True Cost Of A Tesla Model 3 After 10000 Miles Video

Word-Of-Mouth Alone Sells Tesla Model 3, Says Musk Source: Electric Vehicle News How The Tesla Model 3 Is The #1 Selling Car In The U.S. Tesla Model 3 Average Selling Price Hits $60,000 “These numbers are all based off my personal experience so it’s not going to be the same for everyone but at least it will give you an idea of the costs and how much a difference it is driving a Tesla compared to an internal combustion engine vehicle. I’m going to compare my Model 3 acquisition to what it would be like if I kept driving my 2007 Pontiac G6.The total cost of my Long Range Tesla Model 3 was $56,000. I also had to pay $3,422 for taxes. I am getting the full $7,500 tax credit but my car insurance increased by $500/year so assuming I keep my Model 3 for at least 5 years that brings it to $54,422.”There were no maintenance expenses so far.In the case of charging, there was a need to install NEMA 14-50 outlet at home, which cost $900 (including a new cable in the garage). That brings the cost to $55,322.“However we also have to calculate the cost of installing a home charging outlet. This cost heavily depends on your particular location and how difficult the install is. My NEMA 14-50 outlet cost $900 for a professional electrician to install, which is on the expensive side because my box was the furthest possible distance from my garage so they had to run cable underground which increased the price.That brings it to a grand total of $55,322 upfront cost for my First Production Long Range Tesla Model 3, assuming I keep it for at least 5 years.”In the case of electricity costs, in total it was $206.94 over the distance of 10,402 miles.$20.29 on four Supercharging sessions$186.65 of estimated electricity costs at homeIt could be less if you use free charging points from time to time.“How much does it cost to charge & drive a Model 3 compared to buying gas? My Model 3 is at 10,400 lifetime miles and it’s averaging 233 Wh/mile. So far I’ve only spent $20.29 on four Supercharging sessions, and that resulted in approximately 700 miles of range which means the other 9,700 miles traveled were from charging at home in my garage. To find out how much it’s cost to travel those 9700 miles we need to calculate my electricity rate along with the Model 3’s charging efficiency. My off-peak electricity rate when I charge my car at home is $0.06882 per kWh.However, 100% of the electricity doesn’t make it into the car’s battery when charging at home. This is true for all electric cars. Edmund’s is doing a long-term test drive of the Model 3 and they’re measuring the average wall-to-wheels efficiency. So far from their tests they’ve seen an 83.3% charging efficiency (meaning only about 83% of the electricity makes it from the charging cable into the car battery). And if we also account for the amount of battery that depletes as the Model 3 is just sitting somewhere not plugged in (I’ll make a guesstimate and say 3% is a fair assumption for vampire drain), that brings us to 80% total charging efficiency.So 9,700 miles at an average of 233 Wh/mile with an electricity rate of $0.06882 per kWh with an 80% charging efficiency equals $186.65. And if we add the $20.29 I’ve spent on Supercharging that comes to a grand total of $206.94 spent to travel 10,400 miles in my Model 3.”The old 2007 Pontiac G6 is rated at 21 MPG, which in Andy’s area would result in $1,371.81 in costs over the same distance of 10,402 miles at $2.77 per gallon.The difference on fuel is over $1,200 alone, not taking into account the required time for stops at gas stations.“If you compare that to my 6-cylinder automatic transmission 2007 Pontiac G6 which averages 21 miles per gallon and using the current average cost of gas in my area which is $2.77 per gallon, the total cost to travel 10,400 miles would be $1,371.81. That means I’ve saved almost $1,200 over 10,400 miles or maybe it’s better to say that’s $1,200 I’ve stopped having to give to gas stations since getting my Model 3. And I’m not driving a car that puts out any emissions which feels great.”“Also I’ve saved so much time from not having to stop at gas stations during my normal weekly driving. It takes me 5 seconds to plug in my Model 3 in my garage. When I drove a gas car I had to get gas at least once or twice per week, and each stop took around 5 minutes. So over the course of a year that’s a huge amount of time saved from not having to stop at gas stations.We could also get into the money saved from oil changes and maintenance but that’s another story. So far I’ve paid absolutely $0 in maintenance for my Model 3 so hopefully that continues. It’s been a fantastic car after 10,000 miles and it’s still just as much fun as the day I got it. I hope you enjoyed this detailed look into how much owning and driving a Tesla Model 3 actually costs.” Here we examine the Tesla Model 3 in terms of the costs to buy one and to drive it 10,000 miles.Happy Model 3 Long Range owner, Andy Slye, shared his personal summary of expenses over the first 10,402 miles (16,737 km).The car was bought for $56,000 (incl. dest. charge) and after $3,422 for taxes and registration and deduction of the $7,500 federal tax credit, the total cost was $51,922. After including insurance over five years, the cost will be $54,422.Tesla Model 3 Author Liberty Access TechnologiesPosted on September 10, 2018Categories Electric Vehicle News read more

Researchers Slam Transparency UTurn at EU Medicines Agency

Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Email Researchers are worried that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is backpedaling on its pledge to open clinical trials data to public scrutiny. Draft documents detailing how the agency plans to make such data available contains small print that may severely limit access and that constitutes a turnaround from earlier promises for openness, academics say.For instance, the plan says that registered users would only be allowed to view trial information on screen, making it more difficult to reanalyze data. They would not be permitted to “download, save, edit, photograph, print, distribute or transfer the information,” say the draft terms of use, dated 5 May, of which ScienceInsider has obtained a copy.“This is a stunning and surprising reversal,” says a 16 May statement sent to ScienceInsider by Tom Jefferson, a reviewer at the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group in Rome, and Peter Doshi, an assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy in Baltimore and associate editor at BMJ. (Jefferson and Doshi fought a long battle, supported by BMJ, to obtain trial data for the influenza drug oseltamivir, better known as Tamiflu.) The European ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, has echoed the researchers’ worries. “I am now concerned about what appears to be a significant change in EMA’s policy, which could undermine the fundamental right of public access to documents established by EU law,” O’Reilly said in a statement on 16 May. She urged the agency to justify itself in writing by the end of the month.EMA did not make the documents public but shared them with representatives of patients, consumers, health care professionals, the pharmaceutical industry, academia, and medical journals a part of “targeted discussions” to finalize the draft policy.Europe has been leading the clinical trial transparency bandwagon in recent years. EMA vowed to become more transparent in 2010 after the ombudsman sharply criticized the agency for refusing to share data about two antiobesity drugs with researchers from Denmark. Since then, it has released millions of pages of so-called clinical study reports (CSRs) upon request—including some 20,000 on oseltamivir to Doshi and Jefferson.In 2012, EMA also announced a system to “proactively publish clinical-trial data and enable access to full data sets by interested parties” by default, rather than in response to specific queries. The agency consulted extensively with scientists, industry, and patient groups on how best to do this; it missed its January 2014 target for the release of a new draft policy.Now that the policy is almost ready, it has turned out to be a “U-turn” from EMA’s promises, Jefferson and Doshi write. By introducing a number of controls, “EMA is putting a gatekeeping function … that will slow down the process” and hinder access for researchers who want to replicate studies, adds Carl Heneghan, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and a co-founder of AllTrials, a campaign for transparency on trial results.Scientists also worry that some data in CSRs may be blacked out. Although EMA says that much of the information in the reports is not commercially confidential, the draft policy does list a series of items that may be redacted before the data is shared. This could be necessary in the case of ”novel statistical or other analytical methods,” as well as results about potential off-label uses of medicines, say the draft redaction principles.“We maintain our stance that it’s not commercially confidential information, but it’s still information that has commercial value,” says EMA spokesman Martin Harvey-Allchurch. For example, someone could use the information to support a market application outside the European Union’s jurisdiction, he says. But Trudo Lemmens, an associate professor of health law and policy at the University of Toronto in Canada, says the changes would put industry in a position to “enter negotiations with EMA about what they want to see hidden and what not.” He calls the plans an “incredible step backward.”On a more fundamental note, researchers who want to access data would have to acknowledge that CSRs are “protected by copyright and proprietary rights” of the company that submitted them to EMA. Ticking that box would create a contractual recognition of rights that are legally “questionable,” Lemmens says: While industry generally considers that it owns the data from the clinical trials data it sponsors, others see the data as a public good.This debate underlies ongoing litigation between EMA and U.S. company InterMune, which sued the agency for divulging data to competitors. “I would find it highly problematic that while EMA defends its right to make data publicly accessible, they’re asking researchers to recognize [industry’s] legal claims,” Lemmens says.EMA’s Harvey-Allchurch denies that the agency is reneging on it promises. “We’re not going backwards,” he says. “It’s about facilitating access.” He stresses that the plans are still open for discussion before EMA presents the revised draft policy to its managing board on 12 June. Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country read more