Biden meeting with Musk and other CEOs notes "broad consensus" on charging interoperability
Industry executives agreed that there needs to be a seamless user experience, no matter which EV you drive or where you charge.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
On today's TMC Podcast, we ask the question "What is the Tesla Cybercab?". Join us on YouTube live at 1PM and participate in the chat.
Biden meeting with Musk and other CEOs notes "broad consensus" on charging interoperability
- Thread starter Mockingbird
- Start date
It's too bad that those other than Tesla only agree as long as someone else pays for it.
The American Taxpayer can pay for it
Tesla can open up the one we paid for
VW and NRG can pay for it as their fine for criminal behavior
. . .
The American Taxpayer can pay for it
Tesla can open up the one we paid for
VW and NRG can pay for it as their fine for criminal behavior
. . .
Nope. Electricity is too cheap to make money selling it and one can't control the source.
A paradigm change is needed. If they don't take control of their destinies in this new world, the ICEmakers will go the way Kodak did.
Having seen at least 4 different attempts by the government to set up charging infrastructure, I have little hope they are equipped to do so. Those who make the money on EV's will have to enable themselves.
Disagree or not. Come back in 5 years and you can tell me I was wrong or . . .
You don't know what you are talking about.
Demand charges are the reason EV fast charging isn't profitable (at least in the NA).
High utilization is needed to turn a profit.
Every automaker having its own exclusive charging network is sure way to guarantee that the EV "revolution" will flop.
Tesla has its own network and it's part of the reason people choose to buy Teslas over other vehicles.
It's been working for Tesla because Tesla has always targeted high volume and had the correct vision: long-range vehicles, with a full-coverage charging network providing fast and seamless charging (even including a fast handshake).
Tesla has been implementing that vision for a decade.
Based on Tesla's example, major automakers having their own networks could be a good thing. A manufacturer would need to have a good network to sell their cars.
Nobody ever complains that gas stations have three different fuels and two different nozzles, yet they get worked up about EV charging standards and interoperability, because most manufacturers and charging companies got the market wrong.
It's EV price that's the real underlying problem. That has limited volume, which has limited charging. If you could buy cheap EVs, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. There'd be abundant charging and the crappy manufacturers and networks would die and be replaced by good ones.
My god, imagine the state of the CCS "network" if NRG and VW hadn't have been criminals.
Agreed - for today.
However, having gone through the rollout of cellphones from luxury items to staples, I feel confident that it is only a matter of time before economy of scale enables the prices to fall and all barriers go away.
Public charging will always be a marginal business because it will only be used for a small percentage of our driving and it will always be under pressure to stay competitive with at-home charging.
Tesla is losing money over the Superchargers.
If other automakers all have their own charging networks, they would all be losing money.
High utilization is needed for fast charging to be profitable, but that is never going to happen if automakers all have their own exclusive charging networks.
Do Tesla EVs run on different electricity than other EVs do?
No.
Last edited:
Car companies lose money on steering wheels too.
Its those pesky drivers who seem to want them to be able to turn.
Should the government pay for steering wheels too?
The government is the one telling automakers to make EVs.
If it wasn't for the government, Tesla wouldn't exist today, and automakers would be making ICEVs forever.
So now that automakers are making the EVs that the government told them to make, those EVs are going to have to charge somewhere, which is why the government is subsidizing the charging infrastructure.
Last edited:
Citation? Quotes from Elon Musk about Tesla not wanting to use the supercharger network as a profit center do not qualify; not wanting to use something as a revenue source is not the same as operating at a loss. Interestingly, as PG&E has been steadily increasing the electricity rates around here, the supercharger rates per kWh have been rising as well. If Tesla wanted to take a loss on the supercharger network, I wouldn't expect them to increase the prices as their costs increase.
I made a thread about it.
From getting only one reply, I am guessing that most people here don't know what I was talking about.
Average Cost per Charging Session and Average Cost per kWh for DC Fast Charging Stations
Source: Demand Charges and Electric Vehicle Fast-Charging: An Intermountain West Assessment October 2021 https://naseo.org/data/sites/1/documents/publications/Demand%20Charges%20and%20EV%20Charging%20-%20Final.pdf
teslamotorsclub.com
That article makes a lot of assumptions. How do we know, for example, that Tesla pays the same demand charges that commercial and industrial customers pay? Tesla also has a large energy storage division and could have negotiated special contracts with PG&E in exchange for helping to stabilize the grid when demand is highest. Unless we have the data from Tesla itself, like a financial statement that breaks down supercharger costs vs revenue, there's no way to know.I made a thread about it.
From getting only one reply, I am guessing that most people here don't know what I was talking about.
Average Cost per Charging Session and Average Cost per kWh for DC Fast Charging Stations
Source: Demand Charges and Electric Vehicle Fast-Charging: An Intermountain West Assessment October 2021 https://naseo.org/data/sites/1/documents/publications/Demand%20Charges%20and%20EV%20Charging%20-%20Final.pdf
I guess you have never been in a science field.
Not every variable is known or used.
Plenty of assumptions, approximations, and simplifications are made. (This is esp. true in quantum mechanics).
That does NOT mean any conclusion is invalid.
______________________________________________________________________
You can play the "what if?" game all day, but it is just a distraction.
Yeah but when most of the important variables are just guesses, you are shooting in the dark.
It's highly likely that some SC sites are unprofitable for Tesla, but that doesn't mean that the system as a whole is operating at a loss. The existence of those sites reassure drivers that they'll be able to traverse stretches of highway that aren't passable by other types of EVs, and help Tesla sell more cars. But the only way to get the top and bottom line numbers for the entire SC network is from Tesla itself.
What is clear from the data is that the lower costs per kWh delivered favor higher usage. But your statement was that Tesla is "losing money" on the SC network. There's absolutely no way you can prove that, and you have just moved the goalposts and suddenly now the discussion is about DCFC usage? I'd argue that, given how often Tesla constructs new SC sites to relieve congestion at existing sites around here, a lot of their sites are toward the upper end of the usage spectrum. But I can't prove that they're operating at a profit, break even, or at a loss, without knowing their costs and seeing the contracts they've made with everyone from the property owners to PG&E.
Last edited:
Those are not guesses, shooting in the dark.
Those are using real commercial electricity rates.
