Hacker News Reader

Comment by offmango | Hacker News Reader

I find it fascinating how Tesla is approaching this from both ends, supplying both the vehicles and the power. If the electric vehicle trend goes their way, they'll have an enormous advantage in the market. But if Tesla goes belly-up for whatever reason and the charging stations had to close, Tesla owners could lose their primary fuel source.

View on HN

I would imagine the primary fuel source for a Tesla owner would be their home charging station.

Superchargers aren't anyone's primary fuel source. Most everyone lives 50+ miles from the nearest one -- they're located along interstates, between cities rather than within cities, which avoids people using all the bays to charge up as part of their daily commute. Supercharging too often also reduces the lifespan of the battery moreso than a regular charge-up.

I believe you, but note that the Tesla website only says this:

> How often can I Supercharge, is it bad for my battery? > > Supercharging does not alter the new vehicle warranty. > Customers are free to use the network as much as they like.

http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

They do this to increase adoption, but it would probably still reduce the life of the battery. I doubt people would use their supercharger every day unless they happened to live next door to one. Their purpose of the supercharger network is to reduce the whole "distance-fear" that EVs have.

If tesla goes belly-up, the supercharger network won't just disappear. Whoever they sell the charging infrastructure to probably won't offer it to Tesla drivers for free, but it's not just going to disappear.

There are many other companies besides tesla who offer public charging, like Blink & Chargepoint. Tesla owners can still recharge their vehicles at these stations even though the charge rate is probably slower.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com