Tesla Model S, Third Fire

[EEVblog]

Same here, a significant number (1000s) of people do not have garages and park on the street.

So what's your point?
These people don't buy an EV, easy.
My garage is pretty small, so I was limited to buying a car that fitted. It was the main buying decision.
I don't know why people who's lifestyles and usage scenario don't fit EV's, use this as an excuse to complain that EV's are crap.

[dr.diesel]

EVERYONE has a garage

So what's your point?

Simply that the above statement couldn't be more wrong.  There are many 2000+ sq ft houses here with incomes > $100K without garages.  I see Corvettes, BMWs etc outside with 6" snow all the time, cause they don't have garages.

f_e statement said everyone has a garage, not that everyone with the income available to buy one has a garage.  And as you'll read, I'm a fan of EVs, I'd buy one myself if I wasn't going 100% off the grid in the near future.

[nctnico]

Same here, a significant number (1000s) of people do not have garages and park on the street.

So what's your point?
These people don't buy an EV, easy.
My garage is pretty small, so I was limited to buying a car that fitted. It was the main buying decision.
I don't know why people who's lifestyles and usage scenario don't fit EV's, use this as an excuse to complain that EV's are crap.

That was never the point. The assumption everyone can charge an EV at home is just wrong. Many people will have to rely on public charging points when EVs are getting mainstream. It depends a bit on where you live but in the NL for example land is very scarse so a private parking spot is very expensive to have. Besides that many households have more than one car. Even in the posh neighbourhoods you'll find cars parked on the street.

In my opinion the whole idea of charging at home won't work in the long run and people will have to pay a lot more per kWh from the public charging points than for the electricity at home. Fastned for example is going to invest 20 million euro to build 200 charging stations along the highways in the Netherlands. That investment has to turn into a profit somehow.

[tom66]

Public charging has to be high power DC - 50kW or more, ideally 100kW+ - to be of much use. Using level 2 chargers is just too slow, with the exception of a few scenarios like chargers outside hotels and parks.

A 100kW AC-DC converter is not cheap and is very unlikely to fall in price, so this is why it makes more sense for car manufacturers to build the network over ordinary private companies which want to sell subscriptions. Tesla could foot a $100m bill for a US-wide supercharger network without charging a dime in subscription fees because they can justify the cost as helping to market the vehicles.  Also, I suspect the first Tesla-powered car (like RAV4-EV, Merc B class EV, etc.) which isn't neutered by a silly 100 mile range could have use of the supercharger network, though I doubt it will be free. So there's opportunity down the line to make money there too.

How long till someone hacks the Tesla charger connector? Five pins: DC+, DC-, Pilot, GND and a mystery pin. The car controls the charger; the chargers are just told to output a specific voltage with current limits. Software monitors for any anomalous conditions and cuts the contactor if that occurs. There's evidence that they use RF signalling over the DC bus but that seems overly complicated when they have extra pins on that connector.  Free supercharging for any Leaf! Hope they can cope with 120kW into their little pack with just air cooling...

[free_electron]

  The Tesla is an impressive product.  Too bad they aren't doing it without forcing the non-buyers to help those buying luxury cars.

Dude, you are barking up the wrong tree and you are again spreading falsehoods !

Tesla isn't forcing anything !
The tax return is for ALL electric vehicles and is a program created by the government. GOVERNMENT

You may not agree with what the government decided to do , and i fully understand that. No problem there. There's plenty of things the government spends money on that i don t like either.

But stop hammering Tesla and other EV makers . It's not their fault nor their decision.
Go complain to the government that you don't agree with their policies.
That is the tree you should be barking at.

[free_electron]

Some report that after a fully charged battery they're unable to regen until after a few miles of use. Also, a very cold battery limits regen to under 10kW. The only indication is a dotted line on the power meter.

I'd like to see the option of a large power resistor as and when the regen is unavailable but I'm not sure how practical a 60kW resistor in a car would be. It would have to surely be liquid cooled though that system is already available.

Correct, that is by design. If you range charge (100% charge) then the regen will not work until at least 10% of the battery has been used. There is simply no place to dump the recycled energy.

I went to half moon bay yesterday. The 92 is a long climb and then a sharp , steep downhill u bend.
At top of the hill :114 miles range.  Rolling downhill required no additional braking and i could maintain the 50mph with ease. At the bottom of the mountain: range: 119miles. At moments the regen indicator hovered between 50 to 60 kilowatt being pumped back in the pack. That is substantial power...

[echen1024]

Some report that after a fully charged battery they're unable to regen until after a few miles of use. Also, a very cold battery limits regen to under 10kW. The only indication is a dotted line on the power meter.

I'd like to see the option of a large power resistor as and when the regen is unavailable but I'm not sure how practical a 60kW resistor in a car would be. It would have to surely be liquid cooled though that system is already available.

Correct, that is by design. If you range charge (100% charge) then the regen will not work until at least 10% of the battery has been used. There is simply no place to dump the recycled energy.

I went to half moon bay yesterday. The 92 is a long climb and then a sharp , steep downhill u bend.
At top of the hill :114 miles range.  Rolling downhill required no additional braking and i could maintain the 50mph with ease. At the bottom of the mountain: range: 119miles. At moments the regen indicator hovered between 50 to 60 kilowatt being pumped back in the pack. That is substantial power...

You own a Tesla?

[staxquad]

No garage? No problem.

I've seen it a lot in Asia where they never leave a new car outside, they drive it into the living room for the night.  Leaving a $100k car outside is asking for trouble.

It's hard for Westerners to be practical.

[free_electron]

space to charge at home.

?!? What kind of drugs are you on ?
So now a power outlet takes up space too ?   

All you need is a regular 110 or 240 volt outlet. The car comes with a simple cable you plug in.
If your car is in your garage or driveway you plug it in.

And don't give me the excuse "i don't have a garage or driveway, i park in the street". I grew up in a small village. EVERYONE has a garage my parents had one, my grandparents had one. Everyone i know has one. I dont know anyone who does not have a garage or dedicated parking spot or driveway.

Then your world is quite limited. I know only a few people with a garage. In the city I live in most people use public parking spots in the street. Sometimes it is so crowded with cars I have to park around the corner. In some areas cars are to be parked on small parking lots nearby.

Sorry, i forgot you are from the netherlands. (This is NOT a negative remark , it is an apology!)
It is true that in the netherlands fewer people have garages than elsewhere. Especially in cities.

When i lived in brussels the apartment complex had an underground garage and every unit had its allocated space. Freestanding homes in belgium always have a driveway and garage. Even 'rijtjeshuizen' or 'lintbebouwing'( don't know the english word for that) have garage in the back accessible via an alleyway.

Here in the region of the us i live in, every home or apartment complex has a parking lot, most have awnings or covered stalls, or are underground. Fancier apartment complexes have private garages. And condo or townhome has at least one garage. Private homes have 2,3 or even 4 garages, plus a driveway leading up to them.
There are pictures of farmers having tesla's that leave em out in front of the barn or shed hooked up to a power plug.

Anyway, that is a problem that nobody can solve.
Tesla's wouldn't work in the sahara either, there ain't any power plugs there. Does that mean we should give up on electric vehicles ? Because a small minority can't charge em ?

[free_electron]

How long till someone hacks the Tesla charger connector? Five pins: DC+, DC-, Pilot, GND and a mystery pin.

has been reverse engineered already.
Even the magic packet exchanged to open charge ports.
The pilot is a simple resistance meter telling the car what feed it is on.

But, the problem is the supercharge is 384 volts. At up to 400 ampere.
I think that is the problem.
During supercharging (i have done it twice now, so this is incomplete data) the voltage is always the same. The car requests current . So there is some regulation in the pack going on. The cooling system of the pack turns on and runs continuously while supercharging. They are constantly pumping the glycol and the ac compresser is running to feed the heat exchanger in the pack.

That may be the problem making an adapter. The other batteries may not be able to handle the 384 volts , nor the current thrown at them.

And the there is that j1771 connector. I doubt that can hold 400 ampere...

 There are three power levels. Older superchargers and second cars are 60 to 90kw max ( a supercharger stall can serve two cars. First to hook up gets full power, the other one reduced until the first is halfway) older supercharger can deliver 90KW max. Gen II is 120Kw.
European superchargers are 160Kw.

[free_electron]

You own a Tesla?

For those that haven't caught on yet  yes i do. Since december 22, 4pm i am the excited, elated, happy owner of a dolphin grey Model S with 85KWh battery pack .

This thing is a close to a starship as one can get. The sheer simplicity is overwhelming. Walk to car , open door , sit down, close door. Click in reverse or forward , steer and control speed with 1 pedal. When done, click in park, open door, get out, close door walk away.

There is no remote to press, or key to turn to unlock doors, the car knows its owner is there from 5 feet away and extends its doorhandles in a welcoming gesture. By the time you grab the handle and open the door your favorite station is playing , your seat is at your temperature the seat position, mirror position and steering wheel position have adjusted to your preset ( if they were altered by another drivers preset). You sit down and the displays power up with a welcoming tesla logo and a short overview of the projected range. You put on the seatbelt, press the brake pedal , for safety, at which point the display makes a 3d animated turn and becomes the speed and power indicator.
You click the control stalk in forward or reverse and gently press the accelerator. Releasing the accelerator applies regeneration sending electrons back to the negative pole of the battery thus recharging.

When done driving you click the control stalk in park , open door, get out amd close the door. When i move further than 6 feet the handles retract, the mirrors fold in and the car goes to sleep.

There is no key, no remote buttons, no handbrake handle, no brake pedal to press (except the last 2 feet of rolling to ahlat and keeping steady position). There is no windshield wiper control, no headlight control. The electrochromic side and interior mirrors adapt to lightlevels at night (like a welding mask). In reverse the side mirrors tilt down so you see the curb and the hd rear view camera kicks in. Parking radar detects objects front, rear, sideway and downward. You can't hit a wall or a curb as the sensors stop the car.
The climate control has 2 dials. Left temperature and right temperature and fan speed. There is no control for window,front only, top only, bottom only. None of the 24 combinations possible in a traditional car. Set your desired temperature and the entire cabin, including the seats maintain that without you even feeling airflow. Just like the AC at home.
You dont need to screw with windshield wiper speed or interval , you dont need to muck around with fog,ight switches and lightswitches.
The displays automatically dim according to ambient light levels and when low enough change to a nighttime colorscheme as not to tire the drivers. The cabin ambient lights fade in and out automatically.

The only control you use while driving is your direction indicator, the steering wheel and the throttle pedal. And forward/reverse. Coming to a full stop you use the brake pedal the last 3 feet.

Exiting the car doesn't require a complicated ritual either. Click 'park', get out and walk away. The car does the reset.

It plays flac,aac,mp3 from usb flash drives , internet radio, satellite radio. It has live google maps and satellite view as well as a 3d nav display for the drive cluster.

I dont need to take my hands off the wheel for anything. Two control rollers (like the middle mouse wheel) and four buttons allow me to do anything i want.
I can hold the top right one , at which point music auto atic fades away and happy chime tells me the car is listening. I simply tell it 'Play ELO, NAvigate to 2525 augustine drive santa clara , call joe'
and the car seeks my music collection for anything by ELO,if it doesnt find anything local it will connect and see if it can find an internet radio station , through slacker service, that plays elo. The navigation will calculate the optimum route to the given address and my phone has been instructed, via bluetooth to dial joe's number and route the audio to the on board hands free system.

It is bloody brilliant ! No more controls that date back 150 years.

[echen1024]

Test drived one, I can smell my dad purchasing one soon... However, us here in Texas can't purchase Teslas. We must either buy out of state, or purchase through a subsidiary called Tesla Motors TX.

[Robomeds]

  The Tesla is an impressive product.  Too bad they aren't doing it without forcing the non-buyers to help those buying luxury cars.

Dude, you are barking up the wrong tree and you are again spreading falsehoods !

Tesla isn't forcing anything !
The tax return is for ALL electric vehicles and is a program created by the government. GOVERNMENT

You may not agree with what the government decided to do , and i fully understand that. No problem there. There's plenty of things the government spends money on that i don t like either.

But stop hammering Tesla and other EV makers . It's not their fault nor their decision.
Go complain to the government that you don't agree with their policies.
That is the tree you should be barking at.

Again, drop the snide tone of voice and certainly stop accusing others of lying.  That is uncalled for, especially given that you were wrong to claim we the public don't pay for your tax credit (certainly a US court disagrees with you).

I didn't say Tesla was forcing this.  I didn't say others weren't getting the same tax credits.  What I did say was we the public are helping pay for your car via the tax credits and other incentives/government programs such as the EV credits CA is forcing on car makers (a stupid program from day one). 

So let's be clear.  Tesla is ONLY profitable because various government mandates are supporting the company.  I wish them all success but not with my (and the larger public's) money. 

Great car, yes. 
A company that can stand on it's own without help from various governments... well let's wait and see.

[EEVblog]

So let's be clear.  Tesla is ONLY profitable because various government mandates are supporting the company.

Do you have data to back that up?
How do you know that Tesla would fail to be profitable without the state tax rebates?
How do you know that people wouldn't buy the cars anyway?
Given that the only way the tax rebate helps Tesla financially is by potential extra sales from people who wouldn't otherwise not have bought it, how do you know how many and how that translates into a profit/loss threshold for Tesla?

[EEVblog]

Again, drop the snide tone of voice and certainly stop accusing others of lying.  That is uncalled for, especially given that you were wrong to claim we the public don't pay for your tax credit (certainly a US court disagrees with you).
I didn't say Tesla was forcing this.  I didn't say others weren't getting the same tax credits.  What I did say was we the public are helping pay for your car via the tax credits and other incentives/government programs such as the EV credits CA is forcing on car makers (a stupid program from day one). 

Umm, I'm not a Yank, but I think I can see your logic is flawed here.
How is a government tax rebate got anything to do with the the car makers? The car makers still sell the car for the same price, it's got absolutely nothing to with them, they are not being "forced" into anything.
It's like me donating money to a charity. I can claim that as a tax rebate from the tax office at the end of the year, it's got nothing to do with the charity, it's a government tax office rebate.

Now, once again correct this aussie if he is wrong - everyone pays sales tax on a new car, EV or ICE, or batmobile at the time of the sales. That money is given to the government by the car buyer. Now, at the end of the year, if that car is an EV, then you get a tax break (which a Vincent said, is less than the sales tax paid). So that EV buys gets some of their own money back.
How is this coming out of your pocket exactly?
For arguments sake lets say Vincent only decided to buy this car because of the tax break. So if the incentive didn't exist then he wouldn't have bought the car, and the government would not have gotten any money. But now, even with the rebate incentive, they at least get some money, and the industry grows. That's a win-win, and not cent has come from your pocket. In fact, as citizen you get the benefit of that sales by Vincent.

And as Vincent has said, it's a government incentive thing, it's got nothing to do with the car makers.

[Robomeds]

So let's be clear.  Tesla is ONLY profitable because various government mandates are supporting the company.

Do you have data to back that up?
How do you know that Tesla would fail to be profitable without the state tax rebates?
How do you know that people wouldn't buy the cars anyway?
Given that the only way the tax rebate helps Tesla financially is by potential extra sales from people who wouldn't otherwise not have bought it, how do you know how many and how that translates into a profit/loss threshold for Tesla?

You are correct.  I don't know that Tesla couldn't simply raise the price and pass the costs on to consumers.  However, it would have to raise the price quite a bit.  The loss of the tax credit doesn't hurt Tesla's bottom line assuming (and this is a big if) people would have paid $7.5K to $10k (California credit included) to buy the car.  But even if sales were identical you need to factor the EV credits that Tesla is currently depending on.

It's not clear that Tesla is really profitable using standard accounting.  It is clear that given the sale price of the car they would lose money without the EV credits and some non-standard accounting.
http://www.streetinsider.com/Analyst+Comments/Is+Tesla+%28TSLA%29+Really+Profitable%3F/8746889.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/tesla-q2-second-quarter-earnings-elon-musk-subsidies
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/08/tesla-2nd-quarter-2013/

[NiHaoMike]

Maybe Tesla or a third party can make a home "supercharger" that attaches to the main panel and senses the total power draw in order to stay within the rating? As a bonus, it can measure the home's energy usage.

[Robomeds]

Again, drop the snide tone of voice and certainly stop accusing others of lying.  That is uncalled for, especially given that you were wrong to claim we the public don't pay for your tax credit (certainly a US court disagrees with you).
I didn't say Tesla was forcing this.  I didn't say others weren't getting the same tax credits.  What I did say was we the public are helping pay for your car via the tax credits and other incentives/government programs such as the EV credits CA is forcing on car makers (a stupid program from day one). 

Umm, I'm not a Yank, but I think I can see your logic is flawed here.
How is a government tax rebate got anything to do with the the car makers? The car makers still sell the car for the same price, it's got absolutely nothing to with them, they are not being "forced" into anything.
It's like me donating money to a charity. I can claim that as a tax rebate from the tax office at the end of the year, it's got nothing to do with the charity, it's a government tax office rebate.

Now, once again correct this aussie if he is wrong - everyone pays sales tax on a new car, EV or ICE, or batmobile at the time of the sales. That money is given to the government by the car buyer. Now, at the end of the year, if that car is an EV, then you get a tax break (which a Vincent said, is less than the sales tax paid). So that EV buys gets some of their own money back.
How is this coming out of your pocket exactly?
For arguments sake lets say Vincent only decided to buy this car because of the tax break. So if the incentive didn't exist then he wouldn't have bought the car, and the government would not have gotten any money. But now, even with the rebate incentive, they at least get some money, and the industry grows. That's a win-win, and not cent has come from your pocket. In fact, as citizen you get the benefit of that sales by Vincent.

And as Vincent has said, it's a government incentive thing, it's got nothing to do with the car makers.

The logic is sound.  The company has a car that say costs $80k.  The consumer's net cost is $72,500.  Who paid the difference?  The federal tax payer.  I already included a link to a court case where a state court agreed that a tax credit is effectively the same as a subsidy. 
Using your charity example let's assume the US federal income tax is 33%.  So if I earn $100 I will net $66, ie I can give away only 2/3rds of what I make since Uncle Sam takes $33.  Thus if I wish to donate my earnings to a non-charity I can give them $67 even though I earned $100.  Now let's suppose I earned $300.  I want to give $100 to a charity.  Well I get a tax write off.  Thus on my taxes it will claim I earned only $200 and thus I pay $66 in taxes, not $99.  So I could give away 100% of that $100 worth of earnings. 

Now let's say I get a $90 tax credit for buying a $100 Fluke Meter (I wish).  What does that look like?  Well my total tax bill was $99 on $300 in earnings.  Rather than reducing my income by $90 (as the $100 donation did), this $90 was as good as paying Uncle Sam.  Thus I pay $9 to the feds on my $300 in earnings.  Of course Sam needs money so other tax payers will have to cover what I didn't pay (hence the reason the state court case I cited in a previous post said it was effectively a subsidy).  Also note that this means that great Fluke meter (a meter I appreciate even more after your videos) effectively only costs me $10 vs $100 since that $90 was going to be taken from me either by Sam or Fluke. 

Sure, you can say Telsa didn't make the rules (no idea if they lobbied for them) but that doesn't change the fact that I still have to pay for them and that the company currently looks like it would not be successful without them. 

As for state sales taxes, those are state by state.  Some states have no sales taxes.  The $7500 is a federal tax and not related to the sales tax.  For the most part anyone who has enough money in the US to buy a Tesla will have to pay at least $7500 in federal income taxes.  The reason why this tax comes out of the general pockets of the tax payers is like my split the check example.  We all go out for dinner and the total bill is $100 or $20 each.  One person says they only have $10.  Well the other four have to each pay $2.50 extra to cover the difference.  An EV buyer doesn't have to pay as much thus the rest pay more.  Again this isn't just my view but one that has legal precedent. 

[Corporate666]

That data is biased because currently many of those cars are bought by wealthy people who have the space to charge at home. Charging at home is impossible for most people living in growded cities. For those there is the choice between waiting for 20 minutes at a charger or 2 minutes at the petrol station.

Now you are just making stuff up.  So you are saying buy plug-in hybrids but have no way to charge them, so they operate them mostly on combustible fuels?  There were some studies done on the Volt that showed the vast majority of their use was on electric only. 

Well it took plasma TVs (invented in 1936!) about 30 years (since the 1980's) to become affordable. How long will it take before we see affordable EVs with a >500km range? At the moment the 'happy few' are pushing new technology forward as usual. There is nothing wrong with that and its how new technology becomes mainstream. But that always takes several decades! Meanwhile most of the people are sitting on their hands doing nothing to reduce their CO2 footprint while we are more or less running out of time.

When something was invented is irrelevant.  I'm talking about the effect that consumerism has on the cost of things.  I remember back in 2002 or so, a group I was a member of did a giveaway on a plasma TV.  IIRC is was in the 30-40" range and it cost around $20,000 to buy.

Ten years later and the same TV is 1/100th the cost.  The same thing is already happening with EV's.  GM cut $10k out of their cost for the Volt from when it was introduced until now.  Prices are dropping, range is increasing, charge time is dropping - it's happening at a dramatic rate, and far, far faster than the rate at which ICE cars improve in efficiency or drop in cost.  And we are only talking about the first few years of Li-Ion EV's here.  In 10 or 15 years, market forces will drop prices massively.  Suggesting that we wait 20-30 years for them to become more affordable is nonsense, because they will become more affordable due to demand and volume production.

[Corporate666]

If you think most Tesla buyers don't get the $7500 credit please show it.  I find it hard to believe that most buyers of a $100,000 car (or even $70,000 car) don't have at least $7500 in tax liabilities.

If you think they do, then show it.  You are bandying about the maximum possible number and suggesting that every Tesla buyer is "getting" $7500.  They aren't.  No transfer of $$ taxes place from anyone to the Tesla buyer.  They aren't getting anything.  The erroneous argument that's made is that the buyer will pay $7500 less in taxes leading to $7500 less in federal tax income, but spending will remain the same leaving a hole of $7500.

That is not correct.  First off, the $7500 is for multiple vehicles, not specifically Teslas.  Second, not everyone gets the $7500.  You may think most do, but you don't know that - it's almost a given that some don't, so repeating the $7500 number as if it was a check from the gov't to the buyer is clearly incorrect.  Third, there are other errors in your logic - specifically that the $7500 tax credit means a reduction of $7500 in income.  It doesn't... it is only implemented upon the buyer spending around $100k on a purchase they would not otherwise have made.  That economic activity leads to substantial revenue for the government - payroll taxes Tesla pays, excise taxes, sales taxes, income taxes Tesla and its workers pay, customs duties on imported parts, property taxes, and much much more.  But those with an agenda ignore all of that and keep repeating the $7500 number as if a check is mailed to the buyer - when they know that's not the case.

Two things are indisputable...
-$7500 is a theoretical maximum that one may quality for - so representing that as a default amount that all buyers get is factually wrong.

-The tax credit fuels economic activity which would not otherwise have taken place, and that economic activity further reduces the net "cost" of the tax credit, perhaps and even likely into a net positive ROI for the government.

So it's tiring to constantly read about people subsidizing others when it's not the case.

[Corporate666]

As long as you conveniently forget they are charged with electricity mostly produced by fossil fuel.

Yes, they are. At a higher efficiency. Your fuel consumption will be much lower by generating the energy in a bigger and more efficient generator than an ICE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Internal_combustion_engines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conversion_efficiency#Example_of_energy_conversion_efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station

Efficiencies:
Gasoline: up to 25%
Diesel: up to 40%
Coal and Oil: 33%
Gas turbines: up to 40%
Gas turbines with combined cycle: up to 60%

Even considering transmission losses (6.5% in 2007 in the USA -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses ), you still have much more than you get in a car.

Just stay away from coal...

To make those numbers even worse (and more accurate), the efficiency of ICE's listed is a theoretical maximum - for diesel, it's often giant ship motors that achieve those numbers.

There is also a large inefficiency of production and distribution of fossil fuels which is unaccounted for.

[Robomeds]

If you think most Tesla buyers don't get the $7500 credit please show it.  I find it hard to believe that most buyers of a $100,000 car (or even $70,000 car) don't have at least $7500 in tax liabilities.

If you think they do, then show it.  You are bandying about the maximum possible number and suggesting that every Tesla buyer is "getting" $7500.  They aren't.  No transfer of $$ taxes place from anyone to the Tesla buyer.  They aren't getting anything.  The erroneous argument that's made is that the buyer will pay $7500 less in taxes leading to $7500 less in federal tax income, but spending will remain the same leaving a hole of $7500.

That is not correct.  First off, the $7500 is for multiple vehicles, not specifically Teslas.  Second, not everyone gets the $7500.  You may think most do, but you don't know that - it's almost a given that some don't, so repeating the $7500 number as if it was a check from the gov't to the buyer is clearly incorrect.  Third, there are other errors in your logic - specifically that the $7500 tax credit means a reduction of $7500 in income.  It doesn't... it is only implemented upon the buyer spending around $100k on a purchase they would not otherwise have made.  That economic activity leads to substantial revenue for the government - payroll taxes Tesla pays, excise taxes, sales taxes, income taxes Tesla and its workers pay, customs duties on imported parts, property taxes, and much much more.  But those with an agenda ignore all of that and keep repeating the $7500 number as if a check is mailed to the buyer - when they know that's not the case.

Two things are indisputable...
-$7500 is a theoretical maximum that one may quality for - so representing that as a default amount that all buyers get is factually wrong.

-The tax credit fuels economic activity which would not otherwise have taken place, and that economic activity further reduces the net "cost" of the tax credit, perhaps and even likely into a net positive ROI for the government.

So it's tiring to constantly read about people subsidizing others when it's not the case.

Are you kidding?!  Do you really think buyers of $70k (base) cars don't pay at least $7500 in federal income taxes each year?   
If you actually read my posts you will see that I do understand that the tax credit is for EVs.  If you read my posts you will see I was against it when Toyota was getting a similar set of breaks. 

You are also wrong that a tax credit doesn't result in more costs to the rest of the tax base. 
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.
The courts don't agree with you.  They agree with me. 

"Third, there are other errors in your logic - specifically that the $7500 tax credit means a reduction of $7500 in income.  It doesn't... "
No, this is not what I said.  The tax credit means a reduction in the tax bill of $7500.  So if I make say $100k and my tax bill is say $33k then with the $7.5k credit my net tax bill is $25.5k.  What you described is a deduction.  That is my real income is $100k but my taxable income is $92.5k thus I pay ~$31k in taxes. 

"  That economic activity leads to substantial revenue for the government "
Here you are getting into picking the winners and losers.  Yes, Tesla so far isn't in the loser camp but what about all those "green" companies that were?  Can we the tax payers have Tesla cover some of those loses?  My argument isn't against Tesla so much as various state and federal governments using public money to help pet companies/technologies.

"

-The tax credit fuels economic activity which would not otherwise have taken place, and that economic activity further reduces the net "cost" of the tax credit, perhaps and even likely into a net positive ROI for the government."
You asked me to prove things.  Well prove that Tesla needs my money to survive.  If we are going to use my money to invest in risky companies I'm going to want VC type terms so I can have the one success cover the several losses. 

[Corporate666]

Is that just the cost of fuel? Because I think it is more useful to consider the total cost of ownership over the life of the car. EV would probably have lower maintenance costs but also the eventual cost of replacing a battery pack would offset that, and do it in one big lump. I think many owners who could afford an EV could afford to replace the car before battery replacement was necessary and an impending hit like that would cause used buyers considerable anxiety. Just as expensive engine or transmission repairs do in conventional vehicles.

The battery issue is a red herring.  The batteries in EV's don't cease to function the way a transmission or fuel injector might.  They more resemble something like an LED which gets dimmer over time.  A battery loses capacity over time.  At some point, it's capacity is reduced to the point where it is considered "dead".  But it's not like Ferrari timing belts where, if they break, you need a new engine.  So there will be some metric developed that rates life of an Li-Ion pack... like percentage of original capacity, or deterioration rate or something.  When the pack gets older and loses more and more capacity, it will eventually cross that threshold where it's considered EOL by the manufacturer.  But there is no resultant replacement cost needed.  Because capacity decreases with age, it's really no different than mileage on a traditional ICE car.  If we said that an ICE car lasts 100,000 miles, it's not as if a car with 99,000 miles is worth X and another with 101,000 is worth 1/2 of X.  In reality, they are almost equal in value.  The same with EV's.  The life of the pack will be factored into the depreciation of the car just as mileage is factored into the depreciation in an ICE car.

And that's not to mention that battery technology is advancing so quickly that there will be brisk business done in buying EV's with work out batteries and retrofitting new aftermarket batteries to them, just as one can replace an engine with a rebuild or a crate engine. 

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--There have been a lot of good facts and sources provided in this thread, thanks all. But, to my mind there have been some sociopolitical arguments, which attempt to do magic hand waving over the simple economics of the situation, with inferences like: 1)The USA would not need defense or diplomacy except for ICEs. 2)Energy Companies enjoy a net subsidy which is a loss for the government, so EVs should also be subsidized. Both of the propositions are risible in content and conclusion. And, for Pete's sake! Are people really arguing that the $7,500 grows on trees? So Tesla tax credits are not subsidies, and grow on trees, but Energy Company tax credits are subsidies, and do not grow on trees. Alice! I told you not to clean that damn large mirror at the end of the hall so well! If the EV fundamentalists are relying on this kind of argument, they must really be clutching at straws. This is politics, not mathamatics, it is not even wrong. If it were not for US oil importation the Jehadi's would not be killing anyone. Really? I guess the Western Countries should immediately leave any place that Al Qaeda demands.

--Musk's efforts are very, very interesting. Please read R.A. Heinlein's "The Man Who Sold The Moon". I hope he is successful in all of his endevors. I would love for him to sell millions of Ss. His natural customers are fairly well to do Car Nuts, and EEs. And they get a benefit they would not get if buying a $100,000 boat. I.E. a pass from the Environmental Hand Wringers, and the usual "Filthy Rich" vapor attack. Any argument that tax credits do not have to be added to the debit side of the balance sheet is pure casuistry. However, I do not fault Musk for their existence, other than as voter, perhaps.

--With regard to the numerous contentions that wars and diplomacy are caused by ICEs, I would remind our gentle readers of a couple of things:
1) It is not the Energy Companies, nor economic conservatives who have at every turn stopped, or tried to stop all drilling, mining, pumping and damming in the US.
2) Iraq War I, was fought to get Saddam out of Kuwait, and protect Saudi Arabia, & the Emirates from threatened attack. Involved was a lot more than just the energy supply of the US, it threatened a sudden, chaotic and possibly catastrophic turnover of World Order
3) Iraq War II was fought in part because Saddam was stealing billions a year by selling oil off the books, and by stealing the funds from the Oil For Food program. The torture, rape rooms and brutal reppression of the Kurds (1/3 of the population) continued apace. All these things Iraq agreed not to do as part of the UN Brokered peace settlement. Congress voted on it, twice, and the present (Kerry) and the previous (Rodham-Clinton) Secretary of State, voted yes.
4) Afghanistan, which even President Obama stated was a no choice war, had a lot more to do with 911 than energy policy.

--With regard to stated opinions that, EVs should be subsidized because two Car Companies and the Large Banks were bailed out: This kind of economic activity by the Government (Remember President Elect Obama was demanding that these things be done), is not capitalism, it is more akin to Socialism, or Fascism to be exact. These are not policies advocated by the so called "Small Government Yahoos". Subsidizing the EV because the USA screwed the bond holders, gave 30% of the company to the UAW, then ate 10,000,000,000 in stock losses, seems to me like advocating another stupid, prodigal policy on the basis of foolish consistency.

"Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused. But on a higher level."
Enrico Fermi 1901 - 1954

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[Corporate666]

Stay away from coal you must. With electricity generated from coal an EV emits around to 250grams of CO2 per km. As a comparison: my 14 year old diesel car (with a 2 liter engine) produces around 140 grams per km. With the new emission limits in Europe new ICE cars may emit around 90 grams of CO2 per km on average (efficient and less efficient cars combined). Even in areas where electricity production is relatively clean an EV produces 110 grams of CO2 per km. If an EV is supposed to be 'green'  it must be powered from low emission electricity.

I already showed earlier in this thread that the above is bullshit... it's unfortunate that I provided sources and documents to back it up yet you continue to repeat this fallacy knowing it is untrue.

The truth is that EV's are significantly cleaner than ICE cars on average, unless one is comparing particularly dirty electric production against particularly clean ICE cars.  The reality is that the "dirtiest" of EV's is beaten only by a very very few (like you could count them on one hand) models of ICE cars which are incomparable in size and features to the EV's they best in Co2 emissions.