Easing into the new mental state of the Tesla

tm1v2 · Nov 12, 2022

"Loud sports cars don't scare me anymore" - That one really cracked me up!

A bit ago my wife was trying to overtake a Plaid in our old P85. I'm like honey, that's a Plaid...you might as well be driving your Honda again.

blackT3$!@ · Nov 12, 2022

dho112 said:
I felt guilty, like I was ruining the environment

Maybe this is just a humorous off the cuff statement, but Tesla's are not fully carbon neutral. I consume about 12000kwh a year in my Tesla (we drive it about 40k miles per year) and according to this calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator | US EPA it equals about 5.2 metric tons of carbon. No I don't have a solar array to charge my Tesla, I use my local power company with a level 2 home charger and most of the fuel source from Florida Power and Light is from Natural Gas. So, my Tesla is actually powered by Natural Gas.

kaimanson · Nov 13, 2022

blackT3$!@ said:
Maybe this is just a humorous off the cuff statement, but Tesla's are not fully carbon neutral. I consume about 12000kwh a year in my Tesla (we drive it about 40k miles per year) and according to this calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator | US EPA it equals about 5.2 metric tons of carbon. No I don't have a solar array to charge my Tesla, I use my local power company with a level 2 home charger and most of the fuel source from Florida Power and Light is from Natural Gas. So, my Tesla is actually powered by Natural Gas.

Wow 40k a year holy smokes!... Don't forget about Nuclear as well. Making ours Teslas nuclear lol...

ItsNotAboutTheMoney · Nov 13, 2022

blackT3$!@ said:
Maybe this is just a humorous off the cuff statement, but Tesla's are not fully carbon neutral. I consume about 12000kwh a year in my Tesla (we drive it about 40k miles per year) and according to this calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator | US EPA it equals about 5.2 metric tons of carbon. No I don't have a solar array to charge my Tesla, I use my local power company with a level 2 home charger and most of the fuel source from Florida Power and Light is from Natural Gas. So, my Tesla is actually powered by Natural Gas.

Ah, but you have a 2021 Model 3, and in 2021 Florida non-combustion renewable generation increased by 2.73TWh. That included your 0.000012TWh, and therefore you're powered by renewables.

(Solar share increased to 3.7% from 2.6%)

gsmith123 · Nov 13, 2022

*Puts the Tesla into ACC and turns around to get purse out of the back seat*

Please don't, lol.

ThePirate · Nov 15, 2022

blackT3$!@ said:
Maybe this is just a humorous off the cuff statement, but Tesla's are not fully carbon neutral. I consume about 12000kwh a year in my Tesla (we drive it about 40k miles per year) and according to this calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator | US EPA it equals about 5.2 metric tons of carbon. No I don't have a solar array to charge my Tesla, I use my local power company with a level 2 home charger and most of the fuel source from Florida Power and Light is from Natural Gas. So, my Tesla is actually powered by Natural Gas.

Here's the thing: it's difficult to equate exactly, but mpge gives you a rough measure of how much equivalent fossil fuels you use. For an M3RWD that's 135 mpge, for a MY it's like 125. So, a Tesla is around 5X as efficient as the fleet-averaged ICE mileage (around 25 mpg). In other words, even if you have dirty electricity, not solar panels, your Tesla puts out WHOLE LOT LESS carbon than if you drove a similar ICE car.

Why? Put your hand on the engine of an ice car - better yet, don't, it will burn. ICE cars capture energy from burning fuel- at an *extremely* low efficiency: wikipedia says 20%-35% of fuel energy could theoretically be used for motion, but this does not include friction even. Googling says, "According to an electric.com article the Tesla Model 3, and the Tesla Model Y drive system has an efficiency of around 97%." So, for any energy input, before friction and all that, EVs are 3-5 TIMES more efficient than ICE cars. ICE cars burn fuel and the vast majority of it goes into heating the exhaust and the engine block. The part used for motion is tiny. BTW, when you count Regen, that gives your EV event a bigger edge.

I'm NOT a Tesla fan person (person of Tesla fan-ness??) and won't love them until they come with speedometers and heads-up and stitching in the interior, BUT they are more efficient than most EVs (and they charge fast and there are other good points*), and most EVs stomp ICE cars in efficiency without even trying, basically because of the third law of thermodynamics (see above).

So, go get some solar panels, sure, but every EV, no matter how it's powered, is *way* better for the environment. Get your EV, demand your utility switches to green, and feel happy, no need to feel guilty (smiley emoji). [OK, PSA over. ]

-TPC

* Toyota bzx4's wheels fall off. VW ID4s generally can't get out of the driveway due to software glitches. Teslas generally get you where you want to go, so you know, I would call that significant. At least by comparison.

DocHolliday · Nov 15, 2022

I understand the 4runner sentiment - we use ours for hardware/home center runs, taking the dog places, surfboards/bikes, etc. Definitely a different driving experience.

cars · Nov 15, 2022

ThePirate said:
Here's the thing: it's difficult to equate exactly, but mpge gives you a rough measure of how much equivalent fossil fuels you use. For an M3RWD that's 135 mpge, for a MY it's like 125. So, a Tesla is around 5X as efficient as the fleet-averaged ICE mileage (around 25 mpg). In other words, even if you have dirty electricity, not solar panels, your Tesla puts out WHOLE LOT LESS carbon than if you drove a similar ICE car.

Why? Put your hand on the engine of an ice car - better yet, don't, it will burn. ICE cars capture energy from burning fuel- at an *extremely* low efficiency: wikipedia says 20%-35% of fuel energy could theoretically be used for motion, but this does not include friction even. Googling says, "According to an electric.com article the Tesla Model 3, and the Tesla Model Y drive system has an efficiency of around 97%." So, for any energy input, before friction and all that, EVs are 3-5 TIMES more efficient than ICE cars. ICE cars burn fuel and the vast majority of it goes into heating the exhaust and the engine block. The part used for motion is tiny. BTW, when you count Regen, that gives your EV event a bigger edge.

I'm NOT a Tesla fan person (person of Tesla fan-ness??) and won't love them until they come with speedometers and heads-up and stitching in the interior, BUT they are more efficient than most EVs (and they charge fast and there are other good points*), and most EVs stomp ICE cars in efficiency without even trying, basically because of the third law of thermodynamics (see above).

So, go get some solar panels, sure, but every EV, no matter how it's powered, is *way* better for the environment. Get your EV, demand your utility switches to green, and feel happy, no need to feel guilty (smiley emoji). [OK, PSA over. ]

-TPC

* Toyota bzx4's wheels fall off. VW ID4s generally can't get out of the driveway due to software glitches. Teslas generally get you where you want to go, so you know, I would call that significant. At least by comparison.

Mine has a speedo. Stitching? Stitches make seats look like they’re assembled parts, no stitches make seats look like they just are, like they just appeared out of nowhere. Poof, a seat. The heads up is there, it’s just a bit to the right and displayed on a screen instead of the glass.

Transformer · Nov 15, 2022

The Inflation Reduction Act has substantial incentives for utilities and customers to shift to renewable energy, and its 10 year horizon gives companies a strong demand signal to make it worthwhile to invest in bringing down manufacturing costs.

The shift will happen during the life of current cars.

In some states you can sign up for a community choice aggregator (CCA) that supplies green energy via the grid.

Richbot · Nov 17, 2022

Nice.

A Sienna (current one, they're all hybrids now) is about the same carbon equivalent emissions as my Model X on the highway here in MO, but we are still using a lot of coal here so it will only improve. The 4runner was last updated in 1927 so I get the guilt there heh

Kinda want a 7-seater Performance after having a P100D loaner for a while.

Wifebot is still not on board with Model X, but she has a cooler car than all of our other cars combined, so I get it.

MrWoolly · Nov 17, 2022

blackT3$!@ said:
Maybe this is just a humorous off the cuff statement, but Tesla's are not fully carbon neutral. I consume about 12000kwh a year in my Tesla (we drive it about 40k miles per year) and according to this calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator | US EPA it equals about 5.2 metric tons of carbon. No I don't have a solar array to charge my Tesla, I use my local power company with a level 2 home charger and most of the fuel source from Florida Power and Light is from Natural Gas. So, my Tesla is actually powered by Natural Gas.

Richbot said:
Nice.

A Sienna (current one, they're all hybrids now) is about the same carbon equivalent emissions as my Model X on the highway here in MO, but we are still using a lot of coal here so it will only improve. The 4runner was last updated in 1927 so I get the guilt there heh

Kinda want a 7-seater Performance after having a P100D loaner for a while.

Wifebot is still not on board with Model X, but she has a cooler car than all of our other cars combined, so I get it.

Except that Tesla Energy has provided more zero emissions energy than the entire tesla fleet took to build them and drive them.

blackT3$!@ · Nov 18, 2022

Richbot said:
Wifebot is still not on board with Model X

Maybe you need a new wifebot? BTW, where did you get a wifebot?

afadeev · Nov 18, 2022

MrWoolly said:
Except that Tesla Energy has provided more zero emissions energy than the entire tesla fleet took to build them and drive them.

Any independent data sources to back up that claim, or just wishful thinking and Tesla self-promotion?

dho112 · Nov 18, 2022

afadeev said:
Any independent data sources to back up that claim, or just wishful thinking and Tesla self-promotion?

I didn’t start out as a Tesla fan. I kind of ignored them for a long time (Though I live 15 minutes from the Fremont plant, and see literally hundreds of Teslas on the road everyday) I don’t know about the validity of the fact that Tesla energy savings makes up for all their production, but here’s my take…

My wife wanted a Tesla though, so of course, we had to buy one

After almost 10 months with it, I wouldn’t say i’m a “fanboy”, but I’m definitely a fan.

Even if I hated Teslas, I would be hard pressed to argue that creating one causes exactly the same if not a bit less Carbon emissions than an ICE vehicle; Yes Teslas have batteries, but ICE cars have far more parts that must be manufactured, and while the number of ICE vehicle parts remains relatively constant, battery technology and chemistry continues to change at a relatively rapid pace, increasing the efficiency while reducing the need for exotic, toxic materials.

After that, you find out with relatively little effort that it creates about 10 lbs of CO2 to create 1 gallon of gas (drilling, refining, transporting, pumping) and burning that one gallon creates 20 pounds of CO2. For a total of about 30 lbs of CO2 per gallon.

by comparison, creating 1 Kwh of electricity by the dirtiest conventional means (coal, natural gas) creates .7 lbs of CO2. Assuming an electric car goes 3.5 miles on 1 Kwh and a gas car gets 30 miles per gallon (very generous average) that means its about 8.5 Kwh to equal 1 gallon of gasoline, or 6 lbs of CO2 vs 30 lbs to go the same distance in each type.

Factor in that the percentage of electricity produced from renewable sources is ever growing, and gasoline is a finite resource with ICE cars also requiring frequent oil changes and greater parts replacement that have CO2 costs associated with them, the disparity grows even larger.

I charge my Tesla almost completely from my solar panels. Friends have argued with me that it creates CO2 to make solar panels, and I say absolutely true! But then have them consider that my panels will last 25 years, and how much more CO2 is created in just burning gasoline in a car for 25 years? I’m thinking the solar panels amount of pollution is just a tiny fraction in comparison even if the solar factory was powered only by burning wood and coal.

Amusingly enough, my wife is the one who did all this information gathering Lol! SHE is a Tesla fangirl after initially being a Tesla hater! Before she educated herself I’ll bet she would gave rolled coal on Teslas if we had a diesel truck!

Richbot · Nov 18, 2022

It’s 2.2 lb per kwh for coal. Not including extraction and transport.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

.9lb for natural gas. Extraction and transport are pretty minimal for NG, but it has the non-trivial downside of fugitive emissions into the atmosphere of a much, much worse greenhouse gas than CO2 as part of its use

In Missouri with our mix of generation capacity, we average around 1.7 - about 1.8lb per kwh when baseload (coal and one nuke plant and a little hydro) is most of capacity, and down in the 1.5-1.6 range when natural gas is running more

Decarbonization of the grid continues so these numbers are on a steady downtrend, but thanks to things like the ERCOT frozen wellhead fiasco I doubt states like mine will be shutting down all of their coal capacity anytime soon

afadeev · Nov 19, 2022

dho112 said:
I didn’t start out as a Tesla fan. [....]
After almost 10 months with it, I wouldn’t say i’m a “fanboy”, but I’m definitely a fan.

OK, congrats.
Nothing wrong with being a fan. Most of us here are fans.

Fans like the product, but think clearly about its pro's and con's. If you fall into this category, we can have a rational and informed conversation.
Fanboys like the product, but not as much as jumping down the throat of anyone who disagrees with anything they say. We have those here as well. They are allergic to rational conversations.

dho112 said:
Even if I hated Teslas, I would be hard pressed to argue that creating one causes exactly the same if not a bit less Carbon emissions than an ICE vehicle; Yes Teslas have batteries, but ICE cars have far more parts that must be manufactured,

I trust you realize that cost and complexity of different parts are not exactly 1:1 comparable.
A complex, toxic, lithium-ion battery requires a LOT more exotic metals to mine and transport before the battery gets manufactured vs. just about all other delta parts one would need to build a comparable ICE vehicle. That's not me "arguing", but rather quoting WSJ and just about every other source you can reference.

"Before it rolls off the assembly line, the Tesla has generated 65% more emissions than the RAV4."

Are Electric Cars Really Better for the Environment?

EVs produce fewer emissions overall than their gas-powered counterparts, but there are caveats

www.wsj.com

"The most comprehensive picture I could find came from a study produced by Circular Energy Storage, itself based on data from the Argonne National Lab (PDF), which publishes absolutely exhaustive figures and data on the environmental impact of all sorts of motoring. That data estimates 7,300 kg of CO2 is generated for the creation of a 100 kilowatt-hour Tesla battery pack. Since the Model 3 has a roughly 75 kWh battery pack, we can reduce that figure to 5,500 kg of CO2."

Are Electric Cars Really Better for the Environment?

In our new series, we tackle the most persistent myths about electric cars. First, we dive deep into whether EVs actually have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline-powered cars.

www.cnet.com

dho112 said:
After that, you find out with relatively little effort [...]

It's a good practice to site your sources when siting #s.
Your CO2 #s for everything, especially gasoline, are way too high. But we can't debate them since I don't know where they came from.

All known to me independent sources give EVs a CO2/mile advantage over ICE vehicles (usually ~50% advantage, on average, not 500% like yours).
But most of us are not here to exclusively optimize CO2 emissions. Else we would be driving other EV models that have lower CO2/mile then my Model 3 Performance, or even any of the other Teslas.

We are driving Teslas because they are fun, handle well, technologically advanced forms of transportation. Oh, and they may provide net positive impact on CO2 emissions if you drive them enough tens of thousands of miles. Many of us may never see the break even point, since most folks flip cars after 3-5 years, on average.

dho112 said:
I charge my Tesla almost completely from my solar panels.

Good for you. Solar panel are not economically viable in my latitude, even with the government subsidies.
The same applies to 98+% of the Americans, so extrapolating any conclusions based off your corner case experience is a bit misleading.

Nationwide, renewables currently represent 19.8% of all energy sources in the US grid.
Wind and Hydro lead the way.
All forms of solar (private and commercial) are trailing at 2.8% of total capacity.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

a

dho112 · Nov 19, 2022

afadeev said:
OK, congrats.
Nothing wrong with being a fan. Most of us here are fans.

Fans like the product, but think clearly about its pro's and con's. If you fall into this category, we can have a rational and informed conversation.
Fanboys like the product, but not as much as jumping down the throat of anyone who disagrees with anything they say. We have those here as well. They are allergic to rational conversations.

I trust you realize that cost and complexity of different parts are not exactly 1:1 comparable.
A complex, toxic, lithium-ion battery requires a LOT more exotic metals to mine and transport before the battery gets manufactured vs. just about all other delta parts one would need to build a comparable ICE vehicle. That's not me "arguing", but rather quoting WSJ and just about every other source you can reference.

"Before it rolls off the assembly line, the Tesla has generated 65% more emissions than the RAV4."

Are Electric Cars Really Better for the Environment?

EVs produce fewer emissions overall than their gas-powered counterparts, but there are caveats

www.wsj.com

"The most comprehensive picture I could find came from a study produced by Circular Energy Storage, itself based on data from the Argonne National Lab (PDF), which publishes absolutely exhaustive figures and data on the environmental impact of all sorts of motoring. That data estimates 7,300 kg of CO2 is generated for the creation of a 100 kilowatt-hour Tesla battery pack. Since the Model 3 has a roughly 75 kWh battery pack, we can reduce that figure to 5,500 kg of CO2."

Are Electric Cars Really Better for the Environment?

In our new series, we tackle the most persistent myths about electric cars. First, we dive deep into whether EVs actually have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline-powered cars.

www.cnet.com

It's a good practice to site your sources when siting #s.
Your CO2 #s for everything, especially gasoline, are way too high. But we can't debate them since I don't know where they came from.

All known to me independent sources give EVs a CO2/mile advantage over ICE vehicles (usually ~50% advantage, on average, not 500% like yours).
But most of us are not here to exclusively optimize CO2 emissions. Else we would be driving other EV models that have lower CO2/mile then my Model 3 Performance, or even any of the other Teslas.

We are driving Teslas because they are fun, handle well, technologically advanced forms of transportation. Oh, and they may provide net positive impact on CO2 emissions if you drive them enough tens of thousands of miles. Many of us may never see the break even point, since most folks flip cars after 3-5 years, on average.

Good for you. Solar panel are not economically viable in my latitude, even with the government subsidies.
The same applies to 98+% of the Americans, so extrapolating any conclusions based off your corner case experience is a bit misleading.

Nationwide, renewables currently represent 19.8% of all energy sources in the US grid.
Wind and Hydro lead the way.
All forms of solar (private and commercial) are trailing at 2.8% of total capacity

afadeev said:
OK, congrats.
Nothing wrong with being a fan. Most of us here are fans.

Fans like the product, but think clearly about its pro's and con's. If you fall into this category, we can have a rational and informed conversation.
Fanboys like the product, but not as much as jumping down the throat of anyone who disagrees with anything they say. We have those here as well. They are allergic to rational conversations.

I trust you realize that cost and complexity of different parts are not exactly 1:1 comparable.
A complex, toxic, lithium-ion battery requires a LOT more exotic metals to mine and transport before the battery gets manufactured vs. just about all other delta parts one would need to build a comparable ICE vehicle. That's not me "arguing", but rather quoting WSJ and just about every other source you can reference.

"Before it rolls off the assembly line, the Tesla has generated 65% more emissions than the RAV4."

Are Electric Cars Really Better for the Environment?

EVs produce fewer emissions overall than their gas-powered counterparts, but there are caveats

www.wsj.com

"The most comprehensive picture I could find came from a study produced by Circular Energy Storage, itself based on data from the Argonne National Lab (PDF), which publishes absolutely exhaustive figures and data on the environmental impact of all sorts of motoring. That data estimates 7,300 kg of CO2 is generated for the creation of a 100 kilowatt-hour Tesla battery pack. Since the Model 3 has a roughly 75 kWh battery pack, we can reduce that figure to 5,500 kg of CO2."

Are Electric Cars Really Better for the Environment?

In our new series, we tackle the most persistent myths about electric cars. First, we dive deep into whether EVs actually have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline-powered cars.

www.cnet.com

It's a good practice to site your sources when siting #s.
Your CO2 #s for everything, especially gasoline, are way too high. But we can't debate them since I don't know where they came from.

All known to me independent sources give EVs a CO2/mile advantage over ICE vehicles (usually ~50% advantage, on average, not 500% like yours).
But most of us are not here to exclusively optimize CO2 emissions. Else we would be driving other EV models that have lower CO2/mile then my Model 3 Performance, or even any of the other Teslas.

We are driving Teslas because they are fun, handle well, technologically advanced forms of transportation. Oh, and they may provide net positive impact on CO2 emissions if you drive them enough tens of thousands of miles. Many of us may never see the break even point, since most folks flip cars after 3-5 years, on average.

Good for you. Solar panel are not economically viable in my latitude, even with the government subsidies.
The same applies to 98+% of the Americans, so extrapolating any conclusions based off your corner case experience is a bit misleading.

Nationwide, renewables currently represent 19.8% of all energy sources in the US grid.
Wind and Hydro lead the way.
All forms of solar (private and commercial) are trailing at 2.8% of total capacity.
View attachment 876349

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

a

Although it will never be possible to truly compare the environmental impact of an EV vs ICE vehicle with comprehensive accuracy, it's rare that I ever see a comparison where they also factor in things like fluids and the increased rate at which ICE cars go thru them and spare parts.

If we did happen to assume though that a RAV 4 produces say, half the impact on the environment as a Tesla during the production process. I feel as though the Tesla would rapidly diminish it's effect on CO2 production while the RAV4 continue to burn a finite resource.

The issue that I don't hear enough about in the debates though is the idea of evolution. Electric cars continue to go farther, faster, and longer on less, while ICE vehicles seem to have reached a steady state of the amount of energy they can, or their makers are willing to spend on the extracting miles from fuel. Experimentation with new cell technologies and less toxic battery chemistries are a constant. In the last 20 years, EVs have come a LONG way. I believe we are in this honeymoon period with them where it's imperative to throw everything at them as far as demand and research till we do get to EVs with current Tesla performance that recharge themselves from solar coverings. The early adopters have a critical role to play in this phase, and discouraging EVs in any way will only serve to stunt their advancement and evolution, or almost as bad, surrender the entire market and related economies to other countries as we've done with EV battery production.

The pushback against EVs is analogous to what the utility companies are doing to solar. Instead of this inexorable headlong push toward improving the technology as quickly as possible with massive competition; The additional taxes, fees, and other hurdles that make solar less and less attractive to consumers lead many companies out of the market due to waning interest and demand and profitability

Expanding on your point; Teslas are fun now, but with more time and dedication to their advancement, they will become attractive, then reasonable, then a no brainer, and with those changes they will also make complete sense. I have to think that a floodgate opened to EVs when people discovered they could get one that would go 250 miles on a charge. Imagine the floodgate that would open to even die hard ICE consumers if they had an average range of 400 miles, and recharging stations were as common and gas stations, and recharging took half the time it does now. I think we have to do whatever we have to to get to that place as soon as possible. Even if current EVs could be proven to be AS dirty as ICE cars today...

Richbot · Nov 20, 2022

Range doesn't matter to people, cost per mile does. Using superchargers my X is *more expensive* than a comparable hybrid Sienna to get 7 people from point a to point b over a long distance, on a cost per mile basis.

I think there's a false narrative lingering that people who aren't accustomed to EV's don't want EV's. They do. They want them badly enough to order and wait years, and want them badly enough to prop up the used values of objectively shitty EV's far beyond what a comparable gas car would be worth 5-10 years after it was sold new. They just don't want to pay more than they can afford, which remains somewhere south of the (ignoring 2022 shenanigans for a minute) average traction price of ~$40k. Look at Out of Spec's Cheapest EV, it's still A Car, still does car things, is still a useful hatchback that can do stuff, and a crappy 10 year old Nissan Versa is not worth what that car is worth, despite a huge range advantage of a Verse over a low-spec old Leaf with 100k+ miles on its air-cooled battery. EV's have the lowest time on the lot of any group of cars other than very niche stuff, and disregarding some stinkers (toyota I'm looking at you)

The carbon picture is more mixed depending on how your electricity is generated, but on a cost per mile basis, charging at home, there's no comparison. And the price signal has been heard, in addition to the driving/ownership use benefits. Recharging stations are much more common than gas stations already. There's one in every single family home in the united states, and adoption is happening as fast as manufacturers can build them.

They really do sell themselves. Floodgate is already open.

dho112 · Nov 20, 2022

I’d have to argue about range vs cost per mile though. When I went to the showroom and spoke to representatives, they told me “How far will it go on a charge?” is always the first question; the second? “How far will it go, really?”not top 5 or top 3, THE first question always, and it’s the same at every showroom to the point where they get an astounding amount of training and coaching about how to accurately answer that question.

Everyone looking at Tesla’s are familiar with the fact that they’ll be spending an average of $70k on a car; Cost per mile is overshadowed by range, speed, comfort and convenience. That’s the honeymoon phase I was talking about, we have to keep that going so EVs can even get to that place where “reasonable logic”; cost per mile becomes the top question.

No one is interested in the range of ICE cars because they know gas stations are everywhere. that’s why the charging infrastructure is so important. I live in the SF bay area 15 minutes from the Fremont plant; There are 4 supercharger stations within a mile of me and the showroom is 2 miles away, this is my norm, but decidedly the exception for almost everyone else in the middle of the country. That has to change, and is probably the single biggest issue whose advancement will really make EVs mainstream.

Easing into the new mental state of the Tesla

Active Member

2021 LR Model 3

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Do the math. Save the world. — Mark Leon

Active Member

Member

2021 LR Model 3

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Similar threads