 3-5 years).
What makes you think that an EV only lasts 3-5 years? Why do anti-EV nutjobs always have to lie so blatantly? You think your little monologue makes you sound like an anti-fad classic old soul, but instead it just makes you sound like an uniformed moron.
The big electric power providers in CA are simultaneously demanding a change to the pricing on the grid to rip off solar panel owners. They are claiming that power during the day is plentiful (and therefore cheap) because of all the solar power and that it is expensive at night when it must all come from traditional sources. This makes their case (they claim) that they should pay solar panel owners far less for the money they pump back into the grid.
They cannot possibly be arguing both that the overnight power is plentiful and cars should be charged then AND be arguing that overnight power is so much less available and thus a person with panels must pay far more for it at night than they get for what they put back into the grid during the day, can they? [end sarc]
In California, $0.98 of every gallon is taxes - an artificial inflation of the price. I frequently read the claim (usually by advocates for "green" energy) that fossil fuels are artificially cheap and subsidised and that without those subsidies "renewables" would be competative with gasoline. That's a rather blatantly untrue bit of propaganda though. "Big Oil" is not subsidized in the US; it gets the standard tax breaks (ability to keep more of its own money) that other businesses get, but is not subsidized (given other people's money). In California, however, the government is actively over-taxing gasoline specifically to make electric cars more attractive.
It you take out the artificial penalty imposed by California on gasoline powered cars, those electric cars look a lot less cost effective. Get rid of the subsidies on purchasing the electric cars and the situation gets worse. The only way to fairly compare the tyoes of vehicles is to account for ALL the subsidies/incentives/penalties/taxes imposed by manipulative governments, and then account for differences in performance.
Personally, I find a lot to like in electric cars and would like them a lot more if they were part of an overall major effort to re-wire the whole economy to be electric, overbuild and ruggedize the grid, and concentrate the generation into facilities with redundancy, extreme emissions controls, extreme security, etc so that the entire system would easily migrate between available/affordable sources of plentiful, reliable, and cheap energy. Unfortunately, these vehicles instead always seem tied to the agendas of politicians who desire to REDUCE the availability of energy, INCREASE its costs, and ultimately ration power (and possibly use it to control the masses at some future point? - they're usually fans of super-sized government-on-totalitarian-steroids).
Compare it using cost per mile.
Are non-Tesla entities allowed to make supercharger stations? {...} but when more electric vehicles come on the market it would be much better if they all shared a common charging interface. No one wants to wander around town looking for a compatible charge-station.
In Europe, there's a standard to which most manufacturer are gravitating toward : Mennekes (official name Type 2 (VDE-AR-E 2623-2-2)).
It's mostly designed to carry tri-phase AC current.
Most of the cars sold in Europe tend to use Mennekes or have adapters for it. European Tesla, as far I've seen, come with Mennekes sockets instead of the weird proprietary shit that they use in the US.
Different Type 2 connectors will simply advertise different max current to the car. Your home charger will advertise current up to 15A (perhaps 25A) on 1 or 3 phases. High speed charger will advertise much higher currents.
The main difference setting appart Teslas is how they handle DC.
The current standard is based around "Combined Charging System" (CCS) : two extra pins below the connector to carry the high voltage high current DC power.
Tesla instead re-use the AC pins with some proprietary signaling to advertise DC instead of AC.
At least where I live, you can find AC Mennekes charger in lots of public places, and nearly every parking at least features normal house-plugs giving low current AC.
On some big highways you can even find charging stations that features Mennekes, CCS and ChaDeMo.
Usually the house-plug style chargers are free (they are actual house plugs with only fancy box around them advertising them as vehicle chargers).
AC Mennekes charge tend to be paying, but not much more expensive than base electricity costs.
All the tri-standard high speed chargers I've seen are paying, but again, close to electricity costs.
Most of the above are usually made available in partnership with the local utility city company.
You can charge Teslas at them but :
- due to differing standards, you can only charge them with the AC Mennekes. You can't charge them DC (they lack the CCS pins).
- they'll charge slower than on Tesla Super charger (or than if they had the DC pins).
I think I've read that Elon Musk isn't asking royalties for companies to implement the DC Tesla protocols.
So maybe eventually the tri-standard high-speed chargers can be modified to allow DC Tesla charging on their Mennekes plug.
(I've read about un-approved Tesla mode enabled on some multi-standard charger)
I'm sure there as some ChaDeMo or CSS to Tesla adapters on the market, too.
In short :
- Yes, in Europe, there are other brand of fast chargers than Tesla.
- Due to differing implementation for DC, Tesla can't user their higher super charging speed there, but they still can "normal charge" with AC.
- The charging interface is already common, except for the above exception (and except for some older cars that use older standards like Type 1).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Someone with hard facts please fill in. Won't supercharging ANY battery result in a reduction in durability and/or premature failure of the pack vs. sedate trickle charging? Or have they magically managed to longevity a constant irrespective of how the charging is carried out?
The same thing is calling the ICE "basically a model T". A load of horse bollocks. You're just an arsehole trolling.