These responses are pretty funny to me because I got all these questions over a YEAR ago when I first bought the car. The fact is that a lot of thinking has gone on by people much smarter than you or me to solve these issues.
Laugh all you want. The problems are real and you are kidding yourself about the costs, IMO.
You're other questions are rather ignorant, IMO.
It's a good thing your opinion doesn't mean much to me.
Do you know how solar even works?
I dare say I know exactly how it works and solar itself doesn't preclude using the power grid, necessarily. If someone tells me it costs Tesla nothing to operate (it would still cost them to build and maintain) as it is SOLAR, one would assume they are not using power from the grid. Now you tell me they are. Even so, whether they come out ahead or not on any given day will depend on demand. This is true of all solar along with how big the solar cell network is and of course how sunny it is. In other words, solar doesn't work as well in Ohio as it does in Arizona. Here, you can't hope more than to break-even over the life of the system given current prices to install and the typical weather, even subsidized.
But even so, let's say for sake of argument their charging stations currently break-even or thereabouts. What happens when you add more customers? It won't break even any longer and you'll have a line at the charging stations. Solution? Build more stations. Again, they're not free and solar cells take up space. Try to find free space in Manhattan, for example (hell try to find a gas station there; the land is so expensive it's not profitable to run one). The point is these charging stations are anything but free. They have to be costing Tesla millions to set up and someone is going to pay for them. Guess whom that might be? That would be YOU and your $40k premium on what is actually a $30k gas-equivalent sedan.
The batteries aren't $40k.
Who said they were? I was talking about the $40k difference in price between a gas powered sedan of equal quality and your electric wonder. You are paying about $40k more for the privilege of using a "FREE" charging station on a few of the U.S.'s freeways and you actually think they're "FREE". Unbelievable.
As was mentioned earlier, they are $12K and dropping every year. Unlike gas which goes up every year. Ten years ago, battery technology might have cost $100K, today it is $12K. Ten years ago, gas was a buck, today it's $4. Do you see a trend here? Which side do you want to be on?
I want to be on the side of reason and not paying the price of a freaking mid-western house for a lousy sedan. I can get a nice sporty BMW 3 series (e.g. 328i) for less than 1/2 the cost of that base model with very similar power. 6-8 years and it will pay for itself? With a 50% charge range of 150 miles and at least 20 minutes for a stop on limited freeway locations or you might have to swap batteries to speed it up (assuming you can find a location that does that)? Sorry, but this technology isn't ready for prime time yet. If you want to waste your money on something you THINK is green, go ahead. I know that most power plants are still using fossil fuels like coal and natural gas or produce radioactive waste like nuclear. That's supposed to be SO much better than burning gasoline or clean diesel? No, it's only that way in the minds of people who don't think the whole process through from start to finish and only look at the end product (the car)'s exhaust and some "free" charging stations.
Now you can compare your car to a Mercedes or Rolls Royce or Porsche or whatever high-end status symbol you want due to its cost, but don't pretend this thing is either green or a good investment per traveled mile. It isn't. Trying to watch you guys polish a turd isn't funny. It's sad.
Power companies are cleaning up their act not because they want to be green but because it is profitable. Natural gas is abundant and cheap (fracking) and coal is becoming too expensive to mine.
No, they're cleaning it up because they were mandated to clean it up. They're switching to natural gas because it's cheaper, but you don't mention the down side of fracking like the waste waters they use to pump into the wells and the companies that LIE and illegally dump that waste (like they did in Ohio recently) or the fact that earthquakes are being regularly caused by fracking (I experienced one of these myself a couple of years ago and two more when I was in Oklahoma on business last month. OMG! Where's these earthquakes coming from, they say on the news. It's a mystery. No, it's not. They're centered on the wells. When you lubricate the plates down in the earth, like any lubricant, they slide easier. Instant earthquake. They should try fracking on the San Andreas fault. It's time to rebuild LA and San Francisco into a newer more modern city anyway, right? There's no costs in rebuilding from earthquake damage. All those cracked foundations near fracking wells. The oil and gas industry are going to pay for those, right? No, they deny it's their fault and slip the politicians some money to look the other way. There's your "green" future.
Guess when I charge 95% of the time?
At night from 11pm-7am when electricity rates are the lowest and also
Yeah, I fill the car up when it's getting low and the rates are same at night as in the day. Some people work night shift. They have to drive at night. They couldn't charge at night if they wanted to.
when I'm sleeping. Guess when the grid has plenty of excess capacity. Yes,
And that won't change if/when MILLIONS need to charge their cars at night? I think you'll find the excess capacity leaning towards the day time if that happens since it will STILL overload the grid. You are living in a dream world where about 200 of you in your area own this car and don't tax the grid for squat. Move that into the millions and I guarantee the grid will be inadequate and your "free" charger stations will have a line and you won't be able to get to it or use it in any kind of timely matter.
Electric cars might be nice for a place like Hawaii, where there is plenty of natural energy (geo-thermal, tides) and a relatively small population and very small distances to drive. It works less well in large cities or in areas with long distances to drive. But there's still the question of where the power that makes the electricity comes from if you want to push the green angle.
The fact is the grid can handle it.
Yes, it can handle it right now with hardly any users. It CANNOT handle a large part of the population switching to electric without massive upgrades to the grid and that's a fact.
For those who need to charge during the day, solar power assists the utility in creating more energy supply that is tied to the grid.
So Tesla uses a few solar stations. What about that Electric Leaf? Can it use Tesla's free stations? No. Again, try making electric work for large partsof the population with the grid, charging times and distances involved. It starts to fall flat. Now get a version that runs off a fuel cell when it's past its range (whether gas or hydrogen powered) and you've got a model that actually can work, assuming the costs can be made reasonable. Right now they cannot and that's why you don't see hydrogen fuel cell cars all over the place. All electric doesn't work well period, IMO. Our progress with batteries has been abysmal over the years. Fuel cells are improving, however.
pack and it will be cheaper in 8 years. How much does an engine rebuild cost? How much are e all those BMW parts that you have to replace every 60-80k miles? Trust me, I've owned BMWs, Porsches, and Mercedes. They are maintenance nightmares after you put some miles on it. And labor isn't cheap either.
If you need to rebuild an engine every 60-80k miles, you're doing something HORRIBLY WRONG to your vehicles. You might want to try a cheaper brand if those high-end ones are that freaking unreliable. Even my old 1988 Cavalier Z24 (first car) needed hardly anything done to it over its 130k life (before some lady ran a light and totaled it). I think I had one ECU module ($300) go bad plus two sets of spark plugs, a fuel filter, three batteries and regular oil changes and gas. That's it. Adjusted for current prices, it might have cost $40k to run over 16 years and 130k miles brand new (I actually bought it at 4 years old for $6k with 42k miles, so it was really more like $27k for me over 12 years. That's not the best car in the world, but it's a FAR FAR cry from $85-95k to run the
base model Tesla over the same period and mileage and assuming one battery change in that time. Switch to a BMW 328i comparison, and you're still looking at $60k vs $95k and I dare say that car is no nicer than a BMW at best.
My last WRX had 80k on it when I traded it in and it needed NOTHING done to it but oil changes, a set of tires, one gas filter and spark plugs and one brake job over that 80k miles and 7 years. It still ran like it was brand new. I traded up to a newer model with more power and still got over half what I paid for the previous car back in a dealer trade. In short, that car cost me $8k plus gas/oil for 7 years use and it had 227HP. My current WRX is still worth over 80% its initial cost (real world cost vs current blue book), has 305HP and only 22k miles after 3 years and has cost me nothing but different tires (immediate change), oil changes and gas, thus far. I could trade it in for a brand new one of the same grade (Limited Edition) right now for about $6k-7k depending on the dealer's willingness to bargain (got the last one for $6k under retail because I paid CASH). That's $2k a year or $166 a month, a better deal than the 180HP non-turbo Impreza it's based on could be leased for and I have the limited edition plus a few other upgrades (subwoofer, etc.). No, it's not a luxury ride. It's an AWD all-terrain rally sports car, but I've got nearly every luxury feature you can think of anyway from leather heated seats, mirrors and windshield wipers to a moon roof and HID headlights. But it rides closer to a Corvette than a Cadillac. It also gets to 60mph in 4.7 seconds stock and it's easy to push that up once the warranty is up next month.
But hey, for an extra $60k (~3x the cost), I could have had about the same performance Tesla S with perhaps a nicer interior, but no AWD. In fact, it's rear wheel drive which is terrible for areas with a lot of snow. Sorry, but that alone is a big FAIL for me, regardless of cost. It's why I didn't consider a Mustang GT or even a Corvette or Boxster. They're 3 season cars at best unless you like being terrified driving to work in a blizzard. My friend has a Corvette, but he only drives it in nice weather. He has two other vehicles for daily driving for him and his wife (Avalanche and Cadillac).
BTW, I noticed you completely removed my comments around the Nissan Leaf. Do you still hold an opinion that EVs are only for rich people when you can get a Leaf for $25K and lease for $199 a month?
I can get a Subaru Impreza for $199 a month to lease to with more power, the safety of AWD for bad weather and no range limitations and it can get a good 40mpg on the freeway even so. You have even more limitations with that car over
any kind of distance. In other words, it's not worth even talking about.
For that matter, I can get a used Prius for $15k. I don't WANT one. Notice how my comparisons are with cars that have similar power. I cringe every time I get behind a Prius on the freeway ramp. I wonder if I'll even be going 40mph by the time it's time to merge at 70mph.