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

Blogger Claims Tesla's Battery Swap a Scam

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Doing simple division of the 2015Q1 value:

For 410 supercharger SITES, that's $313,415 per site

For 1,175 supercharger SYSTEMS (1 cabinet, 2 associated pedestals) that's $109,362 per system

For 2,349 charging PEDESTALS, that's @54,704 per pedstal


Early on 4-pedestal sites were common (Those quotes from Elon are over a year old). That's a bit over $200K for a site, assuming the ENTIRE value of the "net book value of our Supercharger network" doesn't include some other associated value, even if small, which is unlikely.

Clearly if you build 8-12 pedestal sites, the value per site is going to be correspondingly greater.

Much closer to Elon's # than your 2-3X claim, unless you assume a big site costs the same as a small site (hint: they don't).
 
Musk's statement about Supercharger costs was made in May, 2013. The costs obviously reference U.S. stations at that time.

By the time a Supercharger station is starting construction, a significant portion of the costs are already in play. The equipment is already ordered and delivered. The number of supercharger plugs obviously affects the price. And the total project time can be as short as 3 months but more likely stretches from 6 months to a year. Tesla does not know beforehand how quickly a site can develop. Some happen right away. Others, like Greenville, SC, end up in limbo - the Superchargers equipment almost completely installed and the site was blocked from completion. As much as 80% of a Supercharger site cost is already spent before the ground is broken. The sites have gotten bigger... you can't ignore the additional costs just because it is inconvenient to your argument. The price difference between a 2 Supercharger, 4 plug site is different from a 6 Supercharger, 12 plug site. The price for some of the smaller 2 plug sites are actually quite high due to their location. Some have odd numbers, like 5, which means 3 Superchargers, 5 plugs. You have to apply a corrective factor there. You also ignore the fact that some stations have solar canopies and some have battery storage. You can't ignore those either. We also don't know how far in advance Tesla has to buy the various components or how they have to account for the deals that are part of this. For example, once a site owner signs the contract, there may be book value added right there even though the first permit hasn't been granted. We also don't know the payment arrangements - how much is contributed to book value as electricians and other labor is spent on developing the site. These are real costs that you can't ignore that go into the book value.

Let's assume that Musk's initial cost was given as a 3 Supercharger, 6 plug site that was common in 2013 as a starting base. In 2013, 4 Supercharger, 8 plugs sites are normal in the U.S.

You take the book value at the end of Q4 2013 of $25.6 million and divide against 64 open Supercharger sites. 2 of these sites have solar canopies, so the right number to even start with is 66. You don't take into account the number under construction. At the end of January, 2014, there were 87 Superchargers open. In other words, the 23 more Superchargers were in the last phases of construction. Easily 90+% of the costs of these Superchargers were already spent by the end of 2013. So 23 * 0.9 = 20.7. By the end of Q1, 2014, there were 96 open. That's an additional 9 and say 70% of those costs were already spent by the end of 2013. That's an additional 6.3. Then by the end of Q2, 2014, 125 were open. Let's say it's fair to add 50% of the costs for those 32 additional sites. That's another 16. So just with 6 months of sites under construction, we're looking at correcting the original 64 value you gave to 64 + 2 + 20.7 + 6.3 + 16 = 109. There are additional costs already incurred for sites beyond even the 6 months as some sites literally took 1 year to develop. But let's just round that 3 more. So 112. Remember, Tesla's original plan was for far more sites than what actually opened, so many more sites were under development (hence costs incurred) but the actual open stations lagged as those site selection, site owner agreements, permitting, and construction, and utility delays mounted.

The current global average of plugs per site is now 5.51 (2,419 / 439). However, in 2013 and the first half of 2014, most of the sites were full sized sites in the U.S. and Europe. Later in 2014 and now in 2015, we are diluted with a bunch of 2 plug Superchargers in France, UK, and Hong Kong/China. Most of the early sites are at least 4 plug but many more were 8 plug. Assuming most were 6 plug sites, but 2:1 ratio of 8 plug sites versus 4 plug sites, a corrective factor of about 20% is about right for the actual number of plugs per site for the Superchargers installed and under various phases of construction at the end of 2013. Therefore, 112 * 1.2 = 134.4.

Take $25.6 million and divide by 134.4 and you get $190,000 cost per site for the Superchargers in operation and under construction at the end of 2013 as it relates to book value.

Further, a number of these sites under construction are in Europe by that point in time and the costs are likely higher in Europe than in the U.S. This is before we get to odd number of plugs and other miscellaneous real world factors that need to be in the accounting. So in reference to the original $150,000 estimate in May, 2013, the average cost is higher, but not enough to all that significant.

Literally all of this has already been addressed, both in the comments section of my article and in the very comment you're answering to.

You can add a bajillion Superchargers to the 2013Q4 estimate, if that helps you make your case. But then, the 2014Q4 and 2015Q1 estimates do not make any sense: to get to the $190,000 figure you contrived, you'd need far more Superchargers under construction than currently are. In fact, as my previous comment said you'd need nearly 900 sites to arrive at a $150,000 price per site. Tesla is planning 500 for the end of the year!

In other words: if you estimate $190,000 at the end of 2013, you invariably end up with the stations costing a lot MORE a year later. And yeah, that 'corrective factor' you used to account for the fact that the earlier stations were bigger? Another problem, because supposedly they've gotten more expensive!

By the way: Tesla's comments included those to Techcrunch in July 2013 ($100-175K). I have no idea why they wouldn't be able to estimate the size of stations built over 2013.

I'm not saying the Supercharger sites cost more; they've probably declined in cost as Tesla acquires experience and scale. I'm saying your numbers don't make sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Doing simple division of the 2015Q1 value:

For 410 supercharger SITES, that's $313,415 per site

For 1,175 supercharger SYSTEMS (1 cabinet, 2 associated pedestals) that's $109,362 per system

For 2,349 charging PEDESTALS, that's @54,704 per pedstal


Early on 4-pedestal sites were common (Those quotes from Elon are over a year old). That's a bit over $200K for a site, assuming the ENTIRE value of the "net book value of our Supercharger network" doesn't include some other associated value, even if small, which is unlikely.

Clearly if you build 8-12 pedestal sites, the value per site is going to be correspondingly greater.

Much closer to Elon's # than your 2-3X claim, unless you assume a big site costs the same as a small site (hint: they don't).

This is the last time I'm saying it:

Tesla's quotes talked about Superchargers, without reference to price. They were made in May-July 2013, and since then stations have remained basically the same size. You can run the numbers if you want: perhaps the average plugs per site that month was 5.7 and now it's 5.5. Doesn't matter a wit.

- - - Updated - - -

That would make sense. The question for an investor is if the Superchargers costs $150K more due to site acquisition, site engineering, permitting, inspections, leases etc., then for 400 SC locations that would come to $60 million. Nothing to sneeze at, but likely not enough to to shake the investors since the real prize is having a unique global network of the fastest chargers. In the big picture, $60MM isn't really all that much money - especially as a one-time capital cost that will be reflected in depreciation over many years.

An investors would probably be more worried about Elon's confusion with numbers. How can you trust this guy if his cost estimates are wrong by a factor of 2 or 3? And I keep calling them 'estimates' even though, by July, Tesla knew perfectly well how much the Superchargers cost. They're more like statements.
 
Literally all of this has already been addressed, both in the comments section

You can add a bajillion Superchargers to the 2013Q4 estimate, if you want. But then, the 2014Q4 and 2015Q1 estimates do not make any sense: to get to the $190,000 figure you contrived, you'd need far more Superchargers under construction than currently are. In fact, as my previous comment said you'd need nearly 900 sites to arrive at a $150,000 price per site.

In other words: if you estimate $190,000 at the end of 2013, you invariably end up with later, more-depreciated (and smaller by your own account) Superchargers costing a lot MORE. That doesn't make any sense.

Tesla won't have 900 Superchargers any time soon. The company itself has said it's aiming for 50% growth this year.

Again, the further you go out from the $150k estimate for U.S. 3x Supercharger, 6 plug sites in terms of time, location, and features, the more your usage of that number doesn't make sense. They are looking to spend 5% of capex per year on Supercharging. Many more of their sites are larger, have additional features like batteries and solar, and are outside the U.S. Examining using the site number doesn't show the whole picture. Also, you are conflating book value with cost. Cost is a component of book value, but not the only component.
 
An investors would probably be more worried about Elon's confusion with numbers. How can you trust this guy if his cost estimates are wrong by a factor of 2 or 3? And I keep calling them 'estimates' even though, by July, Tesla knew perfectly well how much the Superchargers cost. They're more like statements.

Here's the heart of it. It can't be 3. At most, it's 2x, 2 years out on a project that has many outside components. The fact that you refuse to take any corrective factors and stick to the obviously incorrect high numbers you originally proposed demonstrates your approach to the whole endeavor. What percentage of the stated book value is cost? Do you know? What amount is considered the base that is the $150k original estimate and what percentage is extra with larger sites, under construction, non-U.S. locations, solar, and batteries? When do these costs translate into book value? How much book value is added merely from a site owner agreeing to a site? You simply don't know and don't even bother to make even an estimate with the corrective factors.

In the end, the Supercharger project is higher in book value, but well worth the cost. They could blow this money on Superbowl or prime-time television ads, or meaningless concept cars. The value of the Supercharger network is far higher than the raw costs because it is actually difficult to pull off. When the other automakers finally realize the need to do this, they will either have to spend far more per site in a rush or have a far worse L3 charging network. They haven't even begun on their L3 charging networks, as they are still wasting money on poorly thought out L2 DC charging that will be obsolete in 2-3 years by their own vehicles.

You can trust Musk and Tesla that they have the commitment to see this through. That's the scariest part for the other automakers and shorts like you.
 
No, they have not remained basically the same size.

In fact Tesla has gone back and increased the number of plugs at some of the older stations.

This argument is all semantics. Personally, I'd identify "A Supercharger" as one tower with two stalls. Multiply that out and Elon's estimate would be rather high.

Plus we're talking about a number from two years ago. A lot can change in that time.

Much ado about nothing, IMHO.
 
AZC - you are nitpicking on a segment of Tesla's capital expenditure that materially would not have much impact on Tesla's bottom line but has a huge impact on their success.

You know that, but the reason why you are so obsessed with this is only because you are hoping you can somehow show this as an example of deceit and fraud that will feed into your preconceived 'Tesla is a scam' conclusion.

No wonder you are gravitated towards other like minded journalists and bloggers who are eagerly looking for Tesla to fail.
 
Agree...the value of the Supercharger network will increase dramatically once Tesla has some bona fide competition (in either the long range, upscale vehicle market for the S and X), or in 2017 when the Gen III, GM's "Bolt", and whatever Ford's (200 mile / $30,000 cost EV will be) hit the EV marketplace.

Since we early adopters all know from the questions that we're constantly asked about our cars, the general public is (erroneously) focused on the question of "just where will I be able to charge my electric car?"

With the Supercharger network year's ahead of any competitor's network, the value of Tesla's network will instantly become apparent to the mass market (who incessantly stress over this question)...the result being increased value achieved through increased sales...





In the end, the Supercharger project is higher in book value, but well worth the cost. They could blow this money on Superbowl or prime-time television ads, or meaningless concept cars. The value of the Supercharger network is far higher than the raw costs because it is actually difficult to pull off. When the other automakers finally realize the need to do this, they will either have to spend far more per site in a rush or have a far worse L3 charging network. They haven't even begun on their L3 charging networks, as they are still wasting money on poorly thought out L2 DC charging that will be obsolete in 2-3 years by their own vehicles.

You can trust Musk and Tesla that they have the commitment to see this through. That's the scariest part for the other automakers and shorts like you.
 
I won't go in to a debate about the granular details, since there is no debate to be had (and in the words of rapper Jay-Z: "Don't argue with fools, 'cause from a distance you can't tell who's who"). But I will say these two very important things that everyone must understand regarding the Supercharger network:

1) Tesla is in no way obliged to tell anyone exactly how much they are spending on the SC network, how much each single station is costing them to build or to run. As an investor my concern should only be that they are making a lot of money (they are), have a lot of demand (they do), are continuing to grow their business by aggressive reinvestments of revenues (they are) and that they are continuing to expand their market (they are).

2) If Tesla have spent more than the $2000 per car, that they are symbolically saying they are charging per car for supercharging, to build out the network so far - so what? Being ahead of the sales curve with regards to the SC network expansion is absolute genius. This is because having a well built out SC network is such a strong driver of future sales. Many, many, many of the cars currently being sold would never have been sold weren't it for the existence of the network! As the network matures the ratio of investment v.s. total sales revenue will fall sharply, but the network will be in place and continue to be a strong driver of sales. Tesla will keep expanding with new sites, but not at the current rate. They will expand the number of charging stalls at some existing sites, depending on utilization patterns and there will be costs related to the electricity and maintenance. But the theoretical exercise of taking $2000 per car sold, multiply by cars sold and then compare this number with the probable amount invested in the SC network so far and conclude that Tesla is "burning cash" building out the network, or even worse that Tesla is "a scam", is a totally meaningless exercise that only goes to prove that whoever does that has absolutely zero understanding of the value of the SC network as a driver of sales and growth.
 
AFAIK, the initial expense of the supercharger network was as a marketing expense. It was not intended for whatever premium ($2000 or whatever) on the cars to cover it all. That premium only has to cover expected ongoing maintenance costs.
 
AFAIK, the initial expense of the supercharger network was as a marketing expense. It was not intended for whatever premium ($2000 or whatever) on the cars to cover it all. That premium only has to cover expected ongoing maintenance costs.

Actually the $2000 figure to activate supercharging in 60's was initially described as $1000 for the hardware and $1000 for the software IN THE CAR. Nothing about ongoing maintenance costs or capital costs of the superchargers. Superchargers are part of marketing the car and Tesla will spend what it thinks gets the best benefit from that form of marketing vs. other forms of marketing. The $2000 that Tesla used to charge for supercharging for 60's is irrelevant to any discussion of the supercharger network.
 
AFAIK, the initial expense of the supercharger network was as a marketing expense. It was not intended for whatever premium ($2000 or whatever) on the cars to cover it all. That premium only has to cover expected ongoing maintenance costs.

Well, fundamentally you have to pay for the network by selling cars. But suggesting that you can only build out the Supercharger network with current sales would be like telling a natural gas company that they can't borrow money to build out the network and then recover the money and interest through future sales of natural gas.

Coverage sells cars by acting as an enabler. One Supercharger enables travel between a few locations, but do that everywhere and you can travel everywhere. I've read here "this is the one I've been waiting for" many times, and this is a site full of enthusiasts and early adopters who'll bridge gaps with 14-50s and HPWCs. No surprise that Tesla is building coverage ahead.

Then the other issue that gets conspiracy theorists going is that Tesla is not going to want to reveal any Supercharger costs, because it's not in its interest to do so.
 
Last edited:
Wow. Just Wow.

I think the whole argument is faulty from the premise. Tesla is scamming no one. If anything Tesla is getting shafted by CARB for not getting ANY credit for the Supercharger network. That is a fast charging system that works and achieves the very goal that CARB created the ZEV credit program in the first case. Tesla has achieved the goal of creating a ZE Vehicle that is comparable to a gas car and has the ability to travel long distances making it a no compromise and competitive vehicle. That means that consumers when faced with the choice of a ZEV or a gas car can choose the ZEV.

If you are going to call Tesla a scam then every single one of the compromise vehicles are scams. Manufacturers are creating and selling EVERY ONE of those vehicles with express purpose of gathering ZEV credits so they can continue to sell their ICE vehicles. A lot of CEO's have clearly even said they don't like EVs and wouldn't make them except that they are forced to do so. Now that is gaming the system as clear as day.

It is my understanding that ONLY the cars using the swap program get additional credits. If so then, again, the entire premise of this argument is false. It would only be a scam if Tesla were saying that cars are using the swap station when they are not to gather additional credits. So unless the poster has evidence that Tesla is claiming cars using the station when they are not then the poster is creating misinformation.

If the CARB rules say that Tesla receives the extra credits by providing the opportunity for a battery swap then Tesla deserves the credits whether the station is being used or not. If even one car on one occasion used the station then Tesla is playing by the rules. Therefore, NOT a scam.

Personally I think Tesla should sue Ed N. for slander or whatever it would be for damaging the company.
 
Check this out and if you feel like it, tell me where I'm wrong.

You're wrong to doubt the 85 kWh Model S warrants 300+ miles on the UDDC test. Heck, my used-car loaded with luggage will easily drive over 300 miles in those easy conditions. Either you don't understand the test, or have no experience actually driving EVs to think otherwise.

However, I understand this goes against your theory that CARB and Tesla are conspiring to generate ZEV credits, so you will not correct your analysis.
 
You're wrong to doubt the 85 kWh Model S warrants 300+ miles on the UDDC test. Heck, my used-car loaded with luggage will easily drive over 300 miles in those easy conditions. Either you don't understand the test, or have no experience actually driving EVs to think otherwise.

However, I understand this goes against your theory that CARB and Tesla are conspiring to generate ZEV credits, so you will not correct your analysis.

Tesla already said they got 320 miles on the combined 2 cycle EPA test (which includes UDDS city cycle and the HWFET highway cycle). The 265 miles is under the new 5-cycle test.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/model-s-efficiency-and-range
You can work out from the EPA MPG results that UDDS is probably close to 316 miles, and highway close to 324 (I do know the end results is using the 5-cycle test, but it should still be a decent approximation of how city/highway breaks down).
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32557

If AZC doubts Tesla's claim, he can note that the 2011 Leaf brochure claims 100+ miles of LA-4 (AKA UDDS) range.
EPA rated at 81 miles (actual rating is 73, but that is average of 80% and 100% charge modes, 73/90% = 81).
https://www.nissanusa.com/ev/media/pdf/specs/FeaturesAndSpecs.pdf
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=30979

Using that result as ratio, 265*100/81 = 327 miles is expected for Tesla's UDDS rating. This shows Tesla's claims are more than reasonable (unless AZC is saying Nissan also lied).
 
It's all in the article. Tesla talked about Supercharger sites, not pedestals or plugs, and did so in at least three different occasions over May-July 2013. The costs quoted were $150,000 without solar, $300,000 with solar, and (in July) between $100,000 and $175,000 (presumably without solar).

This post is contrary to the forum rules. See Forum Rules - relevant excerpt below.

Competing Sites, Businesses, Individuals and Organizations
The internet is a big place, and it's no surprise that from time to time a site, business, individual or organization will come along whose mission is to occupy the same niche as TMC. We have no issue with that. However, it would be against our best interests, and therefore the best interests of our members, for us to allow such sites, businesses, individuals and organizations to build upon our popularity by promoting themselves on TMC. Therefore, no competing site, business, individual or organization may attempt to gain traffic from TMC in any way, including but not limited to, links in posts, signatures, profile information, PM's, or emails. TMC reserves the right to remove any information/content displayed/posted on TeslaMotorsClub.com that may promote and push traffic towards competitors.

I see you've done this a couple of times before, so this time I'm enforcing the rules. Your post was removed, and quotes that refer to it have had the link removed.

Please make your argument in this thread, not post links to external sites. Thanks.
-mod
 
This post is contrary to the forum rules. See Forum Rules - relevant excerpt below.



I see you've done this a couple of times before, so this time I'm enforcing the rules. Your post was removed, and quotes that refer to it have had the link removed.

Please make your argument in this thread, not post links to external sites. Thanks.
-mod

Come on Doug, how is he going to make money off of his click bait articles now? He's a teacher, he is just trying to find some alternative income.