back to article Germany says NEIN to purchase incentive for Tesla Model S

The German government has removed Tesla's Model S from a list of electric cars eligible for subsidies after accusations that buyers are paying more than the subsidy price cap for its basic model. No Tesla models can be found on a list of "eligible electric vehicles" (PDF) published by the Federal Office for Economic Affairs …

  1. regregular

    As soon as electric, german high-end sedans and SUVs trickle out of the manufacturers pipelines that price cap will mysteriously vanish, I am quite sure...

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Unhappy

      "that price cap will mysteriously vanish"

      yep. I suspect Mercedes might be interested in making a competing model to the Tesla, for the same market.

      Interestingly enough, those who can AFFORD these things DO! NOT! NEED! A! SUBSIDY!!!

      (so why IS there a subsidy, anyway? yeah I know why, and it's stupid)

      1. JimJimmyJimson

        These are the same people who can typically afford to drive anything they fancy. So if an incentive makes them buy an electric car rather than an environmentally less good v8 Mercedes then that sounds like a reasonable use of an incentive. Lets also not forget that these are the people whose tax revenue supports everyone else - so perhaps they for once deserve the same break that everybody else gets....

        1. big_D Silver badge

          @JimJimmyJimson

          There are other incentives, like reduced / no road tax for electric vehicles currently and the performance is certainly on a par with many high end sport-saloons. Only the range is a problem - and that is a big problem in Germany, when people drive the 6-800KM from Munich to Hanover, Hamburg etc. for a business meeting, then drive back the same day or early the next morning.

          A powerful diesel will do the trip to Hanover in around 5 hours (depending on traffic), but you need to keep the speed up above 200km/h most of the time. A quick fuel stop for 10 minutes, if you must - I did the trip in my old Ford Mondeo 2L diesel in around 5 hours without stopping, on my Honda VFR800 I did the trip in just over 4 hours, but needed to stop 3 times to refuel - is a very different equation to driving a Tesla, for example, which will quickly overheat and reduce speed and get nowhere near its normal range if you are pushing it constantly at 200+ km/h for hours on end.

          That is one of the major reasons why electric isn't catching on very quickly for those that drive equivalent cars (Audi A6 / VW Passat / BMW 5 / Mercedes E etc.), because they generally drive long distances on a regular basis for work and the company doesn't have a lot of understanding for having to stop more often and for longer, when you are driving to a customer site.

        2. JLV Silver badge

          >people who can typically afford to drive anything they fancy ... reasonable use of an incentive

          No it isnt.

          > Lets also not forget that these are the people whose tax revenue supports everyone else - so perhaps they for once deserve the same break that everybody else gets

          i.e. you rob them to pay them back??? that makes no sense, least of all probably to them - they'd probably just prefer less taxes

          yes, government is necessary and there are many cases where market forces on their own do not achieve desired outcomes. but any time the government collects money, some of that money is bound to be lost in collections, management and disbursement costs. that's dead money and does not benefit anyone except for public sector employee payrolls.

          so you want to target subsidies where they're really needed. not fluff in useless ones like luxury vehicles.

          in fact, one big problem with global warming mitigation is that politicians are way too fond of subsidizing instead of just taxing emissions, since it's so much easier electoral-wise.

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            "n fact, one big problem with global warming mitigation is that politicians are way too fond of subsidizing instead of just taxing emissions, since it's so much easier electoral-wise."

            How do you tax somebody already at the bottom end of the economic scale for a car they bought second hand really cheap as that was all they could afford?

            To reach emissions reduction goals, more people are going to be motivated by incentives than tax avoidance. It's often easier to budget for additional small expenses than trying to cover something that's cheaper in the long run but more expensive up front.

      2. Lars Silver badge
        Happy

        "I suspect Mercedes might be interested in making a competing model to the Tesla, for the same market.".

        Why do you suspect such a surprising thing might happen, of course they will, like every car maker in the world.

        But you are right, people who want and can afford a car like Tesla or similar will get one regardless of any subsidy. If any subsidy is used it should be where the volumes are.

        PS. Caps are shouty and always fail their purpose.

    2. JohnG Silver badge

      The Porsche Mission E will apparently be available in 2019, allegedly for just over €70,000 - it will be interesting to see if the €60,000 subsidy limit remains in place. Interestingly, a Porsche Mission E has recently been seen on German roads, apparently testing in the company of a Tesla Model S.

    3. big_D Silver badge

      The existing high-end German electric vehicles aren't on the list either.

      The list is there for Jochen Average, they will spend between 8,000€ and 40,000€ on average, so putting a cap of 60K is way above what normal people spend on cars, and if you are buying in the luxury segment, you don't need the subsidy.

    4. thenitz

      Well, the plug-in versions of the Mercedes S-Klasse and BMW 7-series are not on the list. Neither is the Porsche Cayenne or Panamera. The 5 series and the E-Klasse are the most expensive cars on that list.

      It makes sense, if you have that much money to pay for a car, the subsidy won't affect your choice much.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I think it's even worse...

    ... in that once one version of the model was available under €60k, all versions of the model would have been eligible for the subsidy. So, not only is Tesla losing the incentive on the bare-bones Model S, but for the all Model S variants. The basic version only existed to open the entire Model S range for subsidies, if it turns out now that this base model cannot be had, the entire range drops out.

    1. Jim Mitchell

      Re: I think it's even worse...

      This is the only way things make sense.

  3. The Nazz Silver badge

    Quite frankly ...

    If you can afford to shell out €60k on a new motor then you don't deserve any subsidy.

    And with the white car in the photo, with a little imagination it looks similar to the Rover SD40's from the mid-80's. Which, quite frankly, were shit.

    So much for progress.

    1. Ledswinger Silver badge

      Re: Quite frankly ...

      And with the white car in the photo, with a little imagination it looks similar to the Rover SD40's from the mid-80's.

      You mean the Rover SD1, methinks. For its day, a vast, comfortable car with very good performance, although it was of course subject to the appalling manufacturing quality of the UK's state owned car cobbler.

    2. jeffdyer

      Re: Quite frankly ...

      They were not shit at all. The fact that you don't even remember the name suggests your recollection may be foggy.

  4. Charlie Clark Silver badge

    Cash for clunkers MK II

    Electric cars are already heavily subsidised not least through the complete lack of duty on their fuel.

    With the very real threat of cars being banned from city centres by the courts, we're bracing ourselves for a much bigger subsidy (left-pocket to right-pocket but a great vote winner) to retrofit Euro-Diesel IV + V cars with NOX reduction systems. Or trade-ins for Euro VI.

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Cash for clunkers MK II

      I have a Euro 6 diesel that isn't affected by the current scandal. but it isn't a Euro 6e(?) (there are no 6E diesels currently on the market, it is new and not officially ratified) and the talk is that only these new cars will be allowed into cities. There will also, if I remember the ADAC report recently, no possibility to retrofit existing cars to 6E specifications and getting them reclassified.

    2. Graham 25

      Re: Cash for clunkers MK II

      "Electric cars are already heavily subsidised not least through the complete lack of duty on their fuel."

      Complete and utter garbage.

      If you don't use something, you don't have to pay their taxes and thats not a subsidy.

      What a strange world you live in.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Cash for clunkers MK II

        If you don't use something, you don't have to pay their taxes and thats not a subsidy.

        So what you're saying is that electric vehicles don't use the roads, and shouldn't have to pay for the road construction, maintenance, operation, road policing, road rescue and ambulance services, for the pollution from electricity generation, for vehicle administration and revenue recovery, and indeed for the singificant sums of excess money that government recover from motorists, but don't spend on roads.....

        ..or are you just a complete fool? My money's on the latter.

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Cash for clunkers MK II

          "So what you're saying is that electric vehicles don't use the roads, and shouldn't have to pay for the road construction, maintenance, operation, road policing, road rescue and ambulance services, for the pollution from electricity generation, for vehicle administration and revenue recovery, and indeed for the singificant sums of excess money that government recover from motorists, but don't spend on roads…"

          There is a big advantage to having an electric car right now by not having to pay the taxes levied on fuel that is supposed to go for fixing roads, etc. The number of EV's on the road is such a small percentage of the total number of cars that it isn't a factor right now. Let's just hope that legislators spend some time coming up with a fair and reasonable set of fees to make up for the loss in fuel tax revenue. California already has an extra registration fee for EVs even as they are trying to come up with more rebates to benefit Tesla that will negate the additional revenue and probably exceed it.

          As far as pollution goes, you must be forgetting that in addition to tailpipe emissions from ICE vehicles there is also that small matter of 7.46kWh of electricity per US gallon of gasoline to refine the crude oil.

    3. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: Cash for clunkers MK II

      "Electric cars are already heavily subsidised not least through the complete lack of duty on their fuel."

      Given that we pay both VAT and duty on petrol, isn't the above a much more sensible and fair way of doing things?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Automotive manufacturers do all kinds of questionable things to get out of regulation. I used to work for one in the Bill of Materials team and they had options that don't cost the customer any extra. You may think it's something like paint, or a different type of body kit, but no. It's things like engine covers, and insulation to block sound. Parts which the company removes before going to get it officially weighed.

    There were many minions like I who questioned whether it is legal and were told all companies do it, and this was soon after dieselgate so no lessons learnt. I also asked if it was possible for a customer to say "I don't want those even though it won't cost me any extra ", but I doubt they would be able to buy a car without them. I wouldn't mind going in and asking for one without but I don't have a spare £60k+.

    1. Lars Silver badge
      Coat

      "Automotive manufacturers do all kinds of questionable things to get out of regulation."

      And then there are politicians who love to get out of regulations too, and that is more scary as they are more or less unregulated.

  6. The Dogs Meevonks

    As some one who bought into the govt push to encourage people to buy diesels in the previous decade to save money (and I did, going from a sporty V6 petrol car that got me 22-32 depending on roads/distance driven to 45-60mpg in a larger, heavier and yet more comfortable diesel saloon)... I'm wary of anything that is being pushed as the new thing to have for the environment...

    Electric cars are not a solution, they don't cut emissions as they simply transfer the emissions from the exhaust pipe to the power stations. Range anxiety, slow charging and so forth are of no use to anyone who is required to travel any reasonable distance in an expected time... I'm sure employers would love to hear how your shiny new environmentally friendly vehicle took you an extra 2hrs to get to the site and begin work.. because you had to charge it up halfway there... Or for those who make multiple visits to multiple clients, often in places with no access to chargers at all.. meaning yet another stop to recharge your vehicle enough to make it to the next needed mini top up.

    Fuel cells on the other hand ARE a decent and viable solution, and as a short term fix, hybrid cars should be what people are looking to purchase until such a time as govt/business gets of their arse and puts the infrastructure in place to refuel fuel cell vehicles.

    All electric vehicles are a con and the intention is to convince people to BUY MORE CARS and prop up a floundering economy caused by Labours incompetence and the Tories greed and desire to punish any one who's not rich... and god help you if you are sick or disabled... because they really loathe those types and want to see them suffer more and more each day.

    1. AdamWill

      nope.

      "Electric cars are not a solution, they don't cut emissions as they simply transfer the emissions from the exhaust pipe to the power stations."

      Well, no, not really. Even ignoring clean power (where I live, for e.g., 97% of power generation is hydroelectric), power stations can generate the power rather more efficiently than tiny powerplants in cars can, and the emissions can also be controlled more effectively at scale. Not to mention that power plants tend to be placed such that far fewer humans are exposed to their emissions than are exposed to the emissions from vehicle exhausts. Yes, for things like greenhouse gases this doesn't really matter, but for e.g. particulate emissions that cause lung damage, it matters *a lot*.

      "Range anxiety, slow charging and so forth are of no use to anyone who is required to travel any reasonable distance in an expected time... I'm sure employers would love to hear how your shiny new environmentally friendly vehicle took you an extra 2hrs to get to the site and begin work.. because you had to charge it up halfway there... Or for those who make multiple visits to multiple clients, often in places with no access to chargers at all.. meaning yet another stop to recharge your vehicle enough to make it to the next needed mini top up."

      These are all reasonable reasons why existing electric vehicles aren't suitable for *some* people, sure. I don't think anyone's suggested they are. No-one's telling people who drive their pickup 500 miles a day to replace it with a Nissan Leaf. But lots of people have cars and don't actually drive them hundreds of miles a day, they drive them fifty or fewer miles a day and just about never drive them more than a couple hundred miles. For these people, existing electric cars are already a great option.

      "Fuel cells on the other hand ARE a decent and viable solution"

      The market doesn't appear to agree with you there, since just about no-one is building them. They have their own issues, which you seem to just ignore entirely in favour of a blanket statement that they're "a decent and viable solution" with exactly no supporting evidence.

      "as a short term fix, hybrid cars should be what people are looking to purchase until such a time as govt/business gets of their arse and puts the infrastructure in place to refuel fuel cell vehicles."

      This seems weirdly prescriptive. If an all-electric car is suitable to someone's needs, who are you to tell them they "should be...looking to purchase" a hybrid instead? If you are one of the people who drives hundreds of miles a day in such a way that charging an all-electric car is impractical, sure, a hybrid may be a good choice (though they have downsides, being as how you're basically paying for two separate powertrains and the extra maintenance that results from that complexity).

      "All electric vehicles are a con and the intention is to convince people to BUY MORE CARS and prop up a floundering economy caused by Labours incompetence and the Tories greed and desire to punish any one who's not rich... and god help you if you are sick or disabled... because they really loathe those types and want to see them suffer more and more each day."

      This just seems to be a wild rant that's rather disconnected from reality. Plus...in the rest of your comment you seem (so far as I can make out) to be advocating incentivising the purchase of fuel cell and/or hybrid vehicles instead...so how would that be any different? They're still cars...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: nope.

        A very erudite reply and well said.

        It is nice that the luddites that were downvoting every pro EV post in site a few days ago are taking a day off (perhaps I am speaking too soon but what the heck)

        I'm about to get in my PHEV and do the weekly shop then head out to do the Christmas shopping and I may well not use a drop of Fossil fuel.

        The car was charged by yesterdays sun falling on my house when it was plugged in. (I was up in London breating in all those horrid Diesel Fumes to attend a frankly useless meeting but I went by Electric Train so all was not lost)

        I get all my Grid Electricity (and 12% of my Gas) from renewable sources.

        My driving a car with an electric motor does NOT move the pollution from the tailpipe to the power station. That myth was frankly debunked years ago but gets brough up every so often by the likes of the Koch Brothers in the USA and Trump himself with all that crap about clean coal.

        1. Scott Wichall

          Re: nope.

          So the power company specifically sends electrons to your house that were generated from renewable sources do they? Its not like nipping to Tesco and buying a packet of organic spuds and some soy milk...

      2. Graham 25

        Re: nope.

        Spot on. I can put a solar panel on my garage roof facing south and charge up the car a lot of the time for free, using a storage unit in the garage.

        The OP seems obsessed with stopping people from using free electricity using spurious, desperate arguments.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: nope.

          The OP seems obsessed with stopping people from using free electricity

          Free to who? If you're in the UK, chances are any PV panels attract the Feed In Tariff subsidy, which is a tax on all other electricity users so that PV owners can stand back and boast about their "free" electricity, and how they're "saving the planet". Of course, in winter their panels are useless roof decorations, and they contribute exactly the same as everybody else to peak electricity demand, which is what sets the majority of electricity costs.

          In my book, PV owners = Tax dodging sanctimonious knob ends.

          1. TRT Silver badge

            Re: nope.

            Am I wrong in my understanding that fuel cells actually generate electricity, then?

            1. MachDiamond Silver badge

              Re: nope.

              "Am I wrong in my understanding that fuel cells actually generate electricity, then?"

              Yes, you are wrong. Creating Hydrogen by reforming natural gas isn't efficient, but it is is far more efficient than using any form of electricity to electrolyze water into H2 and O. Both methods still take power to compress the Hydrogen to around 240 bar to load into a FCV. The fuel cell isn't 100% efficient either so the whole system is leaking energy from every step.

              Hydrogen isn't a "fuel", it's a storage medium similar to a battery. One upside to EVs is that electricity is prevalent everywhere and Hydrogen needs to be captured and filling stations built to handle it. An EV is also source agnostic. It doesn't matter to the battery if the electricity was generated at a coal fired power plant or a wind turbine or even a petrol powered emergency generator. If the power is out in an area, a Hydrogen filling station isn't going to work either.

    2. rajivdx

      Not so...

      > All electric vehicles are a con...

      If you understand how electric vehicles work you will know that is not true. For example your petrol/diesel vehicle does not generate fuel when you brake, but an electric vehicle does allowing you to recover most of the energy you expended when you put your foot down when the lights turned green. You also have the option of sourcing the energy to charge your car from greener sources such as solar - you do not with fossil fuels. (Yeah-yeah to bio-fuels, but I'd rather feed the hungry in Africa with all that corn than turn it to fuel for your car)

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        Re: "an electric vehicle does allowing you to recover most of the energy you expended"

        Not really. As specified here, regenerative braking is not sufficient to bring a vehicle to a stop, so friction braking is still needed. That means that you lose electricity on the energy used by friction, which is substantial because "mechanical braking is still necessary for substantial speed reductions".

        In short, regenerative braking is a nice-to-have side-effect, but you will not be driving around nearly indefinitely with just regenerative braking and a PV-covered car roof.

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: "an electric vehicle does allowing you to recover most of the energy you expended"

          "Not really. As specified here, regenerative braking is not sufficient to bring a vehicle to a stop, so friction braking is still needed. That means that you lose electricity on the energy used by friction, which is substantial because "mechanical braking is still necessary for substantial speed reductions".

          In short, regenerative braking is a nice-to-have side-effect, but you will not be driving around nearly indefinitely with just regenerative braking and a PV-covered car roof."

          Most new EVs have a "one pedal" mode that will bring the car to a complete stop without using friction brakes.

          There are always loses converting from one form of energy into another. Batteries can only absorb so much regen so an emergency stop from 100km isn't going to put as much energy back into the battery as a gradual slow down. PV panels are so inefficient that putting any on the roof of the car or the top of the truck trailer isn't going to make much of a difference in driving distance. About all they are good for is running a fan during the summer to keep the temp down in a car parked outside. All in, regen still works pretty well and can greatly extend the life of brake shoes since they are mostly used at slow speeds.

  7. ShelLuser

    Who would want a Tesla anyway?

    There are some youtubers who are actually enjoying their Tesla's and sharing their experiences, but if you see what they have to endure then I sincerely wonder who in their right mind would buy this crap. Someone mentioned that his front window has been replaced 3 times because the window for some reason heavily changed the focus within random sections of the window. One moment you see it clear, the next moment you see things distorted. The heck?

    Then he shows us the side. There's a plastic strip going from front to back, but as soon as you reach the backseat doors the strip suddenly shifts by a few centimeters.

    You can easily find this on youtube yourself. The worst part: the guy actually likes the car and he's not even negative about Tesla (I would be!) but right now hopes that his problems will get fixed.

    I've had a few cars myself, but I have never had my frontview window replaced 3 times in a row.

    Do you really get what you pay for?

    1. AdamWill

      Re: Who would want a Tesla anyway?

      Depends what you paid for. It seems like you get a pretty cool-looking, ridiculously fast car with extremely good battery range compared to other EVs. But it does indeed seem like you *don't* necessarily get something very reliable and well-built.

      So, I mean, it probably depends a lot on whether you're comparing it to something else fast, sporty and stylish (but probably also quite fragile, and possibly more expensive), or to some kind of very mature-platform-based German/Swedish sedan that'll run for ten thousand miles on chip grease and crossed fingers.

      If I was buying an EV I'd probably be looking for something duller and more reliable, and it sounds like you would too, but not everyone has the same requirements / desires...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Who would want a Tesla anyway?

      > I have never had my frontview window replaced 3 times in a row.

      Forgive me for asking, but on Earth is a frontview window in this context?

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Re: Who would want a Tesla anyway?

        Frontview window = windscreen

        Can't say I've ever heard it called that before, I'm assumig the OP isn't a native English speaker.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Who would want a Tesla anyway?

          > Can't say I've ever heard it called that before, I'm assumig the OP isn't a native English speaker.

          Or he has a chauffeur?

    3. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      Re: Who would want a Tesla anyway?

      Americans are quite tolerant of crap quality cars. Even expensive ones. The Germans would never tolerate some of the quality flaws that you find in US brand cars.

  8. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

    Mobility Pack

    Given the list prices of OEM wheel options, Tesla could just start making wheels part of an optional "Mobility Pack", which will bring down the base cost. Allow customers to legitimately purchase vehicle without wheels so that they can fit their own choice of OEM or, in the case of after-market wheels without incurring a cost penalty of having a set of original OEM wheels that they may no longer need.,

    Remember in days gone by, the likes of Rolls Royce used to supply just the rolling chassis, and it were the coach-builders who built the bodywork.

    1. Sureo

      Re: Mobility Pack

      Bring your own wheels? Cool

    2. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: Mobility Pack

      Like buying a new aircraft?

      Engines are an optional extra, except you must fit one of these one or two models.

  9. Thomassmart

    *cries in Singaporean* a tesla would cost in excess of 200,000 euros here due to import taxes and the required certificate.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    no sposorship for 60K cars

    agree with the previous responses, a 60K car shouldn't receive any subsidy.....average gross income (Bruttosozialproduct per captiva) in Germany is Euro 38K, which is about Euro 20K net after taxes and social insurances paid ---- I'd say that cap should be way closer to Euro 30K for private buyers and maybe 40K for fleet buyers - on the other hands cars are already quite expensive in Germany

  11. Archivist

    Cost is relative

    The attitude that anyone who can afford a Tesla doesn't need the subsidy is a misnomer.

    1. Everyone has an income. All but the very few have a budget beyond which it's not wise to spend. If your budget is 60K then why not go for a Tesla rather than a diesel Merc?

    2. The subsidy is to encourage cleaner vehicles. It shouldn't matter where in the price range it it applied, as long as it acts as an incentive.

    I took a model S for a test drive and can say it is a truly remarkable car that I would love to own. Can I afford one? If I gave up holidays and social life, I could, but it's not worth it. I've decided to wait for the model 3, which I will be able to afford without changing my life style.

    Do I deserve a subsidy, or should I buy a nice diesel instead?

    1. Indolent Wretch

      Re: Cost is relative

      The subsidy costs money. Tax money. It should be targeted to where it does the most good. Gives the best incentive. Paying it to allow rich people to buy a Tesla as a second car to play around in when they aren't in their giant Merc is not a good policy.

      Set the subsidy low. More of it to spread round where it's needed. Incentive for car manufacturers to produce cheaper alternatives. Win/Win.

    2. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      Re: Cost is relative

      "Do I deserve a subsidy"

      Nope.

      Save up.

  12. unwarranted triumphalism

    Green subsidies do more harm than good

    We should dismantle the windmills and bike lanes as well.

  13. Kurgan

    There will not be enough elecricity anyway

    Wait for electric cars to become more popular, and there will not be enough electricy for everyone, unless we build nuclear power plants like crazy. So, what are talking about? Just green madness.

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: There will not be enough elecricity anyway

      It takes 7.46kWh per US gallon to refine light sweet crude oil into petrol. That amount of electricity can move a Chevy Bolt around 21-25 miles. The latent energy in the petrol is around 32kWh/US gallon, good enough for another 96 miles. It's easy to see why petrol and diesel with 25% more latent energy are freakin' awesome as transportation fuels. It's also easy to see that EVs that are more efficient at turning energy into travel distance.

      There is a lot of electricity that goes to waste in the middle of the night since it is not advantageous to turn down/off nuclear or coal fired power plants when demand is low. Wind is so hit/miss that large systems will have to be turn off to keep from unbalancing the power grid. Solar can work out better since the highest demand for electricity is during the day. The upshot is that we don't have to build out a whole bunch more generating plants if we can utilize what's already there better. Charging EV's up in the wee hours is one great way to flatten out the demand curve. 99% of the time, people are going to plug their EV in when they get home set to charge when the rates go down. The use of DC fast chargers during the day isn't a big factor except in the case of Tesla that promised free charging for life. While EVs are cheap to "fuel", Tesla had been giving out "fuel" for free and people will take advantage of "free" even if it costs them more (time, etc). Don't use Tesla as a model for EV charging. They're the Betamax of the industry.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019