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

Supercharger Revenue

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Buckminster

Buckminster

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2018
10,286
51,165
UK
#1
Elon Musk on Twitter

ReflexFunds said:
Some interesting Supercharger V3 comments on reddit. No idea if its accurate but seems mostly plausible. 20% to 80% charge in 13-15 minutes for Model 3 would be an extremely significant development in my opinion.

Apparently they were told by a friend who works at Tesla.
Source: u/NetBrown

  • "200kW is correct.
  • All Model 3 battery chemistry will be able to handle this.
  • Total redesign from the current v2, which uses repurposed vehicle chargers. V3 is done from start using industrial inverters based from Power Packs.
  • Ideally meant for long distance only, will be deployed in far out places to bridge gaps (Forks,WA will be one of the first places in the NW completed).
  • Initially will not have liquid cooled cables in early release, but all v3 will eventually have liquid cables."

Q. Source?
  • A: You won't like it, but a friend who works there. We will all see if I (or rather he/she) was lying to me in a couple of days.
  • Also: Cars which can not use full rate will still be able to SC at these, just will take longer.
  • Suspicion of mine: firmware update in late march will enable not just the 5%power increase but also have v3 support in it

Q. What would be the equivalent in mi/hr roughly?
  • A: At full power? Not sure, but supposedly the taper will be different too. Target charge time is to cut the prime 20-80 zone in half in terms of time
  • Well half the timeframe for this on a 3 (which supports the full 200kW speed) would still be about 13-15 min. Definitely faster, but not quite a gas fill up yet.
Q. How would it possibly cut the time in half?
  • A. Partly by increasing power, partly by adjusting the charging curve.
  • Not all chemistry can handle it, and SC v2 was put out before several changes in chemistry were made. This upgrade should allow newer cars to do a more aggressive charging curve without cell degradation.
Q. So 200 to start and maybe 250 with liquid cables ?
  • A. No, I was told just a flat 200. That said, 200 at 400v is faster than the Taycans 350 at 800v"
Click to expand...

ReflexFunds said:
More info posted:

NetBrown

"I asked some more details since there was more interest about the details.
  • The liquid cables will actually be much thinner than the current SC cables, the coolant pump is located in the base of the SC (v3 can retrofit into existing v2 chargers), and while the cabinets can support 250kW max (so I suppose it would be possible to upgrade to 250kW in the future), the individual chargers will be max 200kW.
  • PV and Power Pack integration is a part of the design spec, but no required.
  • 40% better throughput performance compared to v2 per site
  • Thermal Foldback improvements over v2
  • v3 cabinets get 5 power stages at 70kW output per power stage for 350kW AC -> DC per v3 cabinet
  • v3 cabinet also houses 2x DC-DC modules per post yielding 100kWx2 for the 200kW deliverer per post
  • Any extra power (assuming the extra 50kW the cabinets can produce versus what the chargers are delivering if the cabinet is maxed, or if only partially maxed, any extra power) can be shared across cabinets. Since multiple cabinets will be at each site, this lessens if not removes the v2 "shared" power with linked chargers
  • Site master controller is 4G LTE for communication of all diagnostics (as well as the verify car and billing of power consumed) so better knowledge when a site has a problem - leading to more proactive fixing of sites with broken/malfunctioning chargers
  • The cost reduction will come from higher power conversion efficiency (96% for v3 versus 92% for v2), less harmonics, and no overvoltage sensitivity (though the cabinets are larger and heavier than v2), ultimately leading to an approximate 20% more customers served per dollar spent on power
  • Overall AC input is 438kVA, 526A
    • Can link up to 7 v3 cabinets per bus (or a block), which can also link to one Power Pack
    • Cabinets are on a shared DC radial configured bus of 880-1000
    • This is then pushed out to the chargers (posts) and DC 180-500v, 250kW max"
Click to expand...
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: neroden
#10
Right_Said_Fred said:
Lots of cheering, but what does this deal imply? I'm missing some analysis of the financial implications.

- How often will the average Ford/GM EV driver supercharge per year? Most charging is done at home, because it's more convenient and cheaper. I'd estimate 10 times.
- How much does the average charge cost? I'd say 70 kWh. At $0.30 that makes about $20.
- What is the profit margin on this? 60% perhaps? $12 in profit then. So we get to $120 of profit per EV per year.
- How many EVs will be driving around in the US in, say, 10 years? One hundred million, including Teslas?

Assuming all other brands also sign up that's $12 billion in profit (of which 2/3 was not yet accounted for, the Teslas were). Capital costs and maintenance will take that down to maybe $10 billion. Assuming there's a P/E of 20 for that part of the business that makes for $200 billion in market cap. That's 60 points. A lot, but I suppose not enough to get us to an ATH.

Other implications: Tesla loses a very big moot. But Tesla also becomes a household name for EV drivers who visit the Superchargers and that may lure people to the brand.
Click to expand...

Bet TSLA said:
What it means is:
  • EVs will be viewed more positively by everyone, because bad charging will disappear as a normal experience.
  • Far more supercharger locations will be built, and much more quickly, because competition for locations will disappear.
  • Tesla will have much more of an influence on the grid, making its charging cheaper.
There's lots more.

Tesla financial positives will mostly come from selling lots more vehicles as a side-effect.
Click to expand...

MP3Mike said:
Just to be clear, NACS is free for anyone to implement. Any license/royalty fee would only be for access to the Tesla API and/or Supercharger network. (Which is separate from NACS.)


They did that the second they made NACS open. In fact we have heard recently that CPOs have been wanting to add NACS to their chargers, but cables weren't available yet. Cables are supposed to be available early next year. I think EVgo even made an announcement recently that they would be adding NACS to their chargers next year. (Makes sense as they are a GM partner.)

I would think that other CPOs will likely do the same now. ChargePoint, EA, Shell Recharge, CircleK, Blink!, FLO, FreeWire, etc. (But that will likely depend on their charging hardware vendor making the cables available as an option, and why wouldn't they.)
Click to expand...

Tronguy said:
Just wanted to mention this. As a relatively long-time observer of Tesla and Musk, the company (and Musk) have repetitively stated that, "The Supercharger network is not a profit center."

The money received, then, apparently goes into:
1. Paying for electricity
2. Paying for upkeep and repairs
3. Paying for more superchargers

And not into making $$$ for Tesla.

The idea: Make the cost of charging the car as small as possible.. so people can buy more cars.

So: Based upon this, when Ford and GM join the fun, they won't be making tons of money on Superchargers, either: But they will be selling more cars. And that's the point.
Click to expand...

StarFoxisDown! said:
This actually not really correct. Tesla has stated that all revenue from Superchargers goes back into the things you listed but most importantly, is the continuing to expand the Supercharger network. So far, Tesla has been funding the Supercharger network all on their own. Ford, GM, and anyone else that wants to use the Supercharger network will now be paying Tesla.

The number of Superchargers Tesla was going to install and thus maintain over the next 5 years + isn't going to magically increase 2X or 3X now that Ford and GM are paying for part of the costs by paying Tesla. Tesla was already going as fast as they could logistically. Thus now, in however way they structured the deal, Ford and GM and anyone else will now be helping to cover those costs, which indirectly means Tesla's costs for expansion/maintenance will go down thus leading to more cash for Tesla.

Simple equation is if Tesla was already planning on spending 5 billion to expand the Supercharger network for the next 5 years, now Ford/GM/etc are paying, whether directly or indirectly, part of that 5 billion.

There's the other factor that while some Superchargers are very busy, there's plenty of other Superchargers that are nowhere near high usage rate, especially in Republican states. As those states turn more to EV's and those buyer go with more traditional sources for their EV's (Ford/GM), those superchargers get much more usage.

And then lastly, Tesla's stance on the Supercharger network is focused on the mass adoption of EV's. Tesla's fine with subsidizing/absorbing the costs right now. Don't be surprised if, when EV's reach mass adoption, and widespread the cost of an EV is on average on par with gas or below, that Tesla decided to recoup a lot of their investment from the past 10+ years of the Supercharger network.
Click to expand...

bkp_duke said:
I see a much bigger play from Tesla here: DATA

Tesla will now have very detailed information on the competition in terms of charging curves, battery sizes and degradation (can track by VIN), usage patterns, market penetration of different model vehicles . . .


And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Veritable treasure trove of information available once fleet charging stats are available.
Click to expand...

Artful Dodger said:
No, Tesla will not do that. That's what get's you busted up as an abusive monopoly via the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Instead, Tesla will focus on the Mission: "To Accelerate the Transition to Sustainable Energy".

As Elon tweeted almost 1 year ago:

Elon Musk on Twitter: "Don’t build moats, build tech trees" / Twitter (Jun 14, 2022)​

Which branch is about to leaf out on the Supercharger Network? Megapacks on V4. Then Solar farms. Then Grid services. It's like a living organism... :)

Talk the talk; Walk the walk. ;)​

Cheers!
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dikkie Dik and CarlS
#12
KMCC said:
I don't think Tesla is losing its moat I think they are trapping Ford and GM inside their Tesla moat.

Read the board yesterday and today and you'll see many of the reasons. Here's a couple.

Human nature will make the drivers of vehicles other than Tesla's feel a little funny when they pull into a Tesla charging station. And they may question their decision to have not bought a Tesla.
If you pull into a Burger King to have lunch and all around you is information on why McDonald's is better what are you going to think

The amount of information Tesla will harvest from these other EVS will have huge advantages.Tesla will be harvesting information from other manufacturers but other manufacturers will not be harvesting information from Tesla's. This is a one-way Street (isn't that a moat?)
So many other reasons things are looking really good.

Tesla isn't losing its moat it's trapping everybody else inside, understand this and you won't be tempted to sell your shares. Elon never fails to surprise.. what's next
Click to expand...

scaesare said:
"Moats are lame"
-Elon Musk


I don't think Elon views it as "trapping everybody else inside", but rather that a high tide raises all boats.

It's one of the refreshing things about him as a CEO. He doesn't think that to win, others must lose.

But I certainly agree with you point that Tesla will certainly benefit from this in multiple ways...
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dikkie Dik and CarlS
#14
Tronguy said:
OK: Moderators, I know that there's a NACS thread. But I'm posting the below since it seems to be corroborating evidence about the finances of the deal with GM and probably Ford.

On my dead-tree newspaper this morning there was an Associated Press article by a Mr. Tom Krisher about the GM deal. Mostly factual, the usual about, "Tesla owners may be upset about crowded SC stalls", on the left coast, anyway.

But the more interesting quote was as follows:
'Financial deals of the agreement between the two companies were not released Thursday, but GM spokesman Darryll Harrison said GM isn't paying Tesla.
"Tesla will get better utilization of their network and all the new charging revenue, which will help them expand the network further," Harrison said. "There are other opportunities both companies can take advantage of as a result of the agreement."'

All right, people! Let's see if I've got this straight.
  1. In a previous post I stated that Musk/Tesla had said that the SC network was not a "profit center". I stand corrected: It's designed to pull a 10% profit margin.
  2. With the gross revenues coming in, less the profit, Tesla currently:
    1. Pays for the electricity
    2. Pays for upkeep and repairs
    3. Pays for putting in new Superchargers.
In another previous post I had suggested that Ford and GM would probably prime the pump a bit by putting in some capital meant to step increase the number of Superchargers in North America. Based upon Mr. Harrison's statement, that appears to not be the case. It also appears that there won't be profit sharing between Tesla and GM/Ford. It's simply (I know, it's hard to get one's head around this) Tesla being altruistic, non money-grubbers, interested in moving the adoption of BEVs forward, for the Good of All.

Elon has said (and that's in the AP article, too) that he wants a level playing field. I take that as GM/Ford users not paying an extra fee for Not Being A Tesla Owner.

Forget Betamax vs. VHS. For that matter, forget CD/DVDs: Were you all aware that Siemens and other parties get a cut of each CD/DVD made because they have patents on the formats? Or the encoding formats?

There's probably some license fee being paid to somebody, somewhere. But it sure doesn't appear to be Tesla. This is astonishing: It's the first time I can think of where some money-grubber gatekeeper/troll in the patent/copyright/trademark space isn't collecting money. And it's all in the interests of speeding BEV adoption along.

My S.O. was thinking about it this morning. We have a Gen II wall connector in the garage. Gee: When we sell the house, we won't have to worry that the new owner won't be able to use it!

The CCS committee must be gnashing their teeth right now. Good riddance.
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
Reactions: navguy12
#16
cliff harris said:
A note on supercharger install rates, costs and attached solar/megapacks.

My experience is a 3 year battle to build a small 1.2mwp solar farm in the UK...
Its hell. Its bureaucracy hell, paperwork hell, permit hell, grid connection hell, delay hell, earthing-design hell, construction hell and subcontractor hell.

Superchargers pull a MASSIVE amount of power. Even if you have free megapacks to stick there to provide some short term buffering, you are still in need of a crazy high-power grid connection. Superchargers sit there looking all innocent, but even in continual decent sun, a megawatt of power is 4 acres of solar panels (about 3,200 of them), probably 10 industrial inverters plus switchgear yada yada.

A supercharger with 16 stalls, and solar power is going to need about 8 acres of solar panels next to it in summer. more like 40 acres of panels if winter.

TL:DR; On-site solar is a rounding-error for a supercharger. Installing high power connections is VERY slow. There is good reason that the time from permit to opening of new sites is sometimes years. This is also why GM/Ford could never catch up.
Click to expand...

Artful Dodger said:
Tesla's plan to accelerate Supercharger deployment has been in the works for some time now. All this came out before the Ford/Tesla Charging Partnership announcement:
There was also a leak from a Tesla Staff meeting last year on Supercharger deployments. The plan was to double the number of sites in 2023 (still looking for a link to the source, but Google wants to serve up GM/F right now...). Pretty sure that meeting was discussed here on TMC at the time.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: navguy12
#18
scaesare said:
There have been a few comments from folks here regarding the additional supercharger load these deals will put on the system. Additionally, some have shared some more alarmist sentiments they've seen from others (some perhaps attempting to FUDify the deals...).

Overall supercharger capacity & expansion rate has been discussed here a number of times over the years, typically in the context of the total of current Teslas on the road, and the planned manufacturing and sales growth.

Phone companies modeled years ago their analog circuit-switched lines and trunks (the Erlang B model), taking in to account system capacity, total consumers, peak utilization times, and acceptable queue wait times. This model generally applies to any queued resource, like superchargers. As it turns out, the needed # of stalls isn't a linear function of total cars. This makes sense, as if you have 1 car on the road, you need at least one supercharger. But 2 cars don't require 2. There's a spot at which utilization is maximized with acceptable queuing. Thread on this some time ago HERE.

Long story short: doubling the number of NACS cars, won't require doubling the number of chargers. Likely significantly less.

What this means is that more NACS customers is a good thing for the Supercharging network, provided Tesla can quickly enough expand the capacity needed, and manage the queue times and bottleneck locations. Why? Because overall infrastructure utilization goes up. That means the number of customers paying that aforementioned 10% profit to Tesla may double, while the number of additional chargers needed may only go up by 50%.

That means more $$$ to Tesla for maintenance, powerpack installation, solar build out, or simply profit to the bottom line.

This is a big win, IMO.
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
Reactions: navguy12
#19
RHJP said:
This is as close to a love letter to Tesla that I've ever seen from Bloomberg.

Tesla’s Shrewdest Product Is Proving to Be Its Charging Network​


finance.yahoo.com

Tesla’s Shrewdest Product Is Proving to Be Its Charging Network

(Bloomberg) -- Chris Bowe needed a quick charge before climbing over the Santa Cruz Mountains in his Ford F-150 Lightning on his drive home to the San Francisco Bay area.Most Read from BloombergSocial Security Benefits Targeted for Cuts by House ConservativesStock Rally Is Deepening Beyond...
finance.yahoo.com finance.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Guacahummus
Supercharger - Reno, NV - Wedge Pkwy
Replies
22
Views
2K
Mountain/Southwest Supercharger locations
sunnnv
S
cezdoc
UK and Ireland Supercharger Site News - 2023 Archive
Replies
1
Views
2K
The UK and Ireland
Andywil
A
PKMAN
  • Article
Solo Roadtrip from San Diego to Vancouver (Canada) in a 2022 Tesla Model 3 Long Range
Replies
37
Views
2K
Road Trips
PKMAN
PKMAN
G
Supercharger - Gypsum, CO - Public and Service Center Supercharger locations
Replies
13
Views
3K
Mountain/Southwest Supercharger locations
MitchMitch
MitchMitch
S
Charging Speed Changes Over Model Year?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Model 3: Battery & Charging
davewill
davewill
Top
Back
Blog
New
Forum list
Marketplace
Menu