Right, and that throws off calculations I've seen so far on Semi's ROI because I haven't been able to find out what that charging infrastructure costs per truck in a single truck scenario, two truck scenario, five truck scenario, and so on. MWh of batteries and the accompanying high-voltage installs do not come cheap, and there is maintenance and capex replacements associated with all that.
As much as all that costs and as much electricity it gulps down, you might as well arrange with the utility providers to put in the marginal additional equipment to secure a discount for always consuming out of nuclear or similar baseload during low utilization periods, and only rarely charging batteries outside those periods, trying as much as possible to avoid tapping peaking plants' output.
The lifetime TCO calculations for the charging infrastructure for full battery replacement included is going to be interesting to peek into. On a simplistic basis, that TCO plus the electricity costs would be put up against the cost of diesel, Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF), Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) catalytic converter, maintenance on the DEF and DOC subsystems, and so on.
With my investor hat on, I still don't have the numbers I'd like to see to evaluate whether the truck is a slam-dunk ROI on short-haul routes.
Most industrial facilities already have 3-phase 240 or 480 power and tend to be fed by higher capacity feeders than you see in residential areas. They also tend to be closer to high voltage feeders because everyone hates HV lines running through residential areas.
People are way over-estimating how much work will be needed and how difficult it will be. In many cases the utility will either swap out or drop another 3-phase transformer in place with CT-based metering. The customer will run some conduit. The more power you anticipate purchasing from the utility the bigger the discount they'll give you on the work. In some cases the existing medium voltage lines will be at capacity so they'll pull a new one from a substation but they aren't going to charge $1m for it. This isn't exactly rocket science... everyone who builds a new factory goes through the same process. Utilities do this work every single day.
EV truck fleets will be rolled out over time. The grid and charging infrastructure will adapt. Everything will be fine.
Did a quick search. Diesel Semis' curb weight ranges b/w 10000lbs-25000lbs. The 10000lbs one may not be comparable in performance/range to Tesla Semi so keep that in mind.
Tesla Semi based on the estimate in the article, is about 27000lbs.
> Yes, but: Tesla omitted crucial information, including the truck's empty weight — an important consideration for measuring its efficiency.
A Tesla Semi "fully loaded" with Doritos can go farther than a truck packed with cases of Pepsi.
"Not very impressive — moving a cargo of chips (average weight per pack 52 grams) cannot in any way be said to be definitive proof of concept," said Oliver Dixon, senior analyst at consultancy Guidehouse, per Reuters.
Garbage. Tesla published uncut video of its Semi carrying at least 44000lbs worth of concrete blocks 500 miles going up and down 6 degree grade, in traffic and ending up on the same elevation as the starting point, with charge left in the battery. Pack of doritors my ass.
EDIT: oh and thanks for mentioning Reuters — they published news about Musk and Cook fued days after they had settled their conflict.
It's all about economics. Whatever's cheaper wins. To that end, Tesla has mentioned in their presentations that a Tesla Semi convoy of only 3 trucks can be cheaper than a train for the same load.
> To that end, Tesla has mentioned in their presentations that a Tesla Semi convoy of only 3 trucks can be cheaper than a train for the same load.
I can carry it on my magic carpet for even cheaper, trust me I am rich so I wouldn't lie... this time.
Trains have replaceable engines, power-lines - no battery. Trucks will not be cheaper option no matter what mumbo jumbo techno jargon you throw at it. And decades of technological optimizations. And they dont need lithium to be made and maintained.
The problem is that highways are literally not cheaper but massively subsidized and heavy trucks are destroying that public infrastructure because they are so heavy.
So just saying its all economics when the underlying rules of the game are totally unequal is not that useful.
Sorry I should have been more specific. I'm referring to economics from the viewpoint of the business operating a fleet. Given almost all business do not hold back from whatever incentive and subsidies are available to them, it's fairly reasonable boundary to confine the comparison to.
> I always assumed the future of electric trucking would involve little battery trailers that could be quickly swapped out on a rolling basis by fleets of trucks.
Maybe the future, but right now, I suspect the battery energy density is not forgiving enough for the battery to just be a carry load. Increasingly, the battery module is part of the structure of the vehicle and further works as weight to increase traction close to the drivetrain. There is also a lot of nitty-gritty details to do with safety, efficiency and cooling that makes moving the battery away from the Semi itself not a viable option ATM.
Also keep in mind that at least for consumer cars, Tesla did try battery swap stations but nobody seemed to show any interest so they canned it.
The problem with hybrid vehicles in general is that they still rely on fossil fuels to some extent, so they're not a truly sustainable solution. And they have all the maintenance and reliability baggage of their fully ICE counterparts, something BEVs do away with.
The time and money being spent on developing hybrid technology could be better spent on making fully electric vehicles more affordable and accessible.
EDIT: and keep in mind, trucks are purchased with a long service life in mind (decades)
While not perfect, they do meet real world needs in ways that are better than current ICE options. A fully electric truck isn't really a viable option in the market they're building for right now (heavy duty working trucks for logging, etc). Additionally, getting a working hybrid option out into the wild still benefits the eventual transition to fully EV trucks as it allows for testing and validating of the electrical systems required to make a functional workhorse that can deliver value to its owners / operators as well as pushes forward the viability & benefit of electric vehicles in the eyes of the public / industry.
Trucks apparently are only about 25% of US emissions. Using hybrid would remove emissions from city centers (where your lungs are the recycling filters)
Freight is one of the only use case that requires long range, private cars are used something like 40km per day on average.
Having an electric drive train increases reliability, and having a diesel engine running at peak efficiency 24/7 will be much more reliable than a regular engine, especially given the abuse they take from trucks. (+ not as much stress on the batteries vs quick charge)
> The time and money being spent on developing hybrid technology could be better spent on making fully electric vehicles more affordable and accessible.
You still have to solve the resource issues, 1.4B vehicles on earth today, total lithium production per year is about 100 000 tonnes, even if we only needed 10kg per car that's going to take a bit of time, and that's not even talking about other uses
As in, we run out of fossil fuels (or it gets prohibitively expensive) and your truck becomes brick because its internal battery and electric drivetrain is pretty much useless without the ICE part.
Solar, wind and thermal are practically unlimited for duration of the planet's existence.
They are a transition, to be sure, but especially for consumers who do 80% short trip and need the ability to do long trip, it would seem to ideal choice for the 2020s.
BP, for one, has been making noises about their fuel being carbon neutral. It's not impossible, e.g. you sell fuel that makes so many tons of CO2, you bury in a hole so many tons of vegetable matter that captured that much CO2.
Doesn't fly in practice, perhaps because of public perception. Net-zero on synthetic fuels is more obvious, although not necessarily less expensive.
Maybe in 5 years it will be different. Maybe the Chevy equinox will stay in stock and stay around 30k. But I'd bet a lot of money we will have gas stations for another 40 years no matter what we do, barring global collapse.
Yes, and also no incentive, since as a general rule rail is cheaper than trucks (and boats are cheaper than rail).
I have no way to determine if their cherry picked example is something that's relevant or some weird edge case that makes their graphs look good.
But we will see over time, based on adoption.
And regardless of what they do, I hope they don't lobby against mass transit (of goods and people). But they probably will, making things worse for all us.
> I hope they don't lobby against mass transit (of goods and people). But they probably will, making things worse for all us.
People in general are not fond of the experience of mass transit. They only do it because it's either (or all):
- cheap (no parking fees, car purchase/maintenance)
- less hassle (no need to find parking in busy areas and no need to have all attention to driving)
If personal transport can be made cheaper, less hassle and hands-free (all of which is possible by autonomous vehicles), then people will vote with their pennies and no lobbying will be required by Tesla.
Companies have departments and groups meant to fight, shape, and push legislation in their favor, as well as shape public opinion, even against the public's own interest.
Do you know how carmakers literally paid to have tram lined ripped out of cities, in order to discourage public transport usage and get people to buy their cars?
This is not some weird thing and it's a literal, documented, conspiracy with actual indictments.
> If personal transport can be made cheaper, less hassle and hands-free (all of which is possible by autonomous vehicles), then people will vote with their pennies and no lobbying will be required by Tesla.
Secondly, physics and economics: you can never make personal transport as cheap as public transport, because personal transport will always carry fewer passengers per ride.
And personal transport, if you look at it, is going in the wrong direction for efficiency.
A 4.4m long Chevrolet Sonic 2017 weighs 1.3 tons, almost as much as the 5m long Chevrolet Chevelle 1967.
The most lightweight Tesla Model 3 weighs 1.8 tons, that's 50% more, on top of the existing ICE weight gain over the last 50+ years.
Adding more safety and comfort features will only make things <<heavier>>.
And people really want to ride in nice, clean, custom cars, plus they really don't want to ride with other people most of the time.
I guess we'll just keep burning the planet down, pumping out particulate matter, destroying wildlife, etc.
Oh, and fully autonomous driving could be 50 years into the future, banking on it is a very risky move. We're still at the basic research phase, our tech isn't good enough.
> you can never make personal transport as cheap as public transport, because personal transport will always carry fewer passengers per ride.
Oh man, another "never" statement. An autonomous car that doesn't have a driver, doesn't need to take breaks to eat or sleep, that doesn't need to be parked, can in fact become cheaper than public transport. I invite you to do some research on that.
> And people really want to ride in nice, clean, custom cars, plus they really don't want to ride with other people most of the time.
That's exactly my point, and why in presence of a price competitive option such as a self driving taxi, no one would want to catch a bus or a train with many people and dirty seats.
> autonomous driving could be 50 years into the future
Not if you're in the know. It's far closer, but I'm not arguing for that. Wait and see.
> Oh man, another "never" statement. An autonomous car that doesn't have a driver, doesn't need to take breaks to eat or sleep, that doesn't need to be parked, can in fact become cheaper than public transport. I invite you to do some research on that.
I love how you sideskipped my phsyics argument like it was nothing.
You're still moving 1.5 tons (and constantly increasing!) of metal everywhere, to move 1 human being weighing 80kg.
The physics just don't work.
> That's exactly my point, and why in presence of a price competitive option such as a self driving taxi, no one would want to catch a bus or a train with many people and dirty seats.
Price competitive how? It's impossible. The only way this works is by offloading a ton of externalities on everyone else, including people without cars. Roads, parking lots, highways, high capacity bridges, tunnels, charging infrastructure/gas stations, exhaust pollution, tire wear pollution, road degradation pollution, noise pollution, light pollution, manufacturing and construction pollution, ...
By what logic can't you clean a bus for 100 people but you can thoroughly clean a taxi for 1, AND make the taxi cost competitive?
> I love how you sideskipped my phsyics argument like it was nothing.
My bad.
> You're still moving 1.5 tons (and constantly increasing!) of metal everywhere, to move 1 human being weighing 80kg.
True.
> Price competitive how? It's impossible.
OK, you can transport at least a factor of 10x more people with the existing number of cars on the road. People who drive to work and back use their cars for a fraction of time in a day. If those cars were out moving people around the clock, they would add a huge capacity to the taxi fleet.
Now, who pays for the car? The owner. They have paid for it whether it's sitting in the car park or driving people around. The only difference is running cost of the car: electricity and mostly tire wear. That becomes the cost of transporting people with margin added for Tesla and the car owner. That's it!
Now I just realized that perhaps in your hometown, cost of public transport may be so dirt cheap. But where I live, it cost $40 AUD a week to travel 2 stations back and fourth once a day. The same trips over the same period with my car costs me $2.40 AUD in electricity and about $2.80 AUD in tyre wear (assuming $2000 AUD per 25000km which is way too aggressive). That's a total of $5.20 vs $40. Even if you double the cost to account for margin, it's still 4 times less expensive than public transport.
EDIT: even if it's exactly the same as public transport, it'll still be the preferably mode of transport, because it's door to door and you don't have to deal with anyone. Imagine someone who's happy to share with one other person, now you have bonker economics.
How does an autonomous car not need to be parked? The vision that seems more realistic to me is that lucrative areas would have traffic jams full of empty self-driving taxis circling around waiting for fares.
> How does an autonomous car not need to be parked?
As in, they don't need to be parked after every ride in the current personal transport model.
> The vision that seems more realistic to me is that lucrative areas would have traffic jams full of empty self-driving taxis circling around waiting for fares.
They will be run as part of a coordinated fleet of robo taxis. Why would they be circling around waiting for customers in an area where there is no demand? Answer is they won't. They'll be directed to where people want rides much like Uber, but considerably more efficient, because they don't have constraints of a human driver they have to accommodate.
Say there's an area that will have heavy demand soon but doesn't yet, maybe someplace with a lot of bars on a Friday night. Where do all those cars come from? There has to be a holding garage sort of nearby, but land nearby is expensive, and if there's competition for the faster service, you get a race-to-the-bottom.
Debunking Tesla's cherry-picked argument will take more time than it took Tesla's marketing team to cherry-pick their truck and train data to make the math work in their favour.
> Basically none of them are operationally able to go from 15 minute diesel fill ups on any corner to the infrastructure and load planning EVs require. Like they literally don’t have the software or expertise to plan the loads around electric needs without losing money on every load.
I understand you saying this is largely a software problem. Taking this at face value, I trust no other transportation related company but Tesla to deliver the best possible software for route planning (or anything really given they're just as big a software company as are in hardware -- see AI day presentations to get a feel of just how large a software effort they're running) if that is indeed a barrier to companies putting orders in for the Semi. I may even have heard them mention something about that in the presentation.
> I think you sorely underestimate how much emphasis large trucking firms put into route optimization.
I know software and I know Tesla's involvement in it. Based on your comment, I'm going to assume, they put maximum emphasis on route optimization, more than any other industry (which is probably false anyway). With that assumption, Tesla is in as good a position as a software company could ever be to hire the expertise (or outright purchase existing companies) and make the best software for fleet management IF that means they'll sell to significantly larger customer base.
