Tesla Working On Massive 20 Stall Supercharger

1 year ago by Eric Loveday 125

20-Stall Tesla Supercharger

20-Stall Tesla Supercharger

Work is reportedly nearing completion on Tesla’s largest Supercharger site to date.

This site has 20 Supercharger stalls and it’s located in south Fremont, California just to the south of Tesla’s factory.

In the map below, the 901 Page Avenue marker denotes the approximate location of these new Superchargers.  Update: actual address is nearby at 47400 Kato Rd Fremont CA (thanks to Tyl)

Note: Tesla has another set of Superchargers at the factory nearby – upper left of map:

901 Page Avenue Is Location Of 20-Stall Tesla Supercharger

901 Page Avenue Is Location Of 20-Stall Tesla Supercharger

Seagate Technology bought most of the old Solyndra plant when the solar company folded. Tesla leased one of the remaining Solyndra sites located at 901 Page Avenue. This is approximately where Tesla is constructing its 20-stall Supercharger.

Tags: , , ,

125 responses to "Tesla Working On Massive 20 Stall Supercharger"

  1. jelloslug says:

    I have a feeling that once the Model 3 is out in full force this will be a common occurrence.

      1. Jim Whitehead says:

        Superchargers are supposed to be located near food. Also, where are the bathrooms? Look at street view on Google Maps. Unless Seagate sublets a Restaurant there (Hint, Hint) there are going to be lots of complaints.

    1. TomArt says:

      beat me to it!

    2. Sublime says:

      I’m surely in the minority, but I hope SC access on the model 3 is metered/restricted. There are too many folks that are willing to trade a half hour of their time for $5 in electricity and there is a much higher percentage of them in the crowd that buys $30K cars vs $100k cars.
      Give me X number of free SC minutes / month then charge me per minute.

      1. Speculawyer says:

        Yeah, I’m sure they are going to tighten up the language of the supercharger agreement. That really needs to be done. Allow people to make long trips for free. But if they start charging up often at supercharges near their homes, they need to pay for it.

      2. Andrew says:

        I think it’s more likely that the Model 3 will have Supercharging as an extra-cost option to weed out the cheapskates. Those willing to park their butts out of their way for half an hour to save five bucks are the same people who won’t spring for a $2,500 front-loaded cost.

        That premium on a $35,000 car is more significant than when it was an option on the $70,000+ Model S.

        1. wavelet says:

          Why front-load it with a fixed price for anyone? It’s somewhat manageable as long as there are few cars that can use it, but the cost to Tesla isn’t fixed.
          All “free unlimited” business models are bad, unless the cost really is negligible and/or the metering is expensive. Ditto with how much problems flatrate pricing for Internet service providers or cellular carriers causes.

          Since the superchargers are intended for long-range trips, why not simply provide a limited number of yearly charging sessions (10-15) per car? That would be fair.

          One can always allow people to pay for sessions on-demand with a CC on a space-available basis.

        2. Sublime says:

          I actually think that would make it worse. It sure it would weed out some of the abusers up front, but it would motivate the true cheapskates to “get their money’s worth”.

          I really think the best model is build SC into every 3, give a monthly or annual SC time allowance and then charge at a rate closer to gasoline energy prices for overages.

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Sublime said:

        “I’m surely in the minority, but I hope SC access on the model 3 is metered/restricted. There are too many folks that are willing to trade a half hour of their time for $5 in electricity…”

        If that’s a minority of Tesla enthusiasts, then I’m in that minority too. Unlimited access to Superchargers means lots of people will be using them when they don’t really need to. A pay-per-use fee would keep the network from being clogged up by people who don’t really need to use it.

        But Elon has already said that the Model ≡ will get “free, unlimited” Supercharger use, just like the Model S. And I think he’s said it more than once.

        From Tesla’s viewpoint, I can see why he’d promise that. It’s a great selling point, and will help attract many new Tesla buyers. There’s a conflict of interest here between what’s best for existing Tesla owners, and what’s best for Tesla’s income.

        1. Sublime says:

          “From Tesla’s viewpoint, I can see why he’d promise that. It’s a great selling point, and will help attract many new Tesla buyers. There’s a conflict of interest here between what’s best for existing Tesla owners, and what’s best for Tesla’s income.”

          That great selling point gets nullified if it becomes common knowledge that it’s a hassle or near impossible to use the SC network. It doesn’t even need to be true most of the time for it to hurt perception. If you can’t rely on the SC network to be available every time you need it, it’s useless. There isn’t really a backup plan when you’re 100s of miles from home and need a charge.

          Perhaps it opens the door for 3rd party companies to offer pay-per-charge SCs.

          1. Stan says:

            I love this discussion. Lots of valid points. Just to build on it: around major holidays, everyone wants to travel and these would be the times to collect premium for using SC.

            I would prefer to pay per session/kWh/minute on occasional basis vs. pre-pay $$$ and feeling cheated every time I plug at home.

      4. Illuminati says:

        A rule that should apply to all Model 3 buyers: “All Superchargers are accessible, free of charge, except those which are located within 50 miles of your home.”

        This will limit congestion in Supercharger stations located near major urban centers as most Model 3 owners will be “forced” to recharge their cars at home. But they will have free access to the rest of the network when they will leave on a trip. The primary purpose for Superchargers is to allow long distance travel.

        1. Jay says:

          A 50 mile blackout zone is a troublesome notion. I pay to use CHAdeMO near home 2 times per week because it makes the difference between a 4-hour turnaround and a 20 minute turnaround before the next act of our family circus. Sure, a 200-mile Model 3 would need to do so less often. Paying a fee for stations within 50 miles or so could squelch the squatting while saving the spirit of free Supercharging.

          1. Angelo says:

            I am not a Tesla owner but hope to become a Model 3 owner; I currently own a 2015 Leaf.

            It seems to me that SC should be reserved for people driving outside of 50% of their range from home.

            Otherwise charge at home and if you ignored your guage and get into trouble charge at any of the other charge providers and learn to be more responsible.

        2. chris says:

          Most folks will only need to charge their model 3 about once a week, maybe twice.

    3. Speculation …
      While the Model S/X have unlimited extended mileage via Supercharging infrastructure … the Model Ξ (3) may come with a limited number of Supercharged miles per year.
      ie: enough extended range miles for a few road trips, but not enough miles regular daily/monthly usage. (eg: 15% of 12,000 annual miles is ~1800 miles/year … ~35 miles/week, ~140 miles/month)

      The up-sell would be to purchase an extended travel package, or purchase a Model S/X. 😉

  2. mr. M says:

    Great more more superchargers and still no fix for the climate controll and the arkward behaviour together with the brithness sensitivy.

    Cloud there, heating on. Cloud gone, sun up (still -3 deg C outside) climate cools instead of heating… 🙁

  3. SparkEV says:

    If they are all 120kW capable, 2.4 MW! Even half that (two on same circuit), 1.4MW. Wow.

    1. Elroy says:

      Wow, can you imagine paying for that electric bill at high demand rates!

      1. Elroy says:

        On the other hand, it is amazing some of those giant wind turbines can put out over 1mW.

        1. SparkEV says:

          I feel like I’m back in 1983. 64KB II / XT (50 kW DCFC), Mac 128kB in 1984 (120 kW Supercharger), 1MB MacPlus in 1986 (1.2 MW Supercharger in one spot). It’s like old folks “wowing” about 1 GB in computers.

          At this rate, we’ll hit 1GB (1GW charging in one location) by about 2030, hopefully with Mr. Fusion or better. SparkEV law (play on Moore’s law) on charger power growth? 😉

          1. Bill Howland says:

            If this supercharger gets busy, (supposedly with the X’s and 3’s in the future), then it is going to draw 1 GW for several hours a day.

            Its a good thing Tesla has stated the cost of these things (whatever that means) is ‘insignificant’.

            I think if the ‘3’ is as successful as people think, they will need far more of these things.

            But Tesla has already turned this into a marketing advantage, no doubt indicating they are more properly placed than on inconvenient dealer lots, and the increasing likelihood you’ll find a free spot and not have to wait to charge up. GM cannot claim fast charging ‘everywhere’ for their BEV’s.

            1. Scott says:

              That was 1 MW not GW. There’s a bit of a difference there. It’s not that the cost itself may be small, but in relative terms (in comparison to the sales revenue that led to that significant level of supercharging) it is very small.

              1. Bill Howland says:

                Yes, thanks for the correction – a million watts as you say, not a billion watts.

                I was confusing my numbers with KDawg’s charging system of 5000 kw Priusmaniac cars charging. That would be a billion.

                1. Bill Howland says:

                  100kv @ 50 amp pressurized oil cable. No sweat. 2 # 10’s plus ground. Might as well give the oil a bit of heat to carry away.

                  The price of the jack on the car might be just a bit pricey, though.

        2. Josh says:

          There is no utility scale wind turbine for sale that is under 1 MW.

          2 MW is now standard (Siemens 2.3, GE 2.0 – 2.4, Vestas V110 2.0). The new large offshore turbines in Europe are 8 MW (Vestas V164).

      2. jelloslug says:

        Starbucks needs to get in on the EV charging game. Having a captive audience and selling $8 cups of coffee go hand in hand.

        1. All-Purpose Guru says:

          I’ve always felt that Chargepoint should have a deal with Starbucks.

        2. Sam says:

          Here in Texas, they have a few level 3 chargers adjacent to Whataburgers. I end up going in every time.

      3. Tech01x says:

        Tesla does have a solution for that… it’s called the Tesla Energy PowerPack.

        1. JakeY says:

          Right, this a perfect application for batteries used for peak shaving. I imagine there will only be very brief periods where it even gets close to peak, so energy storage can save a lot of money on demand charges.

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            1MW for 1 Hr is 1MWhr or 1,000kWhr

            How much cost do you think it will be?

            @$100/kWhr, it would cost $100K alone just for the cells.

            And it will only last 1 hr to service 40 cars.

            Peak Demand charge period last hours.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Indeed. The usefulness of on-site battery packs as buffers for for Superchargers has been greatly overstated by many.

              It probably makes sense to install a relatively small battery buffer, to prevent the spikes in power demand that get costly surcharges from the local utility. Beyond that, it makes no sense to install battery buffers. If the demand is high for hours, that will drain the battery buffers quickly, and then either the Superchargers will have to go into severely reduced power mode, or else Tesla will have to pay surcharges for on-demand high power. Neither of those options is good for Tesla.

              If more power is needed for several hours per day, then Tesla needs to arrange for the utility to supply more power on a daily/hourly basis. Yes, that’s a more expensive monthly fee, but it’s still better than the alternatives.

              1. Tech01x says:

                Around 25 minutes in, JB Straubel discusses Tesla PowerPack doing peak shaving at Superchargers:

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  Thanks, Tech01x!

                  In that video, JB gave an example of using a battery buffer to provide part of the Supercharging station’s power for 20 minutes. Yeah, that’s the kind of thing I was talking about. Not hours’ worth of storage, but just a fraction of one hour. From what JB said, it looks like that would be worth the cost to install. But several hours’ worth of storage would, I think, cost more than the return on the investment would be worth.

        2. sven says:

          Tesla could also reduce/eliminate demand charges and high electric rates by putting in a fuel cell for distributed electric power generation from renewable natural gas, but I think Elon would not be too fond of that ideal.

          Companies can buy offsets for renewable natural gas that work in the same way as offsets for net metering of electricity. Eventually, Tesla might follow through on it stated goal of powering SuperChargers with solar electricity.

          1. Nick says:

            Much harder to get to zero carbon that way.

            1. sven says:

              Tesla can purchase renewable natural gas offsets. There is an actual market for them.

      4. Two words … Tesla Energy

        Cool thing with queuing theory is patterns are predictable and can be managed. A relatively constant feed from the grid over a 24 hour period can be easily managed using energy storage technologies.

        The bonus; Tesla could actually sell the energy “demand” during off-peak times when there is little demand for baseline grid load.

    2. Ocean Railroader says:

      This kind of power demand might even get it’s own distribution circuit meaning it would have it’s own row of power poles.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        I envision that becoming commonplace in the future. Busy super-fast charging stations are going to need high-tension power lines connected directly to the station.

        That, unfortunately, is going to make them expensive to install. But unless someone invents the equivalent of a “Mr. Fusion” device, I don’t see any affordable alternative. (There is such a thing as a mini nuclear reactor, a “pebble bed” fission reactor, but due to safety/terrorism concerns I don’t see governments allowing those for retail use in unguarded locations.)

        Using on-site solar power isn’t a viable option. Powering just one Supercharger (two stalls) would take, as I recall, about a football-field-sized solar farm. Clearly that’s not going to be a viable or affordable option in most places. Solar farms should be put in remote “wilderness” areas, where land is cheap. Right beside major highways, where you’d want to put Superchargers and future super-fast charge stations, land ain’t cheap.

        1. Sam says:

          I think once we get fully autonomous, you’ll have smaller chargers spread around town like phone booths were. Spread the burden. With autonomous cars, it could go charge itself in it’s down time. Drop you off at work and go find a charger.

    3. Speculawyer says:

      Time to put solar PV on the NUMMI factory and surrounding buildings.

      1. sven says:

        Speaking of putting PV on Tesla’s buildings, I wonder how the ban on net metering in Nevada affects Tesla’s PV plans at the Gigafactory. The elimination of net metering would increase Tesla’s electricity cost and therefore productions costs for making batteries.

        Before the elimination of net metering, the Gigafactory’s PV panels could have produced extra electricity to use for the night shift using the grid as storage. Now, any excess electricity produced by the solar panels is purchased by the utility a cheap wholesale prices. Tesla would either have to 1) install a smaller PV array to minimize the amount of electricity sold back to the utility at wholesale prices during the day, while covering most of their needs and purchase electricity from the utility for the night shift, or 2) install an oversized PV array, and install a battery storage system to use excess for the night shift at the Gigafactory. I think Tesla would choose the latter, but it will obviously cost more to make and install the battery system than it would have cost them to use net metering. This additional cost for the battery system will increase the cost of making batteries at the Gigafactory, hopefully not by much.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          I’m not seeing that switching from selling excess solar power to the electric utility at wholesale prices rather than retail is going to significantly change what Tesla plans to install. Elimination of net metering means the cost for power will be somewhat higher, but that doesn’t mean that it makes installing significant amounts of stationary storage any less expensive.

          As with other large industrial buildings, it makes sense to install sufficient battery storage for buffering, for smoothing out spikes in power demand to avoid surcharges from the power company. But beyond that, batteries are still much too expensive for grid power storage.

          Of course, all we can do is speculate about exactly what Tesla will be installing, how soon, and what their internal cost/benefit analysis shows for installing and using solar, wind, and possibly geothermal power.

          Here’s an article that explores the possibilities, making back-of-the-envelope estimates:

          http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/8436/Can-Tesla-Power-Its-Gigafactory-with-Renewables-Alone.aspx

          1. sven says:

            It’s not selling excess power excess power at wholesale instead of retail that I was getting at, it’s that Tesla was planning to produce excess electricity during the day, then use all that excess power during the evening and overnight hours since the Gigafactory will be running round-the-clock 24/7. Tesla would have done this through net metering. In other words the output from the solar panels would have provided all the electricity the Gigafactory consumed 24/7 through net metering. I thought one of the goals of the Gigafactory was to be sustainable by being powered by 100% renewable energy generated by the Gigafactory’s solar panels and wind turbines. Without net metering, Tesla would have to use a huge battery storage system to achieve it sustainable 100% renewable energy goal.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              sven, I’ve been puzzling at Tesla’s phrase “net zero emissions” ever since they started talking about the Gigafactory. I admit I’m not sure what they mean by it.

              My guess is that it means “We will offset all of the (estimated) CO2 emissions our plant emits, from its operations and from the power it draws from the grid, by generating renewable energy onsite”.

              Now, if Tesla is serious about that, then the amount of CO2 they have to offset will be partly dependent on how “dirty” the local grid power is. But I don’t see how the difference between retail price and wholesale price, for what the local utility buys in excess power from the Gigafactory, will make any difference on whether or not the factory has net zero emissions.

              —–

              sven said:

              “I thought one of the goals of the Gigafactory was to be sustainable by being powered by 100% renewable energy generated by the Gigafactory’s solar panels and wind turbines.”

              I can’t say that you’re wrong, because Tesla hasn’t made the details clear. But my guess is that Tesla’s intent is less ambitious than you’re suggesting. “Net zero emissions” seems to be a carefully chosen phrase, implying something more restrictive than if they had said, for example, “The Gigafactory will be powered 100% by renewable energy”.

              sven said:

              “Without net metering, Tesla would have to use a huge battery storage system to achieve it sustainable 100% renewable energy goal.”

              I don’t dispute the logic of that conclusion based on your premise. But I’m using a different premise, leading me to a different conclusion.

              1. sven says:

                The 24/7 Gigafactory was planned to use 100% renewable electricity, producing excess solar electricity during daylight hours to be used during night hours via net metering, might make more financial sense (be cheaper) for Tesla to use a battery storage system.

                The Gigafactory is also planned to be a “zero-emissions factory”, using no natural gas or fossil fuels (ie for process heat) in the factory, and not even having a natural gas hookup to the factory.

                It’s explained in these two links. The second one is more readable and has the video of JB Straubel that is the source of the information.

                http://cleantechnica.com/2015/11/10/gigafactory-renewable-energy-plans-slip/

                http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/17/teslas-gigafactory-net-zero-energy/

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  Hey, thanks sven!

                  You’re right, JB Straubel does use the term “net zero energy” in that video. So I need to re-think my own premises here… yours may be entirely correct.

        2. Tech01x says:

          Of course, they do have the actual batteries that they are making. They have to cycle test them anyways.

    4. Turbofroggy says:

      Employee parking at the Fremont plant has at least 80 HPWC, 100+ HCS-40s and another 100 or so 14-50s all fed from a 1.5MW transformer. It is the most awesome employee charging situation I have ever seen in my life, anywhere, hands down. And 90% of the spaces were full.

  4. Big Solar says:

    hopefully they install solar on this one….

  5. pjwood1 says:

    Perhaps the most certain indication of the the Model 3’s coming.

    No way Tesla does M3 in volume, without these. No way they over-build the network, without M3.

    Hopefully then, in 24-36 months, Porsche becomes a subscriber in anticipation of Mission E. I can dream, anyway.

    1. TomArt says:

      Agreed.

  6. Jonathan B says:

    This makes me happy to see. One of my biggest worries with the Model 3 was that the supercharger network would not be able to keep up with the growth of the amount of vehicles and they would either need to stop making it free. This is a positive step and makes me feel more confident ordering a Model 3.

    1. Big Solar says:

      you guys sure travel a lot

    2. Lou says:

      I still suspect(strongly)that M3’s will not automatically come with free SC access. My guess is that base models will require a fee (either subscription based or a pay as you use system). Upgraded models will come with SC standard, as an option. I think that makes sense and is fair too. Many people would have little use for the SC’s, hence maybe a one time fee for that unplanned stop at a SC location. Others, who either drive more and need more access, might opt for the flat rate subscription service with possibly unlimited long distance use.

      Lou

      1. viatierra says:

        I don’t know… If the average car supercharges 2x per month, that is at most $10 each month. That amount can be worked into the monthly service agreement that owners currently pay.

    3. TomArt says:

      Considering that they kept the Model X only $5k higher than a comparable Model S by making the 3rd row seats an option (not standard), then to get the Model III down to $35k will probably require a $2k 1-time fee like they used to have with the S60.

    4. Illuminati says:

      A rule that should apply to all Model 3 buyers: “All Superchargers are accessible, free of charge, except those which are located within 50 miles of your home.”

      This will limit congestion in Supercharger stations located near major urban centers as most Model 3 owners will be “forced” to recharge their cars at home. But they will have free access to the rest of the network when they will leave on a trip. The primary purpose for Superchargers is to allow long distance travel.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        I’ve seen it claimed that Tesla has imposed no “terms of service” for Supercharger use, and so far as I know, that’s true.

        I do expect to see Tesla impose some sort of terms of service to restrict local use of Superchargers, before they start selling the Model ≡. As I see it, Tesla will do that not because they want to, but because abuse of the network (by freeloaders using it for everyday charging) will force them to do it.

        One change I expect to see is that Uber and taxi drivers will be either banned from the network, or else will be required to pay per-use charges. In other words: Superchargers were not intended for commercial use. Any such use should be at least paid for by the commercial user, and possibly banned outright to prevent clogging the system.

  7. Ocean Railroader says:

    I would hate to be one of the parasitic oil executives or one of the little monsters from OPEC in that I bet they have nightmares about this thing. Oh wait there nightmares would be about how this thing is full of cars and there is a line of a hundred evs trying to get off the freeway to pull into this thing.

    I really would be crocus if this this Supercharger station would equal a major gas station.

  8. scott franco says:

    And there you go. In San Jose, I need to make trips both to the north (oregon), and south (LA and vegas). This one charger would cover half that, and Tesla has placed chargers going to Oregon as well.

    Tesla gets it.

    See you all in line at Tesla on the 31st.

  9. realistic says:

    By the way, reading the latest 10K and comparing 2015 to 2014, I see that a 50% increase in the number of supercharger locations (from 380 to 584) led to a 300%+ increase in the carrying value on the balance sheet (more than tripling from $107.8M to $339.2M). I suspect foul play.

    That probably seems unfair and all accounty-ish so I tried to be thorough. I checked the 10Q from Q3 ’15 just to get a more incremental measurement, and, nope: book value shows $152M for 536 locations.

    So, between 30 Sept and 31 December 2015, the 48 new Supercharger locations increased book value by $187M (almost $3.9M EACH).

    So I thought wow, that’s really curious. I’ve considered a couple of angles:
    (1) Tesla buyers are richer and smarter and more betterer than me, so they live in places where SC installations just cost a whole bunch more and so that’s why. Well, yeah, surely that’s true, because whenever I mention anything negative about Tesla, fanbois rage that I am mad because I can’t afford one. (Of course they also tell me I’m a paid OPEC lackey meaning of course Sheik Ali Al-Naimi pays me nicely, so that can’t be right, but whatever.) But that means that the 48 added SCs at $187M raised the book value by more than all the prior installations combined. Weren’t most of the earlier 536 in nice places, too?

    (2) Tesla is just getting dumber in their planning and construction of new SC locations. Now we know THAT can’t be true.

    (3) Did we observe the CFO magically transforming OpEx into CapEx? The company has never been transparent about the cost allocation, stating merely they come from “cost of automotive revenues and selling, general, and administrative expenses”, and “these costs were immaterial for all periods presented.” So small, immaterial Operating Expenses, so small as to not be noted in reporting, turned into $187M of self constructed asset book value.

    I vote for (3): Good work, young Jason, and welcome to Tesla!

    Does this mean something horrible is about to happen to the Officers and the share value? Nah. If shareholders don’t raise a stink, nobody gets excited except observers like me. And anyway the people who have signed up to credit obligations backing Tesla’s revolving line of credit also include the underwriters of public raises, and their brokerage houses pump TSLA stock (which they also own). Why in the world would these people say a thing?

    Wanna know who they are and what their big obligations amount to?
    Deutsche Bank AG (NY Branch): $147.5M
    CITIBANK, N.A: $147.5M
    Goldman Sachs Bank USA: $175M
    JPM Chase Bank N. Am: $147.5M
    Morgan Stanley Senior Fund, Inc: $147.5M
    BoA: $110M [Give BoA credit as non-pumpers]
    Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Assoc: $100M
    Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Isl: $25M

    1. ffbj says:

      Typical anti-Tesla FUD, not worth reading. Probably just copied and pasted, and then updated with the latest information.
      Does it mean anything? No.

      1. Big Solar says:

        I wouldn’t call that one typical. Interesting but like he said, likely of no consequence (if even true).

        1. realistic says:

          “…even if true”

          Well you may dispute my judgment about how such a drastic difference in numbers can occur, and that is fine. Offer your version of how immaterial spending in the OpEx line shows up as $187M value in the Asset category. I’m all ears.

          But the numbers are straight out of Tesla’s 10K. I encourage you to read it yourself (it is posted on their web site under SEC Filings in the Investor Relations Tab). The values are exactly from Tesla’s books and signed off by Elon and Jason.

          1. sven says:

            I have a feeling that Tesla will also start capitalizing some of their huge R&D expenses. That should make their income statement look better for a couple of years by spreading out the expense (amortizing an intangible asset) over many years, instead of taking the hit as an expense all in one year.

            1. realistic says:

              sven, I agree and I think they should make the accounting change sooner than later.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            realistic said:

            “But the numbers are straight out of Tesla’s 10K.”

            Let’s assume that’s true. It doesn’t at all indicate that all your premises are correct.

            For example, you seem to be going by location, rather than the number of Supercharger stalls. You appear to be ignoring the possibility — or more realistically, the certainty — that at least some of the expansion of the Supercharger network is by adding more stalls to existing Supercharger locations.

            That alone could account for what you are characterizing as a discrepancy.

            But in any case, your deep dive into the finances pretty strongly points to you being an investor. This isn’t an investor site, and we’ve been seeing far too many posts like that lately.

            Please keep that sort of thing to Seeking Alpha and other investor sites. InsideEVs isn’t an investor site.

          3. Big Solar says:

            at this point Im not interested enough to research it. Thats why I said if even true. Im not disputing you but reading posts here is not how I would personally want to learn about Teslas finances.

      2. realistic says:

        Of course it isn’t worth reading if you don’t like financial statements or required disclosures by lenders. Cut and paste? Yes. I got real data from real sources (like Tesla’s own filings) and pasted/posted them here. And yes, it is merely “the latest information” as required by some dumb outfit called the SEC. Sheesh… disclosure standards… who needs, ’em, right?

        I guess I COULD have posted an uninformed and unfounded opinion as commonly seen in the EV echo chamber, but I chose mere data. I guess I should apologize for breaking the intellectual chain, but… nope.

        1. Anon says:

          Just a random question…

          What do you think of Koch Industries?

          1. realistic says:

            Well, I wouldn’t call that “random”. Your intent is obvious, but I’ll answer anyway with respect to the same issues I address for Tesla.

            Koch Industries is privately held. You and I don’t know and cannot access their books because they don’t have to make them public. So if they have fiddled inappropriately with accounting entries it’s between them and their officers (and the IRS, if it bumps into taxation). They have a bond rating of AA- from S&P and Aa3 from Moody’s, although a few of the credit bonds issued by Koch subsidiaries several years ago were rated lower… BB as I recall, which put them on the edge of non-investment grade. That’s not a big deal as long as you understand the risk. (Tesla’s ratings last I looked were S&P B- in June ’15, Moody’s don’t know).

            It’s not the least bit germane to the topic of a publicly-held company that depends on financing for operating cash, and in turn depends on share price-based instruments to execute that financing.

            1. Anon says:

              So, you’re just being a helpful citizen who happens to have an AMAZING ability to spot fiscal company “wrong doing”, while no one else with access to the same information and works in the financial industry, somehow can’t see.

              Huh.

              How did you come by this awesome superpower? I’m sure it’s an entertaining story… And you seem to have the time to tell stories.

              1. realistic says:

                Anon, all you have to do (really — I dare you to do it) is go to Tesla’s Investor Relations site, click on SEC Filings, and get the 10K. Really, that’s all. If you need an incremental look at last year’s 10K or the Q3 ’15 10Q for comparison purposes, just click and read. Seriously, that’s all. You can use Cntrl+F to search for all the key words I have used and grab the numbers. You will not find anything different than I did. Really: I dare you to scare yourself with real financial data. Do it.

                Then, after you find nothing different, explain how the average book value of an SC installation has shot up. Tell me how “immaterial” OpEx was written up as $187M book value of capital. You have a different theory: great! Post it. Tell me why you disagree in terms other than “wahh I don’t believe you can look up publicly available financial metrics and do arithmetic”. That sort of petulance makes you look uninformed and unwilling to understand.

                1. Anon says:

                  You haven’t answered my question about how you got these superpowers seeing things, while others who have exactly the same info –and can do math– do not and have not seen the same ‘wrongs’ you do…

                  An uninformed assumption, framed in a rational-sounding argument, is still an uninformed assumption. Why don’t you tweet your discovery to Elon? I’m sure he’ll set you straight.

                  A legitimate “observer” would have reported such issues with the SEC. Why bother posting your FUD here, in an EV-Centric Blog? Seems like a waste of your time, if righting these fiscal wrongs is your real agenda… Or is it?

    2. Rick Danger says:

      Yup. You caught him. Let’s hustle Elon and all other Tesla officers off to jail so we can get back to the business of polluting the very air we breathe.
      Good work. Must make yo momma proud.

      1. realistic says:

        Awesome rhetoric. Thanks for the entertainment!

        Essentially you are saying that the only hope for Saving the Earth demands that a company files false financial statements, and uncovering such a thing (if it is the case: if you don’t think so then please do explain what Tesla has stated in the 10K) derails the sacred mission.

        Few things are more appealing (and corrosive) than doing wrong in the name of right. So you have that going for you.

        1. Rick Danger says:

          Tell that to all the people with autism, asthma, and COPD from breathing polluted air their whole lives. The ones that haven’t died early deaths already, that is.
          Then, you can eat the lunch your mom packed for you and call it a day.

          1. realistic says:

            Let’s make sure I got your point straight: People who are striving to make EVs may be illegally reporting expenses (and therefore earnings), but that’s what needs to be done to keep the share value elevated and in turn prevent diseases that may be associated with some types of pollution. If a commenter mentions that those fine people may be violating financial reporting rules, we are standing in the way of saving lives.

            I got it Rick, thanks! You left out the part about silencing the non-believer, but I think it’s implied. Now you keep making the world better with stupid logic, y’hear?

            1. Rick Danger says:

              My point is, it’s not my job to police Tesla’s financial statement, nor is it yours, but you want to come on a site that is obviously pro-EV and pro-Tesla and spread FUD.
              If you’re so sure there are shenanigans going on, then report them to the SEC.
              Otherwise, you are free to go play in traffic.

      2. realistic says:

        … and even if everyone stepped up and said “yeah, we misstated spend categories, and losses were really $x0M worse in 2015”, nobody would go to jail (and based on punishments for equivalent or worse violations in the last few years, shouldn’t). So relax.

        1. Get Real says:

          Isn’t it amazing that everytime we have a Tesla story now we keep having posters drop in (sometimes with shiny new usernames) who act like financial guys and proceed to spread doom and gloom about Tesla with long multiple posts?

          Gee I wonder what’s going on here???

          It couldn’t possibly be that the same person or a small group of stock manipulators is posting under multiple usernames in a desperate and lame attempt to manipulate Tesla’s stock for their own personal gain?

          Afterall, stock market shorters/gamblers have such great reputations for honesty and ethical behavior, right?

          You don’t think they are afraid that the Model 3 reveal next month will torpedo their efforts do you?!

          1. JakeY says:

            Yeah, it gets kind of old when every single Tesla article has to be a discussion about the stock (I never see that in posts about other companies).

            I’m not sure what impact they think they will have here either given we aren’t an investor forum.

            1. realistic says:

              Fair point, Jake. Remember, I didn’t bring up the stock. What I brought up is great inconsistency in the legally-required disclosure that is available to ANYONE and describes how their money is spent (according to them).

              But remember that since virtually all of the cash spent by Tesla has been funded not by Operations but by Financing, then they are all about financing, whether any of us like that or not. Tesla and its share price are deeply, deeply intertwined.

              You’re definitely right about “having an impact.” Nothing any of us say here will matter to share price, but neither will our words matter to product strategy or design decisions at auto manufacturers, either. This is a tiny corner of the internet. I’m just a poster. I happen to be a poster who drives an EV, is involved in electrification of industrial vehicles and equipment, and happens to be interested in the financial health of the business.

              1. ffbj says:

                To me your interest seems to be in questioning the financial health of the company, which leads to questioning valuation of their stock.

                The people on this site can (See Through), that sort of stuff in an instant. A reference for older forum members. It’s common way short sellers of Tesla attack the valuation of the stock. So if it quacks like duck…
                Perhaps you are being treated unfairly, but I doubt it.

          2. Get Real says:

            Here is what I do know about Tesla: They are easily the most disruptive and innovative personal transportation/battery company in the WORLD!

            They have innovated class leading features like OTA updates, by far the most successful and fastest improving autopilot, in car touchscreen and remote by phone controls of car, in fact, continuous real improvements to cars without waiting for next model year or pressure from competition.
            Direct sales model to remove the leaching dealer system unpleasantness from the buying experience.
            Rapidly constructing a Gigafactory to more then DOUBLE worldwide battery supply and ensure enough batteries for new models and energy storage and will ensure that its cars have the highest level of American content in the industry.
            Etc, etc, etc.

            They have managed to build what is universally considered by the experts and owners to be the best automobile ever made.

            This car has basically doubled its growth for two straight years and become the BEST SELLER by far in the luxury segment in NA as well as the best seller of EVs in NA. It has come very close to displacing the MB S class in its European backyard by the numbers.

            Tesla has the best and most logical DCFC system in the world and is very rapidly expanding it to make sure Tesla owners can make long distance trips.

            Together these accomplishments have given Tesla the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the industry and put its brand at the very top of all brands.

            These are all real accomplishments by a company that is leading (and pushing) the world in not just EV innovation, but in future-oriented automotive innovations.

            In short, Tesla has made its success the old-fashioned way by building products and offering services of value and is rapidly expanding its footprint in anticipation of its market expansion into the mid-range segment of which very large numbers of potential customers are eagerly awaiting. Of course it is spending a lot of money to get there and it will pay off which is making the fear and loathing based on negativity shucksters very uncomfortable!

            1. realistic says:

              There is a varying degree of accuracy in your claims but I won’t argue them.

              Yet underlying your entire thesis is the fact (not my opinion) that Tesla also happens to require an abnormally high valuation to exist by dint of obligation to bondholders who expect to be remunerated in cash. TSLA (the stock) will also have to be high to raise MORE money and to retain talent who have expectations their options won’t expire worthless. Despite claims made by the CEO and CFO (current and prior), prospects for self-funding in the next 12-18 months are weak if they expect to stay on the track that has vaulted the stock so high.

              You can denigrate people who understand and occasionally profit from the high risk and volatility associated with this, but remember once again that the very instrument used to raise over $2.5B in cash for Tesla depends on volatility to attract investors, and further that Tesla spent money on a significant hedging approach – using the very Options market you must despise – to partially shield the bondholders.

              I don’t care that it bothers you or anyone who finds financial discussion unworthy of your time, even thought the company you love is a poster child of financial engineering.
              Let’s be very, very clear: the book values that I quoted from Tesla’s 10K are accurate. The extraordinary valuation leap is not easily explained. These are not my opinions. They are reality. It is my OPINION that there is some danged fancy slight-of-hand behind it because that’s what usually happens in events like this. Your OPINION might be different about that conclusion and at this point we would be equally right. But if you want to argue about conclusions I’ve drawn from Tesla’s filings, I suggest you first read them.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                realistic said:

                “…Tesla also happens to require an abnormally high valuation to exist by dint of obligation to bondholders…”

                What part of “This is not a financial forum” do you not understand?

                The article under discussion is an expansion of the Tesla Supercharger system. Not Tesla Motor’s finances.

                Please stop polluting the useful discussion here.

          3. realistic says:

            GetReal, calm down and… well, get real.

            I’m not acting “like [a] financial guy”. I am just reading Tesla’s filings. Have you read the 10K? If you own individual stocks you should pick at least one of the major periodic filings each year and really read it. You should also be aware of other major issues, like Form 4’s for officer/insider trades and any new 8Ks. Certainly read every 424 carefully.

            “Gee I wonder what’s going on here???” I’m reading the filings. I’m also reading publicly available info on creditors to Tesla’s revolver, who happen also to be underwriters. You, too, can get this info at a handy internet kiosk or freely accessed at Starbucks. The poorest, smelliest guy in your local public library can get this same info.

            “It couldn’t possibly be that the same person or a small group of stock manipulators is posting under multiple usernames in a desperate and lame attempt to manipulate Tesla’s stock for their own personal gain?” I don’t know what to tell you, GetReal. I will tell you exactly who I am: I’m the guy who reads filings and understands the meaning of entries. You must be the other guy.

            “After all, stock market shorters/gamblers have such great reputations for honesty and ethical behavior, right?” People who speculate on the downside of public issues have no more or less credibility than those who speculate on the upside. But in any case, if the idea disturbs you, perhaps you should explain the following entry in Tesla’s Form 424B for the $2.8B Convertible Bond offering: “Any governmental or regulatory action that restricts the ability of investors in, or potential purchasers of, the notes, to effect short sales of our common stock, borrow our common stock, or enter into swaps on our common stock could adversely affect the trading price and liquidity of the notes.” So maybe the attractiveness of Convertibles — which has been life’s blood to Tesla financing — depends on the volatility of the shares and a vibrant speculative market? Which includes (gasp!) short sales? Or why is that big underwriters like GS are permitted to take their healthy greenshoe and lend it out for short boirrowers (see page S-76)? Don’t know? Didn’t think so.

            “You don’t think they are afraid that the Model 3 reveal next month will torpedo their efforts do you?!” I know Wall Street loves (LOVES) the Musk trade… both sides of it. Tesla exists today BECAUSE of Wall Street, not in spite of it. Today I have only quoted the filings and done simple arithmetic. That seems to make YOU afraid.

            1. Get Real says:

              Can’t help but notice you haven’t rebutted even one of the reasons I listed that Tesla is successful and so much so that they are the ONLY new mass-production automotive company to successfully start up in the last 100 years?

              I don’t believe you are anything other then a stock manipulator (who probably doesn’t even drive a plug-in) who will not even disclose your short positions when you come here to spread your anti-Tesla FUD.

              1. Get Real says:

                Let me modify that some. I think its also possible you are anti-EV/change or beholden to Big Oil or the stealership model and are therefore undermined by the progress that is represented everytime Tesla builds something like more SuperChargers/Gigafactory/cars.

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  No, I think it’s very clear he’s a TSLA short-seller who is here only to disrupt useful discussion and promote his short-seller position.

                  1. ffbj says:

                    Sad, but probably true. Probably recruited by MB Spiegel, who is adamant to return here to a similar cacophony of derision which met his last short selling fud foray here.

              2. realistic says:

                I absolutely DO drive an EV, though it goes back to Nissan when the lease expires in May, when I expect I will replace it with a 2013 Volt purchase: prices are low enough and that car makes more sense to me than the Leaf which I have really enjoyed.

                The industry I am in cries out for electrification progress but we’ll only get there through pricing of newer Tier IV engines (aftertreatment, etc.) and not because anyone is particularly interested in “hybrid stuff”. That’s my life’s work right now.

                I don’t understand why pointing out financial risk is tantamount to hating babies. If I thought a biotech with a proposed cancer treatment had an unsustainable financial condition, would that mean I’m pro-tumor for pointing it out? A tool of the chemo industry? That sort of rhetoric is, to be kind, idiotic, and it doesn’t happen to me on those forums. Yes, there’s plenty of the “you’re a short” accusations, but none that impugn my ethical view of medicine.

                Tesla is really walking a knife edge. A financially untenable argument for the SC network does NOT help your cause or that of electrification. If it’s a crappy story it’s worth understanding, and frankly the Musk governance approach is quite opaque and can easily lead to TSLA being another SUNE.

                1. Get Real says:

                  Well Realistic, I’m not buying your BS that you are just a good Samaritan posting financial info here on an article about a new Tesla 20 stall SC going in.

                  Its far more likely you have ulterior motives IMHO.

                  Why don’t you go post your “concerns” in a investor forum somewhere? I suggest Seeking Alpha, lol.

                  1. realistic says:

                    I’m not posting “concerns”. That’s your guess. I’m posting interesting facts that are germane to Supercharger economics, which is a backbone to Tesla’s business thesis. This is about as interesting (or not) as is the presence of accomodations for MX trailering. The topic belongs.

                    1. sven says:

                      Don’t mind Get Real. He is the King of Tesla Fanboyz, and launches ad hominem attacks on anyone that doesn’t shower Tesla with glowing praise and adulation. He calls many people Fudsters, Tesla-haters, paid shills, etc.

                      It’s best to ignore him. Personally, I think the moderators should ban him.

                    2. staff says:

                      To the topic, as most (if not all) Tesla threads seem to be breaking down into a A vs B, personal battle.

                      As a result, we are considering moderating all comments that include comments referring to/putting down others as either “fanboys” or “trolls” – as well as those comments bringing forward old rivalries from old threads to new ones that also offer no new information/discussion on the topic at hand.

                      So the age of “comment with big boy pants on” or “not all” may unfortunately be coming – for the benefit of others who do not care to wade through the minutia of individual rivalries. Hopefully you and PP can work things out and co-exist, as well as the numerous other “friction-based” relationships before then.

    3. Priusmaniac says:

      In my math going from 107,8 to 333,2 is not a 300% increase but a 215 % increase and going from 380 to 584 supercharger location is not taking into account the exact number of superchargers since the last one tend to be larger and have more stalls. That is also not taking into account the on going investment in an exponential number of new planned locations and new 20 stalls still larger superchargers. Nor does it account for new pv investment and new battery buffering equipment. All in all, it come out as perfectly plausible numbers with no foul play at all.

      On the investors side, we can notice that all the big majors are present, so that’s rather a positive showing overall market confidence and not obscure underplay. They lend, they own, quiet the usual like for Ford, BASF, Facebook or many other companies.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        It’s been awhile — a few years — since I saw discussion on the Tesla Motors Club forum that analyzed the number of locations vs. stalls, and came up with an average of 5 per location. I haven’t looked at any update of that, but I’m getting the impression that the average number of stalls per location is going up over time.

        That alone would be sufficient to explain what “Realistic” (there’s a confusing screen name!) is trying to paint as a discrepancy.

        And thanks, Priusmaniac, for pointing out that the supposed “discrepancy” is far less than the 300% “Realistic” claimed.

        * * * * *

        What is it about so many short-sellers that cause them to post things which are so obviously untrue? Honestly, I don’t get it. You’d think they would realize they would be more likely to persuade people by sticking to the truth. In fact, the lack of truth in their posts is so pervasive that sometimes I wonder if it’s really “long” investors trying to use reverse psychology to get people ticked off at short-sellers!

        >:-/

        1. Get Real says:

          Yeah, isn’t it amazing how someone who’s whole persona and argument is based on numbers can’t even get the basic math straight!

          I will tell you what IS really amazing.

          How there are so many *%^&@s out there willing to sabotoge the most daring and innovative company in the world at advancing a technology and transition to a much better world for us and all that come after.

          Not to mention that it is probably a matter of survival for the human race to make this transition as quickly as possible which is why Musk (as an engineer/scientist) is working on the whole ecosystem with RE/transportation, etc.

          IMHO, these people who would put their own personal greed ahead of all society are lower then…Martin Shkreli for instance.

          1. Rick Danger says:

            PLUS ONE!

          2. realistic says:

            GR: You still there?

            Didya see today’s 8k from Tesla?

            Tesla admits they “overstated the cost and resulting net book value of the Supercharger network was included in Tesla Motors, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015”, and the real value should have been $166.6M, not $339.2M. So the TSLA boyz say “ooops, yeah we overstated book value by about 2x, ‘accidentally’ showing $$173,000,000 more asset value than we really had, but no worries: it’s immaterial'”

            Apologies accepted.

    4. Tech01x says:

      Final construction is likely less than 1/3rd the cost of a supercharger site. Tesla can count all expenses towards book value ahead of the actual opening of a site or even before visible construction. After all, the architects are mostly done, someone already shepherded the permitting process, and all the equipment is purchased ahead of visible construction. Therefore, you cannot take book value and divide by open Superchargers.

  10. And 0 stalls for Model X with trailer.

    1. Rick Danger says:

      It’s no picnic pulling into a gas station with a trailer either.

  11. Mister G says:

    WOW GO TESLA GO stick it to the gas guzzler industry.

  12. Speculawyer says:

    Tesla needs to build huge superchargers like that between SF Bay Area and Lake Tahoe, between SF Bay area and LA, and between LA and Las Vegas.

  13. kdawg says:

    So a “MegaCharger”. Can’t wait to see a “GigaCharger”.

    1. kdawg says:

      Here’s their location with 200 charging stations.

      1. Priusmaniac says:

        The new way to attract to the shopping mall!

  14. blandman says:

    What I find interesting is what appears to be a vertical integration in energy capture through consumption. The same person leads Solar City (energy capture), Tesla Powerwall (energy storage), Tesla Supercharging (energy delivery) and Tesla Motors (energy consumption). It is a wonderful and elegant plan if somehow the cost of electricity is reduced by using Solar City energy capture.

    1. Kacey Green says:

      he’s chairman at Solar City though

  15. Tyl says:

    The correct address of these forth coming superchargers is 47400 Kato Rd Fremont CA.
    See teslamotors club.com (search: Fremont 2) for more photos and information.

    ….. and big plus 1 to the moderators!!!

    1. Jay Cole says:

      Hey Tyl, thanks for the specific address, will add that in now.

      Sidenote: perfectly ok to link around here to anything on the topic at hand, (=

      Sidenote 2: +1/-1 voting will actually be implemented soon-ish (few bugs still being working out on the shadow/test site)

      1. kdawg says:

        Voting.. that’s going to be … interesting.

      2. Josh says:

        I agree with Kdawg, this is going to be interesting.

        Just to stir the pot, can we have the sum of all votes a comment gets displayed next to their name.

  16. Anon says:

    Makes me wonder if Model III is going to be ready much sooner than most people imagine…

    1. ffbj says:

      I had advanced that thought earlier too with the concept that Tesla has taken a lot of flak for being late, as they were, with almost everything they bought out. So now by giving a far off date they come in under it just for S&G’s.

      Well, I believed in Santa for a long time too.

  17. Braben says:

    This location is probably not meant for travelers. I know the area (it’s just a couple of miles from here); there’s no restaurant or anything like that in walking distance. Probably meant for cars that are being serviced/delivered once Tesla starts using the new building.

  18. ct200h says:

    Braben got it Bingo Publicly available but intended to be used for deliveries from the new facility, like a rush of cars model 3’s