Tesla S

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities

Re: Tesla S

Postby Bonnan » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:16 pm

lightheir......Would you please reference your claims? I'd like to read more. If not your credibility is nil
Bonnan
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:57 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby madbrain » Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:13 pm

Jfet wrote:Right.... And what type of chemicals and fossil fuels were used to mine and produce the finite life 85kwh of batteries used in those "solid" fuel vehicles like the Tesla? Don't say zero...don't want to be caught in a lie.


So now you answer your question for me, assuming I'm going to come up with lie ?
I'm not going to bother responding to your posts anymore, you can answer them yourself.
You are obviously biased.
madbrain
 
Posts: 2782
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:06 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Tesla S

Postby killjoy2012 » Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:37 pm

Diogenes wrote:Most of them fail, but we always learn something. I think the Tesla is in this category, <snip>. The infrastructure is just not there.

For now it is a trendy and expensive toy.


I agree. I think a good analogy is that Tesla is currently the Apple of automotive. However, the big difference is that with a $60-100k price tag, that limits your potential buyers to a VERY small % of the overall automotive market. Whereas, an iPhone at $400, even those living below the poverty line that probably can't or shouldn't afford it, is still a feasible purchase. The Apple analogy falls off a little in terms of product functionality though. Tesla still has a number of EV-related challenges that it needs to address...


TomatoTomahto wrote:What I don't understand is why people are so negative about this, to the point of seeming angry. I understand that it's an expensive car that not everyone can afford; I understand that one might not approve of the subsidy (just as I don't care for a dozen or so subsidies which the forum rules don't allow me to mention). I don't understand getting exercised over the Tesla in a negative way.


It's everything you've mentioned.
It's the road maintenance tax avoidance.
It's the government push for EVs even though they don't currently make financial sense, nor will help the environment in any significant way in the short-to-medium term.
It's the continual over optimistic estimation of how "green" and "efficient" an EV is vs. IC. And/or other technicalities like probable battery life, range, etc.
It's the not learning the lessons from companies who made EVs over 100 years ago, up through GM's EV1. (The battery tech doesn't exist, isn't reliable enough, nor at a price point that's competitive with IC.)
It's the arrogant & conceited attitude that Elon's personality exudes.
It's the undeserved magic and aura that Wall Street, the media and fanatics generally put around this company for some unknown reason.
It's the irrationality related to why, when the 'Boglehead correct' answer to every "What car should I purchase?" thread on this forum is "A sub-$10k used Camry." that, all of a sudden, now half the forum seems to be supporting the notion of purchasing a $100k EV from an unproven company that can't go more than 100 miles from home w/o planning an overnight stay somewhere. (Yes, I'm exaggerating.)


madbrain wrote:I think you are wrong about the direction Tesla and EVs are going in general.
The Leaf, another EV, with 1/4 of the battery capacity of the Tesla, is now in the top 10 best selling cars in the San Francisco Bay Area according to Nissan.


And that's because we all know how well San Francisco represents the greater whole of the United States of America... or the world for that matter.?.?
I think most would agree that Kalifornia is quite different than the rest of the USA in many ways.


Jfet wrote:At least there was a recent article about the ultra efficient diesels finally coming to the USA. I would like to see a nice subsidy for those as I might actually consider buying one. Europe has been using them for ages....46mpg and fairly clean.

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/diesel-come ... 47278.html


+1
killjoy2012
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:30 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby TomatoTomahto » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:37 pm

Killjoy, for the record, I've never recommended a sub 10k Toyota. My recommendations have been Range Rover and Volvo. A Tesla is not inconsistent with my previous choices.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
 
Posts: 2971
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby lightheir » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:55 pm

Bonnan wrote:lightheir......Would you please reference your claims? I'd like to read more. If not your credibility is nil


http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

The US subsidy to fossil fuel is in the range of BILLIONs of dollars. Per YEAR. No way the total amount of Tesla or EV subsidies will get to that dollar range.

The FOX news (and we know their slant) breaks down the estimated EV subsides here: http://www.foxnews.com/topics/taxes/ele ... sidies.htm from around May 2012
Since 2008, the EV tax credit has been $1billion, and another $6-7 billion for funding for EV-related projects. Remember this is a 4 year total from 2008-2012, not one year.
Whereas the fossil fuel subsidy is billions per year. Every year.

Furthermore, these fossil fuel subsidies go directly into the pockets of the richest corporations in the US - Exxon/Mobil is consistently in the top 5 richest corporations, if not #1 outright. They need a subsidy even less than Elon Musk himself needs one. And this tax subsidy destroys the innovative investment in clean energy that the US and the world so desperately needs. When you can get subsidized oil in the US for half the price it really costs, there's no financial way to may the large infrastructure investments necessary to make effective renewal energy resources or even car technology, unless you're independently massively wealthy and willing to take outsized risks with that money as Elon Musk did. Without that oil subsidy though, the entire game changes

(I'm also well aware of the fact that it's not all gravy - if you live in an area or state that's completely dependent on oil wells for tax and other revenue, removing this subsidy will absolutely destroy your livelihood. And also, the people who will feel the real pain from $7 gas are the people that can afford it least - lower-income people.)

I think you're confusing that fact that I'm comparing the total subsidy, not the per car subsidy that you're assuming. The per car comparison is unfair as you know as well as I do that the subsidy will be eliminated once EVs catch on in even more than minor widespread use, just as the Prius subsidies were eliminated. Even if it doesn't go away, there's no way it'll ever catch up to the billions per year that ExxonMobil and others have reaped for decades already.
lightheir
 
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby Jfet » Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:11 pm

The subsidy is but a small % of the gas price because the USA uses nearly half a billion gallons of gas per DAY.

So if the subsidy is 10B, that is maybe reducing the real price of gas by $0.22 per gallon.

The road taxes we pay on gasoline are far more than this subsidy.

$0.22 per gallon on 4000 gallons is $880

That is a far cry from $10,000 or $23,600.
Jfet
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:20 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby lightheir » Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:05 pm

Jfet wrote:The subsidy is but a small % of the gas price because the USA uses nearly half a billion gallons of gas per DAY.

So if the subsidy is 10B, that is maybe reducing the real price of gas by $0.22 per gallon.

The road taxes we pay on gasoline are far more than this subsidy.

$0.22 per gallon on 4000 gallons is $880

That is a far cry from $10,000 or $23,600.



"The average U.S. resident actually pays anywhere between $2 and $0.90 less than the actual market value of gasoline because of government subsidies."

http://www.ibtimes.com/gas-prices-pump- ... ts-1322727

And again, it's irrelevant the amount per car - it's the total dollar amount that is relevant. Even though per car, yes, the Tesla subsidy is much higher per car than the oil subsidy to fuel a combustion car, there are so many more combustion cars on the road that for total cost (the real relevant factor for individual taxpayers), it nullifies the EV subsidy. And again, the moment EVs start hitting prime time, gov't will pull the plug on the EV subsidy. (Whereas they're not going to pull the plug on the oil subsidy.)

The most important thing - the EV subsidy is a productive one - meant to stimulate new markets and technologies that the US is showing clear promise in, and which may end up driving large portions of the future economy if it catches on. Whereas the oil subsidy does the opposite - keeps technology and innovation in energy low, and doesn't encourage any new technologies. And, even worse, it's a subsidy that's permanent - doesn't go away like the EV subsidy, and thus continues to really hurt investment in clean energy technologies.
lightheir
 
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby madbrain » Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:27 pm

killjoy2012 wrote:It's the road maintenance tax avoidance.


This is hardly something you can blame on Tesla. It is a failure of government. No doubt they will eventually wake up and collect road taxes on something beyond liquid fuels, if the EVs population starts taking a significant toll on roads.

It's the government push for EVs even though they don't currently make financial sense, nor will help the environment in any significant way in the short-to-medium term.


So, does only the short-to-medium term matter to you ? It's not wrong for government to take a long-term view sometimes, and IMO this is one of those cases.

It's the continual over optimistic estimation of how "green" and "efficient" an EV is vs. IC.


"green" is not something that can be objectively measured, let alone over estimated. Efficiency on the other hand can be, and IC clearly loses on that measure.

It's the not learning the lessons from companies who made EVs over 100 years ago, up through GM's EV1. (The battery tech doesn't exist, isn't reliable enough, nor at a price point that's competitive with IC.)


So, just because other electric car makes have failed, no one else should even try to improve ?
Did you know Henry Ford started 2 car companies that went bankrupt before he was successful with Ford Motor ?

And you don't really want to talk about the EV1 in the same context as Tesla. Only 465 EV1s were ever manufactured and all found lessees.
Tesla has already sold an order of magnitude more cars, for each of the last 2 quarters.

There is a well-made documentary called "Who killed electric car" I saw in a theater a few years ago. You should watch it. Suffice it to say, GM had no one but themselves to blame for the EV1 failure, and their former CEO, Rick Wagoner, has publicly admitted that killing the EV1 was his worst mistake.

It's the arrogant & conceited attitude that Elon's personality exudes.
It's the undeserved magic and aura that Wall Street, the media and fanatics generally put around this company for some unknown reason.
It's the irrationality related to why, when the 'Boglehead correct' answer to every "What car should I purchase?" thread on this forum is "A sub-$10k used Camry." that, all of a sudden, now half the forum seems to be supporting the notion of purchasing a $100k EV from an unproven company that can't go more than 100 miles from home w/o planning an overnight stay somewhere. (Yes, I'm exaggerating.)


Well, for someone speaking of irrationality, you sure know a lot about it.
I don't see "half the forum" supporting the notion of purchasing a $100k EV, and for the record, I am voting with my dollars and not doing so.

It's worth keeping an open mind though, as the model S is not likely to be the last car from Tesla, and other future models will have different price points that will appeal to more people, as the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf already do.

And that's because we all know how well San Francisco represents the greater whole of the United States of America... or the world for that matter.?.?
I think most would agree that Kalifornia is quite different than the rest of the USA in many ways.


It's spelled California. And as California goes, so goes the country. I could cite any number of societal changes where California led, which are now commonplace and accepted in other states and developed countries, but they would have nothing to do with Tesla S or EVs, and thus, I won't.

California is the largest national market for cars. California essentially dictates emission for most cars sold in the US, as few automakers wish to exclude themselves from the largest market.

What's happening with EVs nowadays in California is very reminiscent of what happened with hybrid cars more than a decade ago.
In the last 3 years - since EVs started becoming available in the US again - the rate of growth has been a lot faster, and the unit sales a lot higher, than they were for hybrids in the 1999-2002 periods when the first hybrids became available on the US market.
Prius was the #1 selling car model in California in 2012, also.

After 13 years of hybrids, there are about 300,000 units hybrid vehicles sold in the US a year, with most incentives for hybrids no longer in place.
There were already 50,000 electric vehicles sold in the US last year, and the annual projections for this year are 80,000 based on the first 6 months of the year.
While it's unknown how fast EVs will grow going forward, it is hard to deny the current trend.
Last edited by madbrain on Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
madbrain
 
Posts: 2782
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:06 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Tesla S

Postby Diogenes » Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:52 pm

killjoy2012 wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Most of them fail, but we always learn something. I think the Tesla is in this category, <snip>. The infrastructure is just not there.

For now it is a trendy and expensive toy.


I agree. I think a good analogy is that Tesla is currently the Apple of automotive. However, the big difference is that with a $60-100k price tag, that limits your potential buyers to a VERY small % of the overall automotive market. Whereas, an iPhone at $400, even those living below the poverty line that probably can't or shouldn't afford it, is still a feasible purchase. The Apple analogy falls off a little in terms of product functionality though. Tesla still has a number of EV-related challenges that it needs to address...


TomatoTomahto wrote:What I don't understand is why people are so negative about this, to the point of seeming angry. I understand that it's an expensive car that not everyone can afford; I understand that one might not approve of the subsidy (just as I don't care for a dozen or so subsidies which the forum rules don't allow me to mention). I don't understand getting exercised over the Tesla in a negative way.


It's everything you've mentioned.
It's the road maintenance tax avoidance.
It's the government push for EVs even though they don't currently make financial sense, nor will help the environment in any significant way in the short-to-medium term.
It's the continual over optimistic estimation of how "green" and "efficient" an EV is vs. IC. And/or other technicalities like probable battery life, range, etc.
It's the not learning the lessons from companies who made EVs over 100 years ago, up through GM's EV1. (The battery tech doesn't exist, isn't reliable enough, nor at a price point that's competitive with IC.)
It's the arrogant & conceited attitude that Elon's personality exudes.
It's the undeserved magic and aura that Wall Street, the media and fanatics generally put around this company for some unknown reason.
It's the irrationality related to why, when the 'Boglehead correct' answer to every "What car should I purchase?" thread on this forum is "A sub-$10k used Camry." that, all of a sudden, now half the forum seems to be supporting the notion of purchasing a $100k EV from an unproven company that can't go more than 100 miles from home w/o planning an overnight stay somewhere. (Yes, I'm exaggerating.)


madbrain wrote:I think you are wrong about the direction Tesla and EVs are going in general.
The Leaf, another EV, with 1/4 of the battery capacity of the Tesla, is now in the top 10 best selling cars in the San Francisco Bay Area according to Nissan.


And that's because we all know how well San Francisco represents the greater whole of the United States of America... or the world for that matter.?.?
I think most would agree that Kalifornia is quite different than the rest of the USA in many ways.


Jfet wrote:At least there was a recent article about the ultra efficient diesels finally coming to the USA. I would like to see a nice subsidy for those as I might actually consider buying one. Europe has been using them for ages....46mpg and fairly clean.

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/diesel-come ... 47278.html


+1



Well said, +1.

I would go a bit further and eliminate any tax subsidy for the purchase af the Tesla until it sells for under $35K so it is available to more than 1% of Americans. If it is not, why should we pay for the 1% to buy a trendy $100K car, especially as we subsidize it with less gas taxes? Eliminate the tax credit and see if it can stand on its own.

The best part of Tesla is not the overpriced and overweight sedan for city dwellers, it is perhaps the motivation than might result in a mainstream company producing a similar car that we all can buy - and drive anywhere without concerns.
Truth and clarity are important in all things...
User avatar
Diogenes
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:58 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby madbrain » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:04 am

Diogenes wrote:I would go a bit further and eliminate any tax subsidy for the purchase af the Tesla until it sells for under $35K so it is available to more than 1% of Americans. If it is not, why should we pay for the 1% to buy a trendy $100K car, especially as we subsidize it with less gas taxes? Eliminate the tax credit and see if it can stand on its own.

The best part of Tesla is not the overpriced and overweight sedan for city dwellers, it is perhaps the motivation than might result in a mainstream company to producing a similar car that we all can buy.


The federal tax credit that Tesla buyers receive is no greater than the one that buyers of Nissan Leaf S (base model : $28,800 MSRP before any tax incentive) or a Chevy Volt (base model : $34,185 MSRP before any tax incentive) receive. In no way does the tax credit favor Tesla. In fact, it does the exact opposite and favors the competitors that build less expensive cars with smaller batteries. If the tax credit was indeed eliminated, Chevy and Nissan would suffer the most. I know I personally would not have leased my Leaf SL, were it not for the tax incentive [edit: since it was a lease, the dealership got the tax credit, not me, but they applied the credit as a downpayment on my lease, making my lease extremely cheap].

Tesla and Leaf owners pay the same amount of gasoline taxes.
madbrain
 
Posts: 2782
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:06 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Tesla S

Postby Frugal Al » Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:56 am

madbrain wrote:Tesla and Leaf owners pay the same amount of gasoline taxes.

A more equitable way to levy road taxes is needed. The Tesla weighs about 40% more and has 88% more torque than the Nissan Leaf.
User avatar
Frugal Al
 
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 10:09 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby cjking » Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:22 am

If you live and drive in a city, the cost of road maintenance per vehicle mile must be pretty negligible. I doubt it's significant enough to justify bring it into the discussion. Empty cross-country routes might be another matter, but there's no danger of those being full of electric cars any time soon.

I failed to dig up a figure in google, so I guess anyone who feels strongly enough that I'm wrong has an incentive to try and find the figures.
cjking
 
Posts: 1478
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:30 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby Jfet » Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:07 am

lightheir wrote:
"The average U.S. resident actually pays anywhere between $2 and $0.90 less than the actual market value of gasoline because of government subsidies."

http://www.ibtimes.com/gas-prices-pump- ... ts-1322727


Poorly written flawed article. The figure is around $0.22 if you include all of the tax subsidies. There are some people who try to include things like the cost of the strategic petroleum reserve, the cost of the military, coast guard, etc. Sure, but do you think if we all drove electric cars we would not have a military or coast guard or need for the strategic petroleum reserve? Can you imagine the driver of a M1 Abrams tank having to stop on the battlefield and charge up his batteries for an hour while under enemy fire?

I love the people against oil. They will pull figures from anywhere to support their cause. Yes oil is bad in the long term and we do need to wean ourselves off of it, but the realistic way is not to heavily subsidize $100,000 sports cars that weigh 5000 pounds and go 0 to 60 in under 4 seconds.
Jfet
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:20 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby Frugal Al » Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:14 am

cjking wrote:If you live and drive in a city, the cost of road maintenance per vehicle mile must be pretty negligible. I doubt it's significant enough to justify bring it into the discussion. Empty cross-country routes might be another matter, but there's no danger of those being full of electric cars any time soon.

Apparently some states think it is significant enough to discuss, and three have passed legislation. Both EVs and high MPG hybrids are being targeted.http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesand ... tw790.html
User avatar
Frugal Al
 
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 10:09 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby cjking » Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:32 am

That link confirms annual costs of the order of $100.

No objection to politicians discussing and legislating, what strikes me as odd is that anyone here should think that EV drivers getting off $100 a year of tax is a reason to get emotional/critical about EVs.

(And obviously the link indicates that they're not going to be getting off, anyway.)
cjking
 
Posts: 1478
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:30 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby lightheir » Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:19 am

Jfet wrote:
lightheir wrote:
"The average U.S. resident actually pays anywhere between $2 and $0.90 less than the actual market value of gasoline because of government subsidies."

http://www.ibtimes.com/gas-prices-pump- ... ts-1322727


Poorly written flawed article. The figure is around $0.22 if you include all of the tax subsidies. There are some people who try to include things like the cost of the strategic petroleum reserve, the cost of the military, coast guard, etc. Sure, but do you think if we all drove electric cars we would not have a military or coast guard or need for the strategic petroleum reserve? Can you imagine the driver of a M1 Abrams tank having to stop on the battlefield and charge up his batteries for an hour while under enemy fire?

I love the people against oil. They will pull figures from anywhere to support their cause. Yes oil is bad in the long term and we do need to wean ourselves off of it, but the realistic way is not to heavily subsidize $100,000 sports cars that weigh 5000 pounds and go 0 to 60 in under 4 seconds.


I'm ok with subsidizing those $100k sports cars if it's required to jump start an entire sector of new, cleaner technology that benefits US workers. Early adopter technology always costs a lot and someone's got to kick start the market.

If it were any old sports car that didn't add any future potential, no I wouldn't want to subsidize it.

And you need to provide references if you actually want to prove that the actually gas subsidy in the US is a mere 22 cents. The mere reality that gas costs nearly double in Europe as what is does here is enough evidence that it's probably not just a mere 22 cents.
lightheir
 
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby Frugal Al » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:12 am

cjking wrote:No objection to politicians discussing and legislating, what strikes me as odd is that anyone here should think that EV drivers getting off $100 a year of tax is a reason to get emotional/critical about EVs.
Who's getting emotional? I just pointed out that the road tax issue is more of an issue than you claimed. I've already pointed out that I like EVs, even if some of them aren't really green.
User avatar
Frugal Al
 
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 10:09 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby BigFoot48 » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:21 am

I think continued discussion of oil company or the fairness of EV subsidies will result in this thread getting shut down. Unacceptable topics: "US or world economic, political, tax, health care and climate policies".
Retired | Two-time Top-10 Diehard S&P500 Picker; Nine-Time Loser
User avatar
BigFoot48
 
Posts: 2152
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:47 am
Location: Arizona

Re: Tesla S

Postby Valuethinker » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:36 am

Jfet wrote:
lightheir wrote:
"The average U.S. resident actually pays anywhere between $2 and $0.90 less than the actual market value of gasoline because of government subsidies."

http://www.ibtimes.com/gas-prices-pump- ... ts-1322727


Poorly written flawed article. The figure is around $0.22 if you include all of the tax subsidies. There are some people who try to include things like the cost of the strategic petroleum reserve, the cost of the military, coast guard, etc. Sure, but do you think if we all drove electric cars we would not have a military or coast guard or need for the strategic petroleum reserve? Can you imagine the driver of a M1 Abrams tank having to stop on the battlefield and charge up his batteries for an hour while under enemy fire?

I love the people against oil. They will pull figures from anywhere to support their cause. Yes oil is bad in the long term and we do need to wean ourselves off of it, but the realistic way is not to heavily subsidize $100,000 sports cars that weigh 5000 pounds and go 0 to 60 in under 4 seconds.


Just to be clear, about 70% of US oil consumption is for transport.

Therefore personal vehicle use is over 50% US oil consumption.

It's hard to measure it, but c. 1/3rd of US military capability is devoted towards the Middle East (it could be 25%, it could be 50%, as I say it's hard to measure).

It's a low hanging fruit to reduce passenger vehicle oil consumption. In fact if you reduced US transport oil consumption by 2/3rds (not impossible: one of Buffett's railroads is experimenting with Natural Gas powered locomotives, WMT the largest truck operator in the USA with NG powered trucks) then you would more or less abolish US oil imports.
Last edited by Valuethinker on Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Valuethinker
 
Posts: 25444
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby cjking » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:41 am

Who's getting emotional?


I don't really care enough to look back to see who mentioned it and how, but at $100 per year it is too negligible an issue to be worth mentioning at all, as far as I'm concerned. I had the impression someone in the thread was trying to use it as a stick to beat people with, if I'm wong, I'm sorry.
cjking
 
Posts: 1478
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:30 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby Valuethinker » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:43 am

lightheir wrote:I'm ok with subsidizing those $100k sports cars if it's required to jump start an entire sector of new, cleaner technology that benefits US workers. Early adopter technology always costs a lot and someone's got to kick start the market.



We won't settle this here, but this indeed is the rationale for electric car subsidies, and the US is by no means the only western country pursuing them.

And you need to provide references if you actually want to prove that the actually gas subsidy in the US is a mere 22 cents. The mere reality that gas costs nearly double in Europe as what is does here is enough evidence that it's probably not just a mere 22 cents.


Fossil fuel subsidies generally don't lower US gas prices-- because it's a global market, Americans pay roughly the same price for crude oil as everyone else (give or take transport costs, and certain issues around the Cushing Hub vis a vis the price of West Texas Intermediate being depressed because the oil can't get to market).

(if you subsidize a percentage (less than 25%) of the oil which goes into the global 'bathtub' of oil out of which we all buy our crude, the effect on the overall price is very small. More likely it is the oil companies themselves that absorb the subsidy into profits).

As for Europe (and Japan! and South Korea!) and to a lesser extent Canada and Australia the higher gasoline price is about higher taxes.

But to be clear: we also charge 20% VAT on just about *everything* so even if there were no special gasoline taxes, UK gas price would be at least 20% higher than US (it's a usual metric that whatever something costs in USD, it costs the same in GBP ie 1.6 times the US price-- that's largely true for books, electronics, clothes etc.-- however our prices are after 20% VAT). Similarly everything in Canada costs 20% more despite the CAD no longer being 80 cents, but close to 1 USD.
Last edited by Valuethinker on Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Valuethinker
 
Posts: 25444
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby Frugal Al » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:56 am

Valuethinker wrote:Therefore personal vehicle use is over 50% US oil consumption.

Today it's closer to 45%. Regardless, this thread is quickly going off the rails. Focus on actual Tesla costs and we're good.
User avatar
Frugal Al
 
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 10:09 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby Valuethinker » Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:02 am

Jfet wrote:The subsidy is but a small % of the gas price because the USA uses nearly half a billion gallons of gas per DAY.

So if the subsidy is 10B, that is maybe reducing the real price of gas by $0.22 per gallon.

The road taxes we pay on gasoline are far more than this subsidy.

$0.22 per gallon on 4000 gallons is $880

That is a far cry from $10,000 or $23,600.


In economic terms the subsidy would have zero or little effect on US gas prices.

The reason?

Crude oil prices are set by *global* supply and demand. Excepting the WTI weirdness (see previous post, it's about pipelines that don't have capacity at Cushing), the US pays the same price for crude as everyone else in the world.

(as an example home heating oil, which attracts only 5% sales tax in the UK, is about the same price as in the USA ie 60p per litre).

So US oil production and US oil consumption both go into and out of the same 'bathtub' that we all buy our oil from. The only significant differences in crude oil prices are caused by transport costs (and grade: Saudi Light is about the best, Canadian heavy oil about the worst).

Even if the subsidy lowered the cost of the US oil going in, that's only less than 1/8th of daily oil production. Any effect on prices is simply passed on to world consumers (over 80m b/d, vs US production c. 8-10m b/d)-- not US ones in particular.
Valuethinker
 
Posts: 25444
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby Valuethinker » Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:13 am

killjoy2012 wrote:
Jfet wrote:At least there was a recent article about the ultra efficient diesels finally coming to the USA. I would like to see a nice subsidy for those as I might actually consider buying one. Europe has been using them for ages....46mpg and fairly clean.

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/diesel-come ... 47278.html


+1


Not simple for the same reason diesels are not popular in Japan (Japan has an energy conservation fetish-- even before Fukushima).

Air pollution.

Micro particulates are the big thing in air pollution, now, and even the really clean diesels are worse than petrol engines. Studies on death rates of children who live near major roadways or congested urban areas show some pretty grim reading.

We are talking PM 2.5 and even below. Very hard to get out of the exhaust.

Note some European countries do 'subsidize' diesel in that they have lower taxes on diesel (remembering how high our gas taxes are) than on petrol. UK does not, and diesel fuel prices are typically 10p/ litre (ie 16 cents) more than gasoline prices. (there are 3.8 litres in a US gal).
Valuethinker
 
Posts: 25444
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby jdb » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:23 pm

Agree with BigFoot48 and Frugal Al. Offshore asked straightforward question about Tesla Model S. Certainly there are factual reasons to dislike the car starting with price but do not need to ramble on about wisdom of govt subsidies for EV versus subsidies for oil and personality of Elon Musk. Certainly lots of factual reasons to like car starting with performance and safety but do not need to argue whether sufficiently "green". Just the facts Ma'am.
jdb
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby LadyGeek » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:28 pm

Let's stay on-topic and discuss the Tesla S only.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
 
Posts: 20117
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Tesla S

Postby ryuns » Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:17 pm

Back to discussion as an investment, which is interesting in an academic sort of way (I have no intention of ever buying their stock):
An article pointing out the crazy high valuation of the company right now: http://www.usatoday.com/story/driveon/2 ... m/2712119/
And another article pointing out that Tesla actually has had quite a successful year:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense ... _june.html

But it's quite funny--reading the comments on these websites, people are having the same arguments as here, just less politely.
An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered; an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered. -- GK Chesterton
User avatar
ryuns
 
Posts: 3330
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:07 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA. Age: 30

Re: Tesla S

Postby killjoy2012 » Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:33 pm

madbrain wrote:So, does only the short-to-medium term matter to you ? It's not wrong for government to take a long-term view sometimes, and IMO this is one of those cases.


I agree, but I'd argue that fuel cell vehicles are the long term solution -- not EVs, and not a Tesla S. I don't like to generalize, but I think if you spoke to the advanced fuels team at any of the major automakers, they would tell you the same thing. The only reasons EVs are getting the traction is since they're more financially feasible in the short term than fuel cells.

madbrain wrote:Efficiency on the other hand can be, and IC clearly loses on that measure.


ICE vs. a Tesla S electric engine - sure, agreed. However, EV fans like to forget to factor in the energy losses at the power plant related to burning fossil fuels to generate that electricity, the loss during transmission of that power from the plant to your home, battery self-discharge losses when the car sits idle for periods of time and/or gets older, the effect of cold weather on battery performance, etc. EV still wins, but I don't believe the delta is as large as some EV companies state it is. Plus, if you're discussing efficiency in terms of $, not just the pure science, then you also need to factor in the periodic battery replacement costs.

madbrain wrote:So, just because other electric car makes have failed, no one else should even try to improve ?
Did you know Henry Ford started 2 car companies that went bankrupt before he was successful with Ford Motor ?

And you don't really want to talk about the EV1 in the same context as Tesla. Only 465 EV1s were ever manufactured and all found lessees.
Tesla has already sold an order of magnitude more cars, for each of the last 2 quarters.

There is a well-made documentary called "Who killed electric car" I saw in a theater a few years ago. You should watch it. Suffice it to say, GM had no one but themselves to blame for the EV1 failure, and their former CEO, Rick Wagoner, has publicly admitted that killing the EV1 was his worst mistake.


You missed my point. EVs have been done by many companies over the past 100 years - they are not new, and I think most of those companies would tell you that they were trying to improve the tech. Bottom line - EVs are not cost effective vs. ICE today, and then add on the range/recharging/battery life issues that make them even less appealing to the typical consumer. The battery tech isn't quite there yet, and even if it was, it's not in the feasible cost range for a vehicle that can marketed to the masses - not just the richest top 1% that Tesla seems to be going after.

I can't speak for GM, but from what I've read, most owners absolutely loved their EV1s. GM refused to sell EV1s, only lease, due in part to the concerns about battery life, their imminent battery replacement costs (sure to upset owners) and other maintenance & user satisfaction concerns as the vehicles aged.

madbrain wrote:It's spelled California. And as California goes, so goes the country. I could cite any number of societal changes where California led, which are now commonplace and accepted in other states and developed countries, but they would have nothing to do with Tesla S or EVs, and thus, I won't.


California is not representative of the entire US in terms of cost of living, average household income and weather. Affording a $100k vehicle is very different for an engineer working in the Bay area making $200+k/year, than that same person living in the midwest who's likely not even making half that. I'd also like to see you tell someone living in Minnesota, North Dakota, the northeast, etc. that a California winter and theirs are similar. Let's just see how well the Tesla batteries perform when they're 5+ years old, sitting out in -10* F weather during the winter, heaters blaring and their owners needing to do a couple hour drive from home.

madbrain wrote:There were already 50,000 electric vehicles sold in the US last year, and the annual projections for this year are 80,000 based on the first 6 months of the year.


To put that number in proper perspective, the 2012 US automotive market was ~14M units. 50k EVs sold = 0.3% of the market.
killjoy2012
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:30 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby madbrain » Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:51 pm

killjoy2012,

killjoy2012 wrote:ICE vs. a Tesla S electric engine - sure, agreed. However, EV fans like to forget to factor in the energy losses at the power plant related to burning fossil fuels to generate that electricity, the loss during transmission of that power from the plant to your home, battery self-discharge losses when the car sits idle for periods of time and/or gets older, the effect of cold weather on battery performance, etc. EV still wins, but I don't believe the delta is as large as some EV companies state it is.


If you are going to count grid electricity transport losses, then then you also have to account for all the extra energy expended to transport the fuel to the ICE. Fair is fair. The picture gets worse for the ICE, not better.

EVs can charge locally at the home (or business) from solar power with very little loss.

Plus, if you're discussing efficiency in terms of $, not just the pure science, then you also need to factor in the periodic battery replacement costs.


I was only discussing efficiency in terms of energy.

madbrain wrote:I can't speak for GM, but from what I've read, most owners absolutely loved their EV1s. GM refused to sell EV1s, only lease, due in part to the concerns about battery life, their imminent battery replacement costs (sure to upset owners) and other maintenance & user satisfaction concerns as the vehicles aged.


You really should watch the documentary. GM was never committed to the EV1, produced very few of them, and offered them only as leases with no option to buy, ie. long-term rental. The lack of option to buy was one reason I didn't get an EV1. I bought a 2001 Prius as my first car, instead.
If GM actually wanted to really support the car they wouldn't have stopped at the first production run of 465 units in 1999.

madbrain wrote:California is not representative of the entire US in terms of cost of living, average household income and weather. Affording a $100k vehicle is very different for an engineer working in the Bay area making $200+k/year, than that same person living in the midwest who's likely not even making half that. I'd also like to see you tell someone living in Minnesota, North Dakota, the northeast, etc. that a California winter and theirs are similar.


I think you missed my point as well, which is that California sets trends. Incomes are higher in the bay area, but so is the cost of living. And once again, I'm not telling anyone to buy the S at $100k. I don't make $200k a year. The base model S costs $70k, though, not $100k. While I wouldn't spend $70k on any car, some people obviously do.

madbrain wrote:There were already 50,000 electric vehicles sold in the US last year, and the annual projections for this year are 80,000 based on the first 6 months of the year.


To put that number in proper perspective, the 2012 US automotive market was ~14M units. 50k EVs sold = 0.3% of the market.



You are counting light trucks in those 14M which may not exactly be a fair comparison. The cars US market is about 8 million units a year.
It is correct that the proportion of EVs sold nationwide is still small, but it is rapidly increasing.
Hybrids are currently 7% of sales in California and EVs are closing in on 1%. That is fairly remarkable given that there were essentially zero EV sales 3 years ago.
Last edited by madbrain on Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
madbrain
 
Posts: 2782
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:06 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Tesla S

Postby DFWinvestor » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:07 pm

I haven't checked this thread in a good while but it seems to me the naysayers are getting more and more nit picky, to try to find criticisms. Kind of a desperate run to find something not to like about the car or the company.

We have a new car company, producing cars right here in the United States, ramping up production and taking orders to start selling U.S. made cars overseas. With disruptive technology that none of the major players have been able to replicate, nor will they in the immediate future. I just don't understand the opposition by some. Compared to a year ago the naysayers are continuing to shrink in numbers. Last year this time few had even heard of the company.
DFWinvestor
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:05 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby cjking » Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:48 am

killjoy2012 wrote:I'd argue that fuel cell vehicles are the long term solution -- not EV


But a fuel-cell is a type of battery, so a fuel-cell vehicle is a type of EV! One where the battery is recharged with fluid rather than electrons. So you are in favour of EVs with a better type of battery, once the technology is cost-effective. I'd like that to. :happy

Do you think the first commercial fuel cells in cars will run off fossil fuels, or will they use hydrogen? If the latter, they may be open to some of the criticisms made of EVs, that their power is only as clean/efficient as the electricity grid, as (I think) hydrogen is manufactured from electricity anyway, i.e. it is a store of energy, not a source. Well possibly hydrogen will be less efficient, as there are a couple of extra conversions, electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity. I don't know, I suppose someone who knows better will clarify.
cjking
 
Posts: 1478
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:30 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby boroc7 » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:35 am

It is interesting to see how many people are hating on Tesla not because of the aspects of the car, but because of larger political or ideological differences. That's understandable, for sure, but the Tesla is indeed a well made car that far surpasses any of the other auto startups that it has been compared to. I am always surprised though at how many people here do not like disruptive companies or technology.

We respect Vanguard because it was so disruptive and provided a service that fit the needs of a niche market. Not everyone believes or buys in, however. The same could be said of Tesla, because it definitely fits a niche market and has many happy customers, while others certainly will find limitations for the kind of driving needs they have. Arguments against battery technology should look at the hybrid batteries that have served cars well over 200,000 miles over the years and see that Norway is #1 in Tesla sales in Europe, being that they operate very well in extremely cold climates.

If you look at the sales numbers, they are outselling most of the other luxury cars that are in their category, from Lexus to Mercedes to BMW. That is really impressive for a company in its first full year of delivery.

They have a very long way to go, but let's face it, the argument against electric is weakening, with sizable increases in the auto market over the next couple decades.
Last edited by boroc7 on Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
boroc7
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Midwest

Re: Tesla S

Postby zaboomafoozarg » Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:56 am

The Tesla S looks awesome, but I'm not going to buy an electric car until the TCO is equal to that of a gas car.
User avatar
zaboomafoozarg
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby protagonist » Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:58 am

boroc7 wrote:It is interesting to see how many people are hating on Tesla not because of the aspects of the car, but because of larger political or ideological differences. That's understandable, for sure, but the Tesla is indeed a well made car that far surpasses any of the other auto startups that it has been compared to. I am always surprised though at how many people here do not like disruptive companies or technology.

We respect Vanguard because it was so disruptive and provided a service that fit the needs of a niche market. Not everyone believes or buys in, however. The same could be said of Tesla, because it definitely fits a niche market and has many happy customers, while others certainly will find limitations for the kind of driving needs they have. Arguments against battery technology should look at the hybrid batteries that have served cars well over 200,000 miles over the years and see that Norway is #1 in Tesla sales in Europe, being that they operate very well in extremely cold climates.

If you look at the sales numbers, they are outselling most of the other luxury cars that are in their category, from Lexus to Mercedes to BMW. That is really impressive for a company in it's first full year of delivery.

They have a very long way to go, but let's face it, the argument against electric is weakening, with sizable increases in the auto market over the next couple decades.


Good points....not to mention that new technology is always a luxury item, and that is almost a prerequisite to bringing the price down and making the technology affordable. If Tesla is successful it may stimulate the development of affordable options. I imagine if the bourgeoisie didn't buy horseless carriages in the 1890's for fun and to show off, we might still all be going to work on horseback. I would never spend $100K on a car (for "political and ideological" as well as practical reasons), but in the long run it may be a good thing that many others feel differently.
protagonist
 
Posts: 2463
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby Valuethinker » Sat Aug 31, 2013 10:19 am

boroc7 wrote:It is interesting to see how many people are hating on Tesla not because of the aspects of the car, but because of larger political or ideological differences. That's understandable, for sure, but the Tesla is indeed a well made car that far surpasses any of the other auto startups that it has been compared to. I am always surprised though at how many people here do not like disruptive companies or technology.


There were similar threads here and elsewhere about hybrids a few years ago. Now it's reasonably accepted that the hybrid is a viable form of transportation and many of the scare stories did not pan out.

I think it's pure human psychological projection.

What I would say about Tesla and 'disruptive' is that disruptive technologies usually start at a *lower* price point than what they disrupt eg a Personal Computer v. a minicomputer or mainframe. The fact that they don't do as much is held against them, but they create a new market need, by their existence.

We respect Vanguard because it was so disruptive and provided a service that fit the needs of a niche market. Not everyone believes or buys in, however. The same could be said of Tesla, because it definitely fits a niche market and has many happy customers, while others certainly will find limitations for the kind of driving needs they have. Arguments against battery technology should look at the hybrid batteries that have served cars well over 200,000 miles over the years and see that Norway is #1 in Tesla sales in Europe, being that they operate very well in extremely cold climates.

If you look at the sales numbers, they are outselling most of the other luxury cars that are in their category, from Lexus to Mercedes to BMW. That is really impressive for a company in it's first full year of delivery.

They have a very long way to go, but let's face it, the argument against electric is weakening, with sizable increases in the auto market over the next couple decades.


The thing for me about Tesla is that it looks like it is attacking the problem from all the wrong ways (expensive sports car, etc.). HOWEVER I may be completely underrating the thing-- having missed the point (in part about why people buy cars). And they have been clever about developing unique automotive technology which is quite valuable.

I do feel the stock is overvalued, but the company has been run very cleverly, to date. That level of customer enthusiasm for a new product is almost Apple-like.

Watch this space, this story is interesting.
Valuethinker
 
Posts: 25444
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby boroc7 » Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:26 pm

Valuethinker wrote:What I would say about Tesla and 'disruptive' is that disruptive technologies usually start at a *lower* price point than what they disrupt eg a Personal Computer v. a minicomputer or mainframe. The fact that they don't do as much is held against them, but they create a new market need, by their existence.

The thing for me about Tesla is that it looks like it is attacking the problem from all the wrong ways (expensive sports car, etc.). HOWEVER I may be completely underrating the thing-- having missed the point (in part about why people buy cars). And they have been clever about developing unique automotive technology which is quite valuable.

I do feel the stock is overvalued, but the company has been run very cleverly, to date. That level of customer enthusiasm for a new product is almost Apple-like.


I think great technology applied appropriately is always disruptive--and yes certainly there are degrees of disruption. Advanced technology is always initially far more expensive than the mainstream can either afford or want to purchase. Before that PC came a massive mainframe as you pointed out. Tesla's founders always knew that they needed to create a more expensive car because the technology at that point in time was more expensive, as well as probably to brand the car as something desirable (as opposed to what Toyota did with the hideous first gen Prius). But their original goals was not a luxury electric sports car, it was always an affordable middle-class electric vehicle, the Model E--at least that's what we think it will be based on their recent trademark registration. Elon Musk said that car will only be made once battery costs come down some, which he's predicting in a few years. So I'm not sure what other angle they had to choose except to, as many businesses do, start with a niche. I find it disruptive in that many of the high end automakers are trying to figure out how to respond, but certainly not disruptive to people like me who can't afford anything Tesla other than perhaps its shares, which even Musk admits the investors have been generous in its valuation. BMW is the first major competitor with their i3 and i8, again both still expensive, and Volvo's V60 plug-in hybrid in Europe is very popular at the moment.

Tesla's business practices are perhaps the most disruptive of all, however, as they're trying to avoid the "middle man" in the car dealerships. To say it is like Apple is indeed true, since they actually hired Apple's former retail store executive. There is a big state to state battle as the car dealerships are lobbying their representatives, and in the case of Texas (and North Carolina?) they've already banned direct sales. How that demonstrates representatives are looking out for their own voters, I don't know, but it's definitely a challenge to the industry establishment. The hype is also similar to Apple; I haven't seen folks this excited about something that moves since the big cat got loose at the zoo. It does appear to be justified by way of quality, if perhaps not the price tag.

Their supercharger network is another disruptive technology, which is looking to change the infrastructure on how cars fuel up. In one day (this past week), they literally turned on the switches and all of Norway is accessible to 90% of its population.

So no one's sure if Tesla has it in them to keep at it and one day dethrone the major players in number of sales, but they got the snowball rolling and the industry won't ever be the same. GM has created a team of people to study Tesla, which 7 years ago they would've never done, so more power to them. I'm with zaboomafoozarg--I certainly won't be buying one any time soon. But the moment it's affordable for me, I would buy a Tesla or a similar electric car in a heartbeat.
boroc7
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Midwest

Re: Tesla S

Postby Valuethinker » Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:05 pm

boroc7 wrote: .. lots of interesting things.


Thank you. That was very interesting and lots I did not know.
Valuethinker
 
Posts: 25444
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby Frugal Al » Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:38 am

boroc7 wrote:If you look at the sales numbers, they are outselling most of the other luxury cars that are in their category, from Lexus to Mercedes to BMW. That is really impressive for a company in its first full year of delivery.

Only in California, oh, and perhaps Norway. Elon Musk does have a talent for targeting low hanging fruit created largely by public policy. Still, I'm intrigued to see what he can do for the E model.

boroc7 wrote:I am always surprised though at how many people here do not like disruptive companies or technology.

That seems like a hasty generalization to me. Do tell of all the cases please.
User avatar
Frugal Al
 
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 10:09 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby ThatGuy » Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:56 am

Frugal Al wrote:That seems like a hasty generalization to me. Do tell of all the cases please.


Mortgage Backed Securities :D
Work is the curse of the drinking class - Oscar Wilde
ThatGuy
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:00 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby Tycoon » Sun Sep 01, 2013 9:14 am

boroc7 wrote: The hype is also similar to Apple...


This is true.
User avatar
Tycoon
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby etm » Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:57 am

Frugal Al wrote:
ryuns wrote:Here's another interesting study on the subject, but which only looks at GHG emissions: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/a-ro ... 2013-16318

Thanks for that article. Yes, at least some hybrids are greener.
ryuns wrote:Also, who is "stealing" electricity? If you're talking about someone who sneaks a cord from their car to an AC outlet that isn't an approved charging station and without getting the owner's approval, yes, that's stealing. I'm not sure many people would argue with that. Are you suggesting that this is a common practice? I've never seen it done. I've seen plenty of people charging at approved charging stations, both operated as a public service and those that are for-profit, but never from a random outlet. There's a decent chance you could set off a breaker if you tried to charge from an anonymous outlet, which certainly increases one's chances of being identified


It has been identified as a concern by Col. Mulbury of the U.S. Army, in Hawaii (expensive electricity). The article starts part way down the page, titled: Unauthorized Charges. I'm certain it will become more of a problem as numbers increase. Of course none of the well-heeled folks here would ever pilfer electricity :D. http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthre ... ling/page2

The Army warns electric car owners that plugging in a private vehicle at a government outlet is illegal
The question was posed on an Internet forum for Chevy Volt owners: Is it OK to charge your electric car's battery from an open outlet at, say, a public university parking garage?
Col. Douglas Mulbury, commander of U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii, will answer that question for you.
Taking government-procured electricity from any building to charge a privately owned vehicle is illegal, he said.


The same article indicates as least one condo association is concerned as well:
A condominium board in Ottawa fought a resident who was charging his Chevy Volt via a condo outlet, even though the car's owner, Mike Nemat, said it used only about a $1 a night in electricity, CBC News reported in January.
All the residents share the electricity bill, and the condo board said it should not pay for fuel for electric cars because it does not pay for fuel for other cars.
[And that's a much smaller battery than the Tesla has]


The problem with the 'stealing' point of view is that the cost of five employees using $50 dollars a month in electricity to charge their cars pales in comparison to the 10k spent by the General on the annual holiday party or in the case of my company the $3,000 per MONTH we spend on bottled water for employees. Also, in my own department I have several employees who plug in space heaters 8 hours a day because our air conditioning is way too cold and facilities says there is nothing they can do about it. Is that stealing too? Maybe I should force them to wear sweaters? ;) The industrial rate my company pays for electricity is .043 cents. So I charge 1/2 my Chevy Volt battery for .25 cents a day. I throw six bucks a month into our petty cash fund and call it even. If someone wants to look for ways to save money, I'd say looking for EV owners 'pilfering' electricity should be about at the bottom of the list.

Over on Volt forums there are a number of Government workers who would like the cost of their 'plugging in' at work to be deducted from their paycheck. You would think that would be easy. After all, the electric bill for each address clearly shows the cost of the electricity. But in some municipalities laws need to be changed, the city attorney pipes in (What if our electrical line causes damage to your car?), payroll has to be involved, a debate ensues on whether or not the city has design a special 'sticker' to go on your car, etc. It basically becomes a joke if you want to do the right thing and pay for your electricity.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating plugging in without paying. I"m saying that the cost is pretty immaterial in a large organization and organizations aren't making it easy for EV owners who actually want to pay. I'll add one comment about condos. In California state law now prohibits condos from prohibiting the installation of a new 110v or 240v line and charging station (that the owner pays for) to charge their EV. The problem with condos wasn't generally about plugging in 'for free' but prohibiting an owner from installing their own line to pay for their own electricity. Hence the owner was left with no choice. Now you do not need to seek 'approval' from your board to have a line installed for your car.
etm
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 1:31 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby boroc7 » Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:07 pm

Frugal Al wrote:
boroc7 wrote:If you look at the sales numbers, they are outselling most of the other luxury cars that are in their category, from Lexus to Mercedes to BMW. That is really impressive for a company in its first full year of delivery.

Only in California, oh, and perhaps Norway. Elon Musk does have a talent for targeting low hanging fruit created largely by public policy. Still, I'm intrigued to see what he can do for the E model.




They do dominate California, but it's not just there. In the first half of the year they grabbed a very impressive chunk of U.S. luxury auto market share. And they've barely begun internationally.

http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-grabs-8-4-of-luxury-vehicle-sales-in-us-in-first-half-of-2013/
boroc7
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Midwest

Re: Tesla S

Postby Diogenes » Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:02 pm

I highly doubt many buyers are picking up a Tesla S as their only vehicle. Once that happens, and it hits the lease market, has a good resale value, and sells for 35K with no charging on the road worries, it will hit mainstream. Perhaps two or three models down the road, we will see. I am concerned however that the economics of placing superchargers around is just not there. What is that business model for rolling those out? How will they make money as each supercharger station costs about $300K to build? What would happen to the value of the car is this network falters or Tesla goes under?
I suppose it would be the same if one small unknown company operated all the gas stations on the interstate. Thankfully that is not the case.

Nope, I won't be buying a Tesla S at the moment. It is not like Apple when you could throw down a couple thousand for something called a Macintosh when it was new and take a risk. It is a $100K gamble. Also, if the gamble pays off by it hitting mainstream, it really will not be the best investment as future Teslas will almost certainly sell for less, not more. Who would buy a used old model?

_D_
User avatar
Diogenes
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:58 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby chrischris » Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:26 am

I like to wave at Tesla drivers as they pass me. I appreciate the risk they take to advance our transportation system. I am no tree huger, but I am confident there is a better way to move my rear end to work and back each day (63 mile commute).

Sure the current Model S is not a "Boglehead Vehicle" (ie: not a used Toyota Camry with a billion miles) but the technology inside the vehicle is truly amazing and represents the closest thing my generation has seen toward moving away from fossil fuels (I'm 27 years old).

I find it funny to listen to an average person who suggests electric cars will never be feasible due to the fact they need to be recharged. Gas stations have been around for numerous decades. If mankind can figure out how to process oil into gasoline, distribute it out (and maintain supply) to multiple gas stations all over the country, don't you think there might be a better way to do things half a century later?

I drive a 2012 Mazda 3 hatchback (basic model). It is very comfortable and has nice features. I average 34 mpg (highway and city, 40 mpg on highway roadtrips). Of course I only paid $19,900 plus tax for the vehicle, but if Telsa can make a hatchback with the range of the Model S for $30k in 5 years, I might be a buyer.

Either way I don't see internal combustion engines being the primary mode of transportation in 50 years. I have no idea what will take over.
chrischris
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:25 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby TomatoTomahto » Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:10 am

I'm sure that there was a time when it was easier to get your horse shod and fed than it was to get gasoline. Onwards.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
 
Posts: 2971
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby letsgobobby » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:44 am

Not a tree-hugger, and not a car guy at all. Still the Tesla, or at least the idea of the Tesla, really inspires me. I look forward to their new innovations and hope they will succeed in bringing a sub - $50,000 vehicle with 200+ mile range to the market.
letsgobobby
 
Posts: 7262
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:10 am

Re: Tesla S

Postby boroc7 » Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:19 pm

Diogenes wrote:Nope, I won't be buying a Tesla S at the moment. It is not like Apple when you could throw down a couple thousand for something called a Macintosh when it was new and take a risk. It is a $100K gamble. Also, if the gamble pays off by it hitting mainstream, it really will not be the best investment as future Teslas will almost certainly sell for less, not more. Who would buy a used old model?

_D_


We're comparing Tesla to Apple in terms of innovation and its influence on the marketplace. Nobody is rationally comparing the actual products themselves as they are in completely different industries and at very different price ranges. I'm not sure what the gamble is, as no boglehead considers a car as an investment. Cars are bad investments, period.

Who would buy a used old model? Apparently Elon Musk. With all that said, it's a better "investment" than any other luxury car:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/03/elon-musk-tesla-resale-guarantee/2133389/

I should add the caveat that I recently read classic/collectible cars have some of the highest returns.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/classiccars/8841453/Classic-cars-a-better-investment-than-gold.html
boroc7
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Midwest

Re: Tesla S

Postby boroc7 » Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:25 pm

chrischris wrote:I like to wave at Tesla drivers as they pass me. I appreciate the risk they take to advance our transportation system. I am no tree huger, but I am confident there is a better way to move my rear end to work and back each day (63 mile commute).

Sure the current Model S is not a "Boglehead Vehicle" (ie: not a used Toyota Camry with a billion miles) but the technology inside the vehicle is truly amazing and represents the closest thing my generation has seen toward moving away from fossil fuels (I'm 27 years old).

I find it funny to listen to an average person who suggests electric cars will never be feasible due to the fact they need to be recharged. Gas stations have been around for numerous decades. If mankind can figure out how to process oil into gasoline, distribute it out (and maintain supply) to multiple gas stations all over the country, don't you think there might be a better way to do things half a century later?

I drive a 2012 Mazda 3 hatchback (basic model). It is very comfortable and has nice features. I average 34 mpg (highway and city, 40 mpg on highway roadtrips). Of course I only paid $19,900 plus tax for the vehicle, but if Telsa can make a hatchback with the range of the Model S for $30k in 5 years, I might be a buyer.

Either way I don't see internal combustion engines being the primary mode of transportation in 50 years. I have no idea what will take over.


I hear ya. I'm a millennial with the same vehicle as you, and who recently had for a couple years a 45 mile (each way) commute. I really do appreciate what they are doing to the marketplace. For many reasons (including financial), it's in my long term plan to have my home on solar and an electric vehicle to power.
boroc7
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Midwest

Re: Tesla S

Postby killjoy2012 » Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:34 pm

madbrain wrote:EVs can charge locally at the home (or business) from solar power with very little loss.


Math please - show your work. A solar solution that will provide anything even close to a reasonable recharge time is going cost you significantly more than the vehicle itself. And that assumes you live in a part of the country where that level of production is even feasible year-round. And overlooks silly technicalities like the fact that most people would need to charge their EVs overnight (when the sun isn't out).

This is about as practical as me burying some trees & plants in my backyard today, and then waiting a 1000 years for them to turn into "free" oil for my ICE.


DFWinvestor wrote:I haven't checked this thread in a good while but it seems to me the naysayers are getting more and more nit picky, to try to find criticisms. Kind of a desperate run to find something not to like about the car or the company.

...

With disruptive technology that none of the major players have been able to replicate, nor will they in the immediate future.


It goes both ways. There's plenty of fanatics defending an unproven company with unproven technology at any cost - both financially and logistically. I've listed plenty of sound rationale above. For example, if you call not having a Tesla dealer within 300 miles &/or a 4 hour drive from my home "nit picky", then I guess I'm nit picking. :oops: If I did own a Tesla and had a problem with it, I couldn't even drive it to the dealership on a full charge!

I disagree with your assessment of the other "major players". I think the other players realize just how small the market is for a $100k vehicle, let alone an EV that's currently a PITA to live with compared to ICE, and have determined it's just not worth their time right now. Way too much investment/risk for a very small payoff. Telsa is producing what? 2k units per month? That's nothing - Toyota produces about as many Camry's in a single day. And when the Feds decide to stop subsidizing EV purchases, let's see what happens to sales.


boroc7 wrote: but the Tesla is indeed a well made car that far surpasses any of the other auto startups that it has been compared to.


The company is barely 10 years old, has only produced a vehicle for last 5 years (assuming you're counting 2008-2010'ish), and just turned it's first profitable month this year. A $100k car better be well made... in someone's opinion, anyway.


Diogenes wrote:I highly doubt many buyers are picking up a Tesla S as their only vehicle.


Exactly. No one who is rich enough to be able to buy a $100k EV is going to be stupid enough to have it as their only car. They will still have that evil ICE for when EVs are impractical.
killjoy2012
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:30 pm

Re: Tesla S

Postby madbrain » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:24 pm

killjoy2012 wrote:
madbrain wrote:EVs can charge locally at the home (or business) from solar power with very little loss.


Math please - show your work. A solar solution that will provide anything even close to a reasonable recharge time is going cost you significantly more than the vehicle itself. And that assumes you live in a part of the country where that level of production is even feasible year-round. And overlooks silly technicalities like the fact that most people would need to charge their EVs overnight (when the sun isn't out).


My solar system puts out more than enough kW for charging. In fact, the speed of charging is limited by my Nissan Leaf's onboard level 2 charger which only drinks 3.3 kW, whereas my solar system has peak production of 8 kW. The solar production stays at over 3.3 kW for well over the 2-4 hours that my car needs to charge every day on average. Even on a cloudy day like yesterday.

However, charging in the daytime directly from solar makes little financial sense, since I get paid much more by the electric company during daytime for what I put into the grid.

I use net metering for solar and charge the car at night from the grid, then put energy into the grid in the daytime.

In theory, one could do much faster DC charging directly from the solar panels, without any DC-AC inverter, into the car's DC fast charging connection, and without any connection to the grid.
The Tesla S supercharger is a DC connection. My Nissan Leaf has a Chademo connection which is also DC.
This would have the least energy losses. But the financial incentive to do so is not there.

This is about as practical as me burying some trees & plants in my backyard today, and then waiting a 1000 years for them to turn into "free" oil for my ICE.


Given the very high electricity rates in California, my solar system only has a 7.5 year payoff period, even with the much higher solar prices I paid a little less than 3 years ago. The total system cost a total of $31,000 after subsidies. $26k in October 2010 for 28 panels, and another $5k in October 2012 for a 12 panel expansion.
Without solar, my average grid cost for electricity would be 31 cents/kWh due to the way the tiered billing system works.
The solar system has produced a total of 35 MWh to this day, which has already saved me about $11,000 in electric bills.
It will save even more going forward since my consumption has increased due to having an EV for which the consumption would have been billed in the highest tier.

I disagree with your assessment of the other "major players". I think the other players realize just how small the market is for a $100k vehicle, let alone an EV that's currently a PITA to live with compared to ICE, and have determined it's just not worth their time right now. Way too much investment/risk for a very small payoff. Telsa is producing what? 2k units per month? That's nothing - Toyota produces about as many Camry's in a single day. And when the Feds decide to stop subsidizing EV purchases, let's see what happens to sales.


You really need to stop referring to the Tesla S as a $100k vehicle. The base model is $70k, before incentives.
The $7500 federal subsidy is about 11% of the price. I suspect the impact on Tesla S sales will be small if/when this subsidy disappears. The impact would be much greater on a Nissan Leaf S, which is $28k before incentives, and where the federal subsidy represents 27% of the price, or a $34k Chevy Volt, where it is 21% of the price. For those smaller and less expensive vehicles, the subsidy currently makes the differences between viability or not. But this is just not so for the Tesla S.
Last edited by madbrain on Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
madbrain
 
Posts: 2782
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:06 pm
Location: San Jose, California

PreviousNext

Return to Personal Consumer Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], Bing [Bot], boater07, Exabot [Bot], jjbiv, nbseer, seash, vad4705 and 47 guests