AP says Tesla's Elon Musk is embarking on another one of his 'far-out projects'

California-based Tesla Motors has revolutionized travel with all-electric luxury cars that can go more than 200 miles on a single charge and a nationwide network of free Superchargers. Now, Tesla is planning to do the same with home energy.

Eight Supercharges are available at Tesla's Showroom and Service Center on Route 17 north in Paramus, N.J.

By VICTOR E. SASSON
EDITOR

A Tesla home storage battery that can keep your lights on and your appliances humming during a blackout has been dismissed as a 'far out' project.

An Associated Press story said David Foster paid $7,500 for his battery as part of  pilot program after California state incentives -- less than the cost of a noisy standby generator powered by natural gas.

Thousands of those generators were installed in the New Jersey-New York area after Superstorm Sandy plunged much of the region into darkness in late 2012.

Yet, AP reporters Michael Liedtke and Jonathan Fahey, who are based in California, say "as with Tesla's electric cars," the battery "will probably be too expensive for most consumers."

Of Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the reporters say "he is renowned for pursuing far-out projects" like "colonizing Mars ... one of Musk's goals at Space X, a rocket maker he also runs" (The Record of Woodland Park).

Powerwall

Today, Musk announced Tesla Energy's home battery will be about the size of a large flat-screen TV and cost only $3,500.

Musk is calling it the Powerwall Home Battery, and his Tesla Web site shows the battery under an elegant cover mounted on the wall of a garage holding a Model S.

The official announcement came only a few hours after the AP story appeared in morning newspapers, but showed what is often the case with the wire service:

Its reporters are uninformed and often base their stories on mere speculation, not facts.

See: The Tesla Powerwall

Solar power

As a homeowner with more than 60 solar panels on my roof, Tesla's home battery is just what I am looking for as an alternative to a noisy, expensive backup generator.

A battery that can store electricity also would supplement the power generated by the panels, making me even less dependent on the grid.

Now, I generate all the electricity I need five to six months out of the year, meaning I pay nothing to power my home.

In addition, I have earned more than $10,000 from selling solar credits to my utility through a middle man.

Can I possibly wait two years for an affordable EV and would I drive a Chevy?

An all-electric Tesla Model S on display at the Time Warner Center in midtown Manhattan is usually covered with fingerprints after the curious slam the doors and kick the tires.

Red Multi-Coat Paint is $1,500 extra, but that is one option I have to have.

By VICTOR E. SASSON
EDITOR

I can't wait two years for an affordable all-electric car, whether it is from Tesla or Chevrolet.

And if I could, I don't think I'd settle for the Chevy Bolt, a 2017 model GM promises will cost thousands of dollars less than the Volt plug-in hybrid.

Have you seen photos of the Bolt concept, a stubby four door?

It doesn't compare to the elegant Tesla Model 3, another 2017 model with a range of 200 miles and an MSRP of about $35,000.

And the Model 3's big brother, the Model S 4-door luxury hatchback, is available now starting at around $70,000.

Battery guarantee

Originally, I reasoned I'd be happy with the base Model S with a 60 kWh battery and a range of 208 miles.

I'm retired, and can no longer drive that far without stopping to go to the bathroom or grab a cup of coffee to keep me awake.

Then, I looked at the warranty for the 60's battery and drive unit, eight years or 125,000 miles.

A step up is the Model S 85, which is about $10,000 more than the 60, and its battery and drive-unit warranty is eight years and "infinite" miles.

Do I want "infinite," or is 125,000 miles enough? I've only averaged 10,000 miles a year in my 2010 Toyota Prius hybrid.

I've configured a Model S 60 with a few options, but haven't put down a deposit. Teslas ordered now will be delivered in late April, the company Web site says.

From Auto Express, this is what a smaller Tesla Model 3 is supposed to look like when it come out in 2017. The car will have a range of 200 miles and cost about $35,000, the publication reported. Tesla calls the Model 3 image "mock-ups" based on Auto Express "speculation."

Negative press continues

Fifteen years and millions of hybrid and all-electric cars later, the media continue to view the green movement negatively.

Dee-Ann Durbin of The Associated Press is the latest reporter to warn buyers of electric cars it will take them decades to pay off "the premium" they shelled out when compared to a cheaper gas-powered vehicle.

When gas-electric hybrids were introduced, the media reacted with numerous articles on whether the green cars were "practical," given their higher prices.

I can't recall the media focusing on any other car, whether an econobox, gas-guzzling luxury sedan or super car, and warning owners it's unlikely they'll ever recoup their investment.

The environment?

And Durbin also is the latest automobile writer to completely ignore the less tangible environmental benefits of electric cars over those powered by the infernal combustion engine, which is hastening climate change.

What about the billions of gallons of gasoline saved by the drivers of millions of hybrids, and reduced air pollution. Don't they count for anything?

The AP reporter also doesn't calculate the substantial savings from discounts available to owners of green cars who commute daily to jobs in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and other states with toll roads.

Meanwhile, on Jan. 23, Christopher DeMorro, who writes for the Gas2 and CleanTechnica blogs, began a post this way:

"With a starting price of $70,000, the Tesla Model S undoubtedly is a luxury vehicle that only the upper crust of society can afford."

What would DeMorro say of a Mercedes-Benz performance luxury sedan costing nearly three times as much, that only "royalty" could afford it?

Do auto writers really think EV buyers would choose a Bolt over Tesla's Model 3?

The Chevrolet Spark EV, above, and the Bolt EV Concept, below, bear a family resemblance. The Spark is available only in California and Oregon. The Bolt is scheduled to be produced as a 2017 model with a battery that will give it a range of more than 200 miles, General Motors says.

The Chevrolet Bolt EV Concept.

Compare the forthcoming Tesla Model 3 to the Chevy Bolt Concept. This photo is from Auto Express.

By VICTOR E. SASSON
EDITOR

If you treat an auto writer to an espresso and pastry before a splashy press conference, he or she will write almost anything.

That must be the explanation for all of those stories out of the Detroit Auto Show, setting up a confrontation between all-electric cars from Chevrolet and Tesla.

Yes. Chevy is the GM division that gave us defective ignition switches, the Nova or "no va" (Spanish for "doesn't go") and the Corvair's dangerous swing-axle rear suspension.

Tesla, the upstart maker of all-electric luxury cars, is working on a smaller, 2017 Model 3 with a range of 200 miles and an expected price of $35,000 -- half of what the base Model S costs now.

So, the media are claiming "General Motors is setting up a showdown with Tesla to sell an electric vehicle to the masses," as The Associated Press reported on Jan. 13.

The day before, GM unveiled the Chevrolet Bolt, a $30,000 concept car that "likely will go on sale in about two years."

Neither the AP or other media questioned how GM could possibly sell the Bolt for $30,000 or thousands of dollars less than its plug-in Chevrolet Volt hybrid.

Both the Bolt and Tesla Model 3 may have about the same range and an MSRP only $5,000 apart, but I seriously doubt they will attract the same buyers.

Just compare photos of the Bolt, which bears a family resemblance to the stubby Spark EV, and the elegant Tesla Model 3.

Here's a link to the article in Auto Express: 

Tesla Model 3 to challenge BMW 3 Series