Slashdot Mirror


Nikola Motor Company Reveals Hydrogen Fuel Cell Truck With Range of 1,200 Miles (valuewalk.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ValueWalk: Nikola Motor Company just unveiled a huge class 8 truck which will run on hydrogen fuel cells. Nikola claimed that the truck's operational range will be as much as 1,200 miles (1,900 km), and it will be released in 2020. Nikola designed the Nikola One for long-haul transport across a large landmass. The truck will deliver over 1,000 horsepower and 2,000 foot-pounds of torque. Provided these claims are true, the vehicle will provide nearly double the power of the current-gen diesel-powered semis/articulated lorries, notes Ars Technica. The leasing cost of the trucks will include the fuel price, servicing costs and warranty, but exactly how the lease will work is not known now, notes Ars Technica. The company says it has already accepted nearly $3 billion in future orders. A fully-electric drivetrain which gets power from high-density lithium batteries runs the vehicle, and a hydrogen fuel cell charges the batteries on the go. Its reach is presently limited, as hydrogen fueling stations currently exist in only small numbers. This made Nikola decide to construct a network of 364 hydrogen fueling stations across the U.S. and Canada, just like Tesla with its network of Superchargers. Milton claims it will come with a smart dashboard which has the capability of picking the most cost-efficient route for drivers. Also one or two full-size beds will be included inside the vehicle's enormous cab. It will have other luxuries and necessities as well, such as Wi-Fi, a refrigerator, 4G LTE connectivity, freezer, a 40-inch curved 4K TV with Apple TV and a microwave.

106 comments

  1. unoriginal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, we all know Tesla, but what's with all the other alt-fuel vehicle companies using knockoff names? Faraday was bad enough - at least it's named after another electrical pioneer. Nikola didn't even choose a different guy to name their company after.

    1. Re:unoriginal by hey! · · Score: 1

      Oh, there's plenty of names left. How about "Coulumb"; and following the Tesla/Nikola pattern, I actually think "Charles-Augustin" would be a pretty good name for a luxury vehicle marque.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:unoriginal by iTrawl · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? These guys named their company after a Russian stripper. Nothing to do with Tesla.

      --
      "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
    3. Re:unoriginal by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's not like Tesla is a very original name for a company, anyway.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:unoriginal by skids · · Score: 1

      Well, if naming automotive related companies after famous physicists is a trend, I guess Hertz just lucked back into fashion.

      I wonder what the first... eh.... exciting?.... offering from "Bohr Autos" will look like.

    5. Re:unoriginal by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      What about Carnot?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:unoriginal by skids · · Score: 1

      Hahah! You have won the Slashdot. Hats off to you.

    7. Re: unoriginal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I heard the Chinese copied Tesla's designs and are going to release a knock-off version next year.
      They're going to it Edison.

    8. Re:unoriginal by Whibla · · Score: 1

      It would probably be a mistake to call your truck rental company Van der Waals though...

    9. Re:unoriginal by Nunya666 · · Score: 1

      What about Carnot?

      That sounds like an English version of the Chevy Nova.

      "No va" in Spanish means "no go."

    10. Re:unoriginal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, stop spreading this false legend around: http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp

      If you want a real story about a car with a funky name, you have the Mitsubishi Pajero, that means in Spanish means "wanker" so had to be renamed "montero".

      (Source: I'm a native Spanish speaker)

    11. Re:unoriginal by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      Nothing he said was incorrect.

    12. Re:unoriginal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's incorrect because "nova" and "no va" are pronounced differently, no Spanish speaker would ever confuse them.

    13. Re: unoriginal by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Will it use AC electricity on an elephant to prove how safe DC voltage in the car will be?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. They could sell that without the truck part. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... one or two full-size beds will be included inside the vehicle's enormous cab. It will have other luxuries and necessities as well, such as Wi-Fi, a refrigerator, 4G LTE connectivity, freezer, a 40-inch curved 4K TV with Apple TV and a microwave.

    Sounds like one of those tiny homes. Just take the wheels and engine off of it and scale down the power plant.

  3. Cool. Just Like The Hindenburg by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    but with wheels.

    1. Re: Cool. Just Like The Hindenburg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially if they use Samsung battery technology.

  4. Going to be dead on arrival by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is nothing but vapor ware. The truck looks nice, but am sure the technology under the hood is not all there. Hyrdrogen is notoriously low in fuel density, and you would need a LOT of it to drive 1200 miles. This just seems like a nice way for a few people to swindle investors and walk away a few years from a failed company.

    1. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compressed liquid hydrogen has the highest energy density of any fuel.

      But yeah if your talking about gas in a rubber balloon it would be pretty bad.

    2. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I heard hydrogen is super-rare, like so rare, most of the universe doesn't have more than a few atoms of it per cubic meter.

    3. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Funny

      Compressed liquid hydrogen

      You can buy it from all those surplus redundancy stations.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by WorBlux · · Score: 4, Informative

      Still Bull. Energy density of hydrogen is 120 MJ/kg, Propane has 49.6 MJ/kg However the density of liquid hydrogen is 70.8 kg/m^3, while propane is 493 kg/m^3 at STP. Propane wins at 24.5 GJ/m^3, and liquid hyroden is only 8.5 GJ/m^3. Deisel for reference is 35.8 GJ/m^3

    5. Re:Going to be dead on arrival by RubberDogBone · · Score: 2

      It's not entirely vaporware. I've seen retrofitted fuel-cell powered semi trucks on the road. They exist now.

      This is merely a fancier, more ground-up approach.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    6. Re:Going to be dead on arrival by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      It's not entirely vaporware.

      - it's Hydroware.

    7. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I thought E=MC^2 with E in joules and M in kilograms.

    8. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      But you can only release that with a matter + anti-matter reaction. The above is energy released via oxidation.

    9. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm hostile to hydrogen as a fuel, because the only commercially plausible way to generate it is to,strip hydrogen from hydrocarbons.

      That being said, hydrogen has an excellent energy density per kg. It's density as a compressed gas is low, but there are some interesting ways to store it short term.

    10. Re:Going to be dead on arrival by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition no info about the jet engine to power the whole thing.

    11. Re:Going to be dead on arrival by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most tanks now have turbines powering them. And if they are using a hydrogen-electric setup like trains have (except they are diesel-electric), then the turbine can spin at the most efficient rate.

    12. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by divide+overflow · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. Liquid hydrogen boils above 20.28 Kelvin/423.17 F/252.87 C.
      2. It is impractical to store liquid hydrogen on a truck.
      3. Hydrogen is typically stored as a compressed gas or as a metal hydride.
      4. Liquid hydrogen has less energy density by volume than hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline by approximately a factor of four.

    13. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a truck, volume is less the limiting factor it is in a car. Weight is more important, and in terms of density by mass, H is very good.

    14. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      J is the SI unit for energy, J/m^3 for energy density and J/kg for specific energy. There are also other names, like J/kg = Gr (gray) which is the SI unit for absorbed dose.

      If you call something energy, you would have to measure it in units including an energy component (although a simplified representation might also be used). Example: specific energy represented by m^2/s^2 because of applying E = F*s (more accurately, delta s) & F = m*a = m*s/t^2 => m*s^2/t^2, in SI units: J = N*m = kg*m^2/s^2). Even generic-not-really-used-in-actual-calculations energies have to comply with that requirement.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    15. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      I meant "in SI units: J = N*m = kg*m^2/s^2.".

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    16. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      1. And? You forgot the minus signs for F and C.
      2. Are you telling me they can't put it in a tank designed to store liquid hydrogen?
      3. OK.
      4. So what, it's not like having a 4x bigger tank is a problem, or by factor of 4 did you mean 1000x as it could be read.

      Your post seems to be trying to say it's not possible without actually having any good reasons why.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    17. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to cryogenic liquid hydrogen :p

    18. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by geoskd · · Score: 2

      Are you telling me they can't put it in a tank designed to store liquid hydrogen?

      A tank designed to contain liquid hydrogen has to be kept *cold*, *very cold*. Failure to do so causes the tank to rupture, and you will get a massive conflagration if not outright explosion.

      Cryogenics plants are not small, or light. If you change that from liquid hydrogen to compressed hydrogen gas, that is now a factor of 40, not 4.

      Compressed hydrogen gas actually makes lithium ion look safe by comparison. Liquid Hydrocarbon fuels are not explosive under vary many scenarios, usually requiring a heated pressurized environment. Many types of hydrocarbon fuels wont even burn under normal STP. Hydrogen gas by contrast loves to burn, and is a mess to contain (leaking hydrogen has no smell, and it is perfectly possible for a container to leak hydrogen but be "air tight" to everything else).

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    19. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      I guess that's why they don't use tanks and use fuel cells instead then.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    20. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by Bartles · · Score: 1

      No they don't have a generator motor sertup. The turbine powers a transmission, which powers the tracks.

    21. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I heard hydrogen is super-rare, like so rare, most of the universe doesn't have more than a few atoms of it per cubic meter.

      I hear the oceans are full of it.

    22. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by stigmerger · · Score: 1

      But propane requires extraction, refining, and transport, which adds to the cost. Plus, fossil fuels destroy your planet, which some consider a negative. It's at least an external cost, which a fair market would add to the price at the pump.

      Meanwhile, if you generate the hydrogen electrolytically via solar or wind power, and release the oxygen byproducts into the atmosphere, the cost (after capital expenses) is low, there is zero net waste in consumption, and you might cut the transport distance considerably, or completely.

    23. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      1. Planet destruction is hyperbole. There is literally nothing than man knows how to do than can destroy the planet. It will warm some, the amount is contested, but even granted that, there is every indication that the cost of mitigation and adaption are less than the cost of a move to non-nuclear renewable.
      2. Right now the cheapest source of hydrogen is to strip it from natural gas. In practice it's still a fossil fuel.
      3. Using the heat from high-temp nuclear would let you synthesis fuels with higher energy densities, that are much easier to transport and store, and can be run in conventional engines with little modification. Methanol, Dimethel ether, and ammonia are potential candidates. Heck the navy is even has some success with JP8.
      4. Moving from fossil fuels to wind and solar is a step backwards. Nuclear is the way forward for reliable energy and property. If the U.S doesn't do it, India and China certainly will.

    24. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by geoskd · · Score: 2

      I guess that's why they don't use tanks and use fuel cells instead then.

      Just in case you actually don't know what a fuel cell is: Its an electricity generator, not a fuel storage device. You still have to have something to store the fuel in (a tank). The fuel is then transfered into the Fuel cell slowly where it is converted into electricity and waste products (water in the case of hydrogen fuel cells).

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    25. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      gah, I thought fuel cells held enough hydrogen to do the job. Still I don't see why trucks can't carry hydrogen containers.. but they don't make sense unless they are more energy dense / cheaper than batteries in this case. Upside of hydrogen is it could be created from renewable energy when that energy is in over-supply and cheap.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    26. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      No American tanks have turbines. Everyone else stuck with much cheaper diesel's, that dont break down at the first sign of a bit of sand, require far less maintenance and are much cheaper to run.

    27. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by stigmerger · · Score: 1

      1. Responding as though I meant literally causing the planet earth to cease to exist is hyperbole. A mass extinction taking major limbs of the "tree of life" is figuratively destroying the planet. Grow up. And, what do you mean by "mitigation"? You mean shoring up levees and moving out of low-lying areas? That doesn't help with the problem of collapsing economies when agricultural output starts dropping. As I undedrstand it, even the Paris scenarios for reduced emissions have a hidden assumption that we'll find a way to suck existing carbon out of the atmosphere. Or is that what you meant by mitigation -- dumping iron in the oceans, or sulphur in the atmosphere, because it's "cheaper" than making an effort to deal with the source of the problem?
      2. There's "cheap" in money, and cheap in sustainability. Perhaps solar electrolysis would be the latter, for now. Seems worth it to foster some incentives to drive it towards the former, by creating a market.
      3. The point of talking about hydrogen is that hydrocarbons are out. Hydrogen has some things going for it. Comparing energy density alone misses some important criteria. That's what I was getting at. If you want fission everywhere, then that would at least be another possible source of the energy for electrolysis.
      4. Moving from fossil fuels to non-fossil fuels is a step forward, whether it's wind, solar, nuclear, or whatever. I agree that a cowardly retreat to fossil fuels is like saying "someone else please take over the markets of the future."

    28. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      1. One option for mitigation, even in the worse-case scenario is planetary albedo modification via nano-engineered particulates injected into the upper atmosphere. Best case scenario is 0.5-1.0 C, which isn't catastrophic. Food production may slack 10% in the middle case, which a shift to more efficient protein could overcome.
      2. Yes, there and many sorts of costs, one of which is opportunity costs. Driving the market to a dead-end is silly. 3. Fission is still 30 years of so off. Gen IV Fusion reactors are viable and could be build in scale in the next 10-15. And the high-temp of some of the designs can be used to efficiently synthesize transportation fuels that are easy to use and drop into current infrastructure. Hydrogen is difficult to store and transport reliably in large quantities dues to low density, small molecule size, and metal embrittlement. The best thing going for it are fuel cells, but the cells aren't all that durable and are quite expensive. CNG could be a lower Carbon bridge, but it suffers many of the same infrastructure and density issues.
      4. In terms of density and Return on energy invested, they definitely are. They are also not "on demand", which brings a plethora of challenges and added cost to the infrastructure.

    29. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by divide+overflow · · Score: 1

      Large, heavy duty, high pressure cryogenic storage cylinders storing low density, near absolute zero temperature, dangerously volatile combustible gasses with an exceptionally low flammability limit (4% concentration in air) tend to be somewhat armored, therefore thick and heavy. Given they are also large that multiplies the weight factor.

      Compressed liquid cryogenic hydrogen would probably be a reasonable choice for a large rail locomotive. But I'd be concerned about having a similar hydrogen storage tank on a truck on an open highway.

    30. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by divide+overflow · · Score: 2

      1. And? You forgot the minus signs for F and C.

      Like you're the only one who figured that out. So much for my quick & dirty wikipedia cut & paste job. Crucify me. :)

      2. Are you telling me they can't put it in a tank designed to store liquid hydrogen?

      Read my subsequent post about what that tank would be like.

      3. OK.

      Yeah, Ok.

      4. So what, it's not like having a 4x bigger tank is a problem, or by factor of 4 did you mean 1000x as it could be read.

      Your post seems to be trying to say it's not possible without actually having any good reasons why.

      Read my comment below about size & weight requirements for the tank. At best hydrogen is tricky stuff to store and tends to be most practical when done at large scale. It is bad enough working with hydrogen gas...cryogenic liquid hydrogen is a whole different level of crazy. I can't begin to list all the problems in a reasonable amount of time. Even seasoned NASA engineers have problems dealing with the stuff.

    31. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Not quite - there is still a lot of T-80s around, they had the gas turbine even before the M1. They even make sense for Russia - a gas turbine tank is much easier to start and operate in winter conditions than a diesel tank.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    32. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      If gas turbines are so great remind me why their are diesel versions of the T-80, and that the T-84 and T-90 which are it's successors are all diesel?

      So the reality is that the gas turbines are not really a good solution for tanks. It's like the overlapping wheels of Tiger tanks. Yes better performance in theory, but the real world pokes it head in and you are better off with a simpler more reliable design.

    33. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't say that gas turbines are generally great, they are good for certain conditions, otherwise people wouldn't try to put them into tanks since, oh, about 1943 with the Turbopanther.
      T-84 is a diesel tank because it is what Ukraine has a factory for - before 1991 they were only able to build diesel T-80 in first place because the Malyshev factory can only build their two stroke diesel. That is also the reason why Ukraine barely uses the T-72 tanks - they cannot build the original engine and they would have to downgrade them with that peculiar two stroke diesel (basically the old and problematic T-64 engine with an additional cylinder) as well.
      As for T-90, it is not a successor of T-80, but a successor of T-72, hence it never was a gas turbine tank in first place. The actual successor of T-90, the Black Eagle prototype, had, in fact, a gas turbine engine.
      Diesel engines are much cheaper and far less thirsty, so economics are one of the reasons why diesel engines won. The other reason is that gas turbines suck (no pun intended) in the so called "hot and high" settings. This is why aircraft versions intended to take off in airports that are located at high altitudes or in very warm areas usually have more powerful engines. That is not an option for a tank, hence their engines feel anemic in the same conditions.

      Like I said, gas turbines are great when it's really freezing outside, when diesel engines need a lot of time and effort to start, the fuel and the coolant lines are frozen shut and have to be thawed first. In these conditions a gas turbine tank can be started in mere minutes, and actually performs better than average thank to dense air and good cooling. Gas turbine tanks also have an excellent power to weight ratio because a diesel engine with the same output has easily twice the weight of a gas turbine. This is the reason why M1 is a gas turbine tank - it is so obese that a diesel engine would make it a Tiger 2. The Leopard 2 engine that has the same performance as the M1 engine weighs 2200 kg compared to the 1100 kg of the M1 engine. It is also twice as wide.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    34. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Silly me, I flipped fusion and fission in my head.

    35. Re: Going to be dead on arrival by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      1. One option for mitigation, even in the worse-case scenario is planetary albedo modification via nano-engineered particulates injected into the upper atmosphere. Best case scenario is 0.5-1.0 C, which isn't catastrophic. Food production may slack 10% in the middle case, which a shift to more efficient protein could overcome.

      Sorry, blocking out the sun is a stupid idea on many levels. Not the least would be that plants will turn less CO2 into oxygen. Which not only means less food, it means we'll have it harder to breath as well as not so much reduction of the warming as simple calculations would suggest. Not to mention that humans need the sun, both for psychological reasons as well as a means to produce vitamin D in our bodies. And of course it will mean lower efficiency of solar power.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  5. Great idea to do this with a truck by caseih · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Although trucks are highly regulated they also happen to be a lot easier to use a platform for this kind of experimentation. For one an extra 1000 pounds isn't going to impact performance (though it will reduce freight capacity). Some truckers tell me just ice and snow can add a couple of thousand pounds to their trucks in the winter. Anyway plenty of room to play around with different drive trains and power systems, which is what this company seem to have done.

    I've always been skeptical of hydrogen as a means of of energy storage, but if the numbers are right this is pretty good, for a range of about 800 miles. 1000 hp and 2000 ft-pounds of torque are definitely good numbers for a class 8 truck. The truck I drive sometimes is only 500 hp and 1800 ft-pounds of torque, and pulls 63500 KG GVW (only on flat roads and not fast). So this should easily go up and down mountains. And with no transmission to shift, the power will be smooth and efficient. I'm thinking they've had their prototypes on the road for some time now, so it will be interesting to see how quickly they can really bring this to actual market (start leasing them to real drivers and real companies).

    The articles I've read don't talk a lot about how the refueling is done and pouring liquid cryogenic fluids is pretty dangerous. So we shall see. And we don't know much about other details like if the drive train can act as a big engine brake. It's pretty funny how the media reacts to things like this. Instead of focusing on the truly interesting aspects of the truck like the power cell and drive train, they focus on the cab and how it has a nice sleeper with a microwave oven! Hilarious.

    Anyway, coming from someone who actually has a CDL and drives trucks on occasion, I'm quite interested to see where this goes.

    1. Re:Great idea to do this with a truck by glenebob · · Score: 1

      We definitely know the drive train can act as a "big engine brake". It uses regen braking, which as we know is very well establish technology. It's like compression brakes on steroids that charge the batteries and make no noise. In theory, the regen braking should provide stopping power very similar to acceleration power. The actual brakes should only need to be employed in emergency situations and at, and approaching full stop.

    2. Re:Great idea to do this with a truck by dbIII · · Score: 1

      In theory, the regen braking should provide stopping power very similar to acceleration power

      Or in practice in electric locomotives for what must be more than three quarters of a century by now.

    3. Re:Great idea to do this with a truck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't imagine it NOT having a transmission. it will absolutely have to have one

      volvo FH truck rear axle ratio of 2.5:1 - 5:1 and gear ratios range something like 15:1 - 1:1
      for 500hp and 2000Nm truck, that is 2000Nm*5*15 on lowest crawl.
      for first gear the torque going to the wheels will be 5*15*2000=150'000Nm
      and for top gear it is 5*1*2000=10'000Nm

      1000hp and 2700Nm of direct electric drive cant compar to that.

    4. Re:Great idea to do this with a truck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except when it's cold, or the battery is already full - in which case you suddenly find yourself slowing far slower than you might expect!

    5. Re:Great idea to do this with a truck by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      every lesson must be learned over and over, and every time it's OMG NEW!!!

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  6. 1,200 mile range by fustakrakich · · Score: 1, Funny

    Does it come with a big bag of amphetamines too?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:1,200 mile range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Flamebait" - a failure in moderation rears its ugly head. Some people really need to lighten up.

    2. Re: 1,200 mile range by Bartles · · Score: 1

      No, its a legit question. There are very few places where truck drivers are allowed to drive for 1,200 miles. Unless the speed limit happens to be 120mph.

    3. Re: 1,200 mile range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There also very few places on the entire planet where there is 1,200 miles between filling stations. Except this is just hyping the hydrogen thing, a totally impractical fuel for terrestrial vehicles. There are too many alternatives that don't require such a fragile and brittle and dangerous and really inefficient infrastructure. I'm just being trolled by one or two moderators, no real biggie.

    4. Re: 1,200 mile range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuel stops may not correspond with rest stops needed by the drivers. Rest stops are lengthy for trucks with single drivers. Rest stops aren't needed at all for rigs driven by a team of drivers. It can be quite reasonable to have 1200 miles of range even if the driver is required to stop more often than needed to refuel.

      Fewer refueling stops can save time as well.

    5. Re: 1,200 mile range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long distance freight hauling should be done on rail, with no driver at all. Use the trucks for the local stuff.

    6. Re: 1,200 mile range by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      At 55-70 mph, a 600 mile trip out on day one, load or unload, and a 600 mile return trip on day two to do the same is easily doable. It is not more than 11 hours driving and with the higher speed limits, just a little over 9 hours (you will not average 70 mph for the entire trip).

      But you are also forgetting team truck drivers where one person sleeps on the first shift and then takes over when the first shift driver's time is up. The team drivers could easily cover 1200 miles within a single day.

      The summery says it has a sleeper and all so either scenario is doable.

  7. Woosh. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These guys have finally designed the world's best 2005 Semi Truck.

    Also one or two full-size beds will be included inside the vehicle's enormous cab.

    For who? Are they trying to milk the last owner operators? Walmart quibbles with OEMs over 0.1 MPG claims. The second they can, every single Walmart truck is going to be replaced by an autonomous driver, even if it's just between cities. (Given where most Walmarts are located it'll replace 90% of their need for drivers). They spent a lot of time and money designing something that will never get used by time this hits the market.

    , the vehicle will provide nearly double the power of the current-gen diesel-powered semis/articulated lorries

    And? Truck OEMs are moving to Natural Gas. Locomotives are too.

    Everyone thought Warren Buffet was crazy buying a rail company in 2009. Turns out that he owns Northern Natural Gas the largest interstate natural gas pipeline system in the United States. Northern Natural Gas' pipeline system stretches across 11 states, from Southern Texas to Michigan's Upper Peninsula, providing access to five of the major natural gas supply regions in North America. (At which point he starts to sound a bit more like Rockefeller).

    10 years ago Natural Gas was a 3rd party add on. Now the engine OEMs are selling it in addition to dual fuel engines (NG/Diesel). That goes for engines for a small tractor up through their largest stationary engines.

    Natural gas is:

    1. Domestic.
    2. Cheap
    3. Run to households in a lot of the US.

    With a tiny compressor you could come home and 'fill up' at night..

    If I was an investor the 2 power sources for vehicles going forward are going to be natural gas & batteries. You cut out a lot of gasoline and diesel refineries. You can run locomotives and semis on natural gas (since batteries alone can't (yet)).

    Hydrogen, in 2016, is a non-starter. First you can't just 'get' it. We're quickly getting an EV grid and the Natural Gas 'grid' is already there.

    Finally it's not about horsepower. Those Semi truck engines "only" pushing a few hundred HP can easily put out more. The Caterpillar D11 bulldozer only has 850 HP. The reason they're de-tuned is they're designed to do that 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for a million miles. You can easy tune them up to easily out do the 1,000 horsepower and 2,000 foot-pounds. [And why geeks that aren't into machinery shouldn't just look at specs like they're computers.]

    By 2020 this is going to look like a dinosaur.

    1. Re: Woosh. by Frankzy · · Score: 1

      You're right hp isn't terribly important, torque is. And since this will use electric motors, that means it delivers the 2700nm of torque they say it'll have, instantly. So even though the most powerful Scania outputs a pretty incredible 3500nm id wager this will feel pretty good in comparison. And btw, so what if an engine can be up tuned, so can electric motors if you wanna burn them out, but you don't for precisely the same reason you don't with ICEs.

    2. Re:Woosh. by caseih · · Score: 1

      You're probably right about your assessment of Natural Gas's ability to change the industry. But the fact that these guys have several billion dollars of orders stacked up shows there are companies that are interested and see the value it in. I think Nikola's engineers aren't operating in the dark here. They are well aware of what natural gas can do. It's easy to pretend they don't know what they are doing. We can't just use our armchair logic to summarily dismiss them. I hope they succeed.

      Good point about specs. As they say, "there's no replacement for displacement." I'm not sure I'd say engines are "detuned" though. Bigger displacement engines do have a better torque curve than smaller ones. Remember an engine will develop as much horsepower as the load requires up to the limits set on the fuel system. At highway speeds your tractor may be using a fraction of the maximum rated horsepower. Start climbing a hill and this goes up to the max pretty quickly. Also starting out from a dead stop uses most of the engine's power too (torque is often limited in low gears to prevent breaking things).

      An 850 hp bulldozer can use up to 850 but probably often isn't generating that much power. And it's all going through a steep gear reduction, so the torque demands on the engine may not be that great. We can't really compare a bulldozer to a semi truck tractor.

    3. Re:Woosh. by glenebob · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen, in 2016, is a non-starter. First you can't just 'get' it. We're quickly getting an EV grid and the Natural Gas 'grid' is already there.

      Not sure what you mean here. We are "quickly getting an EV grid", but somehow "quickly getting a hydrogen grid" is such a huge problem? If Tesla can pull off the EV grid, then who's to say Nikola (or some other company, for that matter) can't do the same with hydrogen?

      There's also the possibility for these trucks to be plug-in hybrids. They're not talking about it, but adding support for an external charge supply would be more or less trivial.

    4. Re: Woosh. by caseih · · Score: 1

      Both are important. Moving a large load requires horsepower, by definition. Horsepower is a certain amount of torque per minute.

    5. Re:Woosh. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      That goes a long way toward providing yet another reason that Buffet opposed a pipeline from Canada.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    6. Re: Woosh. by Chuq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An "EV grid" isn't actually a thing - it should refer to the electricity grid which is over a century old and practically ubiquitous.
      90% of charging by EVs can be done on the existing network. Fast chargers make it more convenient but are not a new grid in itself.
      Hydrogen, on the other hand, requires dedicated infrastructure to support 100% of fuelling requirements. Not just the stations, but the generation, storage and shipping.

      --
      - Chuq
    7. Re:Woosh. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      These guys have finally designed the world's best 2005 Semi Truck.

      Welcome to modern America where the Space Age is happening elsewhere.

    8. Re: Woosh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except torque is not a unit of produced work. HP is. HP is infinitely tradeable into torque. Vice-versa cannot be done.

    9. Re: Woosh. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen, on the other hand, requires dedicated infrastructure to support 100% of fuelling requirements. Not just the stations, but the generation, storage and shipping.

      And maybe not such a big deal or practical for trailers travelling the same corridor, but if you miscalculate or there's detours or you run into defective equipment or whatever you're not dead in the water with an EV as long as somebody got a working extension cord. Or even a modified generator if you just need enough juice to limp to the nearest grid connection, seems a few have done that as insurance. Emergency services have also started having charge service instead of tow service if you've run out. With hydrogen that shit had better work all the time, because there's no plan B. I think that alone will put a huge cooler on interest except for very limited niches. You also have a bigger variety of options, like say hotels providing parking with overnight chargers and other locations super fast charging, with hydrogen either you got it or you don't. Which is not to say EVs are without problems... but if we really hit that oil crunch and gas prices doubled-tripled-quadrupled they'd clearly be the ones taking over.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re: Woosh. by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Horsepower is a certain amount of torque per minute.

      To some extent that's true (horsepower is related to torque * RPM). But torque is more important because a low torque motor would have to spin unrealistically fast to generate sufficient horsepower; you need high torque to get the horsepower you need at a reasonable RPM.

    11. Re: Woosh. by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Vice-versa cannot be done.

      It can certainly be done on a rotating engine:

      HP = Torque x RPM / 5252

      Torque = HP * 5252 / RPM

    12. Re:Woosh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think getting natural gas stations into the big truck stops will happen faster too. I think an aerodynamic, NG-Electric hybrid using a turbine generator would be a great improvement. Natural gas prices are cheaper too than hydrogen, and adding a plug to power AC or heat when at truck stops would be easy.

      The trick will be adding the driver assistance technology and the fear that it will lead to full automation in a few years, instead of just improving safety.

    13. Re: Woosh. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Only in bastard units do you have to deal with 5252.

      Radians per second, Watts and Joules make it much more straight forward.

  8. Fuel cells=natural gas pushers wet dreams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They get to green wash their natural gas by focusing attention on the vehicles being clean. Meanwhile the hydrogen production must be from natural gas with huge CO2 emissions to be even somewhat efficient. Zero-carbon hydrogen production is insanely inefficient compared to just generating and distributing electricity to battery powered trucks from zero carbon renewable solar/wind/hydro. Refueling times for electric trucks are minutes since you just slide out one pack for the other at the stop or just switch out the trucks at the charging intervals. And then ultimately the railroads are many times more efficient than trucks for most of the long haul anyway

  9. hmm..name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    perhaps they should name it Hindenberg II

    1. Re:hmm..name? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      put this head on and make it self driving.

      https://littleblogofhorror.com...

  10. Unvieled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. Unveiled. But won't be released until 2020. In other words - we have a mockup and need some VC funding. Trust us: we have $3 billion in orders.

  11. Why would A.I. need a freezer, microwave and TV ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly Why ? We all know where its all heading. Long haul transport is a nearly perfect application for autonomous vehicles.

    -K

  12. This is what you get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you win the World Arm-Wrestling Tournament.

  13. You really do not know who the beds are for? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Also one or two full-size beds will be included inside the vehicle's enormous cab.- For who?

    Have you really no clue about what trucking does or how it works?

    Yes trucks will be self-driving in the future. But the truck driver is not just a driver, he is also a GUARD. Do you really not understand what a fantastic target fully automated trucks would be, when they would obviously be programmed to stop for any blockage in the road?

    As for the gas angle, natural gas is OK but has nothing on Hydrogen, which will be the mass replacement for the gasoline engine.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You really do not know who the beds are for? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

      has nothing on Hydrogen

      You're going to have to lay it out a bit better than "Has nothing on Hydrogen".

      Natural gas infrastructure is there, it exists. I cooked dinner with it tonight. Truck OEMs have natural gas trucks on the road right now.

    2. Re:You really do not know who the beds are for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:You really do not know who the beds are for? by khallow · · Score: 1

      As for the gas angle, natural gas is OK but has nothing on Hydrogen, which will be the mass replacement for the gasoline engine.

      Methane has two things going for it: 1) higher hydrogen density than hydrogen in the same phase (liquid versus liquid or gas versus gas), 2) better handling properties. It leaks far less than hydrogen does - hydrogen leaks through anything. Methane also become liquid under far milder conditions than hydrogen does.

      And the big drawback is that methane is a significant greenhouse gas. Hydrogen can react with oxygen to form water vapor, which is also a significant greenhouse gas, but I believe most hydrogen gas leaked in the open manages to escape Earth altogether.

    4. Re:You really do not know who the beds are for? by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      Very true! Hydrogen WILL leak though anything. And Methane can literally be made from any natural decaying material. Methane is carbon neutral too, but better in simplicity. Big farms run on this stuff. It's a terrible shame they vilified methane :(

  14. why not just use diesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's basically a diesel-electric train, only with ZOMG Hydrogen because it's cool. Running a small, efficient diesel at constant speed and high output as the APU to provide the power gives you the benefits of both, and the great energy density of petroleum.

  15. Re: Why would A.I. need a freezer, microwave and T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the world isn't waiting for AI

  16. Toyota Mirai by DavidMZ · · Score: 1

    Will the Nikola hydrogen charging stations be compatible with the Toyota Mirai?

    There could be some pretty strong synergies there.

  17. Range when loaded? by ACDChook · · Score: 1

    I couldn't see any mention in the article, but I'm guessing the stated range is when it isn't loaded, or only very lightly loaded. I wonder how much that would drop when pulling 120 tonnes in 3 trailers? That's a pretty standard configuration here in Australia.

    1. Re:Range when loaded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the horsepower and torque numbers I immediately wondered why they weren't trying to go for the Australian market. The 3500 mile range difference may be a problem though. Solar powered hydrogen production stations could make that worth it though.

  18. More Powerfull? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some marketing idiot is trying to revise history and blow smoke up the Industries ass with people who've been using diesel engines from Catepillar and Cummins having excceeded those levels for the last decade. Hell they were already beginning to exceed those numbers 20 years ago

    1. Re:More Powerfull? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even some of the top of the line regular "road train" tractors don't get much more than 600hp though. (Kenworth t909, etc.)

    2. Re:More Powerfull? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scania and Volvo have a few models that go beyond 700hp.

  19. You can get Hydrogen by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Hydrogen, in 2016, is a non-starter. First you can't just 'get' it.

    Which is why a point-to-point delivery system such as a large truck is the right vehicle to start with. You don't need thousands of refueling stations, just a few at the major truck terminals.

  20. Enormous cab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also one or two full-size beds will be included inside the vehicle's enormous cab

    The same enormous cab that makes it unable to legally pull a standard-sized trailer in most of the world.

    1. Re:Enormous cab by PPH · · Score: 1

      Looks like a cab-over design. So the interior space doesn't result in as long a cab as conventional truck layouts. Electric drive eliminates one objection of cab-over which is having to sit over a noisy engine.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Enormous cab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a strange shape, with a cab that is narrow at the front and external wheel arches. More like a very old car than like a truck. They don't give sizes, but it appears to be quite a bit longer than any conventional truck, a few metres probably. That is all going off the maximum length of the trailer. Pulling many standard trailers would probably not be legal.

  21. Re:Why would A.I. need a freezer, microwave and TV by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    The medium long run is caravans of trucks, with a few drivers, probably three, for a a 24hour driving shift and one to sit behind with a disabled truck if part of the caravan is damaged.

    There's still likely going to be value to a human overseeing millions of dollars if goods.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  22. cost effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "has the capability of picking the most cost-efficient route for drivers."
    As a 5 year tour bus driver and a 20 year semi-truck driver, I never needed anything more than a map to determine this for myself.