5 ms·

Tesla Is Pulling Back from EV Charging, and People Are Freaking Out

34 points by gnicholas 2y ago

gnicholas 2y ago
I guess now that they're no longer the only beneficiary of their network, they aren't as invested in its success. They may also believe that the federal government, and possibly states as well, will offer incentives for them to continue building it out. Everyone knows that their network is more reliable than other chargers, and if the EV charging infrastructure doesn't improve it will severely hamper EV sales. If CA or the feds want their EV adoption goals to be feasible, they will need to subsidize chargers, and especially the supercharger network.
- asadotzler 2y ago
  Both California and the federal government are already heavily subsidizing EV charging networks. Just a few months ago CA approved another $1.9 billion of what will be several billion spent on charging facilities. The national government has dedicated about $7 billion. Tesla's total spend so far on charging is probably $2-3 billion so we're talking about 3-4 times the Tesla investment coming from one state and the national government.
- jader201 2y ago
  > they aren't as invested in its success > if the EV charging infrastructure doesn't improve it will severely hamper EV sales These two statements are at odds. They should be invested in its success for this exact reason. We’re already seeing sales for EVs decline, and I think one of the main reasons — if not the main reason — is the lack of charging infrastructure. It has to improve, or Tesla in particular will be hurting. The other manufacturers can still pivot back to ICE/hybrids. Tesla can’t.
  - gnicholas 2y ago
    To clarify, I mean that they aren't as invested in its success as they previously were. Previously, every dollar of investment paid off in terms of hooking people on the Tesla brand. Now that's not the case. The second statement, about bad infrastructure impeding EV sales, is consistent with this. But Tesla doesn't care as much about total EV sales as about Tesla's EV sales. The people who do care about total EV sales (and therefore about cross-platform chargers) are government officials who have set goals for EV adoption. My guess is that these officials will see that they're not going to make those goals with the current infrastructure, and offer additional incentives/subsidies. At that time, Tesla can re-invest in their charger network.
    - jader201 2y ago
      I’m not sure if it’s wise for Tesla to play chicken with the government. It hasn’t had the best track record with policies around new technology. If they’re betting on the government to pick up the torch and carry it forward, they better be right. They have more to lose than anyone else if they’re wrong.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - root_axis 2y ago
    > We’re already seeing sales for EVs decline, and I think one of the main reasons — if not the main reason — is the lack of charging infrastructure. I think cost and rage is the real problem. Electric motors are super fun to drive but the best among them can barley crack a 200 mile range under typical driving conditions whereas the best hybrids can triple that comfortably. The EV math just doesn't add up for most people.
    - asadotzler 2y ago
      Chinese EVs are coming out with 1000 km ranges this season. 500 miles in any weather will be available in mid and high end vehicle in a few years in the US. That's twice the distance I get in my $40K 2019 ICE vehicle. That CATL Shenxing PLUS 1000 km battery can charge for 375 miles in 10 minutes or the full 620 miles in 16.6 minutes. I spend about 3-4 minutes to fill up for about 200 miles in my Mazda once a week (live rural so always try to fill up at or above quarter tank) so for commuting, this is getting awful close to ICE levels of time spent fueling. I'd charge at home mostly, because home ownership is a luxury I possess, but even if I used fast chargers exclusively, I could charge for a month of commuting in two 15 minute sessions or I could gas refuel in four 3.5 minute stops. Stopping at all is a hassle and so the extra stops for the ICE vehicle would balance out the extra 15 minutes per month charging. But again, I'd use home charging most of the time and reserve the fast charging in town for rare cases and for long-haul trips. For regional trips, for example from the Bay Area to San Diego, Las Vegas, maybe even Portland, they can be done on a single charge. For longer trips, stop off at a 7-11 every 4-5 hours, take a piss, buy some snacks, and in 10 minutes you've got another 375 miles. You could go from San Francisco to New York City in 8 stops. That's a 3 day trip so two stops are at hotel stays and free leaving you with 6 stops of 10 minutes each to cross the country. I don't see any hardship there at all compared to ICE travel. This all depends on 205 Wh/kg batteries arriving for US EVs. Even if the CATL battery pack doesn't make it to US EVs, some other pack will within a few years I'm sure. By 2030, I think for mid-sized and above cars, range will not be an issue. For small cars, where the batteries cannot be as large, people living in apartments without charging at work will have a slightly less convenient experience than with ICE. By 2035 when ICE vehicles are phased out, I expect even compact cars to have enough range and fast enough charging that everyone will be covered pretty well.
- root_axis 2y ago
  Probably reasonable for the government to step in at some point anyway. If EV adoption continues the charger network will become critical infrastructure.
  - asadotzler 2y ago
    They have stepped in. CA is putting almost 3 billion towards charging infra and the feds are putting in about 7 billion. That'll be 3-4 times what Tesla put into its network.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Government could subsidize the legacy auto joint venture Ionna. Less likely to go all wild card on them at a moment’s notice. More chargers are needed, but they need not be Tesla manufactured, branded, or operated as long as they have high uptime and support the NACS plug. https://ionna.com/ https://ionna.com/
- bdcravens 2y ago
  This is where the conflict between Elon's politics and Tesla becomes interesting. It's little surprise that based on what he has said publicly, Elon wants Trump back in power, but I don't think that bodes well for government investment in EVs.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jader201 2y ago
More discussion from yesterday: Tesla conducting more layoffs, including entire Supercharger team (259 points, 611 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40209382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40209382
aeternum 2y ago
Tesla no longer effectively donating EV charging infrastructure to competitors. Except even that isn't true, they still are sharing their EV charging infrastructure with all competitors and are still building it out just at a slower pace with more focus on charger uptime. And a pace which is still faster than all other US EV competitors.
- peutetre 2y ago
  > Tesla no longer effectively donating EV charging infrastructure to competitors. They weren't donating anything to anyone. EV drivers pay money for the kilowatt hours they use at Tesla's chargers. Tesla has been doing exactly this in Europe for a long time. All brands of EV charging networks should charge all brands of EV. No mess, no fuss. I can fuel my ICE car at any fuel station and I should also be able to charge my EV at any charging station. That's just a common sense infrastructure outcome. Europe achieved it. One day North America will too.
  - gnicholas 2y ago
    Does Tesla charge different rates to non-Tesla owners? Previously they could structure their pricing in a way that made it advantageous to buy a Tesla, but if they are now required (perhaps by regulation or agreement) to charge all vehicle owners the same rate, that means that keeping their rates low helps all EV owners, instead of just Tesla owners. It's not surprising they aren't investing as much under these circumstances.
    - peutetre 2y ago
      > Does Tesla charge different rates to non-Tesla owners? Yes.
  - aeternum 2y ago
    They were and still are effectively donating capital. It take quite awhile to make a return on EV charging investment especially since EVs are relatively rare and EV charging tech is relatively new and requires a lot of maintenance to keep running (primarily consistent internet connectivity is a challenge). Capital is expensive right now and it's almost certain that Tesla is not making a profit on EV charging, thus "donating" since a good EV charging network is necessary for EV adoption.

34 points by gnicholas 2y ago

I guess now that they're no longer the only beneficiary of their network, they aren't as invested in its success. They may also believe that the federal government, and possibly states as well, will offer incentives for them to continue building it out. Everyone knows that their network is more reliable than other chargers, and if the EV charging infrastructure doesn't improve it will severely hamper EV sales. If CA or the feds want their EV adoption goals to be feasible, they will need to subsidize chargers, and especially the supercharger network.

asadotzler 2y ago
Both California and the federal government are already heavily subsidizing EV charging networks. Just a few months ago CA approved another $1.9 billion of what will be several billion spent on charging facilities. The national government has dedicated about $7 billion. Tesla's total spend so far on charging is probably $2-3 billion so we're talking about 3-4 times the Tesla investment coming from one state and the national government.
jader201 2y ago
> they aren't as invested in its success > if the EV charging infrastructure doesn't improve it will severely hamper EV sales These two statements are at odds. They should be invested in its success for this exact reason. We’re already seeing sales for EVs decline, and I think one of the main reasons — if not the main reason — is the lack of charging infrastructure. It has to improve, or Tesla in particular will be hurting. The other manufacturers can still pivot back to ICE/hybrids. Tesla can’t.
- gnicholas 2y ago
  To clarify, I mean that they aren't as invested in its success as they previously were. Previously, every dollar of investment paid off in terms of hooking people on the Tesla brand. Now that's not the case. The second statement, about bad infrastructure impeding EV sales, is consistent with this. But Tesla doesn't care as much about total EV sales as about Tesla's EV sales. The people who do care about total EV sales (and therefore about cross-platform chargers) are government officials who have set goals for EV adoption. My guess is that these officials will see that they're not going to make those goals with the current infrastructure, and offer additional incentives/subsidies. At that time, Tesla can re-invest in their charger network.
  - jader201 2y ago
    I’m not sure if it’s wise for Tesla to play chicken with the government. It hasn’t had the best track record with policies around new technology. If they’re betting on the government to pick up the torch and carry it forward, they better be right. They have more to lose than anyone else if they’re wrong.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- root_axis 2y ago
  > We’re already seeing sales for EVs decline, and I think one of the main reasons — if not the main reason — is the lack of charging infrastructure. I think cost and rage is the real problem. Electric motors are super fun to drive but the best among them can barley crack a 200 mile range under typical driving conditions whereas the best hybrids can triple that comfortably. The EV math just doesn't add up for most people.
  - asadotzler 2y ago
    Chinese EVs are coming out with 1000 km ranges this season. 500 miles in any weather will be available in mid and high end vehicle in a few years in the US. That's twice the distance I get in my $40K 2019 ICE vehicle. That CATL Shenxing PLUS 1000 km battery can charge for 375 miles in 10 minutes or the full 620 miles in 16.6 minutes. I spend about 3-4 minutes to fill up for about 200 miles in my Mazda once a week (live rural so always try to fill up at or above quarter tank) so for commuting, this is getting awful close to ICE levels of time spent fueling. I'd charge at home mostly, because home ownership is a luxury I possess, but even if I used fast chargers exclusively, I could charge for a month of commuting in two 15 minute sessions or I could gas refuel in four 3.5 minute stops. Stopping at all is a hassle and so the extra stops for the ICE vehicle would balance out the extra 15 minutes per month charging. But again, I'd use home charging most of the time and reserve the fast charging in town for rare cases and for long-haul trips. For regional trips, for example from the Bay Area to San Diego, Las Vegas, maybe even Portland, they can be done on a single charge. For longer trips, stop off at a 7-11 every 4-5 hours, take a piss, buy some snacks, and in 10 minutes you've got another 375 miles. You could go from San Francisco to New York City in 8 stops. That's a 3 day trip so two stops are at hotel stays and free leaving you with 6 stops of 10 minutes each to cross the country. I don't see any hardship there at all compared to ICE travel. This all depends on 205 Wh/kg batteries arriving for US EVs. Even if the CATL battery pack doesn't make it to US EVs, some other pack will within a few years I'm sure. By 2030, I think for mid-sized and above cars, range will not be an issue. For small cars, where the batteries cannot be as large, people living in apartments without charging at work will have a slightly less convenient experience than with ICE. By 2035 when ICE vehicles are phased out, I expect even compact cars to have enough range and fast enough charging that everyone will be covered pretty well.
root_axis 2y ago
Probably reasonable for the government to step in at some point anyway. If EV adoption continues the charger network will become critical infrastructure.
- asadotzler 2y ago
  They have stepped in. CA is putting almost 3 billion towards charging infra and the feds are putting in about 7 billion. That'll be 3-4 times what Tesla put into its network.
toomuchtodo 2y ago
Government could subsidize the legacy auto joint venture Ionna. Less likely to go all wild card on them at a moment’s notice. More chargers are needed, but they need not be Tesla manufactured, branded, or operated as long as they have high uptime and support the NACS plug. https://ionna.com/ https://ionna.com/
bdcravens 2y ago
This is where the conflict between Elon's politics and Tesla becomes interesting. It's little surprise that based on what he has said publicly, Elon wants Trump back in power, but I don't think that bodes well for government investment in EVs.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jader201 2y ago

More discussion from yesterday: Tesla conducting more layoffs, including entire Supercharger team (259 points, 611 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40209382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40209382

aeternum 2y ago

Tesla no longer effectively donating EV charging infrastructure to competitors. Except even that isn't true, they still are sharing their EV charging infrastructure with all competitors and are still building it out just at a slower pace with more focus on charger uptime. And a pace which is still faster than all other US EV competitors.

peutetre 2y ago
> Tesla no longer effectively donating EV charging infrastructure to competitors. They weren't donating anything to anyone. EV drivers pay money for the kilowatt hours they use at Tesla's chargers. Tesla has been doing exactly this in Europe for a long time. All brands of EV charging networks should charge all brands of EV. No mess, no fuss. I can fuel my ICE car at any fuel station and I should also be able to charge my EV at any charging station. That's just a common sense infrastructure outcome. Europe achieved it. One day North America will too.
- gnicholas 2y ago
  Does Tesla charge different rates to non-Tesla owners? Previously they could structure their pricing in a way that made it advantageous to buy a Tesla, but if they are now required (perhaps by regulation or agreement) to charge all vehicle owners the same rate, that means that keeping their rates low helps all EV owners, instead of just Tesla owners. It's not surprising they aren't investing as much under these circumstances.
  - peutetre 2y ago
    > Does Tesla charge different rates to non-Tesla owners? Yes.
- aeternum 2y ago
  They were and still are effectively donating capital. It take quite awhile to make a return on EV charging investment especially since EVs are relatively rare and EV charging tech is relatively new and requires a lot of maintenance to keep running (primarily consistent internet connectivity is a challenge). Capital is expensive right now and it's almost certain that Tesla is not making a profit on EV charging, thus "donating" since a good EV charging network is necessary for EV adoption.