Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

An Update to our Supercharging Program

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Tesla is not taking away supercharging for free privileges for any current owner who can supercharge today.
Yes, I get that. But in this thread here and elsewhere on TMC we have people advocating that they ought to. That is what I am objecting to.

Perhaps I should have been much more clear about this from the outset: I am -- albeit a little wistfully -- in favor of what Tesla's decided to do.
 
I'm not sure, and it does bother me. What do you think?
I don't think it does. At least not for me. I look at it the same way I look at some of those PV installations you decry, though. Those purchases continue to enable an industry that will hopefully have a positive effect. We could all buy Civics and probably do the best for our one-off, but we wouldn't be moving towards a solution in the long term.

No guarantees, but it's pretty much the only thing we have going right now. And the bright side is that it doesn't hurt very badly to own and drive one.
 
I knew this was coming eventually, but I really didn't expect it until the Model 3 and I can't say I expected it would apply to the S or X. Although, after reading TMC about folks using SpCs when they aren't on road trips, I can't say I'm surprised. Providing some annual credits with the "cost of supercharging" (which I say because the M3 won't have it standard, as I recall reading) works pretty nicely though.

I'm glad this charge is across ALL models.

I can't say I'm glad it is across-the-board, because prior to the announcement I have been considering what the experience is going to be like in 4-6 more years as the M3s are all over the road, hoping it isn't distilled by that. This concern is probably unfounded based on my BMW experience, but seeing how Nissans and Infiniti are mechanically similar, but the service experiences are very different.

This was needed, one question will unlimited go with the vehicle or the owner? Clearly it is setup based on vehicle order date and or delivery but for those of us who are here already I would very much like it if I replace the S in the future with a Tesla vehicle to be grandfathered in. We keep on being told how we are paying for all the model 3's, etc...

Maybe they could tie it into trade-ins, a 1-for-1 swap, which pull the old VINs (which is how I suspect they will track SpC credits or lack of) off the used market while rewarding the "early adopters" (in quotes because some of us are 4 years late to the game).
 
That article's errant nonsense -- it equates economic payback with net energy use, which is only true if the cost of energy is the same everywhere. Which is simply not so.

There's a rooftop I can see from mine that has a couple of dozen large panels in the shadow of another building. There's no way, in 20 or 25 years -- particularly remembering the loss in efficiency over a 25 year lifespan, which the popular-press article you quoted also ignores -- those panels will ever offset the carbon spewed into the air in China to make them.

On the other hand, back in 1998 when the question of whether the whole industry was net-energy-positive or not was much more up in the air, I spent a couple of weeks camped out on a mountaintop in the Wind Rivers next to a guy who ran his whole travelling business (resoling climbing shoes -- angle grinder and heat gun work, mostly) off a single panel that was reliably cranking out nearly 120% of its rated output, all day long as he moved it to face the sun up there at 9,000 feet. That one sure paid itself back -- on any terms.

The point is, some panels are nothing but an arbitrage on the price of energy, low cost dirty coal generation in China being a heck of a lot cheaper than relatively clean generation here. And other panels are well sited, in sunny places, and really do a lot of good. On the average, it's a win. But it is not at all black and white -- and because of the price arbitrage, you can't even use the payback interval in any simple way to see what shade of grey it is.

Nothing, I fear, is ever simple if you look at it hard wnough.
https://thinkprogress.org/g20-climate-change-fc301e6f2827

https://thinkprogress.org/to-slash-co2-and-air-pollution-chinas-coal-use-peaks-b9d54e19ab4f

https://thinkprogress.org/china-redoubles-its-war-on-coal-2590b33c8a82

https://thinkprogress.org/we-might-have-finally-seen-peak-coal-5a3e7b15cdfc

https://thinkprogress.org/china-isnt-approving-any-new-coal-mines-for-the-next-3-years-13bb7475cde1

https://thinkprogress.org/new-charts-show-the-downward-spiral-of-chinese-coal-use-76681ecc46c2

https://thinkprogress.org/global-co...p-to-reality-of-carbon-pollution-80c44cea1ca6

https://thinkprogress.org/chinas-coal-use-may-have-peaked-years-ahead-of-schedule-e7d08f259373

https://thinkprogress.org/it-only-t...ng-reduction-in-carbon-emissions-ed5e83682726

China Leads Decarbonization Race As Global Carbon Intensity Falls 2.8%, Says PwC

China Halts Construction On 17 Gigawatts Of Coal-Fired Plants
 
That would not be a good idea, especially the "no supercharging access at all" bit. So you end up driving around more than you expect one day, realize you can't make it back home unless you supercharge, say 20 miles from home, and you are barred from doing so? So Tesla or someone else has to tow you home? Or the wind is stronger than you expect on a return trip and you're going to come up short unless you supercharge and same result.

Supercharges are supposed to add to the flexibility of the car not take away from it. Such an inflexible solution would only cause frustration.
I made home last Thursday with only 9 miles left. It was late at night and did not stop at the SC @Gilroy, but having the option to be able to charge was great. I don't think the charge close to your home should be banned. we may sometimes need it, even just for feeling better that you would make it home. I keep thinkIn if the car ran out of charge 2 miles to home what would I do. You can not go get a gallon of gas to drive home. Maybe I should keep a small generator at home, to fill the battery.
 
I don't think it does. At least not for me. I look at it the same way I look at some of those PV installations you decry, though. Those purchases continue to enable an industry that will hopefully have a positive effect. We could all buy Civics and probably do the best for our one-off, but we wouldn't be moving towards a solution in the long term.

Point taken. Perhaps this is the right time to admit that when I'm not deliberately trying to be a phallus to obtain people's hircines, you're likely to hear me say pretty much the same thing. I do think there's a danger in an overly simplistic approach towards it, though. As much as I know we're probably all better off that the bozos who put those panels on the next roof over, where they're in the shade most of the day, got a huge subsidy check and preferential tax treatment for doing it, it chaps my hide, you know? Twice as much when I hear the utility guys gripe about what they've got to do to accomodate distributed generation (which is not insignificant) and then point up at that roof where all those panels are having their fifteen minutes of fame, um, I mean, daily full sun exposure. *Sigh.*

Toyota used to argue that in most of the United States, given the mix of generation types, and distribution and storage losses, even a plug-in hybrid was strictly speaking less carbon friendly than a plain hybrid. I read the papers and I found the argument fairly compelling. But, of course, moving a large fraction of the market to EVs -- particularly if you can charge them off-peak and you have wind, hydro, and nuclear in the mix -- offers other huge advantages; there isn't and never will be an ICE that's carbon neutral (excepting straight hydrogen vehicles whose fuel's made by electrolyzing seawater with renewables or nuclear) but when you get most people to EVs, you do get the ability to clean up your generation mix as a matter of public policy. And that's a way forward. It's nice to have one.

No guarantees, but it's pretty much the only thing we have going right now. And the bright side is that it doesn't hurt very badly to own and drive one.

I agree again. If I didn't get that evil burst of glee every time I stomped on the not-gas pedal, I'd be one less EV driver in this city. Of course Musk is right: showing people that electric cars are fun and convenient and sexy is the easiest way to get large numbers of people into electric cars.

I just cringe (or worse) when I see people on TMC advocating things that would push many of the EV drivers I regularly interact with away from them. Banning use of "local" Superchargers, given how people do it here, looks like that to me.

OK, it's way past midnight. You're right -- I'll knock it off with the trolling. Thank you to everyone for the vigorous discussion!
 
Yes, and the silly sophistry aside, do you think their argument is correct?

No, I don't. It's an attempt at a quick fix, and it oversimplifies the problem. But I've heard it a dozen times now and it's just talk. So far there's little or no sign that Tesla will clamp down supercharger use by commercial drivers, much less residential users. This new policy may be all that's necessary..
 
No, I really like my 85D and will probably replace it with a Tesla vehicle in the future. I understand that I'm grandfathered and this change is not likely to impact me for years, I nonetheless feel a basic understanding of the Supercharger network has changed. Given the high cost of electricity from high cost gas fired plants for my home, my Tesla already doesn't come anywhere near the fuel cost savings Tesla claims. If they implement regional cost based Supercharging, then the Tesla's cost advantage on long trips shrinks even more.

One more thing, is the 400kWh consumption based on charge stored into the battery or energy delivered by the supercharger into the car including waste heat and energy to run the a/c?

I don't have a reference, but giving it an educated guess, I would have to say it's deducted from what's accepted by the battery. It's just going to be much simpler to meter that way, since your car has that detail logged already. And since the AC runs off of the 12V line, which comes from the battery, the extra 0.4 kwh that you draw for running the AC while plugged in for an hr will count against your allotment.
 
I woke up this morning to the breaking Tesla news. I've had my MS for 25 months now,and have 81,000 miles on it. It's seen Canada and the US, and I admit I love driving it. I understand that my current MS is not impacted, but my thoughts about buying a new one is a couple of years might be. If you've always been given a benefit, it can be difficult to see it go away, regardless of the actual or perceived cost.

1) I question the specifics as they relate to the big announcement. $0.25 per kWh, $0.50, $1.00.... what will the eventual details be. Tesla announces about it being less than a comparable ICE, but does that mean $10 or $75 for the proverbial comparative fill-up? I'm reminded of the Harris Ranch battery swap, and how it didn't make any sense (until you realize it was aimed at CARB benefits for Tesla). Is the electricity from the solar assisted SpC's any cheaper than the non-solar assisted SpC?

400kWH is not much, on an annual basis for a luxury MS or MX.

How about a quick free 5-10 kWH before charging fees start to be charged. Above that, a reasonable cost per kWh, and idle time fees.

It appears that prior-to-Jan 1, 2017 Tesla's might be worth a premium. Not sure how much, but when I sold one of my cars, the add-on of scheduled maintenance and extended warranty was a factor, according to the purchaser of my car.

More SpC, yeah. Manteca, Santa Nella, Harris Ranch, Buttonwillow, Stockdale Highway, Lebec, Fresno.....great news. Lets show that zero emission vehicles are economical to drive. It seems like this might have the impact of range anxiety, depending on the cost to Supercharge.

Scotty
 
the bozos who put those panels on the next roof over, where they're in the shade most of the day, got a huge subsidy check and preferential tax treatment for doing it

Modern panels will generate electricity in shady conditions, so it may not be a total loss!

The Grant in UK is a decreasing amount, there were richer pickings for early adopters, but back then panels were more expensive and less efficient, so it balances out, but over here the grant on its own isn't enough money to provide a worthwhile investment for North Facing, Tree-shaded panels!

particularly remembering the loss in efficiency over a 25 year lifespan, which the popular-press article you quoted also ignores

Can't speak for other manufacturers but the Panasonic panels I have on my roof have a guarantee for 20 years not to lose more than 5% output (it might even be 2%, without looking it up I cannot remember the exact figure).
 
The retail cost of electricity in a multifamily dwelling in New York City is in the neighborhood of $0.21-$0.25 per kWh. Perhaps it's not so surprising our resource usage per capita is a tiny fraction of that in any state West of the Mississippi.

Of course, at the same time, it's immensely complex and often not practical to install EV charging here at all. For example, my building has 200A of service supplying twelve families. Upgrading the service would require trenching about 50 feet of bedrock to lay a new cable, and guess what? The feeder to the nearest transformer vault is only 13.5kV (typical for Manhattan) so if you know anything about utility engineering you can probably see where this is going. These are typical conditions for the 50-odd buildings on both sides of my street stretching from one end to the other about 3/4 of a mile. Oh, I forgot, we're all supposed to live in detached homes on the Peninsula with overhead utility wiring, right?

Sigh. Charge overnight? That must be very nice if you can arrange to do it (you know, like if you live somewhere where everyone else in the country pays to subsidize your resource usage, like by moving billions of gallons of water around against gravity). Me, if I want the car charged up on Monday morning after I drive home Sunday evening, I have one choice, really: hit my "local" Paramus or Greenwich supercharger and get called a jerk on TMC for doing exactly what I'm contractually entitled to do and what my local SvC staff consistently say is perfectly fine to do.

I repeat: the whole world is not California (thank goodness). Other places have other conditions and other needs. Now can we put a cork in the smug talk about how nobody should use their local Superchargers already?

I feel your pain . . .

Some of the FL peeps know my 1.5 year condo saga that, thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is over now . . .

Look, I agree with Tesla's move here, as long as they don't go too far. Why people that than can charge at home charge at local SCs is beyond me. My time is way more valuable than that!

Tesla should charge enough to eliminate local chargers of cheapness without killing local chargers of necessity. Charging market rates for kWhs should do the trick. No penalty; no advantage.

Part of the reason I spent two times more for my Tesla than any other car I've even considered is I believe in the cause--help accelerate the inevitable adoption of EVs. That and I freakin' love the car!

We need to be better on every possible front to overcome the objections to widespread EV adoption. Being less convenient and just as expensive as ICE refueling does not help.

Right now, EVs have to be objectively better. How many of the MUD general population is willing to go to the mat like some of us did as opposed to just buying the same ole ICE car they always have? Not many . . .

Those using ICE car arguments are advocating the status quo. I'm hoping for more than that . . .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GJ79
Although, if they had "other charging options", they would be paying for electricity at home or work anyway. This still allows someone without home charging to own a Tesla, but does eliminate the free ride and help control congestion at busy urban superchargers.
This is not the only way to get rid of congestion. However....It's ok.

Question: Will the Supercharging option be removed from the MS and MX ordering process?
 
As has been said, they need this to keep the system viable. When the Model 3 rolls out you will have a very large increase in deliveries and I hope this additional money is used to increase the supercharger network. Now they need to figure out how to keep up with the servicing of the car, more service centers are needed now.
I would assume that a Super Charging option would not be available for the M3 then. Or would it?

For example: If when you order your M3 - Will there be a $2000 option for SC'ing? Then pay per kwh for supercharging? ( I'm ignoring the 400kwh ).
 
No, I really like my 85D and will probably replace it with a Tesla vehicle in the future. I understand that I'm grandfathered and this change is not likely to impact me for years, I nonetheless feel a basic understanding of the Supercharger network has changed. Given the high cost of electricity from high cost gas fired plants for my home, my Tesla already doesn't come anywhere near the fuel cost savings Tesla claims. If they implement regional cost based Supercharging, then the Tesla's cost advantage on long trips shrinks even more.

The fuel cost savings calculation is based on 10% of miles being powered by super chargers per the text. And the day average car does 10-15k miles per year. So at least they picked a number in that range, even if at the lower end.

The other savings are based on local costs. Unfortunately, sounds like those costs are widely variable.