Connect with us

News

Tesla Model S Charging Costs in Australia

Published

on

Tesla-Motors-Web-Directions-Australia

Tesla Motors seen as a key sponsor of Web Directions in Sydney, Australia.

More than 2 years after the it first went on sale in the US the Model S arrived in Australia in late December 2014. As an early owner of the Model S the car generates a lot of interest from friends, neighbours and the general public when you’re out and about. One of the most common questions is how much does it cost to run. We need a new language to describe this as litre’s per 100km doesn’t work and a “full tank” in a Model S is less than a normal tank in a modern petrol car. The answer I find people find easiest to understand is $11 for a full charge which lasts for around 500kms.

Compared to a petrol car this is great, current models will give you 500 – 1000kms from a tank but you’ll spend $50 to $100 to fill them up (at the current, and relatively cheap fuel prices).

Smart-Meter-Readout-Australia

Victorian Government’s initiative called for an expansive roll out of digital smart meters across residential and small businesses. Source: Energy Australia

To understand where the $11 comes from let’s dig into electricity pricing in Australia a little more. Historically homes have been configured with analog meters. All the power we use is charged at a flat rate day and night. Optionally an off peak circuit was often installed which was only connected to the hot water service. Available into two variants supply is remotely controlled by the electricity company for circa 6 or 12 hours per day.

More recently smart meters are being installed on new dwellings and with consumers that have added solar photovoltaics to their home. In certain states such as Victoria blanket rollouts of smart meters have been known to occur. Once installed electricity is charged on tariffs that vary across different times of the day for weekdays and weekends. Tariffs vary across networks but generally consist of a peak morning or late afternoon & evening period, shoulder during the remaining waking hours on weekdays and across the weekend and off peak for overnight.

Charging Costs and Meter Options in Australia

For both analog and smart meters the difference in tariffs between their maximum and minimum are material. From a low of circa $0.10/kWh on off peak to a high of $0.50/kWh in peak periods.

RELATED: EV Basics: What’s a killowat hour?

Advertisement

Analog Meter

  • If you’re on an analog meter you can wire your charger to a standard circuit and charge at any time, or choose one of the two controlled load circuits to get cheaper power but with less control. Note that you can’t mix standard and controlled circuits so you’ll have to choose one or the other. Having the electric company control when to supply your electricity may not work for you if  you plan on taking consistent high length trips in your Model S each day. Especially since you’ll likely require a nightly charge with a guarantee of no interruption.

Smart Meter

  • If you’re on a smart meter, find out what time your off peak starts, configure your Tesla Model S to start charging at this time, plug in every night and you’ll almost certainly be charging on the cheapest power all the time. The off peak periods are long enough to get a full charge on a standard 32 Amp charger for all but the most depleted of batteries. On the rare occasion that you can’t complete your charge during the off peak period you’ll simply push the small remaining part into a shoulder or peak tariff.

A smart meter provides much greater flexibility, but the real cost of changing from an analog needs to take into consideration your whole home.

The average Australian home uses around 20kWh of electricity per day or and the average vehicle travels 270kms per week. In Model S terms this equates to 140 kWh per week on your home and 55-65 kWh per week to charge the car.

Obviously these figures vary enormously depending on your personal home and driving habits but car charging is likely to remain the smaller part.

What about charging from solar? Everyone that has solar has a smart meter and hence the ability to control the price they pay for the electricity which is used for charging their car. Households that installed solar early are on feed-in tariffs which pay them for all or just the excess power that they produce. In the majority of cases these rates are much higher than the cheapest power available over night. Those that aren’t on solar power are mostly being paid feed in tariffs which are only marginally lower than the price they pay for power over night.

ALSO SEE: One Telsa owner’s journey with installing photovoltaic cells through SolarCity

Most users will be better off using their solar in their home or selling it then buying cheap power overnight to charge their car. There are certainly users for whom it would be cheaper to charge from the power generated through their solar system, but the cost and complexity of making it work is unlikely to stack up. Some form of power router is needed that can take into account usage by other appliances in your home, the tariffs, the amount of charge your car needs each day and the potentially intermittent supply of sun on any given day.

Advertisement

LEARN MORE: How to reduce your electricity usage at home in Australia?

 

Advertisement
Comments

Energy

Tesla’s newest “Folding V4 Superchargers” are key to its most aggressive expansion yet

Tesla’s folding V4 Supercharger ships 33% more per truck, cuts deployment time and cost significantly.

Published

on

By

Tesla V4 Supercharger installation ramping in Europe

Tesla is rolling out a folding V4 Supercharger design, an engineering change that allows 33% more units to fit on a single delivery truck, cuts deployment time in half, and reduces overall installation cost by roughly 20%.

The folding mechanism addresses one of the least glamorous but most consequential bottlenecks in charging infrastructure: getting hardware from factory floor to job site efficiently. By collapsing the form factor for transit and unfolding into an operational configuration on arrival, the new design dramatically reduces the logistics overhead that has historically slowed Supercharger rollouts, particularly at large or remote sites where multiple units are needed simultaneously.

The timing aligns with a broader acceleration in Tesla’s network strategy. In March 2026, Tesla’s Gigafactory New York produced its final V3 Supercharger cabinet after more than seven years and 15,000 units, pivoting entirely to V4 cabinet production. The V4 cabinet itself is already a generational leap, delivering up to 500 kW per stall for passenger vehicles and up to 1.2 MW for the Tesla Semi, while supporting twice the stalls per cabinet at three times the power density of its predecessor. The folding transport innovation layers logistical efficiency on top of that technical foundation.

Tesla launches first ‘true’ East Coast V4 Supercharger: here’s what that means

Advertisement

Tesla Charging’s Director Max de Zegher, commenting on the V4 cabinet when it launched, captured the operational philosophy behind these changes: “Posts can peak up to 500kW for cars, but we need less than 1MW across 8 posts to deliver maximum power to cars 99% of the time.” The design philosophy has always been about maximizing real-world throughput, not just peak specs, and the folding transport upgrade extends that thinking into the supply chain itself.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

The Boring Company clears final Nashville hurdle: Music City loop is full speed ahead

The Boring Company has cleared its final Nashville hurdles, putting the Music City Loop on track for 2026.

Published

on

By

The Boring Company has cleared one of its most significant regulatory milestones yet, securing a key easement from the Music City Center in Nashville just days ago, the latest in a series of approvals that have pushed the Music City Loop project firmly into construction reality.

On March 24, 2026, the Convention Center Authority voted to grant The Boring Company access to an easement along the west side of the Music City Center property, allowing tunneling beneath the privately owned venue. The move follows a unanimous 7-0 vote by the Metro Nashville Airport Authority on February 18, and a joint state and federal approval from the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration on February 25. Together, these green lights have cleared the path for a roughly 10-mile underground tunnel connecting downtown Nashville to Nashville International Airport, with potential extensions into midtown along West End Avenue.

Music City Loop could highlight The Boring Company’s real disruption

Nashville was selected by The Boring Company largely because of its rapid population growth and the strain that growth has placed on surface infrastructure. Traffic has become a persistent problem for residents, convention visitors, and airport travelers alike. The Music City Loop promises an approximately 8-minute underground transit time between downtown and the Nashville International Airport (BNA), removing thousands of vehicles from surface roads daily while operating as a fully electric, zero-emissions system at no cost to taxpayers.

Advertisement

The project fits squarely within a broader vision Musk has championed for years. In responding to a breakdown of the Loop’s construction costs, Musk posted on X: “Tunnels are so underrated.” The comment reflected a longstanding belief that underground transit represents one of the most cost-effective and scalable infrastructure solutions available. The Boring Company has claimed it can build 13 miles of twin tunnels in Nashville for between $240 million and $300 million total, a fraction of what comparable projects cost elsewhere in the country.

The Las Vegas Loop, The Boring Company’s first operational system, has served as a proof of concept. During the CONEXPO trade show in March 2026, the Vegas Loop transported approximately 82,000 passengers over five days at the Las Vegas Convention Center, demonstrating the system’s capacity during large-scale events. Nashville draws millions of convention visitors and tourists each year, and local business leaders have pointed to that same capacity as a major draw for supporting the project.

The Music City Loop was first announced in July 2025. Construction began within hours of the February 25 state approval, with The Boring Company’s Prufrock tunneling machine already in the ground the same evening. The first operational segment is targeted for late 2026, with the full route expected to be complete by 2029. The project represents one of the largest privately funded infrastructure efforts currently underway in the United States.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss

A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.

Published

on

elon musk
Ministério Das Comunicações, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s legal team has filed a motion demanding that Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick disqualify herself from an ongoing high-stakes Tesla shareholder lawsuit.

The filing, submitted March 25, cites an apparent LinkedIn “support” reaction from McCormick’s account to a post celebrating a $2 billion jury verdict against Musk in a separate California securities-fraud case.

The move escalates long-simmering tensions between Musk, Tesla, and the Delaware judiciary, where McCormick previously presided over the landmark challenge to Musk’s record $56 billion 2018 compensation package.

Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package

Advertisement

The LinkedIn post was written by Harry Plotkin, a Southern California jury consultant who assisted the plaintiffs who sued Musk over 2022 tweets about his Twitter acquisition. Plotkin praised the trial team for “standing up for the little guy against the richest man in the world.”

The New York Post initially reported the story.

A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.

McCormick swiftly denied intentional endorsement. In a letter to attorneys, she stated she was unaware of the interaction until LinkedIn notified her. She wrote:

“I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally. I do not believe that I did it accidentally.”

Advertisement

The chancellor maintains the reaction was inadvertent, but critics, including Musk allies, call the explanation implausible given the platform’s deliberate interface.

McCormick’s central role in the Tesla pay-package litigation underscores the stakes. In Tornetta v. Musk, in January 2024, she ruled the 2018 performance-based stock-option grant, potentially worth $56 billion at the time and now valued far higher, was invalid.

The package consisted of 12 tranches of options, each vesting only after Tesla achieved ambitious market-cap and operational milestones. McCormick found Musk exercised “transaction-specific control” over Tesla as a controlling stockholder, the board lacked sufficient independence, and proxy disclosures to shareholders were materially deficient.

Applying the entire-fairness standard, she concluded defendants failed to prove the deal was fair in process or price and ordered full rescission, an “unfathomable” remedy she described as necessary to deter fiduciary breaches.

Advertisement

After the ruling, Tesla shareholders ratified the package a second time in June 2024. McCormick rejected that ratification in December 2024, holding that post-trial votes could not cure defects.

Tesla appealed. On December 19 of last year, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed the rescission remedy while largely leaving McCormick’s liability findings intact. The high court deemed total unwinding inequitable and impractical, restoring the package but awarding the plaintiff only nominal $1 damages plus reduced attorneys’ fees. Musk ultimately received the full award.

The current recusal motion arises in yet another Tesla derivative suit before McCormick. Legal observers say granting it could signal heightened scrutiny of judicial social-media activity; denial might reinforce perceptions of an insular Delaware bench.

Broader fallout includes accelerated corporate migration out of Delaware, Musk himself moved Tesla’s incorporation to Texas after the first ruling, and renewed debate over whether the state’s specialized courts remain the gold standard for corporate governance disputes.

Advertisement

A decision is expected soon; whichever way it lands, the episode highlights the fragile balance between judicial independence and public confidence in high-profile litigation.

Continue Reading