jeff mccabe
Member
Ok, I'll add my two cents.... I have a Supercharger on my way to work. I use it once a week at 5am. There is never more than one other car their at that time. Who am I hurting ?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
You're good, nothing wrong with that. My complaint is when I roll into a SC @ 20% and 100-miles from home, all the stalls are full, and I see someone returning to their car with groceries.
tslalrry
Member
Tesla's recent Supercharger announcement obliterates the old ethical discussion of local/trip charging. Tesla understands that cheap/free ubiquitous charging infrastructure tied to their autos/trucks/etc... will be a competitive advantage that will be hard for another individual automaker to match, even if they decide to get into the game. I have a Volt, Leaf and Model X and the other two cars - or a Bolt or anything with a 200+-mile range - can't compete with a vast charging infrastructure. Autopilot/EAP can be replicated with cameras and software. But Tesla can overcome the single biggest gripe about lines at Superchargers and stay ahead by executing on their announcement (okay, that's a big "if"). Then, guilt-free, pull up to a Supercharger whenever, wherever you need it.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The problem is people pull up when they don't need it, just to offset their home charging and save money. This leaves people who actually need to charge, waiting.
I don't think people realize how much more local charging demand is versus long distance travel (it is 10x the amount). If Tesla kept things free, there is no way any amount of expansion would be able to cover that demand, while being financially sustainable. What Tesla is banking on is that the grandfathered cars would eventually be retired and this issue is eliminated.
That's typically a safe bet for most things. However, the 'year later' thing aside, it was a centrist vs extreme disagreement, not extreme vs extreme.
I don't think 'hurting' is the right way to put it. It doesn't have to be that binary, that nefarious. Regardless, your actions are definitely a drop in the bucket...and you can interpret that both ways.
On one hand, if you need the charge--if you don't have other charging options, or your primary solution didn't get you enough charge, or whatever other reason under the sun--that's exactly what the supercharger is there for. And even if you do have other options and are just opportunity charging, you're not holding up anyone else, not to mention the electricity your supplier (Tesla) is pulling for you is at a low rate, so the overall impact of your actions as an isolated event is basically zero.
On the other hand, especially if you're really just doing it to offset your home charging bill, your couple bucks of 'Tesla's' electricity plus a bunch of other people's couple bucks adds up to a real amount of cashflow out for Tesla. There's also an incremental impact to wear and tear of supercharging hardware: We don't know exactly how robust the entire system really is, but certainly there are weak points, like the cables. The more use the hardware gets the sooner it will fail and the sooner the charger will go down. That's one less pedestal in service (or reduced service), which clogs up the system and causes Tesla to accelerate their maintenance cashflow. Any way you slice it, those kind of hypothetical are bad for all of us because they takes away from all the other things Tesla could be doing to keep the company moving forward, including continuing to build out the supercharger network.
Drone Flyer
Active Member
They've changed their mind on this.
They see a potential revenue stream from having lazy locals use the chargers and also charging idling fees.
Could be quite lucrative if locals leave their cars there all night!
Electricity cost at Superchargers are too small to even register on the scale. Tesla said that the entire Supercharger network is an insignificant cost in the grand scheme of financials.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
It's only small right now because a vast majority of superchargers are at locations not convenient for locals to use. If they go ahead with their planned urban expansion and the network remained free, then the story can change completely.
EPA efficiency is 38kWh/100 miles, $.20/kWh (rate taken from Tesla site which might include some maintenance costs), average car age is 165k miles, works out to $12540 in supercharger costs per car if they used superchargers for all their travel. Right now supercharger demand is under 10% of total miles, so that brings the number down to $1254 (which was sustainable under the old scheme). But Tesla obviously saw things would not work out once they expand superchargers to locations easier for locals to regularly use and introduced the paid superchargers.
I agree that's what tesla said a while ago...I just don't buy it.
For round numbers, I figure there's 200,000 free supercharging Teslas on the road. I figure the average industrial rate for electricity is $.10/kWh. (US national average is lower, but CA is higher, which is by far where most Teslas live, and most other countries are even more expensive). If we use the typically accepted budget if 10% supercharged miles per car, that's ~1200 mi/year, or ~400kwh/year, per car.
Math that out and you have Tesla shelling out $8M annually in electricity. I don't care who you are or what company you run (let alone one with some suspect financials), that's a lot of money jus for electricity let alone the rest of the network.
Perhaps tesla used the 'insignificant' line because it's [theoretically] fully budgeted, but that doesn't make the value insignificant unless they're running a company with some fishy financials.
We should also consider that "demand" charges could easily double or triple the cost of electricity.
Demand Charges — The Hidden Cost (and dirty secret) of EV Charging for Businesses
Then there is maintaining the equipment. The charge cords are replaced on a regular basis. How long do the chargers last before they have to be replaced? We do know that they wear out because there are some locations that charge slower than others. Some things do wear out over time.
The national average for electricity is around 11 cents per kWh. That brings your number down to half. $600 for the life time of the car. That's not too much. Yes overall the upkeep of the Supercharger network is not a negligible cost. But it is also a massive advantage over the competition and a key selling point for the car. Because charging is a major concern with people considering an EV and having an awesome solution like the Supercharger network to overcome that fear I'm pretty confident that Tesla not not thinking about cost in connection with the Superchargers. The recent decision to vastly expand the network shows that.
11 cents is the residential average. The industrial average is more like$.06-.07, which is why I used $.10 [as a weighted average when you consider CA and other countries]. Using your math, $600 times 200,000 free supercharging Teslas is $120M (which is actually higher than the number I napkin mathed). I mean, I guess its all subjective, but to me $120M is a lot of money.
The expansion is, as you imply, a key selling point, and in fact one of Tesla's main competitive advantages...but that's exactly what makes the expansion activity imperative regardless the cost. The expansion doesn't show that 'they're not thinking about cost', it shows they understand the fate of the supercharging network is the fate of Tesla.
I’d contest the recent decision to monetize the network shows the opposite, especially considering the statement from a few years ago from Telsa that said--or at least implied--that a free supercharging network could be sustained up to ~1,000,000 vehicles. The decision to start applying a fee after only 200,000 vehicles—and only subsidizing 8% annual mileage instead of 10%—suggests the supercharging network is a cost center that’s getting a bit out of control. Their decision to implement idle fees and especially the ‘over 1000 miles of electricity’ fees is clearly an effort to bring the network much closer to a net-zero cashflow division, and sooner than planned.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Yourself. It's hard enough for me to get out of bed in the morning to get to work on time. Here's how I see it:
Free Supercharger vs. Warm Bed = charge in the garage.
But if you're an earlier riser, help yourself as far as I am concerned. I just want them to be open when I'm travelling and you're not stopping anyone from that so I see no harm done.
Yes, but that calculation was assuming the 10% of all miles come from supercharging. That could easily go up significantly if superchargers were everywhere. I admit, I'm a cheapskate and would charge at a SpC if it was on my way home or near a restaurant or bookstore I liked. My motivation would be to save the ~ $60/mo I'm currently paying for charging at home.
It's the 400kWh per year change that enabled this to happen.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I used the same $0.20/kWh as Tesla since that is the only way superchargers are financially sustainable (other charge networks charge more). You have to account for demand charges which drastically raises costs for electricity, plus amortization/maintenance/repairs and billing (which people calculating cost of home charging practically never accounts for).
Also you missed my entire point. The $1254 per car is only that amount because supercharging demand remains under 10%, largely because superchargers are located in areas inconvenient for locals. However, the original comment you responded to was talking specifically about locals using the superchargers for all charging. These people will put 10x the demand, $12540 per car, which is definitely not insignificant. Again, Tesla would not make the paid scheme, if they thought their original plan was financially sustainable.
While I agree with the sentiment that locals should not "hog" SC access if they don't need to, the question is how you would judge that. That is, how do you decide who to tolerate and what do you do if you decide not to tolerate them?
What I am suggesting that it is not the role of Tesla drivers to know which other people they encounter at a Supercharger are abusing their privileges, and who are not.
Are you believing baloney from the Tesla again? I suspect those are words for the investors so they won't be scared off.
Here are my numbers for San Diego Supercharger:
Average Occupancies per stalls:
70% - this is to account for empty stalls, transitions, no cars at dead of night, etc.
Number of Chargers bank:
6
Average Power draw:
90KW per bank - We know superchargers have charging speed issues. San Diego have always had this issue. This is a good number to use
Hours in a Day:
24
Total KWh/day:
9072KWh
average KWh price:
$0.15 - factoring in demand charging, lower business cost, etc.
Total Cost:
$1360.80 per day
Days in a year:
365
Electricity Annual Cost for San Diego Supercharger:
$496,692
This is the cost for San Diego Supercharger with 6 banks, 12 chargers per year. Now one can argue other superchargers are not as busy. Or Others like Burbank or Mountain View is more busy even into the dead of night.
Here is how I calculate
Number of supercharging stations in US according to Supercharge.info:
384
Scaling factor compared to San Diego Supercharger:
0.3 - This means on average, the other stations are only using 30% of San Diego supercharger. IMO, this is a good number because currently there are plenty of other supercharging stations outside of cities using a lot less. But then there are places like mountain view and SF where they are probably used more than San Diego.
Scaling factor to adjust to average of 6 chargers per stations instead of 12 like San Diego:
0.5 - again, this is so we bring the other stations on par with san Diego. San Diego has 12 stalls, others have 4. While others have more. I might crunch the number for that, but for now, lets just use 6 for simplicity.
If you use those numbers,
Total electricity cost of Superchargers in US:
$28,609,459.20
Now we need to factor in cheaper Electricity in East coast and such.
Scaling: 0.4
$11,443,783.68
Now in the grand scheme of things, 11 million dollars is not much for a company like tesla who's revenue is much much higher. But keep in mind this is the just the cost of electricity.
Here are other cost I did not consider:
1) maintenance which I am sure tesla has to do quite a bit.
2) Global charger in other country where electricity is not so cheap.
3) land cost, permitting, inspections, etc and what not which can also be high.
4) On time cost of the equipment and installation, but you should average it out to the life of the stations.
5) charging inefficiency. 1KWh from the plug is probably only 0.92KWh into the car. So my calculations is probably a bit skewed in factor for lower cost for tesla.
So my point is, it is not chump change when you factor everything in. Sure there are stations where tesla has a deal and probably get something for free like land, electricity or what not. But those are probably small.
I suspect in the old days, the cost was minimal when they had few cars and no other stations in other countries. But now with many more cars tesla is probably finding out free unlimited charging is definitely not sustainable.
mkspeedr
Member
I am a local who uses the super charger almost every weekend. It is not that I am too cheap. It is because I drive a lot. I dont have any choice unless I spend $25K DC charger for my house/office. Lately the line is so long at the local supercharger I am forced to drive an ICE vehicle.
OK, technically I am too cheap to spend $25K for a fast DC charger.
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
