Fast rollout of Supercharger network in Germany

Tesla Motors (TSLA +3.4%) announces it expanded its Supercharger network in Europe with new locations in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and the Netherlands.

The automaker says that by the end of March close to 50% of all Germans in the nation will be within 320 km (198.84 miles) of a Supercharger and that by the end of the year everyone in the country will be able to make that claim.

From other sites
Comments (30)
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (5243) | Send Message
    Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and the Netherlands. Next up the world.
    21 Jan 2014, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
    Isn't Germany pushing hydrogen fuel too?
    That would be the true nail in the coffin for hydrogen.


    Germany having more hydrogen stations, but Tesla outselling Hydrogen vehicles in a country that has alot of hydrogen fueling stations.
    21 Jan 2014, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  • boffyflow
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
    Not sure about the push in Germany for hydrogen fuel, but the current public network for hydrogen is not well developed ( whereas a fairly good infrastructure for CNG fueling stations does exist. Apprx. 100K private CNG vehicles are registered in Germany.
    21 Jan 2014, 02:33 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message


    I know MB was working on a hydrogen car too


    Looks like Tesla is getting ahead of hydrogen there too.
    21 Jan 2014, 04:23 PM Reply Like
  • omarbradley
    , contributor
    Comments (966) | Send Message
    again "they're both all electric drive systems." they simply work with different battery techs. Elon Musk has been a big supporter of the build out of California's already existing fuel cell network. "Once you can swap the batteries then it's just a question of the fuel source." that would either be pure hydrogen (chemical: Denmark in combination with the Netherlands) or straight up electrical.
    21 Jan 2014, 08:22 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (10464) | Send Message
    Elon has called fuel cells "fool cells", I doubt he's supportive of a hydrogen fuel cell network which is a pointless waste.
    21 Jan 2014, 09:04 PM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (5243) | Send Message
    Elon has stated that hydrogen is not the future. Cheapest way to make hydrogen is from Natural Gas.


    How do we get natural gas?


    Hydrogen is a way for the oil companies to stay in business.
    21 Jan 2014, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • SteveSzabo
    , contributor
    Comments (33) | Send Message
    Right on ! The electrical grid already exists and you can charge from solar panels if your not on any grid.
    21 Jan 2014, 02:34 PM Reply Like
  • ChasL
    , contributor
    Comments (48) | Send Message
    Hydrogen doesn't necessarily have to be in a tank it could be produced on board the vehicle truck locomotive plane ship or armored tank lets see what Blacklight comes up with on the 1/28....
    Never thought id disagree with Elon but this is a pretty bold statement how does he know that some one isn't working on or currently have a hydrogen generator that can't be made small enough to go on board the vehicle.
    21 Jan 2014, 02:34 PM Reply Like
  • chfp
    , contributor
    Comments (720) | Send Message
    ChasL "Hydrogen doesn't necessarily have to be in a tank it could be produced on board the vehicle truck locomotive plane ship or armored tank"


    Produced out of thin air? Oh you mean with electicity. Let's see, take water, throw away 80% of that electricity due to poor efficiency of hydrolysis, and you end up with a 20% efficient battery. Genius.


    Or just take that same electricity and charge batteries at greater than 90% efficiency.
    21 Jan 2014, 03:01 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
    There is a way to do it, but either the people who claim on board generation don't understand it or knowingly spread misinformation.
    You see the youtube videos all the time.., 400 miles on 13 kwhr of electrcity using hydrogen and NiCd batteries. What they don't tell you is that battery is used to tickle the hydrogen away from an unstable fuel.
    (Technically you have an fuel and doing a similar reaction as you would an ICE car)


    The typical hydrogen sources for onboard generation are boro hydride compounds. They create hydrogen, but afterwards you are left with a secondary tank filled with borax. Instead for water and CO2 you get borox and water.


    Not to mention you will always have losses in the creation of the boro hydrides, and thermochemically restoring it in a car tank is very, very difficult. It's an energy loser.
    21 Jan 2014, 03:16 PM Reply Like
  • joenjensen
    , contributor
    Comments (701) | Send Message
    I worked on the Railroad for many years, on a FL9 which is a locomotive weighing 100 tons, and each one has a 16 cylinder diesel engine, that power will turn an electric generator, the electric that's generated will be used to the drive the traction motors mounted on the axial or wheels, that is how the train will be pulled by that locomotive down the track.
    What ChasL is suggesting might be possible one day, CHFP I think your correct, it's mission impossible today, they aren't making the necessary parts small and efficient enough to make them work or feasible today.
    21 Jan 2014, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (4381) | Send Message
    Musk's comment was made relative to use of hydrogen as a stored fuel refilled from stationary filling stations like the designs of all proposed fuel cell vehicles. Musk has never mentioned onboard hydrogen generators or HHO or the Stan Meyers patents and I doubt that he has ever studied them. He may not even know that they exist.
    21 Jan 2014, 11:27 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
    You mean the Stan Meyers who was sued for fraud and the one whose never had his device verified by peer reviews right?


    On board hydrogen generation will always use more energy to break the bonds than it will yield by putting the same bonds back together. You have heat generation, resistance, and other losses.


    You can not have a device that runs on water-uses energy to break the bond- passes the atoms across something, does some useful work, then puts the bond back together.


    That is called perpetual motion and violates the laws of thernodynamics. It's really high school science:


    Energy input= energy output + losses + useful work
    22 Jan 2014, 07:02 AM Reply Like
  • alext1379
    , contributor
    Comments (811) | Send Message
    Hydrogen can be created using solar energy. Has already proven to be feasible but not enough demand to roll it out.


    Within 320km of a station. So a German would have to drive to the supercharger just to charge up so they can go home? Numbers needs to drop but I'm sure it'll get there.
    21 Jan 2014, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
    The supercharger is meant to be used for road trips, not daily charging.
    Plug it at night at a regular outlet, you are fine.


    Hydrogen from water is not feasible.
    You need ultra pure water, energy efficiency is about 18%, then compression, water vapor removal from the gas.


    What is easier and more cost effective?
    Delivering electricity or delivering electrcity, delivering water, getting only 20% of your energy delivered out, and compressing a gas?
    21 Jan 2014, 02:47 PM Reply Like
  • Locked Down Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
    You see this is why I am still long Tesla and EV's in general.
    The vast majority of people are still so absolutely clueless as to how an EV can work in their daily lives.
    The vast majority rarely travels more than 50 miles per day.
    You charge at home 95% of the time at overnight dirt cheap rates.
    Superchargers are merely for the odd occasion that you actually travel more than 200 miles in ONE day...oh yeah and its FREE!


    Because everyone is sleeping and turning all their other devices off we could support the charging of over 100 million EV's overnight in the USA alone without building one more power plant.
    Power plants would be more profitable and most likely result in LOWER overall electricity rates.
    Even if 100% coal powered the EV is still less polluting than a tiny ICE thanks to the large scale of a power plant. Power plant emissions are also more easily filtered than millions of tiny mobile ICE's.
    The USA is 38% coal powered and dropping every year. In fact coal is dropping as a % of almost every power grid mix in the world...yes including India and China.
    On the other hand Wind and Solar are growing at an exponential rate.


    Giants like Germany, Japan, Korea, France import over 95% of their oil which is mostly used to power vehicles (the USA and China still import over 50% of their oil requirements).
    In fact 70% of worldwide oil demand is for petrol, diesel, and jet fuel.
    On the other hand less than 5% of the world's electricity is generated by burning oil or oil derivatives (less than 1% in the USA).
    This is why big oil hates the is their death knell.


    When these economies finally wake up to how much ditching oil for locally generated electricity will mean to their bottom line and job creation the tide will turn very quickly.


    I could go on and on about health benefits, quieter cities and neighbourhoods, reduced war spending over oil conflict, no more oil spill disaster's, etc, etc ,etc


    One day the world will just get it I hope.
    21 Jan 2014, 05:08 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
    Here's another aspect to consider;
    Baseload power- more EVs charging at night enables more of the grid to use baseload power;
    More baseload power means that the less efficient, more costly peak power would not be needed.


    As a thought experiment- build a new baseload NG plant at 60% efficiency, it provides 24 GWhr over the course of the day. This plant displaces a peaker; 35% efficiency NG plant that provides power for 16 hrs a day; 16 GWhr
    Raw energy input:
    Peaker- 45 GWhr of NG
    Baseload- 40 GWhr of NG


    Now essentially in this case, the EV is a freebie in terms of emissions. Yes, you are releasing emmissions, but you are releasing less emissions due to existamce of night time charging which enable another baseload plant to be built.


    Also since baseload is more efficient the energy is usually cheaper.
    21 Jan 2014, 07:04 PM Reply Like
  • omarbradley
    , contributor
    Comments (966) | Send Message
    the natural gas is "cracked" into pure hydrogen using wind power...not solar. just google it for "Denmark"...they use "straw" as their "heat" source. (in other words you don't need a lot of fuel for steam reformation.) it strikes me as beyond incredible that you could use solar power to recharge your car...but that is not true when it comes to wind/battery swapping. this is ESPECIALLY true when speaking in terms of off shore wind. my understanding is the they're producing so much electricity in Scotland from wind they're concerned about it shutting down the entire nuclear "industry."
    21 Jan 2014, 08:29 PM Reply Like
  • omarbradley
    , contributor
    Comments (966) | Send Message
    the "problem" as it were is portable power. if i can pick up pure hydrogen in a stable form for less than the cost of propane I need neither oil nor the electrical grid. "this is why this tick is REALLY hard to dislodge." one way to get around the problem is to use nat gas as a "peaking fuel" for electricity generation. the problem is that in the USA we have truly massive amounts of coal (left over from when the moon and Earth were mashing into one another?) so "natty soars in price" only to be displaced by the largest coal deposits on earth. my personal view is that the gig is up on "grid storage" but we'll see. I'll be watching Ukraine very closely because they have massive amounts of coal there. The only other place I am aware of is Australia. If the Hudson Bay and Michigan turn out to be a natural gas bonanzas then you'll simply use the Great Lakes as your wind source and its game over.
    21 Jan 2014, 08:37 PM Reply Like
  • Rik1381
    , contributor
    Comments (1402) | Send Message
    omar, a typical oil refinery produces a couple hundred million standard cubic feet per day of hydrogen. On this large scale, hydrogen is made from steam-methane reforming (SMR) of natural gas, which burns a lot of natural gas to fuel the SMR process. There's no getting around thermodynamics, manufacturing hydrogen is a highly energy intensive process.
    Other methods to make hydrogen aren't competitive, so aren't used on that large scale.
    21 Jan 2014, 09:33 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
    Yes, correct, the most common source of hydrogen is steam reforming.
    Essentially with the wind/ straw combination, you are using heat, energy, and a combustable substance to strip the hydrogen off of the combustable substance. The issue is that from an energy perspective you'll never get back the energy you put in. That is the entire premise of entropy- systems go towards the lowest energy state and disorder.


    If you have extra energy from wind or other sources, if it is freebie energy, it would be best to store and use it if possible, whether chemically or gravimetrically. It depends on the conversion which is best and that's where a full LCA could come in handy.
    21 Jan 2014, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • jstack6
    , contributor
    Comments (111) | Send Message
    I only see the same 14 Europe Super Chargers on the Tesla website so far today. And 67 in the USA, whew that's a lot of work for them. They are really moving.

    21 Jan 2014, 08:13 PM Reply Like
  • moreofthesame
    , contributor
    Comments (739) | Send Message
    I think it should be easy enough to build a EV so that it can be powered from a battery or a fuel cell.
    21 Jan 2014, 08:16 PM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (4381) | Send Message
    You would be wrong. The only things the two technologies have in common is the electric motor, and the electronic controller for it. It's like saying you should be able to build an ICE vehicle that can run on both gasoline and diesel.
    21 Jan 2014, 11:14 PM Reply Like
  • hneumann
    , contributor
    Comments (630) | Send Message
    "I could go on and on about health benefits, quieter cities and neighbourhoods, reduced war spending over oil conflict, no more oil spill disaster's, etc, etc ,etc
    One day the world will just get it I hope."




    And I hope it's not too late then. Oil conflicts will increase in the not too distant future, but that won't change the habits of most people. Charging EV's at home is difficult for those living in 'many floor' appartments. If the number of Tesla's on the road increases tenfold you need much more superchargers to avoid waiting time to start charging. When oilprices go up again, we get another economic recession, not to speak of a depression. Most unemployed people don't buy cars, neither a lot of other things. The 'getting the hell out of the oil addiction' should have started 10-20 years ago. Not saying it will get that bad, but I don't rule it out, regarding human nature. Notwithstanding Elon Musk's dream.
    21 Jan 2014, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • gen3
    , contributor
    Comments (344) | Send Message
    Where do those apartment dweller currently park their ICE cars? Chargers for overnight can be no bigger than a parking meter. Plus city dwellers don't need to own a car. Autolib in Paris allows people to use an EV when they need it.
    22 Jan 2014, 03:11 AM Reply Like
  • Locked Down Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
    Exactly Gen III...apt dwellers aren't as big of a problem as people think.
    22 Jan 2014, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • marshgre
    , contributor
    Comments (989) | Send Message
    @moreofthesame and @david


    Actually it would be easier to build the diesel/gasoline ICE. The performance would be terrible, and it would smoke like a tire fire, but it can be done.


    A fuel cell system requires a large high pressure tank that will slowly leak H while the car is parked so it will require venting of some sort. Then you need an expensive and fragile fuel cell and some sort of exhaust system to vent the water vapour in such a way that it doesn't freeze during the winter. Not impossible, but not as easy as setting up a system to vary the compression and shut off the sparkplugs so you could run both gas and diesel.


    Fuel cells will require a structural differences in the vehicle that will have a negative impact on the overall advantages of a battery only electric car - and don't forget, fuel cell cars still require a battery.


    PS has anyone using an iPad had any trouble replying to comments lately or is it just me?
    22 Jan 2014, 07:29 AM Reply Like
  • azgog
    , contributor
    Comments (209) | Send Message
    Let those other auto companies waste their time and money on hydrogen fool cells - by the time they come to their senses Tesla will be hundreds of miles further ahead of them.


    I sense a lithium denial syndrome similar to the Climate Change deniers - and perhaps coming from the same Big Oil/ICE complex.
    22 Jan 2014, 11:36 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs