Tesla DC charging network

[Norbert]

Even at just 90 kW utility demand charges are going to be around $2000 / month in addition to energy charges (at least in California and New York - haven't checked other utilities to see what demand charges are).

I saw lower prices so far, for example here, Southern California Edison, for demand between 20 kW and 200 kW:

http://www.sce.com/NR/sc3/tm2/pdf/ce30-12.pdf

12.15 $/kW * 90 kW = $1093.50
12.15 $/kW * 50 kW = $607.50

These rates are surely designed for single-location customers. I don't know, but could imagine that, perhaps with the help of the DOE, fast chargers for EVs might get rates customized for them.

 

[Larry Chanin]

You said earlier the superior design/technology doesn't always win. To me this seems needlessly pessimistic. The growing number of Model S reservations speaks for itself, and all indications are that Bluestar will follow seemlessly.

Hi Norbert,

Consumers fall in love with compelling cars, we did. For chargers...not so much.:wink:

Larry

 

[Norbert]

Consumers fall in love with compelling cars, we did. For chargers...not so much.:wink:

What does the difference between 90 kW and 50 kW have to do with falling in love? It translates directly into waiting time which is one of most voiced criticisms of using EVs for traveling or longer trips.

I just don't see Tesla running out of friendly restaurants because they would all be occupied by Nissan. :wink:

 

[Dave EV]

I saw lower prices so far, for example here, Southern California Edison, for demand between 20 kW and 200 kW:

http://www.sce.com/NR/sc3/tm2/pdf/ce30-12.pdf

12.15 $/kW * 90 kW = $1093.50
12.15 $/kW * 50 kW = $607.50

These rates are surely designed for single-location customers. I don't know, but could imagine that, perhaps with the help of the DOE, fast chargers for EVs might get rates customized for them.

You're missing summer demand charges which can range between an additional $5-$17 / kW to the $12 / kW you have above depending on the plan and time of demand.

Or you can pay $0.36-$0.37 / kWh for on-peak energy instead. Either way it's not cheap.

 

[Norbert]

You're missing summer demand charges which can range between an additional $5-$17 / kW to the $12 / kW you have above depending on the plan and time of demand.

Or you can pay $0.36-$0.37 / kWh for on-peak energy instead. Either way it's not cheap.

Not impossible, but it appears the document applies to summer as well as winter, and the "Summer Time Related Demand Charge" appears to be 0.00 for this "Schedule GS-2" (which applies between 20 kW and 200 kW). There is a larger entry in the column "URG", rates which however "are applicable only to Bundled Service Customers."

Furthermore there are various discounts available, for example for those with solar panels feeding into the grid (something I could easily imagine Tesla might do wherever possible).

EDIT: May be the "URG "rates apply more commonly that it seemed to me, but if they apply in summer, that's at least only 50% on average. Perhaps paying summer on-peak $0.36-$0.39, instead, is the best option since that is much less in winter, and even in summer applies only weekdays, from noon-6pm.

EDIT 2: Not sure if eligibility for Option R can be achieved with a feasible amount of solar power, (perhaps with an exceptionally lowered threshold for EV fast charging), as that would lower the demand charge to $5.81/kW, which would amount to just $522.90 for 90 kW ?

 

[efxjim]

I see a good use for timed out roadster packs or below spec cells. Tesla has the ability to build a charger that uses ~20 kw average over 24 hours to quick charge our vehicles. This will minimize the peak charges. Might even sell excess power back to utilities if charger is not fully utilized.

 

[tomsax]

The idea of teaming up with another player is an intriguing idea, but I doubt Nissan would be the right partner for the reasons already discussed. Perhaps Toyota, who as far as I know hasn't already announced its approach to fast charging the RAV4 EV, would be a better fit.

Forget about Toyota, they aren't even in the game. Everything I've heard indicates that the new RAV4-EV is a compliance car: a low production charade, sold only in California to game the CARB requirements.

I don't yet believe the $50k number. Too often, articles, especially from the financial community, have reported incorrectly. Since the number given by Elon Musk earlier in 2011 was $25k, and appeared to be for an installation rather than just the hardware, I'd assume that even if $50k is correct, it is more likely to include installation.

Yeah, Musk has never promised a bunch of customers a product at a given price, then broken his word.

 

[Norbert]

Yeah, Musk has never promised a bunch of customers a product at a given price, then broken his word.

In this case (fast charger) at least, it wasn't a promise, and we don't even know what exactly $25k referred to (except it was cost, not a selling price), and whether anything has changed since then, since we don't know what $50k refers to, either, if to anything valid at all.

So I think it is a bit misplaced to already start dishing up old stories. And wasn't the higher cost of the Roadster (which you probably refer to) a result of his predecessors, which the company's board wasn't informed about in time?

 

[tomsax]

Norbert: your post argued that since Musk had said $25k previously, you doubted the $50k figure. I'm just saying that what Musk says early in the game may not be correct when the dust settles.

Just for the record, Musk took full control of the company more than a year before breaking the terms of some 400 locked-in Roadster orders.

 

[Norbert]

Norbert: your post argued that since Musk had said $25k previously, you doubted the $50k figure. I'm just saying that what Musk says early in the game may not be the truth when the dust settles.

I don't see the slightest reason to say it wasn't the truth when he said it. A lot may have changed, and Elon just mentioning the expected cost of a something that isn't even announced as a product, and may not even become a product, isn't part of any "game" subject to such criteria.

Just for the record, Musk took full control of the company more than a year before breaking the terms of some 400 locked-in Roadster orders.

Sounds like he may have done his best to reduce the cost in order to keep those terms (set up before his time?), but couldn't by the time they needed to deliver. In so far as I heard, they continued to reduce costs over a long time.

It also sounds like you would have expected them to sell below costs, which would probably mean that Tesla would not be anymore.

 

[Norbert]

Forget about Toyota, they aren't even in the game. Everything I've heard indicates that the new RAV4-EV is a compliance car: a low production charade, sold only in California to game the CARB requirements.

Toyota is a big name one way or the other. Their decision wouldn't come easily, it will matter, and the current RAV4-EV project size won't be Toyota's last word in the pure EV space.

 

[qwk]

It also sounds like you would have expected them to sell below costs, which would probably mean that Tesla would not be anymore.

Exactly. I don't know why there is all of the hostility towards that decision. I really doubt that any roadster owner would have been happy about owning a car that there is no support for because Tesla went under as a result of keeping a price promise. Tesla's pricke hike was also peanuts compared to the Karma.

Now, if Tesla were to do it again with the Model S, that would be a different story.

We should all be gratefull that Tesla exists. Without the roadster, EV's would have been pushed back another decade or more. Let's face it most Ev's aren't very practical or desirable to drive. A good example would be a 1st gen Rav-4. A 3 cyl geo metro will out accelerate it, and the cost was $50k+ to build. The general public will definately not go for a vehicle like that. I definately wouldn't, and I'm an EV enthusiast.

 

[vfx]

Exactly. I don't know why there is all of the hostility towards that decision....

Mostly because of the signed contracts. And the money.

 

[jcstp]

Sounds like he may have done his best to reduce the cost in order to keep those terms (set up before his time?), but couldn't by the time they needed to deliver. In so far as I heard, they continued to reduce costs over a long time.

I read somewhere that the "supercharger" is an accumulation of 9 10kw chargers! The same that are installed inside the car!
If reducing cost is in the numbers, this is surely a way!
Comparing this with the price of a base Model S, I guess a cost of 50k for the supercharger is probably including installation!

Here the world map of current Tesla charging stations
OpenChargeMap Map

Made with this widget
OpenChargeMap Map Wizard

 

[qwk]

Mostly because of the signed contracts. And the money.

So would it have been better for Tesla to go BK, and then you have no support or warranty for a $100k car?

 

[vfx]

So would it have been better for Tesla to go BK, and then you have no support or warranty for a $100k car?

You simply paint one scenario.

 

[qwk]

You simply paint one scenario.

Maybe because there is only one scenario for a small company bleeding money+selling product for a loss. It's called bankruptcy.

 

[vfx]

Maybe because there is only one scenario for a small company bleeding money+selling product for a loss. It's called bankruptcy.

Or, other funding.

 

[Norbert]

Or, other funding.

According to all we (or I) know, they almost came to the point of bankruptcy even then. There are limits to "other funding", especially for a company which can't make profit, also wouldn't be fair to those who then have to provide the funding (especially since Elon himself spent his last money on Tesla, even borrowed money from his friends at some point).

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

Quick Charger location map CHAdeMO (non-Japanese)

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=210740974077298891697.0004ac7e66a8121c75d8e&msa=0