Tesla Model S, Third Fire

[NiHaoMike]

Governments do enough through tax incentives to try and make people buy EVs. The problem is that the cars aren't there yet except for the terribly expensive ones Tesla is making. The best selling electrical cars are plugin hybrids which will probably run mostly on fuel.

There's the Nissan Leaf, a very affordable EV with a 100 mile range. And with the Volt getting 40 miles of EV range, most of them are in fact operating as EVs for commuting.

Note that it's possible to get nearly 100 MPG without resorting to EV or even hybrid technology. http://aerocivic.com/ Therefore, I argue that even for those who regularly drive too long distances for an EV to be practical, EVs indirectly benefit them by encouraging the development of hybrids and other energy efficient vehicles that do work for long distance.

[Rufus]

Like NiHaoMike says: What needs to be done is to put more taxes on fuel and people will start to buy efficient cars they actually can afford today.

He didn't say that he said tax the hell out of cars that do less than 25 mpg. More tax of fuel would encourage efficiency and reduced fuel use all round in a proportionate way while taxing 'gas guzzlers' regardless of how much gas they actually use is just taxing un-green thought.

[nctnico]

People said free charging for life wasn't sustainable. But look at the energy usage. That's standing at just over 2 million kWh. At a bulk rate of $0.06/kWh (average is $0.11/kWh) that's $120k. If Tesla has sold ~20,000 vehicles that's about $6 per vehicle over 1 yr of usage.

Wow they are some crazy numbers - $6 at $0.06/kWh is 100kWh or 1.5 x 67kWh batteries worth. So your ROI and cost predictions are based on Tesla owners supercharging less than once every 6 months...

In the NL it costs about €10 to €15 for one fast charge at Fastned. Currently they have 4 out of 200 stations operational. So far for 'free' charging. Its expensive as well. With a €15 euro charge you can get about 150km. I can drive my own diesel car 200km for the same amount of money spend on fuel.

[free_electron]

Superchargin is and will always be free for any tesla car.
Tesla doesnt pay for energy. Their partner solarcity has massive sola plants that sell elfctricity to the grid. That paus off the installation and then power is free...

[nctnico]

Only the more expensive Tesla cars include free charging. Besides that it is expensive to put something along a highway over here. So far the Tesla chargers operational in the NL are therefore not along a highway but on an industrial zone near a highway exit. In order to charge you'd have to get off the highway. look for the charging station, etc. The Fastned chargers OTOH are located along the highway so they are much easier to reach.

[Robomeds]

With that data included we are spending over $10k per Tesla, not including the EV credits CA is extorting out of other car companies.  And who are we subsidizing?  Buyers of $100k cars.

Sorry, but you are demonstrably wrong.
Tesla's state of the art manufacturing plant in California, the huge push for better and higher volume battery technology (didn't they just single handedly double the world's supply of lithium batteries?), the push for better (and local) motor and control technology. And I'm sure the list is endless.

No, not in this case. 
Tesla didn't double the supplies of any Li-ion batteries.  They might have increased demand but not supply.  But my point wasn't so much that they don't have any technology.  But that wasn't my point.  I'm not really arguing about the quality of the product, I'm arguing about having to pay for it.  Tax breaks for Tesla buyers (and Volt, and Leaf and before them Prius buyers) effectively force others to help pay for a car.  Even worse, in this case we are talking a very expensive car.  The $10k number is easy to come by.  Currently the Tesla qualifies for a $7500 tax credit (ie most buyers will pay $7500 less in taxes when buying one thus the rest of us make up the difference). 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/05/27/if-tesla-would-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/06/03/teslas-success-is-the-result-of-political-favoritism

[EEVblog]

I'm not really arguing about the quality of the product, I'm arguing about having to pay for it.  Tax breaks for Tesla buyers (and Volt, and Leaf and before them Prius buyers) effectively force others to help pay for a car.  Even worse, in this case we are talking a very expensive car.  The $10k number is easy to come by.  Currently the Tesla qualifies for a $7500 tax credit (ie most buyers will pay $7500 less in taxes when buying one thus the rest of us make up the difference). 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/05/27/if-tesla-would-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/06/03/teslas-success-is-the-result-of-political-favoritism

I don't hear you complaining about the subsidies for ICE cars and petrol?

[free_electron]

Only the more expensive Tesla cars include free charging. Besides that it is expensive to put something along a highway over here. So far the Tesla chargers operational in the NL are therefore not along a highway but on an industrial zone near a highway exit. In order to charge you'd have to get off the highway. look for the charging station, etc. The Fastned chargers OTOH are located along the highway so they are much easier to reach.

the 85KWh comes with supercharger by defaut.
on the 60KWh it is a 2000$ option , but it is possible.

[Robomeds]

I'm not really arguing about the quality of the product, I'm arguing about having to pay for it.  Tax breaks for Tesla buyers (and Volt, and Leaf and before them Prius buyers) effectively force others to help pay for a car.  Even worse, in this case we are talking a very expensive car.  The $10k number is easy to come by.  Currently the Tesla qualifies for a $7500 tax credit (ie most buyers will pay $7500 less in taxes when buying one thus the rest of us make up the difference). 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/05/27/if-tesla-would-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/06/03/teslas-success-is-the-result-of-political-favoritism

I don't hear you complaining about the subsidies for ICE cars and petrol?

Tell me about the specific subsidies and then we will talk.  Please address why it is OK to force tax payers to subsidies a car that cost as much as a Porsche 911. 

[EEVblog]

Tell me about the specific subsidies and then we will talk.  Please address why it is OK to force tax payers to subsidies a car that cost as much as a Porsche 911.

I posted a link with a typical figure, you can go look up the references.
I do not know the US system off-hand.
For gas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing

[EEVblog]

Please address why it is OK to force tax payers to subsidies a car that cost as much as a Porsche 911.

I've explained that. Because I think it is important to enable and foster new technologies and markets like this, and if that requires subsidies (as the massively entrenched auto industry likely does), then so be it.
Remember this is NOT about Tesla, it's about electric cars from ALL manufacturers.

[free_electron]

Tell me about the specific subsidies and then we will talk.  Please address why it is OK to force tax payers to subsidies a car that cost as much as a Porsche 911.

Nonsense and blatant lies !

It is NOT 'the taxpayerS' <- note the 'S' , plural.

It is the PERSON BUYING the Electric vehicle (ANY EV , not just tesla) getting a portion of, his ALREADY PAID TAXES, back at the end of the year.

That money does NOT come out of OTHER people's pockets. Nobody, but the buyer of the vehicle, pitches in a single dime.
If the buyer only pays 4000$ in taxes he can't get more than that back. There is an upper limit of 7500$.

I get the full 7500 back because i have paid far more than that in taxes to begin with. I pay slightly over 30.000$ in taxes a year. So this year i will only pay 22500$ in taxes.

 So before you keep whining about a tax break : let's see how much you put in the tax bin.

[Robomeds]

Tell me about the specific subsidies and then we will talk.  Please address why it is OK to force tax payers to subsidies a car that cost as much as a Porsche 911.

I posted a link with a typical figure, you can go look up the references.
I do not know the US system off-hand.
For gas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing

I'm not a fan of big oil subsides either.  However, those are not direct subsides for the sale of a car.  Those are energy subsides, not direct subsidies.   Those government handouts also help other parts of the energy sector.  Tesla might talk about solar but they still need energy to charge the cars.  The solar is subsidized, so is the oil. 

In the end it still doesn't excuse the money I'm being forced to pay to help people by $100k cars.  Pointing out that I wasn't complaining about those subsidies is unfair as you couldn't tell from my posts how I feel about that subject. 

Regardless, I would like to see Tesla stand on their own to feet.  I don't like to see CA and other governments forcing car companies to make EVs (thus artificially creating a market for Tesla's EV credits) nor forcing the tax base to help pay for luxury cars. 

[free_electron]

In the end it still doesn't excuse the money I'm being forced to pay

YOU ARE NOT PAYING MONEY ! NEITHER IS ANYONE ELSE
what does it take to make you understand that ?

[Robomeds]

Tell me about the specific subsidies and then we will talk.  Please address why it is OK to force tax payers to subsidies a car that cost as much as a Porsche 911.

Nonsense and blatant lies !

It is NOT 'the taxpayerS' <- note the 'S' , plural.

It is the PERSON BUYING the Electric vehicle (ANY EV , not just tesla) getting a portion of, his ALREADY PAID TAXES, back at the end of the year.

That money does NOT come out of OTHER people's pockets. Nobody, but the buyer of the vehicle, pitches in a single dime.
If the buyer only pays 4000$ in taxes he can't get more than that back. There is an upper limit of 7500$.

I get the full 7500 back because i have paid far more than that in taxes to begin with. I pay slightly over 30.000$ in taxes a year. So before you keep whining about a tax break : let's see how much you put in the tax bin.

Lies?
Wow.  That is awfully defensive and totally uncalled for.  I would suggest you learn more about tax credits.  They ARE a form of subsidy.  They are not direct as in the IRS takes the money from all of us and then gives it to you.  However, all of us still pay.  Bills have to be paid.  If you pay less then others have to make up the difference.  It's like splitting the bill at a restaurant but having one person take back some money in the end. 

Yes, I will grant you that if you made no money and bought the car, say out of savings, then you wouldn't get the $7500 back.  However, most (all?) Tesla buyers will get that $7500 back thus less money in the government chauffeurs.  Unless we cut spending to make up for that tax break, well others have to pay more so you can pay less.  BTW, many of the subsidies Dave is referring to are actually tax breaks, not handouts. 

This is at the state level but hits the point
http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2013/06/new_hampshire_court_agrees_tax.php#.Uru3r7Rn2ZE
The Court sensibly notes that if “money that would otherwise be flowing to the government is diverted” for private ends, that is essentially the same as direct government spending. This shouldn’t be news to anyone familiar with the “tax expenditure” concept—the notion that a $1 million tax break for a specific business is not meaningfully different from government writing a $1 million check to the same business.

Now, you can dislike that I'm not a fan of subsidizing you but please the liar comment was uncalled for especially given that at least some state courts agree with me.   

[Robomeds]

In the end it still doesn't excuse the money I'm being forced to pay

YOU ARE NOT PAYING MONEY ! NEITHER IS ANYONE ELSE
what does it take to make you understand that ?

Yes, yes I am, and so is the public at large.
http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2013/06/new_hampshire_court_agrees_tax.php#.Uru3r7Rn2ZE
The Court sensibly notes that if “money that would otherwise be flowing to the government is diverted” for private ends, that is essentially the same as direct government spending. This shouldn’t be news to anyone familiar with the “tax expenditure” concept—the notion that a $1 million tax break for a specific business is not meaningfully different from government writing a $1 million check to the same business.

[zapta]

YOU ARE NOT PAYING MONEY ! NEITHER IS ANYONE ELSE
what does it take to make you understand that ?

Nice try. You pay 7.5K less because you buy a product the government likes. The national deficit grows by 7.5K, the government takes a 7.5K loan from China and we, the tax payers will need to pay it back.

What you say is that if the government will cut my own taxes by 90%, nobody should care about it because it is my money anyway.  Sounds good to me, let's do it now.

[Robomeds]

Please address why it is OK to force tax payers to subsidies a car that cost as much as a Porsche 911.

I've explained that. Because I think it is important to enable and foster new technologies and markets like this, and if that requires subsidies (as the massively entrenched auto industry likely does), then so be it.
Remember this is NOT about Tesla, it's about electric cars from ALL manufacturers.

I'm not a fan of picking the winners in DC.  Too often what the government thinks is the right answer turns out to be a costly mistake.  If the time is right the car should be able to stand on its own.  Right now it seems people would be willing to pay the extra $7500.  BTW, I was also against the Prius subsidies and the Volt subsidies.  As an example, why did the Civic hybrid get tax breaks but a gas only car getting the same mileage wouldn't?  Why shouldn't the VW Golf get the same break?  It gets the same mileage. 

[zapta]

I don't hear you complaining about the subsidies for ICE cars and petrol?

Just as bad, but the EV subsidies are significantly higher per vehicle.

Subsidies are bad and often corrupt. This is the way politicians play favors with other people money. If the technology is viable it will succeed without subsidies.  EV fans have hard time to separate between the coolness of the technology and the immorality of taking money from citizen A to give to citizen B.  My impression is that  the EV proponent doubt that the technology will succeed on its own. For example, somebody mentioned earlier that Tesla cars are in huge demand but he still supports keeping the heavy subsidies. 

I understand that the EV thing is very important to some people and that they want to get my tax money to support it but so there are thousands of other causes and just as passionate advocates. Want to support a cause? Please do it with your own money. It is that simple.

[mtdoc]

Tell me about the specific subsidies and then we will talk.

Link I posted earlier:

Energy subsidies

Oh,  and then there is  this $4 trillion dollars.

Can anyone other than a neocon really argue with a straight face that our military misadventures in the mideast are not about ensuring access to oil?  One can argue that 911 itself would not have happened without our oil dependence.  Bin Laden's stated reason for attacking the US was due to our presence in Saudi Arabia.

Please address why it is OK to force tax payers to subsidies a car that cost as much as a Porsche 911.

Look, any subsidies, however relatively small, that encourage development and transition to an EV and renewable energy based economy is in everyone's interest - or at least anyone who wants transportation more sophisticated than a horse and buggy 50 years from now.

I'm all for free market economics but your kidding yourself if you think that exists in the US at the present time.  The oil and gas industry, as well as ICE auto industry are extremely powerful have (historical fact) and will (with lawmakers in their pockets) continue to do all they can to squash any competition. 

[Robomeds]

Tell me about the specific subsidies and then we will talk.

Link I posted earlier:

Energy subsidies

Oh,  and then there is  this $4 trillion dollars.

Can anyone other than a neocon really argue with a straight face that our military misadventures in the mideast are not about ensuring access to oil?  One can argue that 911 itself would not have happened without our oil dependence.  Bin Laden's stated reason for attacking the US was due to our presence in Saudi Arabia.

Please address why it is OK to force tax payers to subsidies a car that cost as much as a Porsche 911.

Look, any subsidies, however relatively small, that encourage development and transition to an EV and renewable energy based economy is in everyone's interest - or at least anyone who wants transportation more sophisticated than a horse and buggy 50 years from now.

I'm all for free market economics but your kidding yourself if you think that exists in the US at the present time.  The oil and gas industry, as well as ICE auto industry are extremely powerful have (historical fact) and will (with lawmakers in their pockets) continue to do all they can to squash any competition.

I won't disagree with any of this in general but the middle east stuff is very complex.  I'm not naive enough to think the US is a true free market.   

BTW, I happen to like EVs and have since I drove my first one in 1997.  That doesn't mean I'm a fan of paying for other people's EVs. 

[SeanB]

So basically the problem is the politicians who wrote the regs. Next election do something about it. Vote for anybody other than the incumbent ( Don't actually care who or whatever) , get at least 2 others to go and vote and get them to vote for anybody_but_the_present_occupier. New ones get to fix the mess before they get totally corrupted by the others.

[free_electron]

  They ARE a form of subsidy.

it's not a subsidy unless other peoples money is involved

  They are not direct as in: the IRS takes the money from all of us and then gives it to you.

finally you got it.

 

Bills have to be paid.  If you pay less then others have to make up the difference.

who says the difference needs to be made up ? maybe the government is ok with having overall less income. ? ( i know this is a long shot and very unlikely )

Unless we cut spending to make up for that tax break,

That is a whole other can of worms.

The problem is that the government has x amount of income and y amount of expenses. If they decide to return a portion of x, to an individual , not to surpass the amount said individual contributed to x , that is their prerogative. Just like they can decide to spent every dime i contributed buying another cruise missile to shoot up a goat's ass in afganistan.

I didn't ask for that return. Neither did Tesla.
It does not apply only to tesla. It applies to ALL Electric vehicles. So hammering only Tesla about it is not right.  That is why i am on the defense about it. It is for ALL electric vehicles. Don't single out Tesla.

If only tesla buyers would get this 'perk' it would be unfair, and i would agree to that. But it is a measure to stimulate the uptake of ALL and ANY electric vehicle. I don;t know who's idea it was to create this measure , but i leave that up to you and go complain to those guys ! You have a vote in the elections.
Even if there was no such an incentive i would still have bought the Tesla.

Now, if this means that they need to increase taxes overall that means this i too will have to pay more taxes overall. The one time break i got will be more than recuperated over my lifespan. i got 40 more years to live ( if i make it to 83 , which is median age these days ) If i work another 20 years i'll be forking over another 600.000$ in income taxes to the government. Add on sales tax on anything i buy and you end up well over 1 million dollar i still will pay to the government in my lifetime. That 7500 break is an ants piss in the bucket.

Let's see, there were 131,543,000 taxpaying individuals in the US in 2009 ( i looked it up) . That means , according to your claim , each saw his taxes increased by
0.0057 cents because i bought a car. Hmmm that is a unit of money that is too small to deal with. Let's see ...

There were 26000 Tesla's sold this year. That gives 26000x 0.0057 or 148 cents. So 1.48$ of ALL the taxes you paid this year (income,property,sales) was sent back and split amongst these 26000 car buyers.

If it is  a problem : gimme your adress, i'll mail you a check for 1 dollar and 48 cents. So i'll pay not only my portion of the 1.48$ from your taxes,  but i'll  also be paying the portion you lost for the other 26000 Teslas that were delivered.
I leave it up to you to figure it out for the Volt's , Leaf's and other EV's and go after those guys. It ain't gonna be worth the postage stamp you slap on it.

Ten do a little calculation on the money spenton the middle east wars Iraq1, iraq2 and afganistan , divide by the number of taxpayersandsee howmuch they grabbed from you… do the same for the bank and detroit and freddy mac/fanny mae disasters … that 0.0057 cents will pale by that number

The Court sensibly notes that if “money that would otherwise be flowing to the government is diverted”

I am not a lawyer but : My money DID flow to the governemt. I have paid the taxes i owed. I will get a REBATE (not a 'break') on next years return.

I see a tax break as : you don't have to pay em. I bought a car and i dont pay any tax on it. in this case the money never flowed to the government.

A rebate : i have paid taxes, not only on the car but on my total income, and i will get a rebate on that next year. The money did flow to the government. they keep it and they may return a portion of it . so yeah you can see that as an expense. an expense that may need to be covered by money coming from elsewhere. like from other tax i, and others, pay. I gave em the money in the firstplace. it is now theirs to decide what they do with it.

Don't bash Tesla or Tesla buyers, Bash the government !

That is what irks me. Because i can afford a Tesla , buy one , pay my taxes and get a small portion back i am getting fingers pointed at me. ' You are getting money from taxpayers' , 'we all have to pay more taxes because of you'. So now i am the bad guy ?
i did not ask for this rebate, i did not make this law , that rebate doesn't even cover the sales tax i paid on that car ! Go yell at the government that makes these rules. Use your vote to show your displeasement. But don't point fingers at me , or Tesla or any other electric vehicle.


i know it is nitpicking.

the notion that a $1 million tax break for a specific business is not meaningfully different from government writing a $1 million check to the same business.

That doesn'tline up. if the government were to write me a 7500$ check for no reason then you are right to complain. Why should i get 7500$ and others not? Because they like me? If they gave some other dude that money I'd be complaning too ! They gave waymore than 7500$ to General motors  which squandered it and is again on the verge of bankruptcy… They gave billions to banks to bail them out. I didn't approve that either. Wanna have a reason to raise your bloodpressure ? There you have one . the big bank bailout. Goldman sachs and Bank of America and the others.. And All the car makers in detroit that haven't returned a penny , niethor of the principal nor the interest owed, and are still in dire straits ...

In the case of buying an EV the government RETURNS a portion if what i gave them in the first place. That 7500$ doesn't even cover the sales tax owed on the car ! I paid that sales tax, just as i pay my income and property tax. So what is being refunded is a portion of the sales tax on the car. Sales tax i gave the government in the first place. MY money. not anyone else's. If they'dgive me back more than what i gave them , then i would agree it had to come from someone else.

If, by returning, this means they have to raise taxes overall.. that is another problem. That you have the right to complain about, but not to me, not to tesla or not to other EV buyers. Complain to the government that you don't like having to pay more. Complain they should not be returning the 7500$. Note the usage of the word 'returning' and not the word 'giving'.

That is the key difference.
You can only RETURN something to someone if you got it from them in the first place.
You can give something to someone , if you got it from somewhere else.
if giving or returning imbalances your budget and you need to raise taxes, expect people with pitchforks at your front door. Damn, i'd be angry too. I will see my taxes raised because of the other 25999 Tesla's and the 40.000 Leaf's and 30000 Volts sold.

If you really find a reason to get angry : get angry on the non-Tesla EV buyers. They reclaim more than the sales tax on the vehicle they bought ! They come out in the positive !

[Corporate666]

The best selling electrical cars are plugin hybrids which will probably run mostly on fuel.

Sorry, but this is just the same old crap as always.  There is plenty of data out there that shows that plug-in EV's run mostly on battery.  But why let facts get in the way of a biased opinion?

The ICE car industry is far from doomed. I travel a lot through Europe and the availability of bio-fuel increases steadily. Next year I plan to replace my car and ethanol readiness/convertability is definitely a concern for the 'new' car. Instead of waiting for technology to become available/affordable (which is still uncertain) I gradually reduce my fossil fuel consumption based on proven technology available today.

EV's today are based on proven technology available today.  The argument that EV's should not be produced until they can be produced cheaply is, frankly, idiotic.  How do people think technologies get cheaper?  It happens through R&D and volume.  I remember when plasma TV's came out and they were $40,000USD.  And now, you can buy a superior unit for 1/100th of that amount.  People who suggest EV's should be on the back burner until they are cheaper are either being disingenuous, knowing manufacturing and technology doesn't work like that, or they really just don't understand economics or business at all.

Besides that there is still a lot which can be improved on the efficiency of ICE based cars to enhance mileage. A lot of ICE based cars out there are awfully inefficient. Getting those replaced will cause an enormous reduction in the use of fuel and CO2 emissions. Lets improve the way we use current technology first and then see if we really need something new. Like NiHaoMike says: What needs to be done is to put more taxes on fuel and people will start to buy efficient cars they actually can afford today.

...or we could push for EV's, which allows the production of the necessary energy to be domestic and does not do huge economic harm by needlessly taxing fundamental parts of the economy.  They are also massively cleaner. 

You may see the ICE based car industry as entrenched and some kind of Goliath that needs to be taken down. IMHO that idea is wrong. The ICE car industry knows very well the oil is going to run out and they are looking for alternatives otherwise they'll simply go out of business. They can't make oil out of thin air. They also can't make affordable cars which run on thin air so there has to be a compromise to make a gradual change. In Europe car manufacturers are facing a new (more reliable) test cycle to determine fuel efficiency in 2017 and a very strict average CO2 emission limits in 2020. Basically their nuts are already between a vice which is gradually tightened. David has done his job already in Europe.

The supply of oil will never, ever, ever run out.  Ever.  Not in 100 years, or 1,000 years or 10,000 years or 100,000 years.  Never.  Economics and supply/demand simply does not work like that.

What we will be seeing are increasingly efficient cars which can run on fuel blends with an increasing amount of bio-fuel in them. That should give 20 to 40 years to get to sustainable electricity production and the battery technology to a point where an EV is viable and affordable for everyone. The fact most big car manufacturers seem to have given up on EVs is a big sign on the wall though. If they could produce an EV which people can afford they certainly would have done that. Due to the numerous tax incentives it would have given sales a more than welcome boost.

Why would we push people away from something that works today (EV's) to something that doesn't (biofuel), then the latter has the same problems of pollution and distribution and availability and subidies?  Makes no sense at all.  Furthermore, technology doesn't get cheaper because more is spent refining it - it gets more expensive.  It gets cheaper by getting it out in the market.  Trying to tinker with the market to prevent EV's from coming to light for 20-40 years would just make them infinitely expensive which is what some folks want to see happen because of their confirmation bias.

Tesla may be succesful in a niche but don't let yourself get fooled by that. They have to spend serious money (probably dwarfing the development budget for the Model-S) to create an economy model and then they'll run into the same problems as the 'big' car manufacturers: they have to compete with ICE based cars in a market where people look at the price first. To make things worse tax incentives will only go so far. When more EVs are on the road governments will look for income from EVs as well. For example: in the NL people will have to pay tax for EVs purchased after the 1st of Januari 2014. Shortly after that we'll probably see road taxes based on the distance travelled (those plans have been postponed a few times because the technology isn't ready).

There is no "may be" about it.  Tesla *is* successful, and their "niche" is growing rapidly.  And expanding.  Rapidly.  Much to the chagrin of some, it appears.

[Corporate666]

In the NL it costs about €10 to €15 for one fast charge at Fastned. Currently they have 4 out of 200 stations operational. So far for 'free' charging. Its expensive as well. With a €15 euro charge you can get about 150km. I can drive my own diesel car 200km for the same amount of money spend on fuel.

What Fastned charges is irrelevant.  You can pay one of the service companies to deliver fuel to you at a cost of 100 Euro whenever you break down - so your tank of gas actually costs 120 Euro.

"Ridiculous, I don't pay 120 Euro for a few liters of fuel".  Exactly.  And people don't pay 10 Euro for an EV charge.  That Fastned charges that is as irrelevant as the fact that the fuel service people will charge you 120 Euro.  You buy fuel at a competitively priced station.  And you charge your EV at a competitively priced location as well (likely home).