'For Truckers Driving EVs, There's No Going Back' (yahoo.com) 153
The Washington Post looks at "a small but growing group of commercial medium-to-heavy-duty truck drivers who use electric trucks."
"These drivers — many of whom operate local or regional routes that don't require hundreds of miles on the road in a day — generally welcome the transition to electric, praising their new trucks' handling, acceleration, smoothness and quiet operation. "Everyone who has had an EV has no aspirations to go back to diesel at this point," said Khari Burton, who drives an electric Volvo VNR in the Los Angeles area for transport company IMC. "We talk about it and it's all positivity. I really enjoy the smoothness ... and just the quietness as well." Mike Roeth, the executive director of the North American Council for Freight Efficiency, said many drivers have reported that the new vehicles are easier on their bodies — thanks to both less rocking off the cab, assisted steering and the quiet motor. "Part of my hypothesis is that it will help truck driver retention," he said. "We're seeing people who would retire driving a diesel truck now working more years with an electric truck."
Most of the electric trucks on the road today are doing local or regional routes, which are easier to manage with a truck that gets only up to 250 miles of range... Trucking advocates say electric has a long way to go before it can take on longer routes. "If you're running very local, very short mileage, there may be a vehicle that can do that type of route," said Mike Tunnell, the executive director of environmental affairs for the American Trucking Association. "But for the average haul of 400 miles, there's just nothing that's really practical today."
There's other concerns, according to the article. "[S]ome companies and trucking associations worry this shift, spurred in part by a California law mandating a switch to electric or emissions-free trucks by 2042, is happening too fast. While electric trucks might work well in some cases, they argue, the upfront costs of the vehicles and their charging infrastructure are often too heavy a lift."
But this is probably the key sentence in the article: For the United States to meet its climate goals, virtually all trucks must be zero-emissions by 2050. While trucks are only 4 percent of the vehicles on the road, they make up almost a quarter of the country's transportation emissions.
The article cites estimates that right now there's 12.2 million trucks on America's highways — and barely more than 1% (13,000) are electric. "Around 10,000 of those trucks were just put on the road in 2023, up from 2,000 the year before." (And they add that Amazon alone has thousands of Rivian's electric delivery vans, operating in 1,800 cities.)
But the article's overall message seems to be that when it comes to the trucks, "the drivers operating them say they love driving electric." And it includes comments from actual truckers:
"These drivers — many of whom operate local or regional routes that don't require hundreds of miles on the road in a day — generally welcome the transition to electric, praising their new trucks' handling, acceleration, smoothness and quiet operation. "Everyone who has had an EV has no aspirations to go back to diesel at this point," said Khari Burton, who drives an electric Volvo VNR in the Los Angeles area for transport company IMC. "We talk about it and it's all positivity. I really enjoy the smoothness ... and just the quietness as well." Mike Roeth, the executive director of the North American Council for Freight Efficiency, said many drivers have reported that the new vehicles are easier on their bodies — thanks to both less rocking off the cab, assisted steering and the quiet motor. "Part of my hypothesis is that it will help truck driver retention," he said. "We're seeing people who would retire driving a diesel truck now working more years with an electric truck."
Most of the electric trucks on the road today are doing local or regional routes, which are easier to manage with a truck that gets only up to 250 miles of range... Trucking advocates say electric has a long way to go before it can take on longer routes. "If you're running very local, very short mileage, there may be a vehicle that can do that type of route," said Mike Tunnell, the executive director of environmental affairs for the American Trucking Association. "But for the average haul of 400 miles, there's just nothing that's really practical today."
There's other concerns, according to the article. "[S]ome companies and trucking associations worry this shift, spurred in part by a California law mandating a switch to electric or emissions-free trucks by 2042, is happening too fast. While electric trucks might work well in some cases, they argue, the upfront costs of the vehicles and their charging infrastructure are often too heavy a lift."
But this is probably the key sentence in the article: For the United States to meet its climate goals, virtually all trucks must be zero-emissions by 2050. While trucks are only 4 percent of the vehicles on the road, they make up almost a quarter of the country's transportation emissions.
The article cites estimates that right now there's 12.2 million trucks on America's highways — and barely more than 1% (13,000) are electric. "Around 10,000 of those trucks were just put on the road in 2023, up from 2,000 the year before." (And they add that Amazon alone has thousands of Rivian's electric delivery vans, operating in 1,800 cities.)
But the article's overall message seems to be that when it comes to the trucks, "the drivers operating them say they love driving electric." And it includes comments from actual truckers:
- 49-year-old Frito-Lay trucker Gary LaBush: "I was like, 'What's going on?' There was no noise — and no fumes... it's just night and day."
- 66-year-old Marty Boots: Diesel was like a college wrestler. And the electric is like a ballet dancer... You get back into diesel and it's like, 'What's wrong with this thing?' Why is it making so much noise? Why is it so hard to steer?"
The range problem is easily solved. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a really good idea. The truck on it's own has a small battery but the trailer bed is a massive battery that compliments the truck's small battery.
Re: The range problem is easily solved. (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you happen to have a citation on the 1/3rd of the cargo?
Last time this came up, the closest actual figure we could find was around 85%.
Yes, the tractor is heavy - but only about 3k pounds heavier than a sleeper semi, and the DoT allows EV semis to be 2k pounds heavier.
In reality, maximum weight load is a wide range even with diesel semis - some of the sleepers are heavy as hell. Plus, there's a lot of day cab semis with smaller engines that can't haul a full 80k pounds either, so you very much can't say "any", because there are some diesels that trade maximum cargo capacity for the ability to travel long distances between refuels while keeping the trucker in premium living.
Re: The range problem is easily solved. (Score:5, Informative)
Tractors, as they are now, weigh in around 6-7 tons.
A normal trailer is maxed around 40 tons. Ideally split more or less evenly between the tires in the bobtail, and the tandems.
With a max weight per axle (for the trailer) being 20 tons.
Can such trucks be run with oversize loads?
Sure. But not through al jurisdictions, and such loads generally need paperwork for the exceptions.
Running outside of spec will get you pulled over, the trailer will be dropped and your company will be made to HAND UNLOAD IT down to spec.
Re: The range problem is easily solved. (Score:4)
This... While it contains information, doesn't actually address anything. I'm assuming you're talking in "short tons", or 2k pounds. There's like 3 tons out there...
1. 6-7 tons for the tractor: I'm actually seeing ranges listed as 5-11 tons. Looking, 6-7 tons would be for day cabs with smaller engines and diesel tanks, also intended more for local deliveries. Note for others who might not know: A "sleeper" semi has sleeping quarters and maybe an office built into the cab. Like a tiny camper. Opposite of that is a "day cab", which normally only has the front seats. The latter are cheaper and normally used more for local deliveries.
2. Normal trailer is maxed around 40 tons - Actually, this would be for the complete tractor-trailer unit. Standard diesel tractor-trailers are limited to a total of 80k pounds by a mix of state and federal law. The DoT allows EV Semis to total 82k pounds in total. Is this fair? Probably not, but it's the current regulation. It'd be split between ALL the wheels.
2a. This might actually justify allowing EVs to be a bit heavier, if they front-load a lot of that extra weight onto the steers. Meaning the weight per axle is still about the same.
3. Max weight per axle is indeed information, but if we're talking about an EV semi not being able to be fully loaded due to the weight of the tractor, why would max weight per trailer axle be relevant? If you can only haul 1/3rd of the weight per the earlier claim, or the figure of 85% I mentioned, wouldn't that make loading EV trailers less likely to trip the per axle limit?
4. We weren't suggesting that they be run with oversize loads. That's why I mentioned that despite EV tractors being allowed to be 2k pounds heavier (this isn't a specific paperwork per trip exception thing, this is a general exemption), we still figured that they fall short, maximum load wise, by 15% over an "optimal" diesel setup.
5. Again, wasn't suggesting that they run outside of spec. As for "hand unloading", the solution I saw on Ice Truckers was that they got a lighter tractor to haul the load when tractor + trailer busted the weight limit.
So, basically, you're going to have to explain how the figures you provided actually address anything I said. And preferably a source on your tractor weights, because you cited a different number than I'm used to. Remember how I specified sleepers a couple times, as those trend heavier.
Citations on truck weight:
Two different numbres in this link: [truckreportgeeks.com] 9-11 tons (18-22k pounds), in another part, 15-25k pounds is cited for the tractor.
A second source says 10-25k pounds: [tcsfuel.com]
10k pounds is commonly cited for a starting weight for an empty trailer.
I think that a 6-7 ton tractor would be a daycab model with a smaller engine and diesel tanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the US.
Yes. It's 2000-lb = 1 ton.
And no, 6 tons isn't a day cab.
Most states limit the total weight on the steers to 12,000 lb.
Electric cabs are allowed a couple extra tons.
And no. By weight, steers max at 12,000 lbs.
Drive axles as supposed to be 34K
And tandems are supposed to be 34k without running specific overweight paperwork.
Why would trailer axles be important?
Balance.
Depending on how one has their 5th Wheel positioned will change the weight sitting on those axles.
A dense, compact weight (like
Well, of course (Score:2)
Yes, EV cabs are allowed extra weight, though that's 1 ton, 2k pounds, not 2. I said that in my first post.
Steers being limited to 12k pounds doesn't mean that diesels normally load them up that much. I mentioned it as an option when you're making the whole cab heavier.
As for the battery weight, that's something that is basic to the design of the truck that I figure that the engineers did all the necessary math, combined with some real world testing with prototype trucks, to place the steers, drives, batt
Re: (Score:2)
I never claimed you said 2k lbs was 2 tons. I saw that you claimed the EV weight limit increase was 2 tons.
Here's the exact statement: "Electric cabs are allowed a couple extra tons."
"a couple" = 2. I was correcting you, they're allowed ONE extra ton, not two. EV Semis are allowed 2k extra pounds, this is one ton.
My response was "that's 1 ton, 2k pounds, not 2" - IE the weight limit increase is only 1 ton, not 2 tons. I put the 2k pounds in because there's the short ton, long ton, metric ton, and all tha
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one who went totally literally and assumed I was talking about two tons.
Well, yes, generally speaking "a couple" means "two". If you didn't mean to imply two, you probably should have used different words.
So, had I used "a few" I'm assuming you're roast me on a spit over "three tons" instead of the intended non-specific number.
You're the one taking a mild correction as roasting over a spit. You need to take things a bit less personal, I think. If you'd said "a few tons" I'd have still corrected you, because to me, "a few" is more than "a couple". 3-7, generally speaking.
Tell me this once you have a truck damaging infrastructure or running off the road due to lousy load balance.
Okay, that would be a reason, I guess. I'm not sure why you had to phrase it this way. You still haven't supported any assert
Re: (Score:2)
Your link is broken, incomplete?
I tried searching the site, but nothing on the technical details of the Tesla Semi, it seems to be more of a stock market/investment site.
the link should probably be more /article/ rather than /insta
As such "distribution of gross weights" could actually be a couple different things.
Pretty much entirely wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
1. No, the Tesla Semi doesn't have batteries in the trailer, they're located under the driver's cab, extending out between the rails towards the drive wheels.
2. From what we can see, the load limit is closer to 85% of maximum, not 1/3rd. Keep in mind that a lot of diesels can't pull the maximum either, whether because of them being too heavy themselves(extended range sleeper), or with too small of an engine.
3. While the average truck trip is 400 miles, remember, that means that half of them are less than that. Pepsi, for example, the distribution center they're testing EVs out of has most of their routes be 75 miles or less per 12 hour day.
3a. I am FULLY behind transitioning routes that are more suited to EV Semis to EVs first, and at only 1% market penetration at this time, we can easily have 20X more EV semis before it becomes an issue. Odds are, in the time for that to happen, we'll have better technology and better support like more chargers. Better tech - cheaper and more power dense batteries.
3b. I'm not sure about "most expensive option on the market" - A fancy sleeper diesel can set you back as much, easy, and it has much higher fuel and maintenance costs.
4. You don't need "hours" of charging. Remember, the rate at which you can charge depends a lot on total battery size. While the Tesla semi uses a LOT of batteries, the cells are the same as in their cars. Which means that if you can supply the watts, they can be charged just as fast as a Tesla car can be. You can keep a Tesla Semi rolling if you just charge during the mandated breaks for professional drivers. Tesla already has truck chargers capable of the necessary volts and amps for a fast charge.
After that, well, you charge while parked and loading/unloading.
There are adjustments to be made, of course, and infrastructure needs to be installed, but it isn't insurmountable.
Re: (Score:3)
"most expensive option on the market" - A fancy sleeper diesel can set you back as much
Agree with other points but this is not a fair comparison as you've established the Tesla Semi does not and should not compete with that style of truck and it's purpose, so to be fair we would have to compare cost against the type of truck that would be used for 75 mile daily trips.
And I think that's fair, cost is a problem in general with EV's still and the reason double so for trucks: there is nowhere near enough battery manufacturing capacity (yet) to meet demand or significantly lower prices. Until we
Re: (Score:3)
I was mostly making a point against general absolute statements. No, it's not the "most expensive truck", as you can get a truck with a larger price tag fairly easily.
Now, you do have a point about comparing them against their direct competition, though keep in mind that you wouldn't use the most expensive Tesla Semi against a 75 mile day trip diesel truck either, as they produce a Semi more targeted for that as well. It has a lower total battery capacity and less powerful motors - though I think they "me
Re:Pretty much entirely wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
Odds are, in the time for that to happen, we'll have better technology and better support like more chargers. Better tech - cheaper and more power dense batteries
Do people understand the physical limits of chemical batteries? There is a limit on how small and light they can get for any given amount of energy stored. Because liquid fuels don't need to carry the oxidizer half of the chemical equation it is already ahead by double the energy density. Then is that once consumed the fuel is dumped overboard, giving another doubling on energy to weight. Then is that the liquid fuel is in a simple steel tank, than in finely machined little compartments made of copper and plastic, gives another big gain on energy per weight. No matter how it is sliced the liquid fuels are going to have an order of magnitude, perhaps two orders of magnitude, advantage on energy per weight/mass, volume, and as a result a similar advantage on cost.
If there's a retort that electric motors are three times, ten times, or whatever more efficient than the internal combustion engine then that still leaves a considerable advantage on size and mass to the internal combustion engine. Show me the math on just how tightly you expect those atoms in the batteries to be packed to compete with burning hydrocarbons. If you can get that to within that efficiency penalty on burning hydrocarbons then you have parity, but you still have to deal with how to produce this cheaper than a steel tank.
If the answer is to build the trucks out of lighter and stronger materials then don't forget that diesel trucks can use these lighter and stronger materials too. Maybe that gets the advantage to the electric option, but likely not.
We've hit a barrier on getting batteries lighter and cheaper that we already see major EV makers like Tesla use lower energy density batteries on some of their car models to save on sticker shock. Make the batteries too light and they could become too fragile for being bounced down the road. Cut safety margins too thin to save on weight and then battery fires give electric trucks a bad reputation.
I've seen the charts that show battery costs and battery energy density, the curves look asymptotic. There's been huge gains at the start but that falls off quickly as we find ways to optimize the chemistry and construction. At some point physical limits play larger and larger parts in the size and weigh. Again, we are seeing some of this going backwards as people compromise on heavier batteries than go with the more expensive chemistry.
We may have already hit bottom on how energy dense we can make a battery while not making them so fragile they explode for giving them an ugly look.
Re:Pretty much entirely wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Yes, people understand the physical limits. However, people also understand that we haven't reached anywhere near said limits yet. There are reasons why people are talking about things like Toyota's solid state batteries.
2. Trick's on you, not all batteries need to carry their oxidizers either. They're called "air batteries". That's how you can get 1,000 mile [insideevs.com] batteries. Only problem is that most of them you have to recycle, not recharge.
3. Dumping the waste from the burned fuel overboard is a large part of the problem, remember?
4. Decades ago I said that ICE are "horrible generators with a great fuel supply" and electric was "great generators with a horrible fuel supply". Well, we haven't really advanced on the "horrible generator" front, but we have advanced on the "horrible fuel supply" to the point that it's merely bad. Hydrocarbon fuel supplies also haven't budged one bit from that point, while electric did gain a couple percentage points.
You're concentrating on energy density of the 'fuel' too much without accounting for the entire system.
A: Electric motors are smaller and lighter than equivalent power ICE engines.
B: Electric motors are much more efficient than ICE engines, to the point that you're losing almost an order of magnitude of the higher density just because you're throwing so much more of that energy away. That's why fuel cells, which can get up to 90% or so efficient, were so attractive in the past. You try to argue that this is irrelevant, but that's just trying to deny a valid point. If you need to store 10X as much energy to go the same distance as I do, you don't get to talk about how your energy storage is 10X as dense.
C: Electricity can be generated many ways. Gasoline and diesel are almost exclusively generated by refining oil pulled out of the ground. Pulling sufficient amounts gets more expensive every year, plus there's the pollution costs to consider. While EVs are certainly not pollution free, they show greater promise in reducing pollution in the long run.
D: We don't need to get cheaper than a steel tank. We need to get cheaper than all the fuel that goes INTO the steel tank, than the oils and work that goes into the ICE, etc... TCO, not just purchase cost. A lot of work to be done there, I fully admit. Remember how I mentioned concentrating on putting EVs where they make the most sense first? Positions where they don't need the bigger batteries, where diesels are at their least efficient, etc... Get like 90% of the trucks on 75 miles routes to be EV first. Then as they climb to 95%, work on getting those on 100 mile routes from 50% to 90%, the 150 mile routes from 25% to 50%, etc...
If it takes a while before you see EV semis on 400+ mile routes beyond the occasional research truck, so be it.
Talking about packing atoms tightly into a battery just shows that you don't understand the issue. The issue isn't how tightly the atoms are packed, but the electrochemical processes, and how efficient and powerful they are. A battery can easily be less dense and still contain more power.
Where am I going with this? It's about the weight of the total system - EV do indeed have heavier energy storage systems. But they make up for this in two ways, at least somewhat: first, they're drastically more efficient
Re:Pretty much entirely wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Yes, people understand the physical limits. However, people also understand that we haven't reached anywhere near said limits yet. There are reasons why people are talking about things like Toyota's solid state batteries.
How much does that cost? I'm hearing things out of China how they are working on synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels to make up for the difficulty in shipping in petroleum from Africa and the Middle East. China is making deals with Russia for fuel but that's a huge logistical problem for them. Regards of the problems getting the raw materials in we see China turning coal into liquid hydrocarbons. A process that will likely take on different forms as they get more of their nuclear power plants online. Coal, tar, LPG and natural gas are the easy and cheap options now for synthesizing fuels for their fighter jets, cruise missile, and rockets to orbit. In time we can expect them to shift to less valuable raw materials. Instead of natural gas for hydrogen in the process they can use water. Instead of tar and coal they can use waste plastic and agricultural chaff. This isn't a new technology, and it's not just China developing it.
The point is that as people try to squeeze batteries down to meet hydrocarbons on energy density there are people trying to squeeze CO2 emissions from hydrocarbon fuels. If synthesized hydrocarbons are made from discarded tires, running shoes, sawdust, old newspaper, and discarded Christmas trees then the fuel is carbon neutral. Maybe at the beginning we still use natural gas for the source of hydrogen but that's going to shift to water as the process develops.
Have you done the math on the energy density of those solid state batteries to the highly refined synthesized fuels that come out of these processes? The difference is an order of magnitude. Also, there's no sulfur or other gasses that come with petroleum because there is no petroleum in the process any more. Just pure hydrocarbons.
2. Trick's on you, not all batteries need to carry their oxidizers either. They're called "air batteries". That's how you can get 1,000 mile batteries. Only problem is that most of them you have to recycle, not recharge.
How nice. I have to change to a new kind of vehicle. Use a new kind of battery. Using stations that are willing and able to swap out my battery. When I can keep my hydrocarbon burner vehicle and burn carbon neutral fuels. My brother in law has a 1000 mile per tank truck. It's not my style but they exist. The truck I have gets more like 300 miles, maybe 450 with the wind at my back. My old sedan could go two full weeks without a refill on my usual driving but my truck is more like 1 and a half, which is a bit of a bummer. I'd like a plug-in hybrid so I have to fill up maybe a couple times per year.
3. Dumping the waste from the burned fuel overboard is a large part of the problem, remember?
Synthesized fuels are carbon neutral. Not the way China is doing it now but the way France and Germany are doing it now. If we switch to ammonia fuel then there's no carbon in the loop, we only make some small changes to existing ICEVs.
4. Decades ago I said that ICE are "horrible generators with a great fuel supply" and electric was "great generators with a horrible fuel supply". Well, we haven't really advanced on the "horrible generator" front, but we have advanced on the "horrible fuel supply" to the point that it's merely bad. Hydrocarbon fuel supplies also haven't budged one bit from that point, while electric did gain a couple percentage points.
Hydrocarbon fuels moved considerably lately. You just haven't paid attention.
ou're concentrating on energy density of the 'fuel' too much without accounting for the entire system.
A: Electric motors are smaller and lighter than equivalent power ICE engines.
B: Electric motors are much more efficient than ICE engines, to the
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm... I think you're falling for the "single solution" fallacy. I hate to tell you this, but trying to argue against it by finding edge cases where it isn't so good isn't moving to me. Me, I propose shit like putting a propane heater into EVs in extremely northern climates (like Canada and Alaska).
To me, an 50% solution that is 10% of the price is a "good start". I'm fine with taking a while to transition.
How nice. I have to change to a new kind of vehicle. Use a new kind of battery. Using stations that are willing and able to swap out my battery. When I can keep my hydrocarbon burner vehicle and burn carbon neutral fuels. My brother in law has a 1000 mile per tank truck. It's not my style but they exist. The truck I have gets more like 300 miles, maybe 450 with the wind at my back. My old sedan could go two full weeks without a refill on my usual driving but my truck is more like 1 and a half, which is a bit of a bummer. I'd like a plug-in hybrid so I have to fill up maybe a couple times per year.
No you don't. Well, not until you decide to buy a new one anyways. You're going to be transition
Re: (Score:2)
That said, why does he have a truck with extra tanks? Is it because it's such a long drive to the gas station? Is he filling up farm equipment using it?
He drives through Illinois a lot and doesn't like paying the high fuel taxes there. Well, that's one reason at least. Once he gets started to his destination he doesn't like to stop for nothing. I can't do that, about an hour or two of driving and my knees start to bother me and I need a walk. That's also a good time to empty the bladder and fill the tank. Once on a "groove" I can drive about as long as a tank will take me, which is about 4 hours. That time can be cut much shorter in heavy winds. My
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is not energy density. The issue is emissions. Energy density matters fuck all, because the choice logistics companies face is between maintaining profit levels and roasting the planet, or accepting lower margins and not roasting the planet. You sound a lot like the guys who want to improve health care by teaching ambulance drivers to drive faster...cheap to implement, with measureable results to show the stockholders, but completely missing the point.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, about 27k pounds is about 2k pounds heavier than the top end for diesel sleepers, which are at 25k pounds.
Note that I never claimed 'superior' or even 'negligible': I said that our estimates were 85%,
Thunderfoot, with the 1/3rd estimate, is probably drastically off.
1/2, well, trucker blogs are closer to good, but when I went looking for an analysis: [torquenews.com]
The Tesla Semi has a total cargo weight of about 44,000 lbs. The typical max load is between 40,000 to 54,000 lbs.
How much weight are most diesel trucks hauling around? It looks like the distribution is between about 37,000 to 72,800 for about 80% of diesel trucks. This is within the range that the Tesla Semi could carry.
Times now news [timesnownews.com] (looks to be an indian site)
They quote 804 km with 37k kg load. 500 miles, 81,571 pounds. India, of course, doesn't have US weight rest
Re: The range problem is easily solved. (Score:5, Informative)
1) The 1/3rd claim is not even remotely true, as others have pointed out
2) So is your cost claim. It's not even remotely the most expensive option on the market. The average price of electric semis according to the Port of Los Angeles (before the Semi came out) is $350k . The most expensive Semi today is $250k. Which is at the high end of diesel tractors (that would be a very nice one), but not entirely out of the range - and in turn you run on a vastly cheaper power source (fuel is a major portion of the cost of running a truck). The smaller battery Semi hasn't been released yet, but it will be cheaper. And it should be noted that the vast majority of freight is not long-haul.
3) Range is already ample. Semi won (by a huge margin) the NAFCE electric truck range competition, during which 60% of all trips were with a gross vehicle weight of over 72k lbs payload, doing ~400 mile legs (plus extra for safety), and achieving up to 1076 miles in a day in the process, with a mean of 576 miles driven per day, vs. the next closest (Nikola Tre) at 255mi, eCascadia at 181mi, and Volvo's VNR Electric at 175mi. And this is before the advent of the Megacharger network.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that was supposed to be gross weight, not payload.
Compared to the needs of the overwhelming majority of freight, they're not remotely abyssmal. Indeed, in the EU, 45 minute breaks at least once every 4 1/2 hours are a legal requirement. Beyond the fact that, in pretty much everywhere in the world, long-distance freight is much rarer than short-distance.
OMG, chargers take power, stop the presses! *eyeroll*. Power plants exist to provide power. That's how their operators make their money - they want t
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth pointing that all human activities ultimately trace back, through chains of expenses, to costs human labour, for every component and service, all the way back. And in that regard, given that oil is much more expensive per unit distance traveled than electricity (excluding taxes on both), there's much more ultimate labour to provide fuel for vehicles. Oil wells don't run indefinitely. Pipelines need maintenance. So do refineries, which are also expensive to run. So are tankers. On and on down th
Re: The range problem is easily solved. (Score:2)
Unfortunately most of the shipping containers are owned by the shipping lines or a container leasing company. Not many are owned by shippers of the actual contents of those containers.
Most cargo arrives at the docks to be offloaded onto specific container chassis that get hooked to short haul (day cab) trucks. They get hauled to offloading facilities nearby so the cargo can be transferred to a semi trailer, like a reefer, tank, or box trailer.
A similar thing happens with rail as well, where cargo containers
Re:The range problem is easily solved. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with simply adding more battery is cost and weight; The vehicle gets more expensive, and it can't carry as much cargo per trip which makes it less profitable. Even though electric trucks get an extra 2,000 lbs for their maximum laden weight to account for the battery, adding more just eats away at the weight you could be hauling goods with.
There's a balance to be had here, and honestly since about 73% of freight travels less than 250 miles by truck [bts.gov] short-distance and last-mile haulers make the most sense to convert anyway.
=Smidge=
Re:The range problem is easily solved. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
If we end up with so many electric trucks on the road that the added 2k is in fact turning into a real problem with roads and bridges we should consider it a success and then just repair and rebuild those things as they are going to have to be rebuilt anyway and they can be made to handle the new requirements.
Re:The range problem is easily solved. (Score:5, Informative)
That's not the way load regulations work. Adding 2k is no problem for roads and bridges. I mean I add thousands of pounds to the truck's weight when I load it. Trucks are regulated according to grows vehicle weight, per axle. That means the maximum weight allowed when the truck is full. A normal class 8 truck loaded in total weighs no more than 80,000 lbs with 4 axles plus steer. Those are the limits imposed by state laws and they do take into account bridge loading. Greater weights can be achieved in some jurisdictions by adding axles to spread the load out. For example my trucks weigh 140,000 lbs gvw, spread out over 7 axles plus steer.
Anyway there's no problem with batteries and motors on trucks. It's just that the weight of that comes out of your total GVW. So heavier truck means less cargo. That's all.
Re: (Score:2)
gross, not grows! Oh my. Can't blame that one on phone autocorrect either.
Re: (Score:2)
gross, not grows! Oh my. Can't blame that one on phone autocorrect either.
Sure you can. I won't tell.
Re: (Score:2)
> . It will add considerable more weigh to bridges and roads
It's less than +2.5% of the current max.
=Smidge=
Re:The range problem is easily solved. (Score:5, Informative)
There's no such thing as an "extra 2000 lbs." Trucks are regulated by gross vehicle weight. Your standard class 8 truck without permits is legal for 80,000 lbs. The regulations don't care how much your truck weighs empty. They only care about how much it weighs fully loaded. So anything you add to the truck comes out of the cargo.
I'm not saying EVs and batteries are bad at all. They are good in my opinion, and the tradeoff of less cargo is probably worth it for the short hauls, given the statistic you gave there.
Re: (Score:3)
> There's no such thing as an "extra 2000 lbs." Trucks are regulated by gross vehicle weight. Your standard class 8 truck without permits is legal for 80,000 lbs.
A a Class 8 all electric truck without permits is legal for 82,000 lbs. Hence, if your truck is electric, you get an "extra" 2,000 lbs.
If your electric truck's dry (empty) weight happens to be less than a diesel equivalent, your max gross weight is still 82,000 lbs and you have even more weight allowance for cargo.
Of course that's not likely to
Re:The range problem is easily solved. (Score:4, Insightful)
Truck trailers are interchangeable and are often swapped, they don't "belong" to the tractor that pulls them. This makes it less practical to build the battery into the trailer.
There's actually plenty of room in a typical semi tractor for battery. Those vehicles are much larger than they appear.
Re: (Score:2)
The current tesla big rig battery weighs in around 5 tons. JUST THE BATTERY.
You're not going to expand range all that much by simply adding an extra ton or so of battery.
Additionally it changes the dynamics of the way the truck balances front to back.
Re: (Score:2)
The axle weight limits will limit you regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
There's actually plenty of room in a typical semi tractor for battery. Those vehicles are much larger than they appear.
With the American propensity for long cab design vs European cab over engine.
Re: (Score:2)
Two problems with the "big battery in the trailer" approach
1. Weight. Bigger batteries weigh more, which reduces the load you can haul.
2. Cost. Trailers are cheap, comparatively. Adding a big battery to each trailer adds a lot of cost.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Two problems with the "big battery in the trailer" approach
1. Weight. Bigger batteries weigh more, which reduces the load you can haul.
2. Cost. Trailers are cheap, comparatively. Adding a big battery to each trailer adds a lot of cost.
I remember working a summer job washing delivery trucks. In talking with one of the drivers once I got something of a lesson on the different kinds of trucks in use. The smaller tractors he called "pop trucks", or maybe it was "p u p trucks", that were small and had limited range. These were popular in moving cold beverages to bars and restaurants because they could better navigate the narrow streets and back alleys.
These "pop trucks" were not all that powerful because they didn't move a lot of weight.
Re: The range problem is easily solved. (Score:2)
I don't think we should solve the range problem. We should target 300 & 400 mi/day on max load and expect to spend 2-3hrs charging.
Meaning the battery at max is ranged for 500 miles. And the slow charging to 80% will extend the battery life. Tesla says 30 min for 80% but that's torture on a battery and shouldn't be done often.
At this target, we should be able to cover the vast majority of the shipping miles. And do much more in terms of reducing emissions as most of these will include very inefficient
Re: (Score:2)
It's a truck; devote 25% of the trailer space to a ginormous battery. Range should be up to 1,000 miles or more. Hell, make the battery like the trailer so it can be swapped out for a fresh one. These people do not seem to have vision or common sense.
Way outside my area of expertise but I see some serious issues with your proposal:
1) 25% less trailer space means 25% less product shipped, that's going to majorly bite into your profit margins.
2) I suspect trailer sizes are pretty standardized and the logistics industry exploits the hell out of that, so a non-standard will really screw things up.
3) If you already had a huge infrastructure of swappable batteries for EVs maybe trucks could use that (though it's clunky since they'd need multiple batteries). B
Re: (Score:3)
There's also the fact that current trailers are more or less universal.
Now try to hook up to a trailer intended for EV use with existing fossil fuel trucks.
I don't see a problem here.
If the tractor is diesel and the trailer is equipped with a battery for an electric tractor then the battery is just along for the ride. If there is an electric tractor and the trailer isn't equipped with a battery then I guess the driver must double check that there's enough range on the tractor battery without it.
I think of the transition to air brakes on large truck and locomotives as an example. Trucks and trains didn't always have air brakes so there's a mechanical override
Re: (Score:2)
Was looking at Chas's other posts because he's being an idiot with me, and I wanted to check how common this was.
Looking at your scenarios,
1. Diesel hauling trailer with extra batteries: Wasteful, because that's weight and mass that you have to spend fuel to move, that doesn't help anything.
2. Trailer that not only has extra batteries, but also has a driving motor, so it can actually push: This has been proposed before, and would have the benefit that the trailer COULD assist, assuming the proper contro
And then there are these (Score:4, Funny)
It's all of us against the electric shit [reddit.com] :D
Re:And then there are these (Score:5, Insightful)
A) If you're a non-electric vehicle parked in a charging spot, as these people will do, there should either be a hefty fine ($1,000) or vehicle getting towed. These are most likely the same asshats who take up four spots at the grocery store or will roll coal down your street to show off their "manhood".
B) That one comment about EVs being universally better than ICE vehicles needs to get out of his parent's basement. If you don't own a home the chances of you being able to charge your vehicle at your rental unit is essentially nil. And let us not forget the huge problems [nbcchicago.com] EVs (mainly Tesla [newsweek.com]) are having trying to charge in the frozen north. And neither situation takes into consideration the length of time it takes to charge an EV compared to filling up with a tank of gas.
Re: And then there are these (Score:2)
I have a valve stem remover in my car. Just in case I have a blowout on the road, or one of these asshats blocks the charger. Either or. F them.
Re: (Score:2)
In Norway they mandated that apartments with marking must offer EV charging with a meter, and local governments are required to install on-street charging at favourable rates where people don't have driveways.
It's all fixable, and even if you are so afraid of socialism that mandates aren't for you, it will become like internet access/wifi - i.e. landlords and hotels will need to offer it or their accommodation will be very unattractive.
Re: (Score:2)
Norway is a special case. They have soooo much income from fossil fuels. Ironic right? :)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. It's as if all the EV infrastructure that exists today is all that will ever exist.
As if in the beginnings days of ICE, we had gas stations and other things already set up
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ha, whether its truck brand versus truck brand of gas versus electric the fact that it all must be some sort of "versus" thing says an awful lot about people like this.
Re:And then there are these (Score:5, Insightful)
Electric vehicles have many inherent advantages, especially in the lack of needed maintenance. No oil changes, no spark plugs, wires, fuel injectors or carburetors, filters, belts, etc, etc. There's a whole lot of stuff they don't have which you won't have to worry about breaking.
I'm in favor of the government ending subsidies for the sale of electric vehicles AND the oil industry. I'm also in favor of hitting electric vehicles with added annual fees to support the roads in lieu of gas taxes. Let everything cost what its real cost is, and then let people vote their wallets.
Re: (Score:3)
"I predict that within 10 years, computers will be twice as powerful, ten thousand times larger, and so expensive that only the 5 richest kings of Europe will own them" [youtube.com]
But for real I agree, saying electric vehicles won't work because of conditions today is missing the fact we are still nascent in an entire chain of industry just starting to expand for real.
Although I am in favor some subsidies for EV infrasture since it's not just the oil subsidies from this fiscal year they have to contend against but like
Re: (Score:2)
Electric vehicles are still new tech and are not yet fully mature.
EV technology has been around for over 100 years, "modern" EVs have been around for over 20 years, and we're quite familiar how to build basic electronics to operate in the elements. Cars also aren't the only things that run on batteries, so it's not like we have to wait for automobile manufacturers to "figure out" how to fix all the problems other industries solved decades ago.
We know how to build good cars. The problem is that manufacturers insist on building smartphones on wheels. That's why EVs suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez of course not, you only had the vehicle during warranty!
What's the performance for the 15 years after warranty? That's the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm in favor of the government ending subsidies for
> the sale of electric vehicles AND the oil industry.
Sure. But let's make things truly fair. End the subsidies* to the oil industry and the auto makers that supported it now. But before ending subsidies for electrics, total up the sum of the subsidies* that were given to the dinosaur burners, and continue to subsidize electrics until that sum is spent. THEN you will see how they measure up, fairly and purely, with their respective merits.
*And I m
Range issue fixed (maybe...) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Inductive takes way too much resources, litz wire ain't cheap. Roads are expensive, but even by that metric it would be a problem.
Capacitive, maybe ... shame about the required voltages.
Re: (Score:2)
Inductive takes way too much resources
Despite us being in just the early testing phase, you have decided with absolutely no information that it will take 'too much resources'? That was quick...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So to have a tiny reduction in total emissions, we need to have a massive increase in infrastructure emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it refers to the emissions related to rebuilding a highway network at the level of one or more continents.
Re: (Score:2)
That's WAY too inefficient, and not only for the charging itself but also for the needed infrastructure and maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Range issue fixed (maybe...) (Score:3)
Why a solution that doesn't exist when there's already a solution that does exist?
Re: (Score:2)
The only issue with catenary is that if the pantograph is not in good condition, it can damage them. Obviously train operators keep their equipment in good condition, but random truckers...
I think it's really unnecessary though. Battery swaps are faster than fuelling up with dino juice, and very high power charging is fine if you have to attend to the usual human needs like food and bathroom breaks.
Re: (Score:2)
High power charging and battery swaps will be the answer I think. In Europe, drivers have to take breaks anyway (legal requirement) so charging is fine, and in the US where it's a bit more Mad Max style they can swap batteries over in about 5 minutes with an automated system.
Nio has been doing battery swaps in Norway and China for a few years now, takes 6 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not necessary. I don't recall the exact hours, but the DoT restricts the number of hours a trucker can drive before a mandatory 8-hour rest period. And the last time I did an interstate road trip, I saw a number of trucks with stickers on the back of the trailer saying something like: "Speed limited to 65 MPH." I'm not sure if it's the governors are on the engines due to government mandate or policy from freight companies who want to limit their liability. But they are there.
So it becomes a matte
Re: (Score:2)
So it becomes a matter of simple arithmetic... the number of already-limited driving hours allowed per day times the speed limit already programmed into the trucks. If it's 8 hours and 65 MPH, you get 520 miles. And that's all the range they need, since they have to pull into a truck stop for a rest period anyway. And, although I wasn't actively looking for them, I'm sure I noticed truck stops more frequently than 520 miles my road trip. So just replace the pumps at the truck stops with chargers, and we're done.
Many long haul routes have two drivers in the truck who take turns driving and resting in the sleeper. Modern sleeper cabs also have RV style toilets, microwaves and fridges, TV and internet. They stop for fuel and nothing else. These are the ones you don't see at truck stops. You want your fruits and veggies to arrive fresh don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
An easier goal construction-and-engineering-wise is probably to make automatic battery-pack switching stations.
Even if you solve the standardizing all battery packs problem (unlikely, since we can't even standardize on a charging plug), I don't see how this is necessarily easier.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. Until we have a far better battery technology, which I am sure will come, this has to be the best solution.
Hell, we had video rental stores in the 1980s, where you went in, borrowed a tape, and brought it back the next day. That technology was great at the time, and a joke now.
I'm sure we will pass through the battery technology issues the same way. Some of us old times still alive in 30 years will make the comparison again :)
Re: (Score:2)
the problem will be the load, given huge numbers of trucks trying to use it at the same time of-course.
How much of a load can inductive road charging handle?
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly don't know much on this subject,
I find that hilarious, given that you think:
... the losses to heating conductor and the air would be huge...
Last I checked, air is not metallic or magnetic, so I'm not sure how you think the 'air' would absorb any energy or heat.
the current would be very low, charging would be negligible.
Read the link below, I think you might find it interesting.
"ENRX will supply a charging system capable of providing charging of 200kW for any type of EV that has a receiver pad on the underside of the vehicle."
https://thedriven.io/2023/05/04/inductive-charging-stretch-of-highway-converted-to-allow-evs-to-charge-as-they-move/
Please do some ba
Re: (Score:2)
In reality the current will be insignificant at the distances between charger and the vehicle,
Well, if you want to keep ignoring the fact that companies are successfully testing systems at 200kw, I guess that is your choice. And the guy in your video doesn't really add any technical commentary, it's just him saying, "That's too complicated! That's too expensive!". Those are just his opinions.
the roads cannot be built and maintained economically at all for any of this to work.
That's just your uninformed opinion. I know that you have zero idea as to how much it will cost to build and maintains these systems.
So Just Like Other EVs (Score:5, Interesting)
The quotes from the truckers are just like what you hear from any other EV driver. Very few want to ever drive anything else. When we got our first EV, we found that my wife and I worked to schedule all our activities so that we didn't have to drive the other car any more than necessary.
Just like with other EVs, the range can be an issue. Lack of charging infrastructure can be an issue. Price can be an issue. But all of those are much less so now than ten years ago when EVs were really new, just like trucks are now. Transition rules are for a decade out or more, so there's plenty of time for those issues to be addressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone wait for 10 hours to get help on the road anywhere in the USA any more? If your car is old enough that it doesn't have some cellular or satellite thing to call for help then certainly someone in the vehicle has a cell phone of some recent vintage. If the phone is new enough it's got satellite communications to cover the few cellular dead spots.
You did mention overloaded towing services but that's still a stretch for me. I've lived in the Midwest and if there's a need for tow trucks then there
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla Semi claims 0-60 in 20 seconds which from what I could find is a G-force of around 0.13g
I think a truck going downhill or accelerating uphill is probably going to put more force on it's cargo loads than that sort of acceleration. I could be wrong, major it's a major problem but I think there are way stronger arguments to make against electric trucks. Loads have to be attached for all manner of conditions, think about the forces when a semi has to make a wide swinging turn.
Modern diesels don't differ that much from EV trucks in terms of "driving experience".
And yet here we are with an
Re: So Just Like Other EVs (Score:3)
Youâ(TM)ve never driven an EV.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember seeing a YouTube video demonstrating an electric bus and there was a comment on how the system had a torque limiter to prevent damage to the differential gear set. The people building these trucks know already that the electric motors can produce far more torque than a diesel engine of similar power and so they put in control systems to keep drivers from breaking anything.
I also recall a conversation with someone that sold electronic throttles for diesel trucks. It kept drivers from "rolling co
Raises hand ... (Score:2)
[emphasis mine]
- 66-year-old Marty Boots: Diesel was like a college wrestler. And the electric is like a ballet dancer... You get back into diesel and it's like, 'What's wrong with this thing?' Why is it making so much noise? Why is it so hard to steer?"
So diesel semi tractors don't have power/assisted steering? Seems weird.
Re:Raises hand ... (Score:4, Insightful)
On the EV it's probably electronic, on the diesel it's probably some mechanical design industry settled on 50 years ago and stuck with ... unless it's some ladieda European truck no self respecting American trucker would drive.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be drive by wire, just electronically controlled. Volvo has had dynamic steering for instance where assistance is dynamic based on speed and road conditions, EVs are probably closer to that than the traditional hydraulic force multipliers.
Re: (Score:2)
Some trucks back then (models from the 60's and early 70's) had what was known as air assist steering. IIRC it was common in the larger military trucks. The manufacturer was Air-O-Matic. Great for low speed turning, absolutely dangerous at higher speeds. There was a switch to turn the feature off.
Sounds like early power steering in cars, where it felt super easy no matter the speed (great for slow-speed turning, but too much for fast) before variable-assist was developed and/or became the norm, allowing a more manual-like and better road feel on the highway.
Bays in the trailers for swappable batteries? (Score:3)
How about this idea? Don't put permanent batteries in the trailers. However, start building trailers with spaces underneath for modular batteries, and just include the bays and the wiring for those batteries. That way, the extra cost for those trailers is minimized, and trucks can work with any type of trailer. Depending on the weight for a specific route, more or fewer batteries can be added. For a long route with relatively light cargo, extra batteries can be added. This also has the advantage of potentially charging batteries separately. Since we're talking about fleets owned by a single owner, the issue of modular swappable batteries circulating among different owners isn't problematic.
Range problem is solved by redefining the problem (Score:2)
The current model where a single driver takes a load the entire distance is driven by the high power transfer of the diesel fuel pump making refueling time low. However, we are now at the next limit of human endurance safely driving the truck.
If 1 hour charging gets you 6 hours driving, you then schedule drivers in 6 hour segments where they drop the trailer, pull their tractor into a charging bay, go into the truck stop restaurant to have lunch, then pick up a different trailer to go back they way they cam
Re: (Score:3)
As you hint at, this is a non-issue for local hauling (under 250mi/day), which the vast majority is.
In the cases where this is potentially an issue - long hauling - understand that the vast majority of those are independent drivers or small companies with a handful of trucks. (Fun fact: there are nearly 2 million trucking companies in the US.)
These are not fleets where they have dozens or hundreds of drivers that are interchangeable for a particular route. What you propose would require an absurd level of l
Vroom (Score:2)
>"thanks to both less rocking off the cab, assisted steering and the quiet motor."
Only one of those (quiet) will be directly due to being electric. You can design to do the other two in an ICE truck, if desired.
>"mandating a switch to electric or emissions-free trucks by 2042, is happening too fast."
If it is economical and/or has significant benefits, it will happen on its own. If the technology isn't there, then it is just silly to "mandate" it.
>"There's other concerns"
That is a plural construct
Re: (Score:2)
The geometry and lack of an engine dramatically reduce vibrations. The benefit of the regulated phase-out being published is that it helps companies with capital planning for long-lived assets and supporting infrastructure.
Data point (Score:2)
Trucker comfort really does matter. I would never have predicted the jump to automatic transmissions, but they're very common now. Not having to go to fuel stops, pump fuel, do the math to see how much you can take to stay weight legal, and to sit in line to wait for your comcheck to clear makes a big difference. It sounds 10/10 to me.
Charging is going to be an issue, so until you get infrastructure deployed it's likely to be just home-every-night runs, but that's a *lot* of trucking. For EV trucks this
EVs are a beautiful experience. (Score:2)
million bucks (Score:2)
Yeah, I spent a million bucks on a new truck. No way am I going to say I was an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Trucking operates on razor-thin margins, and whatever it costs to move things is paid by basically everyone.
Every time you go grocery shipping? You're paying for trucking. Mail? Trucking. You do pretty much any manufacturing? Multiple trucking trips to ship parts and fuel and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Trucking companies will just develop a proprietary interface to keep your stinkin' Tesla off their system.
Re: (Score:2)
Trucking companies will just develop a proprietary interface to keep your stinkin' Tesla off their system.
That makes me think that someone will just use a 3D printer and one of those project board computers to build an adapter.
Then I realized that on diesel pumps now there's padlocks and such to keep people out, we'd likely just see something like that happen for EV chargers.
What is more likely is the trucking companies will have a standard NACS outlet behind a steel door at the charging station. The driver rolls up, gets out, waves a key card or something over the door to get it to drop open. Then the driver
Re: (Score:2)
Engineers should be able to understand that eliminating the use of fossil fuels is essential to minimize a global climatic catastrophe that cannot be entirely avoided at this late date. Ignoring the externalities of you system is bad engineering, though a common enough practice since other people can be forced to pay for them. Advocating bad engineering does not justify your self-conceit of being a good engineer.
Re: (Score:2)
Engineers don't ignore the human factor. If you're ignoring it, you are not doing engineering, frankly.