Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 281 posts

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#81

Post by tjoff »

Osiris wrote: post #77
spullara wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is actually pretty insightful — pretty easy to get back the $3 that it costs. I can definitely see "free charge with purchase".

At $0.11/kWh, the Roadster at 53kWh would take almost $6 to completely fill. Though if these stations charge using solar power and store the power in a battery pack to discharge when a car hooks up, it could potentially cost them a lot less than $0.11/kWh, depending on the cost of building the station itself.

Solar will hardly be efficient enough, unless you'd have a whole solar farm beside each station...

Also add maintenance of all those batteries and I bet you'd have a really hard time to motivate solar for economical reasons.

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#82

Post by sliverstorm »

Osiris wrote: post #77
spullara wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is actually pretty insightful — pretty easy to get back the $3 that it costs. I can definitely see "free charge with purchase".

At $0.11/kWh, the Roadster at 53kWh would take almost $6 to completely fill. Though if these stations charge using solar power and store the power in a battery pack to discharge when a car hooks up, it could potentially cost them a lot less than $0.11/kWh, depending on the cost of building the station itself.

Tack on to that the increased capacity electric vehicles are going to have to have, as well as the increased electricity prices I am expecting when ten million Americans are charging their cars.

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#83

Post by evride »

brc wrote: post #29

Personally, I get annoyed when a company takes an existing term with a defined definition, and then decides to change the meaning. A supercharger is a mechanically driven air compressor which forces air into an engine. For a car company to take that name and redefine it into a marketing effort, well, it's annoying. Kind of like those 'turbo' buttons that used to be on the front of a PC.

Maybe they should have called the 'original' supercharger a "mechanical air compressor" instead of supercharger since the connection between the term and the definition is pretty weak, while Tesla's supercharger is an actual charger that charges more quickly than your average charger... making it 'super.'

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#84

Post by lgbr »

ericd wrote: post #62
surrealize wrote: post #50

Making a "charging station" that could take the place of an existing gas station would be huge feat of engineering. When I go from the SF bay area down to LA, I get gas at kettleman city (because of the in-n-out :) and I go to the chevron station there. From google street view, it looks like that station can fuel 12 cars at a time. And when I'm there, there's often a line for a pump. A gas stop takes, say, 2 minutes.…

The interesting thing is that people will mainly be charging at home, though, and will never need to visit a charging station - the car will be topped up every morning when you leave for work. So the number of fillups needing to be done at a station should be much lower. But an interesting point otherwise! I'd guess that the marginal cost of the plugs is low enough that it's feasible, though.

But the number of people needing to fill up at this station and others just off of major freeways wont change. The people filling up/charging at these stations are in the middle of a trip and probably did charge while they were at home.

Furthermore, the range on even the Tesla Model S is half that of your typical car, so fillups are even more frequent. This could mean that highway stops have twice as many people needing to recharge.

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#85

Post by 001sky »

jlgreco wrote: post #65
001sky wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, in the case you propose, Tesla would be creating installations in urban environments. This type of "development" kills their credibility on "green" or environmentalism, etc. Is this kind of thing better than hydropower?

Hydropower is pretty gnarly from an environmental standpoint. And I doubt the land they are using would otherwise remain undeveloped.. it is an urban area after all. Perhaps solar in previously undeveloped areas would be better? I doubt that. Developing solar plants in undeveloped areas only to put the charging stations in urban areas (that is where the market demands them after all) hardly seems better than putting…

Hydropower is clean and renewable. Dams are already built, etc. Everything has its tradeoffs, though. Remote solar and wind take up lost of room and are eyesores. Grid connects require large-scale duplication/new assets. But, I think we need less sprawl generally, so I find it hard to support, in particular, urban development where better use could be made of the land.

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#86

Post by sliverstorm »

dave1619 wrote: post #3

I was looking forward to this announcement and watched the live announcement. The most interesting/surprising parts of the announcement to me was: 1. Superchargers are already deployed in California. Nice work, Tesla, for building it out and proving it works. 2. The whole U.S. will be covered in a few years. Great for traveling cross country. 3. It's solar-powered. I wonder if they have a electricity backup... probab…

In regards to #4:

1) Tesla isn't making money right now, so what's a little more money they don't have?

2) If Tesla goes bankrupt, what do they care about promises about free charging? If they don't go bankrupt, they will make it big, so what will they care about a few free charges? Practically zero-risk.

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#87

Post by [deleted] »

sbierwagen wrote: post #35
ph0rque wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another possible revenue stream is free for Tesla owners, and not free for other electric cars that support the "nozzle" (if Tesla allows others to use the same nozzle design).

The connector on the vehicle is proprietary, but there's an OEM adapter to use SAE J1772 connectors. (like the charging station near Google Kirkland: http://tmblr.co/ZStnmwKlXAF8 )

[deleted]

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#88

Post by zevyoura »

brc wrote: post #29

Personally, I get annoyed when a company takes an existing term with a defined definition, and then decides to change the meaning. A supercharger is a mechanically driven air compressor which forces air into an engine. For a car company to take that name and redefine it into a marketing effort, well, it's annoying. Kind of like those 'turbo' buttons that used to be on the front of a PC.

I understand your frustration, but I think "supercharged" and "turbo" have entered the popular lexicon.

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#89

Post by surrealize »

ericd wrote: post #62
surrealize wrote: post #50

Making a "charging station" that could take the place of an existing gas station would be huge feat of engineering. When I go from the SF bay area down to LA, I get gas at kettleman city (because of the in-n-out :) and I go to the chevron station there. From google street view, it looks like that station can fuel 12 cars at a time. And when I'm there, there's often a line for a pump. A gas stop takes, say, 2 minutes.…

The interesting thing is that people will mainly be charging at home, though, and will never need to visit a charging station - the car will be topped up every morning when you leave for work. So the number of fillups needing to be done at a station should be much lower. But an interesting point otherwise! I'd guess that the marginal cost of the plugs is low enough that it's feasible, though.

Right, I guess I should have said, replacing a mid-long-haul gas station (like the kettleman city one) would be a substantial effort.

If this type of electric car becomes a mass-market thing, there would be less of a need for gas stations near home (as you say). But the number of cars needing fill-ups on long haul routes would be just as large, so the gas stations on those routes would have to be much larger if the occupancy time at them is that much higher.

Re: Tesla reveals Supercharger network, Free Fill Ups

#90

Post by jlgreco »

001sky wrote: post #85
jlgreco wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydropower is pretty gnarly from an environmental standpoint. And I doubt the land they are using would otherwise remain undeveloped.. it is an urban area after all. Perhaps solar in previously undeveloped areas would be better? I doubt that. Developing solar plants in undeveloped areas only to put the charging stations in urban areas (that is where the market demands them after all) hardly seems better than putting…

Hydropower is clean and renewable. Dams are already built, etc. Everything has its tradeoffs, though. Remote solar and wind take up lost of room and are eyesores. Grid connects require large-scale duplication/new assets. But, I think we need less sprawl generally, so I find it hard to support, in particular, urban development where better use could be made of the land.

If there is anything this continent (or world, for that matter) is lacking, it is space.

That said, I think we should be plastering the land we already use with solar panels. Might as well put all those rooftops to use.

I also think there is likely a lot to see in the future of non-panel-type solar. That generally involves a much larger or smaller scope than panels though, "medium" sized doesn't work well.

Post reply on HN