Re:Tesla's Supercharger cost revealed to be just 1/5th of th...
by dylan604 on Sunday November 12, 2023 @01:37AM
(#38237902)
You seem to be skipping the part of the grant request (free money) that they had a limit of 70% of the charger's cost. So even by asking for the max allowed, they still would be required to put up their own money. No business person I have ever talked to would leave free money on the table.
My original question was asking if they are were requesting less than the maximum allowed, and you quibbled with the premise, yet here you are suggesting that's exactly what they did. You're suggesting it was due to altruistic reasons. I just did the thought exercise of knowing people will assume you requested the max allowed, then do the math to come up with a price that's not correct just to F with people. Seems exactly like something Musk would do.
Re:Tesla's Supercharger cost revealed to be just 1/5th of th...
by inemesitaffia on Sunday November 12, 2023 @03:56AM
(#38238583)
I believe it's 70% of the full install costs not just the charging equipment. That might explain the differing estimates.
But I won't be assigning motivations wrt altruism or effing with people. There's a lady running the charging division.
Regardless of that, if thier costs are the same, by asking for less money for more outlets they are more likely to get money. When you show you're willing to put up your own cash or just ask for less money in general while offering equal or better performance, you're more likely to win bids.
Politicians prefer to say they brought 10000 chargers than 4000.
The subsidy request is just you asking for money and doesn't represent your costs just what you want to ask for. You can ask for more than you need i.e make a profit on building costs
The question is how much do you want to do this, not how much will it cost you