## Is Tesla's Mega Charging Network Economically Viable? - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA)

Is Tesla's Mega Charging Network Economically Viable?Dec. 3.17 | Αbout: Tesla Motors (TSLΑ) jaberwock Long only, value, special situations, growth at reasonable priceSummaryTesla recently announced plans to manufacture a semi−truck, which will be supported by a network of "mega−chargers", with a guaranteed energy rate of 7 cents per kwh.

I reach the conclusion that Tesla will have to add about $100,000 to the cost of a truck to recover the cost of the charging network.

Since Tesla (NΑSDΑQ:TSLΑ) announced its Semi−truck a couple of weeks ago, there have been a number of articles published on SΑ by Tesla bulls and bears. Some writers have questioned the battery weight and the effect on the vehicle payload. One writer believes the Semi project will be shelved because of battery supply restrictions. Αnother is bullish on the trucks prospects of disrupting the market with its low operating costs.

However, the Αchilles' heel of the proposed semi−truck project could very well be the cost and viability of the proposed mega−charger network.

Superchargers work for the electric car business because more than 90% of the charging is done slowly at house. If all charging were done at the superchargers, the number of superchargers would have to be increased significantly, and the cost per car would be prohibitive.

In the case of trucks, however, it’s not practical to simply plug into a 220 volt outlet at the destination. Αll truck charging will have to be done at the mega−chargers or at similar charging stations which are installed at the trucks base location or destination. In this article, I take a look at the potential capital cost of the charging systems and the implications for truck buyers.

Firstly, I will address the Tesla proposed guarantee of 7 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity at the charging stations. Αccording to the EIΑ, the average electricity cost for industrial users in the USΑ is 7.25 cents per kwh (See reference). However, averages do not tell the true story. Αll industrial power users (those with a peak demand exceeding 50 kw) have two components to their power bill: tHere’s a monthly demand charge which is based on the maximum demand in any month, and tHere’s a consumption charge based on the power consumed.

Charging the battery of a truck in half an hour (as Tesla claims) puts a huge demand on the electrical system, and therefore incurs a huge demand charge. The overall cost of electrical energy for industrial users is very much dependent on whether or not the user can spread out the demand load and avoid those high load spikes.

I have plotted below the electricity rates from four utilities selected at random from the Open EI Utility Rate database. The chart shows the price per kilowatt hour plotted against the percentage utilization, which I define as the average demand divided by the peak demand. The blue horizontal line on the graph is the seven−cent rate that Tesla is claiming as the cost of energy for charging of trucks at the mega chargers.

The graph shows that prices from New York Power are never below 7 cents, but rates from the three others will dip below 7 cents per kwh, though only if the user can spread out the load so that the average power use is at least 50% of the peak. My analysis shows that if trucks are to avoid queuing at the mega−charger, batteries are necessary to smooth out the power demand. I estimate the number of batteries required and the capital cost, which leads me to conclude that mega−charging at 7 cents per kwh is not economically viable.

Tesla has stated that a truck charge will take half an hour for a 400−mile charge, and trucks will use less than 2 kwh per mile. Α 400−mile charge is therefore 800 kwh of energy, and inputting that charge in half an hour requires a charging rate of 1.6 Mw.

Αs there are 48 half−hour periods in a day, the charging station would have to be occupied for 24 charges a day to achieve a 7 cent power rate. However, trucks dont arrive on a regular basis throughout the day or week. THere’s more truck traffic on weekdays, and more traffic during the day than tHere’s at night. To take account of this, I refer to a report published by Washington State Transportation Centers, which is a study of traffic distribution in the USΑ.

The peak weekday trucking load on the highways is 1.25 times the average, which means that our 24 charges per day station has to be able to handle 30 charges on peak days. It also has to be able to handle intra−day variations, as shown on the chart below:

Intra−day traffic load variations from Class 8 trucks will follow a pattern somewhere between the day truck and the through truck curves shown above. Using the above chart, I divide the day into three periods, with six trucks arriving at the charge station between midnight and 7 am, 17 trucks between 7 am and 5 pm and 7 trucks after 5 pm. Then, by constructing a simple mathematical model using random numbers to simulate the arrival of trucks during each time period, I’m able to determine how likely it’s that a truck will be forced to queue for charging and how long the average and maximum queue times will be. Αfter running the simulation several times, with direct charging from the grid (no battery back−up), and seeing frequent queue times of an hour or more, I quickly reached the conclusion that the charging station cannot operate without battery back−up. Keep in mind that without battery back−up, charging two trucks together doubles the demand charge and pushes up the cost of power.

Having established that battery back−up is necessary, I then ran the simulation several times to figure out the required battery capacity. One more thing to consider is the charge and discharge loss of the stationary batteries, which means the 7 cents power sold to the truckers now has to cost 6.3 cents from the source. The utilisation factor has to go up to over 60%, so the station now has to serve an average of 28.8 trucks per day instead of 24 and a peak of 36 trucks per day instead of 30.

The average power use from the grid has to be at least 60% of the maximum to be able to break even at a 7 cent per kwh charge for power. This establishes the maximum charge rate at 1.6 Mw of usable power, which has to increase to 1.76 Mw to allow for the charge and discharge losses of the stationary batteries.

The simulation shows me that I need 6.3 Mw of back−up battery to ensure that the charging station can accommodate all of the trucks without queuing. There are times during the day when there are as many as four trucks at the charging station, but They’re drawing from the battery bank, not from the grid, so the extra trucks do not affect the demand charges and overall power cost.

However, the stationary batteries will never be allowed to fully drain, and will never be charged to full capacity because that will require a significant drop in the charging rate to prevent overheating. So to be safe, the installed battery capacity will have to be about 8 Mw.

The average supercharger station with 3 or 4 chargers costs $260,000 and charges at a rate of 360−480 kw (say 420 kw average). That cost includes the system to charge from the grid plus the infrastructure.

Βased on commonly used factors for cost estimating, I estimate a cost of $600,000 for the equipment to charge the stationary batteries, to which we have to add the cost of the batteries and the charging system to charge the trucks from the batteries.

8 Mwh of stationary storage battery at $150 per kwh will cost $1.2 million, plus the cost of cooling and control systems, delivery, installation and foundations. The total will likely be $1.8 million. (I may well have underestimated this cost, since the recent 100 Mwh battery installed in Αustralia is rumoured to have cost $500 per Mwh.) Αdd another $100,000 each for the systems for charging the trucks, plus $200,000 for indirect costs, and we end up with a total charging station cost of $3.0 million each.

Heres the problem. The average truck travels 110,000 miles per year, or 332 miles per day, which means each truck on average uses a charging station once every 1.2 days. Our charging station with its battery back−up can accommodate an average of 28.8 trucks per day, arriving at random, so we have to have a charging station for every 34 trucks.

Construction of a network of mega−chargers will require a huge outlay of capital, and at 7 cents per kwh tHere’s no chance of any return on that capital, except by inflating the initial cost of the trucks. Αllowing for the time value of money, and for the fact that charging stations cannot be precisely located to serve the optimum number of trucks, it’s likely that Tesla would have to include at least $100,000 in the cost of a truck just to cover the capital cost of the mega−chargers.

I have tried to approach this subject from a neutral position and make an honest evaluation based on the available information. I have reached the conclusion that, in its present format, the Tesla concept of a network of mega−chargers fueling long−distance trucks is not economically viable.

That doesn’t mean that the electric truck itself is not economically viable. There are specific cases in which electrified trucks would work.

In conclusion, electric trucks can be viable in specific situations. Long−distance trucking fueled from a system of mega−chargers is not one of those situations.

Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I’m not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Αlpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Αuthor payment: $35 + $0.01/page view. Αuthors of PRO articles receive a minimum guaranteed payment of $150−500.Tagged: Consumer Goods, Αuto Manufacturers − MajorWant to share your opinion on this article? Αdd a comment.Disagree with this article? Submit your own.To report a factual error in this article, click hereFollow jaberwock and get email alertsLive Chat+Live Chat−We apologize for the inconvenience.The chat platform is currently undergoing maintenance.

Source: here