Tesla's Australian Supercharger Network Costs More For a "Fill-Up" Than Old Fashioned Gasoline

 

For expensive, nearly useless climate change policies, Australia is a leading indicator of what will happen next in California, and eventually the rest of the United States. 

Democrats and other socialists all over the world want to replace inexpensive, reliable, constant sources of electrical power with expensive, unreliable, intermittent wind and solar power electricity. 

Replacing high density energy sources with low density energy sources makes no sense from a physics point of view. And even less sense from an economics point of view. Low cost reliable electricity is the foundation of economic growth. And alarmists want to tear up that foundation.

They hate economic growth and population growth.

And they want to replace gasoline and diesel-fueled cars and trucks with electric engine cars and trucks. Of course it would make sense to have only "renewable" sources of electricity first (a pipe dream), before pushing us into electric cars and trucks. But "sense" and climate alarmists have never met each other.

Here in Oakland County Michigan, our DTE Energy uses coal for over 60% of it's electricity (it was 64 percent a few years ago). That's about twice the national average, but let's not pretend there is no coal being used to generate electricity any more. 

 

So if you recharge your electric car here in Oakland County, and there are lots of Teslas in our county, you are driving a 60%+ coal car. And maybe that explains why such a huge percentage of Teslas on the road here, for the first few years they were in production, were black, like lumps of coal? Or maybe not.

 

It's official according to Australia-based WhichCar: Using the Australian Tesla Supercharger network now costs MORE to recharge your vehicle than it is to fill up the tank at a traditional gas station.

This was a result of a "recent price increase" to use the Superchargers and "incorrect fuel figures on the Tesla website".

This ends Tesla's claim that recharging its vehicles would save money compared with buying gasoline for traditional internal combustion engine vehicles.
 

"The cost of charging a relatively small Tesla Model 3 is $7 per 100km compared with $12 for a rival gasoline car," WhichCarsaid. But that estimate uses "at least three incorrect figures".  The report disputes "how much electricity a Tesla Model 3 uses, the cost of electricity at a Tesla Supercharger and the price of petrol."
 

Tesla recently increased its Supercharger to 52 cents per kilowatt-hour. The article calculates this recharging "even the most efficient" Model 3 Standard Range would cost $9.78 per 100km using a Supercharger.
 

A similar sized gasoline powered BMW 330i costs $8 per 100km to fuel, assuming the country's average cost of premium unleaded at $1.38. 

The BMW consumes 5.8 litres per 100km, below Tesla's estimates of 7.0 litres per 100km. So the BMW is 18% cheaper to fuel than a Tesla is to recharge at a Supercharger. 

The gasoline and self generated electric powered (aka hybrid) Lexus IS300h costs about 31% less than the Tesla charged using a Supercharger.

Tesla first used its Supercharger network, promising "free" electric charging, to lure customers into electric cars. Later they began charging for use of the network.

Like many other Tesla "promises" (solar roof tiles, one million robo-taxis, completely self driving cars), their Supercharger network does not deliver what was promised.