How Soon Can Tesla Get Battery Cell Costs Below $100 per Kilowatt-Hour?

How Soon Can Tesla Get Battery Cell Costs Below $100 per Kilowatt-Hour?

This is a link to an article from March 15, 2016. A couple of weeks or so prior to the Model ☰ Reveal Part I. It is a pretty good article. Below are my thoughts on it.

How Soon Can Tesla Get Battery Cell Costs Below $100 per Kilowatt-Hour?

I think it was some time in 2014 that Elon Musk noted he would be sorely disappointed if it took a decade to get their internal cost to $100 per kWh. Yes, some speak of cost per battery cell, while others are specific to battery packs. It is definitely best not to mix the terms, but some are not so specific as to which they mean. I figure that ambiguity is introduced on purpose.

Over the last three years or so, I have seen articles that claimed Tesla's internal cost was as much as $240 per kWh, and as low as $180 per kWh. This is the first indication I have seen that their internal cost might be as low as $150 per kWh at the pack level, already, ahead of Gigafactory production. I think Elon has been careful not to say either 'pack' or 'cell' in his statements -- not that it matters much, as traditional automobile manufacturers had been saying they cost around $500 per kWh. That had prompted me to think perhaps they were getting their automotive battery cells from LexCorp, perhaps.

Only very recently has General Motors let slip their cost at the battery cell level is $145 per kWh, which apparently angered LG at its public revelation. According to this article, that means GM would be paying perhaps $174 per kWh at the pack level to supply the Chevrolet BOLT. Thus, it's 60 kWh battery pack represents roughly $10,440 of the build cost for that $37,495 EV.

If the rumored amounts for Tesla are at the pack level though, things are a bit different. Because Elon has been positive for quite some time now that the absolute minimum reduction in their internal cost would be 30% from the outset. So, even if their cost had been as much as $240 per kWh, they would be reduced to 160 kWh instead -- $14 less per kWh than for Chevrolet BOLT at its best. Meaning a 60 kWh battery pack would be only $9,600 as an installed cost within a $35,000 car.

Even happier for Tesla, if their internal cost is as low as $180 per kWh already, a further 30% reduction would result in a $120 per kWh immediate cost through the Gigafactory. Making a 60 kWh battery pack cost them only $7,200. And if as this article suggests, Tesla's current pack level pricing is as low as $150 per kWh already, that means a 1/3rd reduction would put them at $100 per kWh from the very moment the first Model ☰ battery pack arrives at Fremont from the Gigafactory. Making a 60 kWh battery pack cost only $6,000 -- that's a $4,440 savings compared to GM's operation -- and pretty much absolutely guarantees profitability for the Model ☰ even if Tesla chooses to stuff the largest conceivable battery pack into its frame that they can manage at a $35,000 price point.

Since the Model ☰ Reveal Part I in late March 2016, Elon has said he does not foresee a need for an entry level vehicle below that car in their lineup. So, all those who have been hoping for an analog to a Toyota Corolla, Volkswagen Golf, Ford Focus, Chevrolet CRUZE, Hyundai Elantra, Kia Forte, Honda Civic, Nissan Sentra, or whatever can just forget about it... Along with those who practically demanded a short range 'cheap car' built like a Ford Fiesta, Chevrolet SONIC, Nissan VERSA, Hyundai Accent, or Kia Rio. The Model ☰ should be able to hold its own in worldwide sales, not just against direct competitors such as Acura TLX, Alfa Romeo Giulia, AUDI A4, BMW 3-Series, Cadillac ATS, Jaguar XE, Infiniti Q50, Lexus IS, and Mercedes-Benz C-Class... But also against those cars that will certainly move further up-market in the coming decade, such as Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Chevrolet MALIBU, Ford Fusion, et al. All this, while simultaneously eating away at the higher end cars like AUDI A6, BMW 5-Series, and Mercedes-Benz E-Class.

This is going to be beautiful to behold.

EaglesPDX | December 15, 2016

"General Motors rattled the electric vehicle world on October 1st when they announced that the battery cell costs inside the new Chevrolet Bolt was an “industry-leading” $145/kWh from its annual Global Business Conference. The declaration was significant for a couple reasons. For starters, it is unprecedented for any automaker to actually disclose specific battery pricing. Secondly, that confirmed $145/kWh price-point ended a long standing argument on how price competitive 2nd generation plug-ins could be, and just how low today’s battery costs actually were."

Tesla said $190/kWh for it's upcoming battery.

So $100 kWh does not seem far off

tstolz | December 15, 2016

Here is an interesting link showing Tesla's most current pricing lead in batteries using their new generation cells in the Powerwall. If the ratio holds for car packs ... which would be reasonable ... Tesla could be below $100 now. I actually doubt they are quite that low, but they are clearly way ahead of the rest!

andy.connor.e | December 15, 2016

Wasnt it estimated about another 7 or so years (2025) that it will reach $100/kWh?

SamO | December 15, 2016

No. 2020

Iwantmy3 | December 15, 2016

These stories seem to overlook an important point here. Tesla is offering to replace/upgrade older P90D battery packs with new P100D battery packs for $20000. They claim that the old packs will need to be recycled implying that they have no real value. This then implies that they are making 100 KWhr batteries and installing them into cars at a profit at $20000 a shot! That is $200 per KWhr including removal of the old battery, recycling the old battery, building a new battery pack, installing a new battery pack, and profit$$, Their cost for the batteries can't be much more than $130 per KWhr. This is before the cost improvement expected from the Gigafactory. I would also assume that there will be a significant profit markup on the powerwall 2. These are going for $5500 for a completed unit including the inverter (~$2000), the cooling system (~$??). I would guess that the remaining cost on the battery would also be $130 /KW.Hr or less.

nadurse | December 15, 2016

I would caution against comparing $/kWh of stationary storage battery packs with the $/kWh of units in automotive application. They are both large lithium-ion batteries but completely different industries with different safety and performance requirements.

topher | December 15, 2016

"recycling the old battery"

Recycling is not a cost, but rather a reduction in cost. A large portion of the battery cost is raw materials.

Thank you kindly.

Frank99 | December 15, 2016

It's important to note that the Tesla $190 quote was in response to an analyst who claimed GM's battery packs were about $188 / kwh back in April, and Tesla's were $260 / kwh. Jeff Evanson, VP of Tesla Investor Relations, responded that Tesla's prices were "already below $190 / kwh".
I read this not as a statement of cost ("Our battery packs are actually $189.99 / kwh, but I don't want to give an exact number so I'll say 'below $190'"), but as a rounded response to the GM estimate ("GM's cost is about $190 / kwh, and ours are already below that"). Heck, Tesla's costs at that time could have been $150 / kwh; his statement sets a maximum cost, but says absolutely nothing about the actuals. I think we'll find out eventually that Tesla's costs are remarkably low. As this analysis mentions:
"requiring old methods for estimating battery costs be thrown out the window".

andy.connor.e | December 15, 2016

You have to also look at the battery chemistry. GM's batteries could be less $/kWh than Tesla because they use an inferior battery chemistry which would cost less per kWh.

SamO | December 15, 2016

+1 Frank99

greg | December 15, 2016


While Powerwall and Automotive uses seem dissimmiliar.
The comparson with Powerwall is very apt.
As the difference between Powerwall 1 and 2 is important as the Powerwall Gen 1 uses the (old format) sized cells 18650s and older battery management systems [simitlar to what the Telsa MS and X had in them prior to the 100 kWh battery packs]. .

The Gen 2 uses the new 2170 size with newer battery management system, the same technology which the M3 will get.

So the relative performance improvement between Gen 1 and Gen 2 indicates the edge Tesla has in cell production and getting costs down at both cell and pack level.

For the Powerwall Gen 2 its doubled the battery storage capacity for a similar end user price, and now comes with inverter built in as well.

So whatever $/kWh battery cost and assembled battery packs cost models those analysts have been using, they're obviously totally out of touch with Teslas current reality.

JeffreyR | December 15, 2016

I figure GF-01 needs to get production to approach 30-50% of full capacity (good chunk of The Great Ramp Up) before they'll see a big drop in cost. Once they get really going they will achieve incremental savings regularly.

Red Sage ca us | December 15, 2016

JeffreyR: I remind you that Elon Musk has consistently said Tesla's internal cost will drop by 30%, as a minimum, from the outset. The very first automotive battery packs produced at the Gigafactory will already cost significantly less than those currently made at Fremont. Elon has also said that the initial drop might conceivably be as much as 50%. I think it likely myself.

No need to reach anywhere near 'full capacity', as it was noted some time ago that Gigafactory #001 now had three times the original maximum output as a goal by 2020. Thus, saying that Tesla would see no 'big drop in cost' until they had 30%-to-50% of the new total is just like giving credence to the Naysayers who claimed not a single Model ☰ would be Delivered until after the Gigafactory was finished in 2020. It is entirely contrary to what Elon has said all along, and effectively calls him a liar.

janendan | December 22, 2016

'Solid Energy' has said it is in discussion with battery end-users with it's new lithium air electrolyte. Claims include improved energy density, temperature range, charge time and safety. Has Tesla addressed this potential leap in performance? Their production schedule for car batteries was stated for early 2018.

Frank99 | December 22, 2016

I'm pretty sure that anyone who thinks they have a better car battery, and has working cells rather than PowerPoints, has sent them to Tesla for evaluation. And I'm sure that Tesla has a group that does nothing but evaluate batteries.
After reading Tech blogs for more years than I care to admit, people with blockbusting "better" batteries hit the press about every two months, and then disappear. It seems that it's easy to improve on the capacity of current batteries, but really hard to make them cheap, in volume, safe, and with long lifetimes in real-life conditions.

Red Sage ca us | December 23, 2016

janendan: What Frank99 said. Plus, there are certain issues that seem to adversely affect just about any 'battery technology' that is described as 'anythingeth AIR'. In particular, they seem to suffer the same issues as Hydrogen Fuel Cells: they don't work too well in cold temperatures, are subject to lowered performance at high altitude, strange things happen during rain or high humidity, are always 'promising' in the lab but never seem to reach the perceived potential in practice. Plus, there's the added benefit of greatly lowered longevity and the need to remove and replace components rather often, making for waste disposal issues. Tesla tends to use things that have already been proven to be manufactured in large quantities allowing for economies of scale in cost. If this is something that won't be manufactured at all until 2018, it is undoubtedly going to be expensive from the outset, no matter how good it actually is going to be.

janendan | December 23, 2016

I understand the objective criticism, but I was hoping someone else would take a look at it. Also, the Churchill Club did a panel on it, and they seemed tied to Tesla. Then at the end of discussion the Solid Energy guy dropped hint of something big coming soon. While I agree that 'range anxiety' is a mirage, I wonder how Tesla would introduce the advanced technology into the deliveries?

topher | December 23, 2016

Tesla is the largest consumer of batteries in the world. If there is a breakthrough in battery technology, they will be at the top of the company's potential sales list.

Thank you kindly.

Frank99 | December 23, 2016

>> I wonder how Tesla would introduce the advanced technology into the deliveries?

Well, as Tesla provides an 8 year warranty on batteries, once they were convinced the new batteries would work, they'd simply start shipping them on a new, higher-capacity pack. Tesla might announce a 150 KWH pack, at an outrageous price to keep the number they sold down, and they'd sell them and follow their performance closely before rolling them out to the entire fleet.

EaglesPDX | December 23, 2016

"GM recently showed a slide that said that its lithium-ion battery costs are down to about $145 per kilowatt hour, Hybrid Cars says, citing comments General Motors made at its Global Business Conference in Michigan. The company also showed that these costs may drop to $100/kWh by 2021. Heady stuff considering that Tesla Motors has said it'd hit those cost levels in 2020, and Tesla is not outsourcing the job like GM is (LG Chem makes the cells for the 2015 Spark EV and the Chevy Volts) . General Motors representatives confirmed to Autoblog that GM executive Mark Reuss presented the battery-cost estimate slide in a presentation at the conference."

Frank99 | December 23, 2016

An interesting read from March 2016:

Some quotes:
"Kallo suggests that Tesla "could reach its <$100 per kilowatt-hour target in the intermediate term as Gigafactory production ramps.""
"GM sees its battery cell cost hitting $100 per kilowatt-hour in 2022. (GM is quoting cell cost, while Kallo is talking about battery packs. "

Note that JB Straubel was predicting $100 / kwh "by the end of this decade". Of course, that was back in June 2015, before the Model 3 reveal, and before the acceleration of the Gigafactory and Fremont.

I think the industry is going to blast through $100 / kwh "soon" (I'll buy into "by the end of the decade"), on it's way down.

Exciting times.

Frank99 | December 23, 2016

Oops, didn't notice that one of my links is to the same article as the OP. How embarrassing.

tstolz | December 23, 2016

Tesla continuously monitors battery progress and rates each based on its potential. They are way ahead of you and me when it comes to knowing what's coming down the pipe! Due to production efficiencies alone Tesla will continue to be at least 30% lower cost than the competition for the forseable future ... probably more.

JeffreyR | December 23, 2016

@Red Sage
Good point about "at least 30%" being significant. I was thinking much more than that, but that would not address the OP's $100 milestone.

GF-01 seems to be going well. Latest video shows construction has doubled footprint. As @RS points out, Elon has tripled capacity estimates for GF-01 too.
Fremont City approved Tesla's plan to double the main factory.

The Great Ramp Up is coming and Tesla is going to blow through $100/kWh and keep driving costs down.

Red Sage ca us | December 24, 2016

JeffreyR: Hmmm... It seems you are speaking most of the percentage drop, while I am pointing out the timing. I was mainly responding to this part:

"...GF-01 needs to get production to approach 30-50% of full capacity ... before they'll see a big drop in cost."

To me, 30% drop in cost with the first battery packs from the Gigafactory, as compared to those sourced from Fremont, qualifies as a 'big drop'. Yes, even if the initial drop isn't to $100 per kWh. Of course, if it turns out Tesla's internal cost is in the $150-to-$152 range right now, that 30% drop will indeed be to $100. I think it is important to note Elon Musk's knowing smile when he commented that he would 'be very disappointed' if it took ten years to reach $100 per kWh when queried about that in 2014.

Also...? I wrote the Original Post above that started this thread. I'm pretty sure I agree with myself. (bigsmileyfacegrin)

tstolz | December 24, 2016

It will be interesting if the OEMs step up to bring their battery costs under control. It is clear they will need to go big to do this! So far nothing but crickets.

Personally I doubt the other battery manufactures will go big without a contract ... way too risky with how the OEMs are dragging their feet. MB and VW are the most aggressive but they are still looking at just a fraction of the volume of Tesla.

Frank99 | December 24, 2016

I agree.
As long as the other OEMs are planning 30,000 unit compliance cars, battery manufacturers aren't going to build capacity. Only once LG, Samsung, Panasonic, and others see that GM and others are planning cars that will sell in 100,000 unit quantities will they make the capital investments to bring GF-style plants on line. This will give Tesla another 3-4 year lead on other manufacturers, this time it's simply battery supply.

Red Sage ca us | December 24, 2016

Frank99: True enough. Though I was really surprised that GM has ten (count 'em 10) passenger cars across three divisions that are currently being outsold by the Tesla Model S this year. That, despite their having 900+ Cadillac, 1,900+ Buick/GMC, and 2,900+ Chevrolet locations as 'independent franchised dealerships' working hard on their behalf, compared to barely 100 Tesla Stores/Galleries operating in only 26 States. Among those ten cars are all five (ATS, CT6, CTS, ELR, & XTS) passenger cars from Cadillac, and none of those sell as well as the Chevrolet VOLT. I say this because GM had in times past summarily Canceled any nameplate other than 'Corvette' that sold in such low numbers. So maybe, just maybe, they really do believe that a 30,000 unit Production from BOLT is a proper commitment to EV. My gut feeling still says that the BOLT is meant to be a halo car at best, and a disposable compliance car at worst. There's a good chance that once the Model ☰ arrives, it will go on to outsell the entire Cadillac division combined on its own in 2018.

Frank99 | December 24, 2016

Hard to argue with you. The Bolt has a first-mover advantage and will sell a lot (well, compared with other EVs) of cars in the next 12 months because of that. But once the Model ☰ ships, the Bolt is going to have a hard time maintaining sales when people compare a $40,000 Bolt to a $40,000 Model ☰ . We'll see Bolt fire sales just like we're currently seeing Leaf fire sales.

Bryan.whitton | December 24, 2016

All this talk about about a hypothetical $100/kWh battery price is interesting but I think a more important number to think about is when will the complete drive train cost of a BEV compare to an similarly marketed ICE?
Will the drive train of a M3 be lower than the drive train of a Series 3 BMW appointed similarly?

That is my question.

tstolz | December 25, 2016

@brayan ... I think you are right in that people want to see the outright purchase price of EVs match ICE. Even though EVs operate at 1/3 the fuel cost, a fraction of the maintenance cost, will last longer, and are nicer to drive.

Personally, I figure a $35,000 Model 3 will compete in long-term cost to a $25,000 Toyota.

bj | December 25, 2016

@bryan.whitton - "when will the complete drive train cost of a BEV compare to an similarly marketed ICE?"

Putting battery cost to one side, I think it already is. BEV drivetrain is fundamentally simpler than ICE, way fewer moving parts and components. That directly translates to a fundamental economic advantage.

Including the battery cost, the gap is narrowing fast. Given the better driving experience, efficiency, and lower running and maintenance costs of a BEV, some would argue the overall package is already better, dollar for dollar.

The ICE death warrant hasn't been signed yet but the document has been prepared.

Frank99 | December 25, 2016

I've been trying to find out how much a 200 hp 4 cylinder motor and transmission costs, and it's been challenging.

There's a lot more information on EV costs. For example, here's:
a 2014 discussion of motor and controller costs for EV's. It estimates about $15/KW for charger/motor/inverter in 2014 - or about $2000 for an 80 KW system in a Spark EV (Tesla's motors are 250-350 KW). That seems outrageously high, especially when this one:
suggests there's only $260-$590 worth of materials in a 50 KW PMDC motor, and about $150 worth in the same size induction motor.

Let's assume that in the near future a 60 kwh pack costs $100 + $20 / kwh for cells plus pack, or about $7200. Let's assume that the inverter hits the first link's $3.3 / KW inverter cost goal ($1000 for a Tesla 300 KW DU), we use an induction motor at $1000, and a 48 KW charger @ $150. That's about $9350 for high performance electric drive.

How much does an ICE cost? Not as much as I would have guessed. I can have a brand-new carb'ed Chevy 350 motor delivered to my house for $5150 - perhaps it costs GM $1500 to build it (selling to a distributor at 45% margin, then the distributor taking a 45% margin gets us about there).
Transmission is about $2000, so perhaps $600 to build. That comes up to about $2100 cost for a high-power V8 drivetrain - Let's assume about 2/3 that cost for a 200 HP 4 cylinder turbo setup, or about $1400.

This would show about an $8000 cost delta in the drivetrain between a high-performance EV and a, for example, low end BMW 3 Series (a 6 cyl model might drop that drivetrain difference to $7600). At a Tesla profit margin, that might end up being an $11000 price difference to the customer. Why there's a $17000 delta between a Cruze and a Volt is a bit of a mystery to me - perhaps not so much once you recognize that the Volt has both an EV drive system as well as an ICE; the same cost delta between a Sonic and a Bolt is a bit more difficult to understand.

$11000 is a big cost barrier to overcome at the dealership. Sure, I look far enough into the future to recognize that saving $1200 / year (my estimate for my use) pays me back eventually, ignoring maintenance items like timing belts and oil changes. But for many people the problem is immediate - "get me into the car with the lowest payments".

In my opinion as a long time liberal, government isn't the answer here. This calls for a simple, Reagan-like solution: simply stop government action to prefer one over the other. Stop EV subsidies, stop ICE subsidies, stop sending young men to die in the Middle East to guarantee oil supplies. If you stop subsidizing ICE vehicles, their cost will climb as EV costs are falling: let it happen naturally. In a few years, in the face of $5-10 per gallon prices, even the "get me into the car with the lowest payments" crowd will recognize the short sightedness of that approach.

Circling back to the OP's question, by far the biggest driver of the cost differential between an EV and an ICE is the battery cost. It appears that the ICE and transmission is roughly comparable in cost to the Electric motor, inverter, and charger. The biggest problem is that a gas tank is cheaper than a battery pack. The faster that costs can be driven out of the pack, the faster that costs reach parity. $100 / kwh is a great goal for cells; $100 / kwh for a pack is a better goal.

Frank99 | December 25, 2016

I didn't say anything about the GOP - which despite it's claim to be the "conservative" party has turned into a corporatist theocracy - or the wider implications of Reagan's policies, nor was I discussing how the past would have unfolded with a "Reaganaut" government.

All I was saying is that, in the present, high performance EV's have been shown by Tesla to be desirable, practical, and shortly economical. There's no longer a need for the government to try to tilt the playing field - EM already tilted it, and the result is inexorable. The worst thing that could happen in the US is for the US government to try to help Ford and GM weather the market change. That's GM and Ford's job.

And that's my opinion.

Frank99 | December 25, 2016

>> They have a $15,000 (at Volt/Cruze level) to a $30,000 (at Tesla level) economic disadvantage.
I'm pretty sure that, come this time next year, this will be proven a fallacy.
Regardless, even if you assume a $15,000 price disadvantage, I believe that on a level playing field EVs will become more popular than ICE vehicles, because a level playing field would drive gas prices higher than we've yet seen in the US.

akgolf | December 25, 2016

I agree Frank.

I reserved not knowing if I would get the tax credit and with every intention of buying without one. With the Model 3 Tesla is planning on creating a car to compete with similar priced cars regardless of any credits and what I've seen so far looks very compelling.

JeffreyR | December 25, 2016

The reason @Red Sage asked about the $100/kWh level is that is regarded as the point at which BEVs are comparable in costs to ICEV.

@RS and I were discussing some finer points (plus he was reminding correcting me too), but the main point is that Tesla has a clear plan of how to drive down the costs of highly effective, temperature-managed batteries. Massive Scale, controling supply chain, vertical integration, tax/tariff savings, shipping savings, and stationary storage all allow supply arbitrage (got Lithium/Copper/Aluminum?) and reduce costs both dramatcally and consistently over time. (Sorry iPad is not helping me edit that last bit)

I believe that @RS's point about initial dramatic savings will be followed by steady savings as production ramps.

Remember the M3 will be followed by the MY and some other important vehicles (pick up, Roadster 2.0, city mini-bus, and maybe wagon). The MY alone will double demand as it should sell as well, if not better than the M3. On top of that MS/MX have not peaked, especially the MX.

An EV motor is simple. It's inverter is complex, but the reduction gear is simple. The battery pack is big and relatively expensive, but it is a drop in part that I imagine may fit all Teslas passenger vehicles at some point. An ICE-maker may have scale now, but the downward costs and steady innovation are on Tesla's side. Legacy ICE needs to add complexity and cost to meet pollution standards.

Red Sage ca us | December 26, 2016

I look forward to cars such as Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Chevrolet MALIBU, Ford Fusion, et al. becoming long range fully electric vehicles as their standard, preferred configuration some day. I'd like that.

bj, frank99, & JeffreyR: +21!

tstolz | December 26, 2016

This isn't hard. No one except cranks think ICE age cars will compete with EVs much longer.

Consider that a Tesla model 3 and BMW3 cost the same now at a starting price of $35,000.

The Tesla however will save me $18,000 in fuel and $6,000 in repairs over 300,000km.

The BMW would be pretty much done at that point, but the Tesla would likely do another 150,000 to 300,000 km saving another $17,500 to $35,000 in reduced depreciation in addition to fuel and repair savings.

Oh ... and we didn't even talk about better driving experience of EVs or carbon,, or pollution.

EVs are cheaper now.

JeffreyR | December 26, 2016

@tstolz wrote, "EVs are cheaper now," bc. of TOC, pollution, and driving dynamics.

Well put! Could not agree more. But you forgot this father's main feature: they are much safer. Well at least Tesla's are certainly, but BEVs in general have larger crumple zones up front and do not have gas tanks that explode or cause deadly fires.

Sure some batteries have caught fire too, but usually they catch gradually and allow everyone to get clear first. I think of the Paul Walker crash as an example vs. Tesla crash in Mexico. The guy in Mexico went through a wall and hit a tree. Both were high-speed crashes involving expensive cars, but the guy in Mexico walked away; The famous actor died.

My folks live up against a major boulevard, with a bike lane, wide sidewalks, trees, and grass borders and dividers. Think SoCal nice suburb, we locals call it T.O. Blvd. A car full of teenagers hit one of the streetlight poles and launched their engine ~100 feet across the inersection right behind my folks' house. Two were called on scene, one died later, the last passenger spent days in the ICU. No one was hit by the flying ICE bc it was pretty late at night, but that was lucky. The ICE would have killed any pedestrian or cyclist it hit.
If they had been driving a M3 in Valet Mode w/ AP2 HW instead of their BMW 3-Series, they would all likely still be alive. And no ICE would have flown 100 feet.

topher | December 26, 2016

"But for many people the problem is immediate - "get me into the car with the lowest payments"."

Those people should learn how to do accounting then. If the important thing is getting into a car now, they need to compare MONTHLY COSTS. That means they need to include FUEL. If they are buying on credit, 'payback' is not a metric that even makes sense. Calculate monthly loan payment PLUS monthly fuel and service costs, (subtract resale value, or MPV of fuel savings beyond loan period), and then choose the lowest.

Thank you kindly.

tstolz | December 26, 2016

Pigeon - I just outlined how they already are cheaper. This really isn't hard!

Tesla model 3 is priced at the same entry point as its competitors yet it costs much less to refuel, maintain, and it lasts longer.

Mike drop.

SamO | December 26, 2016


dyefrog | December 26, 2016

"EV's will not be economically competitive at the consumer level for the foreseeable future. The $100kWh battery leaves the EV with a $15,000 (at 8kWh Volt level) to $30,000 (at 100 kWh Tesla level) disadvantage and that $100 kWh is still in the future, 2020 per Tesla and LG."
We've been over this numerous times. e.g. "Consider that a Tesla model 3 and BMW3 cost the same now at a starting price of $35,000."
And before you jump into the fed tax credit is the only reason the above is possible, a number of forum members have already stated it was irrelevant to their decision. Do you also think the only reason the typical bolt buyer exists is due to going green and the tax credit. I highly doubt it. I think they either already drive an EV and know the advantages or are smart enough to step back and really study the advantages. As has been also discussed is Franks point that on a level playing field, EV's would already hold an advantage. You laid out the numbers yourself as to what subsidies already support ICE cars. I'll lay it out again. If there were no government intervention or subsidies on both sides, EV's would trounce ICEV's TODAY.

SamO | December 26, 2016

16,000,000 EVs by 2025.

TESLA will have 1/2 of the entire EV market.

GM will be bankrupt again. Prolly twice.

Flags ahoy.

tstolz | December 26, 2016

Hilarious rationalization by Pidgeon. Classic. Even though EVs are priced the same as their competition ... think Model 3 vs BMW 3 .. somehow they are more expensive ??? The guy not only fails math he has lost all reason.

The men in the white coats are on the way E ... hold tight ... lololol


KP in NPT | December 26, 2016

He's just spewing his GM corporate spin.

Of course GM's costs will be higher - they don't have economies of scale and they have no interest in it. So their EV offerings will be overpriced for what they are in the foreseeable future. See: 37.5K Bolt that is a 25K car with an expensive battery, then price jacked even more because they know the customer might get some tax credit.

tstolz | December 26, 2016

I'm wondering if Pidgeon stopped taking his meds ... these posts don't make any sense at all! There is nothing to argue about here. EVs are competitive period based on listed selling price.

The guy had lost it!

akgolf | December 26, 2016

I think he has lost it. What the hell is this?

"When EV manufactures readh the $100 kWh in 2020, EV's will still be $30,000 more than an equivalent ICE vehicle

1. Battery 100 kWh for 300 miles is $10,000
2. Four 50 HP motors and gear boxes (high torque, high rpm) $4,000"

Red Sage ca us | December 26, 2016

So, Pidgeon... Lemme get this straight... Tesla would have to sell their cars at about $17,000 each... to GM as a fleet... So they could mark them up by $20,000... for 'independent franchised dealerships' to sell, with yet ANOTHER markup to 'what the market can bear'... And THEN it would prove that EVs were affordable? Is that about right? Man. I am so glad I can't see your posts anymore. This is good.