How Much Can The Tesla Semi Truck Haul?

Tesla Semi: Payload, Range, and Efficiency Breakdown

Introduction

The Tesla Semi is an all-electric Class 8 truck. It is redefining freight transport with zero-emission power. In this post, we'll be diving into the specs that matter to fleet operators: payload capacity, range impact, battery size, and cost. Whether hauling light loads like potato chips or heavy cargo like soda, let's see what the Tesla Semi offers. Let’s explore its real-world capabilities.

Payload Capacity: How Much Can It Carry?

The Tesla Semi handles Class 8 demands with a gross combination weight (GCW) of 82,000 pounds. This includes the tractor (approximately 27,000 pounds) and a standard 53-foot trailer (around 15,000 pounds empty). That leaves a maximum payload of about 40,000 pounds, matching industry standards for heavy-duty trucks. For volume, a typical 53-foot dry van trailer provides roughly 4,000 cubic feet of cargo space (53 feet long, 8.5 feet wide, 9 feet high), though refrigerated trailers may offer less due to insulation.

For context, low-density loads like potato chips (e.g., Fritos) weigh about 3-4 pounds per cubic foot, maxing out at 10,000-14,000 pounds for a full trailer. High-density loads like canned soda (e.g., Pepsi Cola) can hit the 40,000-pound limit, filling the trailer with around 1,920 cases of 24-packs at 21 pounds each. This Semi can haul loads, light or heavy.

Range and Efficiency: Load Weight Matters

The Tesla Semi’s range varies with payload weight, mainly due to increased rolling resistance. At highway speeds, aerodynamic drag accounts for 53% of energy use, rolling resistance 33%, and drivetrain losses 14%. Lighter loads boost efficiency, extending range, while heavier loads demand more battery power. The Semi’s battery pack, estimated at 850-900 kWh for the 500-mile version.

• Unloaded Range: With just the tractor and an empty trailer (40,000-42,000 pounds total), the Semi achieves 600-650 miles at 1.3-1.5 kWh per mile. Real-world tests with light loads have hit efficiencies as low as 1.55 kWh per mile.
• Fully Loaded Range: At 82,000 pounds GCW, the range drops to 420-500 miles, with energy consumption of 1.7-2 kWh per mile. PepsiCo’s tests with heavy loads confirm ranges around 450 miles, though Tesla’s official fully loaded spec is “less than 2 kWh per mile.”

Condition	Weight (pounds)	Range (miles)	Efficiency (kWh/mile)
Unloaded (Tractor + Empty Trailer)	40,000-42,000	600-650	1.3-1.5
Fully Loaded (Max GCW)	82,000	420-500	1.7-2.0
Potato Chips (Light Load)	50,000-54,000	550-600	1.4-1.5
Soda (Heavy Load)	80,000-82,000	420-450	1.7-2.0

Hauling Fritos and Pepsi: Real-World Scenarios

For a light load like Fritos, a full trailer (10,000-14,000 pounds) keeps the Semi’s weight around 50,000 pounds. This yields a range of 550-600 miles at 1.4-1.5 kWh per mile, as the low weight reduces rolling resistance. PepsiCo, which uses the Semi for Frito-Lay products, has reported over 450 miles in real-world operations, with initial plans citing 400 miles for conservative routes.

For a heavy load like Pepsi Cola, a full trailer hits the 40,000-pound payload cap, pushing the total weight near 82,000 pounds. This reduces the range to 420-450 miles at 1.7-2 kWh per mile. PepsiCo’s early tests focused on shorter 100-mile trips for safety, but recent data shows 450-mile ranges with beverage loads.

Battery Size and Cost

The Tesla Semi’s battery pack is massive, rated at 850-900 kWh for the 500-mile model, with a smaller 500 kWh pack for the 300-mile version. Pricing ranges from $150,000 to $200,000, depending on the range variant and options. Early production units have been reported as high as $415,000 in specific deals. Reservations require a deposit, and costs can vary based on configuration.

Conclusion

The Tesla Semi is transforming trucking, combining huge payload capacity with electric efficiency. Its 40,000-pound payload and 4,000-cubic-foot trailer handle everything from Fritos to Pepsi Cola. Light loads stretch the range to 600 miles, while heavy loads deliver a solid 420 miles, powered by an 850-900 kWh battery. At $150,000-$200,000, it’s a strong choice for fleets aiming to cut emissions and fuel costs. As Tesla scales production and deliveries, more real-world data come out, and more goods will be delivered while keeping the planet cleaner. Stay charged with CarsWithCords.net for more EV updates!

Towing with the Tesla Cybertruck: Capabilities, Limitations, and Tips

The all-electric Tesla Cybertruck boasts impressive towing capabilities for its class. Today, we explore its towing specifications, limitations, preparation tips, Full Self-Driving (FSD) availability, range impacts, and Supercharging considerations.

Towing Specifications

The Cybertruck's towing capacity varies by model:

• Dual-Motor and Tri-Motor AWD (including Cyberbeast): Up to 11,000 pounds
• Single-Motor RWD: Up to 7,500 pounds

These specs rival those of competitors like the Rivian R1T (11,000 pounds) and Ford F-150 Lightning (10,000 pounds), although earlier claims of 14,000 pounds for the tri-motor model were not met. All Cybertruck models feature a 2,500-pound payload capacity in the 6-by-4-foot cargo bed.

Limitations

Towing with the Cybertruck significantly impacts its range. Real-world tests show:

• 6,000-pound trailer: Range drops to about 115 miles
• 11,000-pound trailer: Range reduces to around 90 to 100 miles

Compared to the EPA-estimated 320-350 miles without towing, this represents a 50-70% range reduction, typical for electric trucks due to increased energy demands from weight and aero drag. 

Preparations Needed

To tow effectively with the Cybertruck, consider these preparations:

• Weight Distribution: Adhere to the 500-pound tongue weight limit and balance trailer loads to avoid frame stress.
• Equipment: Use compatible weight distribution hitches and verify trailer brake controller functionality.
• Optimize Efficiency: Check trailer tire pressure and use aerodynamic trailers to reduce range loss.
• Vehicle Features: Leverage the adjustable air suspension, trailer stability assist, and 360-degree towing camera for enhanced control and safety.

Full Self-Driving (FSD) Availability

Tesla’s optional FSD system is currently not available when towing. FSD is not optimized for complex trailer dynamics, so drivers must remain vigilant and in control of the vehicle. Tesla is constantly iterating their FSD software, and towing is a feature that many owners have requested, so it may be coming in a future version. 

Range Impact

As noted, towing heavy, non-aerodynamic loads can halve the Cybertruck’s range. Cold weather and high speeds exacerbate this, so plan routes with ample charging stops.

Supercharging with a Trailer

Supercharging while towing can be tricky due to the rear-mounted charge port, often requiring unhitching to access stalls. Ensure that you are aware of which Supercharging locations on your route have pull-through stalls. 

Conclusion

The Tesla Cybertruck is a capable electric tow vehicle for short to medium distances, with robust towing specs and helpful features. However, its significant range reduction requires careful planning and realistic expectations for heavy-duty towing tasks.

Powerwall vs. V2G: Why Your Home Battery Beats Your EV’s Side Hustle

image by ChatGPT

Battery tech is advancing, costs are falling, and these little powerhouses are finding more applications. One of the many things you can do with batteries now is provide backup power to your home. There are two primary ways that you can do this: one, with dedicated home energy storage batteries, or two, with an electric vehicle (EV) that supports vehicle-to-home (V2H). Both home batteries and V2H keep the lights on when the grid goes kaput, but not exactly in the same way; each method has pros and cons.

In this post, we're going to compare home batteries and V2H EVs. Two examples of a home battery system are the Tesla Powerwall and the FranklinWH aPower 2 battery. Two examples of a vehicle-to-home (V2H) EV are the Tesla Cybertruck with Powershare and the Ford F150 Lightning with its V2H gear.

Home energy storage battery systems are stationary (usually mounted in your garage or the shady side of the house). They store energy for use during an outage or for electricity cost optimization. They’re the dependable, stay-at-home parent of energy solutions. These batteries can be charged up by solar, the grid, or a combination of both.

V2H systems, like the Cybertruck’s Powershare or the Ford F-150 Lightning Intelligent Backup Power system, let your electric vehicle (EV) power your home during outages. The Cybertruck has a 123 kWh battery pack (equivalent to ~nine Powerwalls) and can power a home for three to four days. However, it requires a $595 Universal Wall Connector, $1,800 Gateway, and a transfer switch. Similarly, the Ford F-150 Lightning extended-range comes in with an impressive 131 kWh pack and V2H gear will run you $3,895.

Degradation

The Achilles’ heel of V2H is battery degradation. Extra charge-discharge cycles from daily load shifting wear down your truck’s battery faster than Netflix cancels shows after the second season. When we have million-mile battery technology, this won't be an issue, but today it's a reality.

Home batteries are designed for frequent cycling and shrug off this wear like a marathon runner. This makes them ideal for grid shifting with time-of-use (TOU) pricing; charging during cheap off-peak hours and discharging during pricey peaks saves you money faster than a coupon-clipping grandparent. And if home batteries do degrade, it doesn't mean that you'll come up a couple of miles short of your next charging stop like it would in an EV.

Your EV battery is made to help you get from A to B. If it's also a 5-day-a-week workhorse for the grid, that comes at a cost of additional degradation. Battery tech may soon advance to the point where we have million-mile battery packs, allowing them to be cycled as often as needed. Until then, degradation is a real concern. This makes home batteries the practical choice today, offering reliability and savings while letting your electric truck stick to hauling and dazzling onlookers with its stainless steel swagger.

Cost

Home batteries, like a Powerwall, are not cheap (~$12,000+ installed), but they offer daily utility and savings through TOU peak-shaving and virtual power plant (VPP) programs, where utilities pay to tap your battery during peak demand. V2H systems, including Ford's and Tesla's, currently miss out on VPPs participation because your vehicle might be cruising down the road or parked at work when the grid needs it. Notably, EVs today can support vehicle-to-load (V2L) or vehicle-to-home (V2H), but none of today's EVs in the US support vehicle-to-grid (V2G) capability, further limiting their role in VPP events.

Wrapping Up

Feature	Home Energy Storage (e.g., Powerwall)	V2H (e.g., Powershare)
Primary Use	Daily load shifting, outage protection	Emergency power, off-grid support
Battery Degradation	Designed for frequent cycling	Accelerated wear from extra cycles
Equipment Cost	~$12,000 (installed, depending on size)	~$2,400 (hardware) + a compatible EV ($80,000+)
VPP Eligibility	Common, utility incentives available	Rare, limited by vehicle availability and features
Daily Savings Potential	High (TOU optimization)	Low (emergency-focused)

In summary, an electric truck with V2H is a beast for emergency power, but home batteries are the reliable workhorses. Home batteries save you money and stress on the daily. Unless you’re set on making your Cybertruck the Swiss Army knife of your garage, a home battery is the smarter bet for now, and you've always got those outlets on the Cybertruck or F150 Lightning if you need them.

The Solar Crossover Is Coming: How Solar and Storage Will Outshine Rising Utility Costs

Rising Electricity Costs and the Solar Solution

Solar panels generate electricity during the day, but a home needs power 24/7. The answer is pairing solar with home energy storage, like Tesla Powerwall. This ensures power availability at night. Excess solar energy produced in daylight hours charges the battery, storing it for evening use. Storage also provides redundancy; if the grid fails, your battery keeps critical systems running, ensuring your lights stay on during outages. Solar and storage also offer a hedge against rising utility costs. Who wouldn't want to be more energy independent, more resilient, and more sustainable around the clock? But, there's a cost; solar and batteries can be expensive. 

The good news is that solar and batteries can save you money and they are getting more affordable each year. Today, we'll look at the cost and see when solar becomes a no-brainer.

Increasing Home Electricity Prices

Home electricity prices in the United States have been steadily climbing, with an average annual increase of about 3% to 5% over the past decade, driven by infrastructure upgrades, fuel costs, and datacenter and AI demands. Data from the US Energy Information Administration shows residential electricity prices rose from 11.58 cents per kWh in 2010 to about 16.11 cents per kWh in 2025. This trend is likely to continue due to ongoing grid development needs and costly infrastructure investments. As utility bills grow, homeowners are seeking cost-effective alternatives, and solar power paired with home energy storage emerges as a compelling solution to manage rising expenses.

Solar and Storage as a Cost-Saving Solution

Solar energy is increasingly attractive, with installation costs dropping significantly, including a 40% reduction in the past year alone, bringing residential systems to around $2,500 per kW in 2025, according to EnergySage. However, the phase-out of net metering in states like California, where NEM 3.0 significantly reduces credits for excess solar energy sent to the grid, diminishes the financial benefits of grid-tied-only systems. Home energy storage systems address this by enabling homeowners to store excess solar energy generated during the day for the home's use at night. This maximizes self-consumption and reduces reliance on the grid. Battery prices have also fallen, driven by advancements in lithium-ion technology from the electric vehicle market and large-scale energy storage projects, with residential storage costs declining from $1,200 per kWh in 2010 to about $300 per kWh in 2025, per BloombergNEF.

The Economic Crossover Point

Solar adoption is increasingly driven by price, marking a pivotal shift. Early adopters were primarily motivated by a commitment to environmentalism. However, as solar panels and storage solutions become cheaper than traditional grid electricity, the enticement broadens. This cost advantage is ushering in a majority adoption phase, where economic pragmatism outweighs niche motivations. With declining production costs, solar is no longer a luxury but a practical choice for households and businesses. This transition promises a sustainable energy future, fueled by affordability and widespread accessibility.

As utility electricity prices rise and the costs of solar and storage continue to decline, a crossover point is approaching where generating and storing your own energy becomes cheaper than purchasing grid power. This analysis focuses purely on the economic perspective, setting aside the significant environmental benefits of solar. 

Inyokern, CA: A Solar Powerhouse

To illustrate the potential savings, we'll examine this trend in Inyokern, California, one of the sunniest locations in the US, a place where solar and storage systems can shine. We'll use Inyokern as a leading indicator of how this might play out. As the cost trends continue, this will apply to more parts of the US and the world.

The city of Inyokern is located in California's Mojave Desert, about 120 miles northeast of Los Angeles. It's a small community positioned near the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station. Inyokern serves as a gateway to outdoor recreation in the Sierra Nevada and Mojave. It's an ideal case study for evaluating "grid-light" and off-grid solar storage solutions.

Assumptions for a Typical Home

For this analysis, we assume a typical-sized, all-electric home in Inyokern with an annual energy consumption of 10,332 kWh (based on the national average for a household with electric heating and cooling). Our fictional average home is a 2,000-square-foot single-family residence.

Energy Costs Without Solar or Storage

The utility cost of electricity for this home is calculated using California's average residential rate of 30 cents per kWh in 2025, with a projected annual increase of 4%. The annual energy cost today is $3,100 or $258 per month. By 2030, with rates at ~37 cents per kWh, the annual cost rises to $3,771, or $314 monthly. By 2040, with rates at ~53 cents per kWh, the annual cost reaches $5,445, or $454 per month.

50% Off-Grid Solution

A 50% off-grid solar solution in Inyokern leverages the area’s abundant sunshine to power half a home’s annual energy needs. A 2.6 kW solar PV system generates 5,166 kWh yearly, while a 37 kWh battery stores excess energy for nighttime use. If the grid fails, the battery ensures critical appliances stay powered, offering resilience. In 2025, a system of this size costs $17,597, with a monthly loan payment of $136 (20-year, 7% loan). This is competitive with utility bills. As solar and storage costs drop, this solution becomes increasingly affordable, blending savings with energy independence in Inyokern’s sunny climate.

Year	PV Cost ($/kW)	Storage Cost ($/kWh)	Total PV Cost ($)	Total Storage Cost ($)	Total System Cost ($)	Monthly Loan Payment ($)
2025	2,500	300	6,425	11,172	17,597	$136
2030	1,580	200	4,060	7,448	11,508	$89
2040	1,000	100	2,570	3,724	6,294	$49
2070	500	50	1,285	1,862	3,147	$24

80% Off-Grid Solution: Costs and Loan Payments

For an 80% off-grid solution in Inyokern, this home requires a 4 kW solar PV system and 57 kWh of storage. This system cost is ~$27,186. Financed with a 20-year loan at 7% interest, the monthly payment is $257, slightly below the current utility bill of $258, indicating near-immediate savings. In 2030, with system costs dropping to $17,770 (PV at $1,580/kW, storage at $200/kWh), the monthly loan payment is $168, significantly less than the projected utility bill of $314. By 2040, with costs at $9,742 (PV at $1,000/kW, storage at $100/kWh), the monthly payment is $92, a fraction of the $454 utility bill, demonstrating substantial savings.

The above graph clearly shows that the crossover point for solar cost and utility cost has already occurred. Looking out to 2040 or beyond (if these trends continue), solar and storage are even more compelling in more places. 

100% Off-Grid Solution: Costs and Loan Payments

For a 100% off-grid solution, requiring a 5.1 kW solar system and 142 kWh of storage. The 2025 cost is $55,215, with a monthly loan payment of $521, well above the current utility bill, making it less economical today. In 2030, the cost drops to $36,368, with a monthly payment of $343, still higher than the utility bill but approaching parity. By 2040, at $19,255, the monthly payment is $182, well below the projected utility bill of $454, indicating that the 100% off-grid solution becomes very compelling at this time. So, (if you're not already) you might be watching Super Bowl LXXIV (74) on a solar-powered big screen. 

A Hopeful Future with Solar and Storage

The declining costs of solar and storage, combined with rising utility rates, position these technologies as increasingly viable solutions for homeowners. Today, 50% systems offer financial benefits; by 2030, 80% off-grid system offers clear financial benefits, and by 2040, even the 100% off-grid option with a large storage battery surpasses grid power in cost-effectiveness. 

Looking forward, solar and battery systems are poised to become standard in new construction, as builders and homeowners recognize their economic and environmental advantages. Widespread adoption will stabilize the grid by reducing peak demand, as homes store and use their own energy, easing the strain on aging infrastructure. Moreover, replacing fossil fuel-based grid power with solar will significantly reduce CO2 emissions, contributing to a cleaner environment. This transition promises not only substantial savings but also a cleaner, more resilient energy future, making solar and storage a cornerstone of our future free from fossil fuels.

Roadmap of Tesla Autopilot/FSD

Origin of Tesla Autopilot/FSD

Tesla was founded in 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning with an initial focus on high-performance electric vehicles. At its founding, the company had no explicit emphasis on self-driving technology. Elon Musk joined as chairman in 2004 and became CEO in 2008, and he has been the primary driving force behind pushing Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) capabilities, repeatedly emphasizing full autonomy (SAE Level 5 - eyes off, hands off, take a nap) as a key goal since at least 2013. Musk's influence escalated in the mid-2010s, where he directed the shift toward vision-based systems and end-to-end neural networks, drawing from billions of real-world driving data frames. Musk's direct involvement, his aggressive timelines and decisions, like removing radar in 2021 for cost and vision purity, have shaped its development.

Key Personnel Involved in Hardware (HW) and Software (SW)

Tesla's Autopilot/FSD development has involved a mix of internal teams and high-profile hires. On the hardware side, the focus has been on custom silicon for processing power. On software, it is centered on AI, computer vision, and neural networks trained on vast datasets.

• Jim Keller: A legendary chip architect, Keller joined Tesla in January 2016 as Vice President of Autopilot Hardware Engineering and left in April 2018. He led the design of Tesla's first custom FSD chip (used in HW3), emphasizing redundancy and high-performance computing for autonomy. Prior to Tesla, he worked on Apple's A4/A5 chips and AMD's Zen architecture.
• Andrej Karpathy: A deep learning expert and OpenAI co-founder, Karpathy joined Tesla in 2017 as Director of AI, leading the Autopilot vision team until his departure in July 2022 (after a 4-month sabbatical starting March 2022). He was instrumental in shifting to vision-only systems, developing end-to-end neural nets, and overseeing FSD Beta releases. He rejoined OpenAI in 2023.

Other notable contributors include Pete Bannon (ex-Apple, worked under Keller on HW3+) and teams focused on Dojo supercomputer for training (though Dojo has faced pivots). Elon Musk has been hands-on, often overriding engineering decisions.

Timeline of Major Milestones

Below is a chronological timeline combining key Autopilot/FSD milestones, hardware introductions (with features added), and software revisions. Hardware revisions focus on enabling progressively advanced autonomy, while software builds on that with features like beta testing and vision improvements. Dates are approximate based on announcements and rollouts.

(Month) Year	Milestone	Details
2013	Early Vision for Autonomy	Elon Musk begins publicly predicting full autonomy within years; Tesla starts internal development.
Sep 2014	HW1 Introduced	First Autopilot hardware (Mobileye EyeQ3). Added basic features: adaptive cruise control (ACC), lane-keeping assist (Autosteer), automatic emergency braking (AEB), and auto-parking. Used 1 forward camera, radar, and ultrasonics. Installed in Model S/X until mid-2016.
2015	Initial SW Releases for HW1	Software v7.0 enables Autopilot features like ACC and Autosteer on highways. Factor of 10 safety improvement predicted by Musk within 6 years.
Oct 2016	HW2 Introduced	NVIDIA Drive PX 2 platform. Added 8 cameras (360° coverage), 12 ultrasonics, enhanced radar. Enabled "Enhanced Autopilot" with auto lane changes, Summon (remote parking), and Navigate on Autopilot (NoA) potential. Installed until mid-2017.
Mar 2017	SW v8.1 for HW2	Brought HW2 parity with HW1, adding speed limit recognition and improved Autosteer.
Aug 2017	HW2.5 Introduced	Updated NVIDIA hardware with redundant  processing units for safety. Added cabin camera (initially dormant). Improved sensor fusion for better reliability in adverse conditions. Installed until early 2019.
Apr 2019	Autonomy Day; HW3 Introduced	Tesla's custom FSD chip (dual redundant SoCs, 21 TOPS). Designed for full redundancy and FSD compute needs. Added support for traffic light/stop sign recognition, automatic city driving. Retrofits began for older vehicles. Basic Autopilot made standard.
Oct 2020	FSD Beta Program Launch	SW v10 Beta: Early access for select users, enabling city streets navigation. FSD price rises to $10,000.
May 2021	Shift to Vision-Only	Removed radar from new vehicles; relied on cameras and neural nets. SW updates like v9 Beta emphasize pure vision.
Oct 2021	FSD Beta v10.3 Issues	Brief halt due to safety concerns; quick fixes rolled out.
Sep 2022	FSD Price Increase	To $15,000; wider Beta access.
Mar 2023	HW4 (AI4) Introduced	Second-gen Tesla chip (higher resolution cameras, more compute ~500 TOPS). Added better handling of complex scenarios, rain/snow performance, and hardware for unsupervised FSD. Installed in new Model S/X, then 3/Y.
2023-2024	FSD v11/v12 Rollouts	v11: Unified stack for highway/city. v12: End-to-end neural nets, no hand-coded rules; hands-free with attention monitoring. Wide release of v12.4 in mid-2024 removes torque-based nagging.
Jan 2025	FSD v12.6 for HW3	Improvements in smoothness and decision-making.
May 2025	FSD v13 for AI4	v13.2.9: Enhanced vision monitoring, better edge cases. HW3 lags behind AI4 versions.
Aug 2025	Dojo Timeline Updates	Custom supercomputer for FSD training; faces delays but crucial for future nets.

Looking Forward: AI5 and AI6 Likely New Features

Tesla is pivoting away from Dojo to focus on in-house chips for inference and training. AI5 is expected to be in production by late 2026, with massive performance boosts (up to 40x over AI4), optimized for sparse tensors, mixed-precision math (FP8/INT4), and dedicated AI blocks. Likely new features: Unsupervised FSD (no human intervention), real-time "reality compression" for efficient processing, better handling of rare events, and integration with Robotaxi/Cybercab. Manufactured by TSMC.

AI6 (2028?) is described by Musk as "the best AI chip by far," with even higher power efficiency. It will likely enable advanced multi-modal AI (e.g., integrating voice, gestures), fleet-scale learning, and energy-efficient autonomy for mass deployment. Making AI6 a perfect fit for a humanoid robotic product. AI6 is planned to be made at Samsung's new Texas facilities.

Fossil Fuels Don't Need Subsidies

Prospects for Ending US Fossil Fuel Subsidies

The United States provides substantial subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, estimated at $760 billion annually by the International Monetary Fund in 2022, including $3 billion in direct subsidies (tax breaks and credits) and $754 billion in implicit subsidies (unpriced environmental and health costs). These subsidies are rooted in policies like the Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction since 1913. Fossil fuel subsidies face growing scrutiny for clashing with climate goals and economic efficiency. Eliminating them is challenging due to political, economic, and regulatory barriers, compounded by the recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) in July 2025. However, opportunities driven by climate urgency, global trends, and public pressure offer hope. Below, we explore the barriers, opportunities, and impacts of the OBBBA on ending fossil fuel subsidies.

Political and Economic Barriers

Industry Influence and Lobbying

The fossil fuel industry’s political clout is a formidable obstacle. In 2023, the sector spent over $100 million on lobbying, according to OpenSecrets. They lobbied to preserve tax provisions like the Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction and Percentage Depletion. Congressional allies in oil-rich states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana defend these subsidies as critical for economic stability. Past repeal efforts have consistently failed, reflecting the industry’s ability to frame subsidies as essential for jobs and energy security, a narrative that resonates in energy-dependent regions. 

           

Reaping over $200 billion in profits in 2022, the fossil fuel industry does not need subsidies to thrive. These government handouts primarily boost shareholder value, distort energy markets, and delay the transition to cleaner, more sustainable energy future.

Regulatory Capture

Regulatory capture significantly entrenches fossil fuel subsidies. Industry executives and lobbyists often influence or hold positions in agencies like the Department of Energy or Environmental Protection Agency, shaping policies to favor oil, methane, and coal. This capture perpetuates implicit subsidies, such as unpriced pollution costs ($754 billion in 2022, per IMF), by delaying regulations like carbon pricing or stricter emissions standards. It prioritizes corporate profits over public interest, stifling renewable energy transitions and reducing accountability for environmental damage. Capture also undermines reform by embedding industry-friendly regulators who resist subsidy phase-outs, making legislative change politically contentious.

Regional Economic Dependence

States like Louisiana, Wyoming, and North Dakota depend on energy revenue, and lawmakers prioritize local economies, viewing subsidy cuts as a threat to jobs and tax bases. This creates bipartisan resistance to ending corporate welfare.

Energy Price Concerns

Policymakers fear subsidy removal could raise energy costs, impacting consumers and industries. Direct subsidies ($3-20 billion annually) lower production costs, stabilizing gasoline and heating prices. OECD studies suggest price increases of only 1-2%, but public sensitivity to cost hikes, amplified by post-2022 inflation, remains a significant barrier. This concern often overshadows the long-term benefits of redirecting funds to cleaner energy regardless of the truth of the matter.

Policy Inertia and Complexity

Subsidies are embedded in complex tax codes, requiring intricate legislative action to dismantle. Repealing provisions like the domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and gas demands broad congressional approval, often stalled by budget disputes or filibusters. Implicit subsidies, tied to externalities like pollution, face resistance to mechanisms like carbon pricing, particularly from conservative lawmakers and industry allies wary of new taxes.

Opportunities for Reform

Climate Policy Momentum

The US commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050, reinforced by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, which allocated $369 billion for clean energy, signals a shift toward renewables. International pledges, like the G7’s 2025 deadline to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, add pressure. These frameworks could justify redirecting subsidies to renewables, which received only $15.6 billion in 2022, supporting a fairer energy market and aligning with global climate goals.

Economic and Job Creation Potential

Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies could free up significant funds. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates repealing certain tax breaks could save $25.9 billion over a decade. Redirecting these to renewables, which create 3-7 times more jobs per dollar invested than fossil fuels (IRENA, 2023), could appeal to lawmakers focused on economic growth. Declining renewable costs (solar down 80% since 2010) weaken the economic case for fossil fuel subsidies, making reform increasingly viable.

Public and Investor Pressure

Growing climate activism and investor demand for ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) compliance are shifting the landscape. Public awareness of the $760 billion subsidy cost versus $15.6 billion for renewables could fuel grassroots campaigns. Shareholders are pushing energy firms to diversify, reducing reliance on subsidies. Increased public support could pressure Congress, particularly under climate-focused administrations, to prioritize reform.

Global Trends and Leadership

Countries like Canada and the EU are phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, with the EU targeting 2025. Aligning with these trends could enhance US climate leadership, especially post-COP28’s call for transitioning away from fossil fuels. EU carbon border taxes might incentivize subsidy cuts to avoid trade penalties, bolstering the case for reform.

Impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), passed by the Senate (51-50) on July 1, 2025, and the House (218-214) on July 3, 2025, reinforces fossil fuel subsidies, significantly hindering reform prospects. Its impacts include:

• Strengthening Fossil Fuel Subsidies: The OBBBA delays a methane pollution fee, rolls back vehicle emission rules, and streamlines fossil fuel project approvals. Senator James Lankford’s provision exempts many oil and gas drillers from the corporate alternative minimum tax, expanding tax breaks. It also lowers royalty rates for oil and gas (16.6% to 12.5%) and coal (12.5% to 7%) on federal lands, boosting industry profits and entrenching subsidies.
• Undermining Clean Energy: The bill repeals IRA clean energy tax credits (e.g., Sections 45Y and 48E) for solar and wind by 2028, requiring projects to start construction within a year and be completed by 2030. It rescinds $3.6 billion for DOE’s Title 17 loan guarantees and $5 billion for the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment program, redirecting $1 billion to an “Energy Dominance Financing” program prioritizing fossil fuels. This increases reliance on gas and coal, raising household energy costs by up to $415 annually by 2035 (Princeton’s Jenkins).
• Economic and Environmental Setbacks: The OBBBA increases emissions (up 5% in Q1 2025, per Carbon Monitor), threatens 800,000 clean energy jobs, and raises electricity bills by 10% (Evergreen Action). It undermines $522 billion in announced clean energy investments, delaying the renewable transition.
• Reinforcing Regulatory Capture: The bill’s fossil fuel-friendly provisions reflect industry influence, with groups like the American Petroleum Institute praising its expanded access to federal lands. This deepens capture, as regulators prioritize industry over climate objectives, further delaying subsidy reform.

Likely Timeline and Strategies

Near-Term Outlook (2025-2030)

The OBBBA’s passage makes subsidy elimination before 2030 highly unlikely. Its fossil fuel-friendly provisions, backed by regulatory capture, entrench industry influence. Incremental reforms, like capping tax breaks for marginal projects or tightening federal land leases, may face less resistance, but political gridlock and GOP Senate control (53 seats) limit progress. A strong Democratic majority could push back, but the OBBBA’s legacy complicates efforts.

Mid-Term Prospects (2030-2035)

As renewables reach 50% of US electricity by 2030 (EIA), pressure to eliminate explicit subsidies may grow. Implicit subsidies, tied to externalities, require carbon pricing, which faces resistance due to capture. A fiscal crisis, climate disaster, or stronger international commitments could shift priorities, but the OBBBA’s impacts may delay reform until 2035.

Strategic Approaches

• Targeted Reforms: Focus on low-resistance cuts, like coal liquefaction subsidies ($1 billion), while preserving job-heavy provisions.
• Reallocate Savings: Redirect funds to renewables, job retraining, or consumer relief to mitigate economic concerns.
• Build Public Support: Highlight subsidy disparities to galvanize voters.
• Counter Capture: Advocate for independent oversight of energy agencies to reduce industry influence.

Conclusion

Ending US fossil fuel subsidies faces steep barriers from lobbying, regulatory capture, regional interests, and the OBBBA’s reinforcement of fossil fuel support. Climate urgency, economic logic, and global trends provide reform pathways, but the bill’s impacts delay progress, favoring industry profits over public interest. Incremental reforms by 2030 are possible, with broader cuts by 2035 if political will and public momentum align. Strategic focus on targeted reforms, public engagement, and countering capture is crucial for a cleaner energy future.

Ed Niedermeyer on Tesla :: Right Data, Wrong Conclusion

In part one, we looked at the Expert Fallacy and how it applies to Tesla. Now, I'd like to look at one particular person more deeply, Edward Niedermeyer. 

Edward Niedermeyer is a fellow Oregonian, an automotive journalist, and the author of Ludicrous: The Unvarnished Story of Tesla Motors (2019). We've appeared together on the casual new vehicle tech show What Drives US? multiple times.

Niedermeyer has been a notable skeptic of Tesla and Elon Musk. IMHO, his writings and public statements reflect the expert fallacy. His industry expertise says that no one else has successfully done this, so Tesla will follow this well-worn path to failure. This rearview mirror perspective has shaped his narrative, particularly concerning Tesla’s trajectory over the past two decades. Edward overlooks the unpredictable nature of innovation. As I've said before, he is factually accurate, logical, and completely wrong. 

Niedermeyer’s early coverage at The Truth About Cars (which included the Tesla Death Watch*) around 2008 portrayed Tesla as a struggling startup unlikely to survive. As Tesla advanced with the Roadster, Model S, X, and 3, Ed reinforced predictions of bankruptcy, arguing the company’s financial instability and production challenges would lead to its downfall. In Ludicrous, he critiques Tesla’s Silicon Valley approach, highlighting its departure from traditional auto industry standards, such as meticulous production planning, in favor of a “move fast and break things” mindset. He points to specific setbacks, including the 2015 battery-swap demo flop at Harris Ranch, where diesel generators undermined Tesla’s environmental claims, and the 2016 Model 3 production “hell,” where automated systems underperformed. These examples support his view of Tesla as a company built on hype rather than substance, a stance he has reiterated in podcasts like The War on Cars, Tech Won’t Save Us, and The Autonocast, where he labels Musk a “huckster” skilled at selling implausible promises like the "fraud" that is FSD.

* Niedermeyer claims that he was not involved with the Tesla Death Watch although he was there and writing about Tesla at that time.

Niedermeyer's skepticism mirrors the expert fallacy. Niedermeyer’s deep auto industry knowledge led him to anchor his predictions in known legacy automaker metrics, such as thin margins, slow scaling, quality control, and inability to quickly pivot. This misses Tesla’s non-linear growth driven by software, battery innovation, an expanding TAM, and more. In his 2016 New York Times op-ed, Niedermeyer criticized Musk’s unfulfilled self-driving promises. Yet Tesla’s market cap soared past $1 trillion by 2021, defying Ed's financial doom forecasts. And Tesla drivers who have purchased Tesla's driver-assist / supervised autonomy package are overwhelmingly happy with the feature.

Niedermeyer's, yet untitled, next book will be about Tesla's autonomous driving efforts. He has repeatedly called FSD a fraud on his podcast, so I don't expect his new book to offer an objective view of Tesla's FSD technology, Robotaxi deployment, or future. It will likely again (incorrectly) predict doom for Tesla and Musk, much like the 2008 Tesla Death Watch (that he was definitely not involved in).

Niedermeyer's focus on Tesla’s early defects and missed deadlines, like the 2018 500,000-vehicle target, overlooks Musk’s ability to raise capital (over $20 billion since 2010) and iterate quickly, turning setbacks into successes.

When a big, hairy, audacious goal is put forward, it does not matter if it arrives on the exact day of the prediction. We quoted the wise words from Trent Eady before, “If Musk promises you the moon in six months and delivers it in three years, keep things in perspective: you’ve got the moon.” Making the impossible merely late. 

Niedermeyer’s stance also echoes the curmudgeonly attitude NASA’s Apollo team avoided (as noted in Part 1). His persistent negativity, especially in past interactions with Tesla fans, contrasts with the optimistic collaboration that fueled Apollo’s moon landing. Niedermeyer has left Twitter/X, and you can now find him on Bluesky, where he continues to be a bitter critic. 

Niedermeyer has been accused of having financial ties to short-sellers, though I believe this to be unlikely. He does this because it's who he is, not because Jim Chanos is paying him for it. Niedermeyer's 2022 Slate article, titled "When Elon Musk Dreams, His Employees Have Nightmares", warned that Musk’s dysfunctional management of Tesla was a bad sign for Twitter. Yet Tesla has continued to be resilient, and X continues to operate.

That said, Niedermeyer is not always wrong. His call for a second opinion on Tesla’s hype is valid, though his own bias risks “opinion shopping” by leaning on accounts critical of Musk. Niedermeyer's authority led him to overestimate predictable failure while underestimating Tesla’s adaptive innovation, such as the Gigafactory’s cost reductions or Supercharger network’s competitive edge.

Niedermeyer has referred to the diesel generators at the battery swap station as Tesla's "first roach," and as the saying goes, "if you see one, you know there are more." Niedermeyer used this statement multiple times when appearing in various outlets to promote his book. This single statement encapsulates how he gets Tesla wrong. When you want to build something, you begin by getting things operational and then refining, rather than years of planning and analysis paralysis. If you want to build a battery swap station and recharge center, you need a significant industrial-level electricity supply. A utility cannot deliver that at the drop of a hat, so you find a way to develop a minimum viable product. From there, you iterate. You request the service from the utility, then when it arrives, you remove the generators. Until then, you have an operating swap station that you can use to develop the control software, test, debug, and improve the system.

And, by the way, that electrical service did eventually arrive. By then, the swap station was long gone as Tesla went all-in on Supercharging, but the provided electrical service was put to good use. The Harris Ranch Supercharger was built in the same area. With 98 charging stalls, Harris Ranch is a notable Tesla Supercharger location, and it's a popular stop for Tesla owners traveling along Interstate 5.

In summary, Niedermeyer’s writings and statements exemplify how expert predictions can falter when innovation defies norms. His focus on Tesla’s flaws and delayed timelines misses the broader picture of Tesla's innovation and success. There's a lesson in balancing experience and authority with openness to the unexpected. Reality is an open-world game, not a side-scroller. There's far more than one way to get to the finish line, and sometimes someone will make a move that you've never seen before, no matter how long you've been observing the game.

EV Sales After the Incentive Cliff: Navigating America's Electric Road Ahead

Sunset of the Tax Credit: A Bump in the Road for America's EV Shift

As September 2025 draws to a close, the US faces a pivotal moment for electric vehicles (EVs). The federal $7,500 EV tax credit expires on September 30. This incentive has fueled a surge in EV adoption, helping them carve out a meaningful slice of the auto market. Yet, while the end of this subsidy will undoubtedly ripple through sales figures, it won't derail the broader momentum toward cleaner transportation. History shows us that such policy shifts create temporary turbulence, but innovation keeps the wheels turning. In a world grappling with climate change, EVs remain a cornerstone of sustainable progress, and their story is far from over on October 1st.

We've seen the end of EV incentives play out before. Back in 2008, the Energy Improvement and Security Act introduced a $7,500 tax credit per EV, which phased out after 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer. Tesla hit that limit in July 2012, leading to a 10% sales dip in the following quarter as some buyers paused. General Motors followed suit with the Chevy Volt, maxing out its allocation by 2013 and experiencing a similar slowdown. These hiccups were short-lived. Tesla's sales rebounded within months, buoyed by falling prices and growing infrastructure. The lesson? Incentives accelerate uptake, but once exhausted, the market adapts. Today's expiration mirrors that dynamic, albeit on a larger scale, with no per-maker cap but a hard stop for all.

The immediate impact feels stark. Dealerships report a frenzy as buyers rush to lock in credits before midnight on the 30th. August 2025 alone saw US EV sales over 146-thousand units, claiming 9.9% of the market, up from 9.1% in July. Analysts predict Q3'25 will shatter records, with EVs potentially reaching 10% of total sales for the quarter. Post-expiration, though, expect a pullback. Demand could fall 10% to 30% in Q4, perhaps dropping back to the 100-thousand level, as the effective price hike causes sticker shock for some would-be buyers. Manufacturers like Ford and Rivian are already scaling back production and may further reduce their output to avoid short-term inventory gluts.

Still, EVs won't fade into the background. They comprised a growing chunk of the US market in recent years, and projections point to steady expansion. In 2024, EVs captured over 10% of light-duty vehicle sales, with 1.6 million units sold. That's a leap from 7.3% in 2023. For 2025, the International Energy Agency forecasts nearly 10% sales growth, nudging the share slightly higher to around 11%, despite the credit's end. By 2026, as supply chains stabilize and more models proliferate, experts anticipate 13% penetration. These figures reflect a market maturing beyond subsidies, driven by consumer preference for low operating costs and zero tailpipe emissions.

To illustrate the trajectory, consider this growth of EV adoption:

Year	US EV Sales (million)	Market Share
2023	1.2	7.3%
2024	1.6	10%
2025e	1.76	11%
2026e	2.2	13%

This table underscores the market demand resilience. Total US vehicle sales hover around 16 million annually, so even a post-credit dip in late 2025 won't erase the gains.

Battery Tech Advances

Underpinning this optimism is relentless progress in battery technology. Prices plummeted 20% in 2024 alone, averaging $115 per kilowatt-hour. That's a boon for affordability, as larger packs become feasible without ballooning costs. Looking ahead, Goldman Sachs projects a further drop to $80 per kWh by 2026, thanks to scaled production and innovations like solid-state cells. Lithium-iron-phosphate batteries, prized for safety, longevity, and lower price, could claim 38% of the market by then. These advances slash manufacturing expenses, trickling down to consumers in the form of sub-$30,000 EVs by mid-decade. Pair that with expanding charging networks, now over 60,000 public stations nationwide, and the economic case strengthens. EVs already save owners ~$1,500 per year on fuel and maintenance compared to gas guzzlers. As batteries evolve, that gap widens, making the switch irresistible for eco-conscious or affordability-focused drivers.

Losing US Jobs

Beyond mere rebates, the federal EV tax credit under the Inflation Reduction Act strategically anchored battery production and critical minerals in US soil. Requiring 50% of battery components to be North American-made in 2023, ramping to 60% this year. It spurred factories from Georgia to Nevada, creating jobs and curbing reliance on overseas supply chains. This mandate not only fortified energy security and created US jobs. As it sunsets, it's unclear if these US factories will continue to operate, or if batteries will be manufactured offshore in cheaper labor markets.

Conclusion

In the end, the tax credit's twilight marks not an eclipse, but a maturation for the US EV market. We've witnessed rushes and recoveries before, and each has fortified the path to electrification. With batteries getting cheaper and greener grids charging ahead, 2026 promises a market where EVs aren't just viable, they thrive. Let's embrace this pivot. Our air, our health, and our future depend on keeping the charge alive.

Why The Experts Are Wrong About Tesla (repeatedly)

The Expert Fallacy and Why Predictions Fail in the Face of Innovation

The expert fallacy is a logical error where an argument is deemed true simply because an expert endorses it. This fallacy assumes that expertise guarantees accuracy, ignoring the reality that even the most knowledgeable individuals can be wrong, especially when predicting outcomes in novel or disruptive situations. While experts excel at forecasting when events follow established patterns, their predictions often falter when innovation introduces uncharted variables. This gap explains why experts misjudged transformative developments like the iPhone, digital photography, and Tesla’s rise, and why a culture of open-mindedness is vital for breakthroughs.

Experts are invaluable when problems align with historical trends. For instance, a seasoned economist can predict market cycles based on decades of data, or a civil engineer can forecast bridge wear using proven models. Their deep knowledge shines in stable, linear systems. However, when innovation disrupts these patterns, their predictions can be worse than random guesses. Innovation thrives on non-linear leaps, new technologies, and unexpected shifts that defy conventional frameworks. 

Cognitive biases compound this issue: confirmation bias leads experts to favor familiar data, while the curse of knowledge narrows their perspective, making them miss broader possibilities. This is why experts often become curmudgeons or Luddites, dismissing bold ideas with the conviction that “it can’t be done.” As the saying goes, “People saying something can’t be done should stay out of the way of people who are doing it.”

Historical examples illustrate this vividly. In 2007, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer ridiculed the iPhone, predicting its failure due to its high price and lack of a physical keyboard. Anchored to the BlackBerry and Nokia-dominated market, he couldn’t foresee how touchscreens and app ecosystems would redefine smartphones. Similarly, Kodak’s engineers, despite inventing the digital camera in the 1970s, dismissed digital photography, clinging to film’s dominance. Their expertise blinded them to a paradigm shift, leading to Kodak’s decline. These cases show how experts, steeped in current realities, struggle to envision disruptive futures.

Case Study: The Apollo Program

The NASA Apollo program demonstrated how attitude can trump rigid expertise. While technical skills were essential for the lunar missions, NASA prioritized a collaborative, optimistic mindset, informally dubbed the “no curmudgeons rule.” The young team, averaging just 28 years old, faced unprecedented challenges, from landing on the Moon to saving Apollo 13 after an oxygen tank explosion. Leaders like Gene Kranz and Chris Kraft cultivated a culture where creative problem-solving was encouraged and negativity or resistance to new ideas was unwelcome. During Apollo 13, engineers improvised a life-saving CO2 scrubber using duct tape and spare parts, a feat that required open-minded problem-solving over skeptical caution. This ethos allowed NASA to embrace uncertainty and achieve the impossible, showing that innovation demands flexibility, not just credentials.

This doesn’t mean experts should be ignored. Their insights are critical, especially in domains where patterns hold, like medicine or structural engineering. A heart surgeon’s diagnosis or a seismologist’s earthquake risk assessment carries weight for good reason. However, there’s no harm in seeking a second opinion to challenge assumptions, particularly when stakes are high or solutions feel uncertain. The danger lies in taking this too far. Beware of slipping into “opinion shopping,” where one seeks experts who merely echo their own views. This self-selection breeds bias and undermines critical thinking. The key is to balance respect for expertise with openness to diverse perspectives, especially from outsiders less tethered to conventional wisdom.

Tesla: A Case Study in Defying Expert Predictions

Tesla’s journey over the past two decades is a masterclass in how innovation outpaces expert forecasts. Auto industry analysts and stock experts repeatedly underestimated Tesla, anchored to the norms of legacy automakers like GM and Toyota. In the 2000s, they dismissed the Tesla Roadster as a niche product, arguing that electric vehicles (EVs) lacked the scale, infrastructure, or consumer demand to compete. By 2015, as the Model S gained traction, analysts like Barclays’ Brian Johnson predicted Tesla’s failure, citing insufficient capital and manufacturing expertise. They didn’t grasp Tesla’s tech-driven approach: vertical integration of batteries, software, and charging networks, coupled with over-the-air updates that turned cars into evolving platforms.

Skeptics also misjudged EV adoption. In 2010, Goldman Sachs forecasted EVs would remain under 5% of US sales by 2020, missing the impact of falling battery costs (down 90% from 2010 to 2020) and Tesla’s Supercharger network. Confirmation bias led analysts to focus on Tesla’s early losses and quality issues, while their deep knowledge of traditional auto margins (5-10%) made them undervalue Tesla’s tech-like growth potential (20%+ margins by 2023). Even bullish experts, like RBC’s Joseph Spak, predicted bankruptcy risks in 2018 during Model 3 production challenges, underestimating Musk’s ability to raise capital (over $20 billion), problem-solve, and rapidly iterate. Tesla’s Gigafactory was mocked by Morgan Stanley in 2014, yet it has become a cornerstone of Tesla's cost advantage.

It was easy to predict Tesla's failure because no other company had succeeded at the things they were attempting. Musk’s vision and execution defied curmudgeonly skepticism. Analysts like JPMorgan’s Ryan Brinkman set low price targets in 2016, focusing on missed deadlines rather than Tesla’s brand power and network effects. Early adopters fueled mainstream demand, turning Tesla into a cultural phenomenon. Meanwhile, outsiders like ARK Invest’s Cathie Wood, less bound by auto industry dogma, predicted Tesla’s meteoric rise, targeting $4,000 per share (or $266 split-adjusted) by 2023 when others scoffed. As I write this, Tesla's stock is above $400 per share, well ahead of ARK's prediction. Tesla’s success shows how innovation, driven by those “doing it,” can silence naysayers.

Just as many experts have been wrong about Tesla in the past, there will undoubtedly be naysayers for the next phase of Tesla's evolution to a physical world AI company with autonomous vehicles and robots. 

Wrap-Up

The expert fallacy reminds us that expertise, while valuable, isn’t infallible. Experts excel when predicting "within known patterns" but falter when innovation disrupts the status quo, as seen in the cases of iPhone, Kodak, and Tesla. NASA’s Apollo team avoided this trap by prioritizing attitude over rigid expertise, fostering a culture where curmudgeons had no place. While experts deserve respect, it's a good practice to seek second opinions to guard against blind spots, provided it doesn’t devolve into opinion shopping. Innovation’s unpredictability demands humility and openness, qualities that allow visionaries to push past skepticism and achieve the impossible. As history shows, those who insist “it can’t be done” often watch from the sidelines as others prove them wrong.

50 Thousand Miles of Fun - Goodbye Tesla, Hello Tesla

From X to Y

The above photo is my 2016 Tesla Model X 90D at the Painted Hills of eastern Oregon. I owned this vehicle for almost 7 years, and I loved it.

We purchased this new in 2016, years before the Model 3 and Model Y were available. In 2016, when shopping for an EV, I knew that it was a risk. I had already owned a Nissan LEAF for several years, and it was becoming apparent that the thermal management in the LEAF was (let's just say) inadequate.

Tesla, on the other hand, was an EV-only company; they seemed to know what they were doing. The Model S had won several awards, and Tesla's vehicles looked great. I'd read about their Chief Technology Officer, JB Straubel, and his work on the Stanford solar-powered car for the American Solar Challenge race, as well as his EV conversion of a Porsche 944. His homemade conversion EV set a world electric vehicle racing record in 2000. JB had the technical bona fides.

Tesla was still a startup in 2016, and the Model X was not cheap. The Leaf was the first new car that I'd ever purchased. Now, was I really going to take a risk on a software-defined vehicle by a startup that could disappear tomorrow? After reading about JB, the Model S awards, and taking a test drive, I decided to go for it. I was convinced that Tesla knew what they were doing and that the company would survive and thrive.

Only after some career success, frugal living, and a couple of lucky investments (including TSLA) did I arrive at a financial point where I could afford to buy a new Tesla. So in 2016, I purchased the most expensive vehicle that I will likely ever buy in my life. A long-range Tesla Model X 90D. This purchase was more than just another car; it was an investment in progress.

Little did I know when I purchased it, that it would profoundly shift my perspective on vehicle ownership and the future of EVs and emission-free travel amid nature's wonders. 

Going through the configurator, there were a few decisions to make. 

How Many Seats?

Model X comes in 5, 6, and 7-seat configurations. I ordered the 5-seater, but they were initially only making the 6-seat variants. My Tesla-handler told me that I could wait 3 to 4 months for the 5-seat, or I could take the 6-seater now. We were down a vehicle in our driveway, so we went for the 6-seat option, and that turned out to be a great choice. It was not just about the seat count. The 6-seater has an open second row with pedestal seats. This gives far more legroom to the 3rd row. Plus, the 2nd row seats are plush captain's chairs; this is the configuration that I'd recommend.

The Adventure Begins

Our Model X arrived in September of 2016. During our 7 years together, we had many fun adventures. We brought Xmas trees home on top of that giant glass roof (with some good planning).

Together we've traveled to Grants Pass; eastern Oregon; Bend, OR; San Diego; Great Wolf Lodge; the dunes of Florence; Thor's Well; Crater Lake; Oregon Wildlife Safari; Butterfly Pavilion, Mount Hood, Cove Palisades; The Oregon Caves, and many other destinations.

A New Mindset

As I mentioned above, this was not my first EV. I had owned a Chevy S10EV, and this Model X was parked in our garage next to our LEAF when it first arrived. However, this was my first Tesla and my first long-range (249 miles) EV. With the two short-range EVs I'd owned, you had to have a plan before you unplugged. You either had to know that you were going less than half a charge away and then turning back, or you had to have a charging plan (with contingencies). With the X, however, you could just get in and drive. The Supercharger network was deployed and growing. Trips up and down the West Coast were easy.

This is when I started investing more in Tesla; they had the formula right. They didn't just make EVs; they made an ecosystem that made EV ownership easy and fun.

Goodbye

Over the years, our X became more than just a car; it was our family adventure companion.

In 2023, we became empty nesters, and we wouldn't need to transport half a soccer team, so we downsized to a Tesla Model Y with HW4/AI4 and FSD.

Trading in my beloved 2016 Tesla Model X 90D felt like bidding farewell to a steadfast companion who'd reshaped my world. This six-seater wasn't just a car; it was a dependable friend that carried us through epic adventures from Crater Lake's azure depths to the wild dunes of Florence, while teaching me the joy of sustainable travel. The goodbye left an irreplaceable void in my garage and my heart.