For Model 3 LTE/3g and free SC have to go

[Vitold]

I scanned this thread pretty closely for someone else to ask you where you got this information from. I did not see it, so... where did you get this information from?

If it is complete guesswork based on residential per-kWh costs... sigh.

The number is from township briefing that discussed SC installation and stall vs parking allocation. At the moment I don't remember which town

EDIT: I cannot find the document... Anyway, at 20c per kwh, 80kwh per stall, 8 stalls utilized 5% of the time would cost $56,064 in electricity per year.

 

[igotzzoom]

As for superchargers, I would expect similar one time fee as S60 had ($2K) to giíve you lifetime access to SCs, with provision, that using SC within 100 miles of your home will cost you $10-20 per session.

Considering a refuel on my ICE runs me between $50-60, $10-20 for a full supercharger recharge seems like a pretty good deal to me. :smile:

 

[MartinAustin]

20c per kwh, 80kwh per stall, 8 stalls utilized 5% of the time would cost $56,064 in electricity per year.

I pay between $0.09 and $0.14 per kWh depending on usage (it's a "tier" system).

I fail to believe that Tesla, an industrial consumer of electricity, is paying over $0.10 per kWh.

Don't forget utilities sell their kWh's to each other for $0.02 or less per kWh. There is a lot of room for a discounted rate for large users.

If you want some evidence, the only app I know of this type (and I wish there was one for Texas) is ISO to Go - download it and check the current prices.
http://isonewswire.com/updates/2012/9/27/iso-ne-launches-mobile-app-for-smartphones.html

(I concede... that is just a USA pricing observation)

 

[eloder]

If per minute SC charges were proposed, I'd stick with my hybrid and only consider a PHEV as a vehicle replacement. Also, if they outlawed local SC access, they'd need to determine if the owner had access to charging at home (i.e. if they were renting, this would create an undue burden and a barrier of entry for the buyer).

I'm not sure I understand that sentiment. Why would you favor a car that pays 4x as much for buying fuel by the gallon and can't be refueled at home 95% of the time for a fraction of the cost?

 

[vinnie97]

I already have a hybrid, so that's the devil I know. I would also anticipate the PHEV to have a lower upfront cost (and monthly cost since I will be forced to finance). Also, gas availability is still far more ubiquitous than chargers unfortunately. If the superchargers will be fee-based for Model 3 owners, I think I might compromise if the system was based upon kWh usage instead of time used (i.e. what if a charger is not functioning at full capacity? Again, this would push me towards a PHEV based on principle).

 

[PoweredByRain]

In this discussion I have not seen any consideration of the avoided cost of advertising. Tesla, unless I'm mistaken, spends zero on advertising, whereas other manufacturers spend on the order of $500 per car sold.

$500 can buy you a whole lot of electricity. At reasonable rates that's about 5 MWh, enough to power a Model S for approximately 25,000 km (15,000 miles).

But it's more reasonable to compare the cost of advertising with the cost of building the Supercharger network. Right now there are 500 Supercharger stations. It's pretty tough to come up with an average installation cost, since some are 2-stall units and some are 10-stall, but I think a fair estimate is about $200k per. So Tesla has so far spent about $100 million to build the Supercharger network. They have also sold roughly 100,000 cars. So that's about $1000 per car. But this rate of Supercharger installation will, I think, not keep up with sales in the long run, as most Supercharger sites have very low usage currently. They have had to spend a lot to provide geographic coverage.

So, to within some reasonably large margin for error, over the long term Tesla can provide the Supercharger network essentially at ZERO COST relative to what other automakers spend on advertising.

The question then becomes "what about the cost of energy?"

If you take the $2000 charged for an S60 to be Supercharger-enabled as the price charged for all Model Ss built, then you're talking about a break-even point of about 100,000 km (62,500 miles). Again, estimates are difficult because there is so much variation in usage. There are owners who have never used a Supercharger, and there are those who drive long distances and use one every day. But I would say that at that price Tesla is not losing money on the whole. So I think the system as it currently exists will scale.

Personally, I think the best and most consistent route for Tesla to take would be to make all Model 3s capable of Supercharging, but charge $2000 to enable it, just as they did with the S60.

 

[boofagle]

Nissan has a few options when it comes to charging. They have the base model with a 3.6kW charger, a 6.6kW charger for $1770 more, and for a little more than $1600 you can upgrade your mid-level leaf to take Level 3 DC quick charge. I could see Tesla following this route. Also, if it costs $1600 to upgrade to a L3 charge on the leaf, $2000 to enable Super Charger is not a bad deal at all.

 

[etm33]

Tesla only sells the SC access as part of the price of the car. $35k + $2k for SC? Maybe. But a per minute charge? No way! But they may "outlaw" local access, both for the TM3, TMX, TMS and any other car that gets access to the charger network.

For the local access, there has to be some usage allowed. Especially for "my first roadtrip", I want to know for sure that supercharging works with my car before I set off (I'd seen somewhere someone had a hardware issue which prevented supercharging). Closest supercharger to me is 3.5mi from my house. Definitely wouldn't abuse it, but could see using it on very rare occasions. Might also come in handy should power be out at my house for any reason. I do agree that people shouldn't use superchargers as primary charge points.

 

[stopcrazypp]

For the local access, there has to be some usage allowed. Especially for "my first roadtrip", I want to know for sure that supercharging works with my car before I set off (I'd seen somewhere someone had a hardware issue which prevented supercharging). Closest supercharger to me is 3.5mi from my house. Definitely wouldn't abuse it, but could see using it on very rare occasions. Might also come in handy should power be out at my house for any reason. I do agree that people shouldn't use superchargers as primary charge points.

I do agree with allowing occasional local access, which is what a more general "soft" policy would allow. That's why I don't agree with those arguing for a clear cut policy as either it will be overly restrictive or too complicated (not clear cut).

 

[Model 3]

For the local access, there has to be some usage allowed.

They don't "have to" be any usage allowed. But I agree with both you and stopcrazypp in that a more "soft" policy would be the best for all parts. There is some legitimate usage of a local supercharger. But others abuse may take that possibility from us...

 

[ratsbew]

I think that supercharging should be enabled by default on even the lowest $35,000 trim level. However I think that charging should be paid by the customer at a zero/low profit rate. Billing should be seamless and should display charges on the center screen in realtime.

Customers of Model 3 should have to pay for two reasons. One, because it will reduce Tesla's "legacy" costs, and two, because it will automatically reduce Supercharger "abuse"...that is to say it isn't abuse if they are paying for the electricity.

Model S/X can retain free supercharging as a class distinguishing feature.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I think that supercharging should be enabled by default on even the lowest $35,000 trim level. However I think that charging should be paid by the customer at a zero/low profit rate. Billing should be seamless and should display charges on the center screen in realtime.

Unless Tesla can cut lots of costs I don't expect the option will be enabled by default at the $35k price even if Tesla makes paid charging. For the Leaf SV at $32k, the quick charge option is $1630 (with LED headlights bundled together).

Customers of Model 3 should have to pay for two reasons. One, because it will reduce Tesla's "legacy" costs, and two, because it will automatically reduce Supercharger "abuse"...that is to say it isn't abuse if they are paying for the electricity.

Elon was put on record saying the Model 3 would also have free for life supercharging. And even making things paid would not necessarily reduce abuse (which is not solely about paying for electricity, demand put on the stations is also equally important). See below article about behavior and what happens when you set a price:
http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-what-they-do/
Sometimes the guilt/ethics people feel is far more effective than monetary penalty measures (Tesla is testing that with the letters).

Model S/X can retain free supercharging as a class distinguishing feature.

This would leave the abuse issue unsolved. The crux of the matter is that Tesla's network was designed to cover ~5-10% of travel on average. Owners who do all their local travel on superchargers will use the network 10-20x as much as an average user. That was something that Tesla couldn't ignore even for the Model S and Model X or they wouldn't be putting out letter now (when the Model X isn't even out yet). The Model S/X annual volume by 2020 is planned around 200k out of the 700k total. That is still a whopping 29% of total volume and something they can't ignore.

 

[gregincal]

And even making things paid would not necessarily reduce abuse (which is not solely about paying for electricity, demand put on the stations is also equally important). See below article about behavior and what happens when you set a price:
http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-what-they-do/
Sometimes the guilt/ethics people feel is far more effective than monetary penalty measures (Tesla is testing that with the letters).

That's if you are viewing the payment as a deterrent for "abuse". The point of paying is that increased usage funds increased installations and that any usage is legitimate. As has been pointed out, there is a case for 100% local supercharger usage (apartment dwellers). Pay per use normalizes this case.

 

[wayner]

What happens if we ever have the capability to send the energy in our batteries back into the grid? Then you would really have to do something as otherwise people would be arb'ing the SuperChargers.

 

[davidc18]

it won't matter what the policy is. If Tesla does not significantly increase the density/number of SuperCharger locations the sheer number of vehicles trying to use the SCs will limit their usefulness.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That's if you are viewing the payment as a deterrent for "abuse". The point of paying is that increased usage funds increased installations and that any usage is legitimate. As has been pointed out, there is a case for 100% local supercharger usage (apartment dwellers). Pay per use normalizes this case.

I should note that under Tesla's letter so far, an apartment dweller who has no reasonable access to home charging is not qualified as an abuser.

My viewpoint on that market however is that Tesla should have a separate network for that similar to the destination chargers they are installing at certain locations. They can and should rebrand their city superchargers to be paid per use. Also as EVs in general get more popular, the public infrastructure in general will necessarily have to address this market, and I don't expect Tesla's supercharger network to bear a bulk of that burden.

However, I think the "free" experience of superchargers for long distance (which was its primarily goal) should remain. It's a great marketing point that no other automaker has.

Abuse does not only cover those doing daily charging, it also covers people who overstay at superchargers where the article I linked would apply (adding a penalty for leaving the car plugged in may actually encourage people to do that since they have now paid for that privilege).

 

[SW2Fiddler]

I should note that under Tesla's letter so far, an apartment dweller who has no reasonable access to home charging is not qualified as an abuser.

True, they weren't.

Let me also ask/note this: could we say anyone is qualified in that letter, or Elon's remark to shareholders foreshadowing the letter, as an "abuser?"

I took a look at videos. Elon's expression when mentioning "some who are pretty aggressively using local Superchargers" was the same face he makes when talking about a sub-optimal Li Ion chemistry - sulfide if I recall. Kind of "we're steering away from that for reasons" more than an indignant "the infidels will be PUNISHED! Arrrgh!"

It's early yet. There's time to steer the destiny of Supercharging. JB said they will need to decide on some kinda Paid model but not before the millionth vehicle they sell.

My viewpoint on that market however is that Tesla should have a separate network for that similar to the destination chargers they are installing at certain locations. They can and should rebrand their city superchargers to be paid per use.

Yes, plenty of room for a new kind of charger. They may not be able to change policy on existing ones without backlash, so it could be new installs.
Also Too: The overall attitude of condos and apartments about providing charging options for their owners and renters, can, should, and (I predict) will change, as well.

 

[EVNow]

Tesla will continue to use free SC for long range travel as the USP. They will include terms that limit abusive usage like the broadband providers do. Not a new problem, reasonable solutions are available.

 

[ratsbew]

However, I think the "free" experience of superchargers for long distance (which was its primarily goal) should remain. It's a great marketing point that no other automaker has.

I agree. Any supercharger within 100 miles of your home should be pay per use. Any outside of that radius should be free.

 

[dgpcolorado]

I agree. Any supercharger within 100 miles of your home should be pay per use. Any outside of that radius should be free.

That seems like the simplest way to go, although I'd make the radius 50-70 miles. At 100 miles straight-line distance, the next Supercharger might well be beyond the range of the car when fully charged at home. [In my case, it definitely would be, the nearest is 95 road miles away (77 straight-line miles) and the next ones are well beyond range.]

However, there would have to be some sort of mechanism for verifying the home location of the car, which might not be as easy as it seems.