Your statement was that Tesla is losing money on the SC network. Show me the financial statements that prove that the SC network is operating at a loss (as opposed to being neither a profit nor loss or if they are making a profit).
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Biden meeting with Musk and other CEOs notes "broad consensus" on charging interoperability
- Thread starter Mockingbird
- Start date
You already know that nobody here is going to be able to provide secret internal documents from Tesla.
That said, it is known industry-wide that fast charging isn't currently a profitable business model (at least in NA) because of demand charges.
ZenRockGarden
Active Member
To be fair - the US government already massively subsidizes the oil and gas industry...
Well then don't make statements you can't prove.
Tesla builds and operates large storage projects like the one at Moss Landing as joint projects with local utility companies. I obviously can't prove it, but if I worked for Tesla, I'd try to negotiate down those demand charges in exchange for providing the storage.
In any case, your statement that Tesla is "losing money" on the SC network is not backed up my any concrete evidence, but you're trying to pass it off as a known fact.
No, I cannot "prove it" without committing corporate espionage, but all the evidence said so.
The most absurd thing about that statement is that if anyone isn't losing money on DC fast chargers, it's Tesla. Their sites have some of the highest average utilization I've seen.
And just today, we've also learned that Tesla can apparently construct fast chargers at just 1/5 the cost of its competitors: Tesla's Supercharger cost revealed to be just one-fifth of the competition in losing home state bid
Only in Europe was it mostly government driven: Their industry was happily running roughshod over their governments' byzantine totalitarian regulators by simply cheating on their beloved Diesel and squeezing their people into ever tinier cars instead of anyone looking to actually find solutions to the problems with petroleum dependency.
It was GM, Hughes, and AeroVironment who showed EVs were possible (see The Car That Could by Michael Schnayerson).
Then, in the US, it was a grassroots conspiracy (www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com, www.teslamotorsclub.com, www.pluginamerica.com, www.plugincars.com, www,evchargernews.com, www.plugshare.com, etc), or series of them that sprung up, pressuring the automakers (European included) and the US government to actually get with the EV program. Government support in the US wasn't always even positive. Tesla dealt the final blow to the opposition by actually providing a viable EV car that people would and could actually spend their own money on. GM (Volt) and Nissan (Leaf) joined in too, but to a lesser extent. There are, of course, a few pathetic, surviving squirters still pushing back against EVs but their antics are becoming laughable - like clowns who continue to repeat nonsense like:
and
The person who wrote that article has no idea what he is talking about.
Even if the equipment from Tesla is free, it's impossible to do the job at 1/5 of the price.
Cite your sources. The author of the article cites his. And unless Tesla is a charity, there's no reason for them to request 80% less money if everyone is allowed to request funding for up to 70% of the cost of each charger, up to $150k per charger, unless it actually costs them 80% less to build each one.
I actually know a thing or two about how much DCFCs cost to install, operate, and maintain, unlike most people here.
No, you don't necessarily know anything about the cost, only the offered price. There's usually a difference.
Yes, I do.
There are tons of other costs not shown there.
For example, utility upgrades can add a huge portion to the bill.
Last edited:
Here's the article cited by the last article I posted: Tesla’s Texas Charger Grant Applications Fail; It’s Bad For Texas But Reveals Tesla’s Super-Low Costs
The utility upgrade portion of the grant can only pay for 20% of the cost of the charging station (so I'm guessing that's $30k per station?):
The grant applications reveal a staggering difference in the cost of the different stations. Most of the applications ask for the maximum $150,000, which suggests their stations cost at least $215,000 each to put in — and possibly much more. While all the other applications are for smaller stations with 2 to 6 units, and thus have a higher cost per charger, the difference is stark. For the Tesla 17 unit station they ask only $29K each, and $42K each for the 9 unit stations. Tesla’s grant application for their 17 unit station at $500,000 is lower than most of the 4-unit stations in other applications, which ask for the maximum $600,000. Only 20% of the grant was allowed to be used for electrical service upgrades.
Then there is this:
Here are the prices in the unaccepted grant applications of various operators, representing up to 70% of the actual cost.
1. Chargepoint: $150K+ for 2-plex
2. EVgo: $150K+ for pair, $126K for 4-plex
3. Circle-K: $75K for 4-plex to $150K+ for 2-plex
4. 7-11: $126K for 2-plex
5. “Retail EV Charging North/South Texas” (Buc-ee’s) $100K/charger for 6-plex
6. Various small players: $75K to $150K, averaging at least $133K/charger
7. Accepted applications so far from various players average $123K+/charger
8. Tesla: $29K for 17-plex, $42K for 9-plex
$150K for a 2-plex is at least the right order of magnitude and compares to the $63K CP quote you got for one. The ZEF quote is also in line with these quotes at around $100K for a charger. The Kerb (Enel) quote seems to not include installation but is only for the unit itself, is that correct? BTW, how old are those quotes? Those are relatively "weak" DCFCs (roughly equivalent to Tesla's 72 kW "urban" superchargers) and I doubt anyone would be interested in those when going on a road trip.
Regardless, Tesla apparently can install chargers for $40-60K each (assuming actual costs are 42% higher, reflecting the fact that the grant only covers 70% of the costs, i.e. a 100/70 ratio), all inclusive.
I was the one who originally wrote back in December 2021 about Tesla applying for these grants.
Tesla applies to install Supercharger stations in Texas with CCS connectors
Tesla has applied to install Supercharger stations in Texas with CCS connectors, which would be a first in the US....
electrek.co
The mistake you make is to think that you can just extrapolate the grant request amount to the total cost.
Tesla is likely simply asking for less grants that it is eligible for to try to undercut other applicants.
Also, I read the originally application and I don't see where that "20%" limit is mentioned.
Regardless, there are plenty of other costs: installation, maintenance, etc.
Last edited:
That really doesn't make sense. If they take even $1 of grant money, they're forced to open up those SC stalls to all EVs. It doesn't make sense that they'd limit their control over those stations if they're not going to take every dollar they can get.
Tesla was going to open the Supercharger to non-Tesla vehicles anyway so that it can mitigate demand charges.
I haven't seen any sources indicating that they have plans to do this in the US at all sites.
It costs money to go to the Superchargers and retrofit it with CCS.
Is it worth it to mitigate demand charges? Absolutely...
...but why would Tesla pay for the retrofit when Tesla can bill the government instead?
Last edited:
