Tesla's Electric Semi Trucks Are Priced To Compete At $150,000 (theverge.com)

Last week, Tesla unveiled its new four-motor electric Semi but left out one key detail -- the price. "Now that's changed: the regular versions of the 300-mile and the 500-mile trucks will cost $150,000 and $180,000 each," reports The Verge. "There is also a 'Founders Series' which will cost $200,000 per truck." Tesla does note that the prices are "expected" leaving the company some wiggle room on the final pricing. From the report: If those prices and specs stick then Tesla has a potentially disruptive offering with Semi. Most long-haul diesel trucks are priced around $120,000 and cost tens of thousands of dollars to operate each year. Tesla claims its all-electric Semi will provide more than $200,000 in fuel savings alone over the lifespan of the truck.

Comments

What we are really waiting for.

[Charcharodon]

I am waiting to see who the first person is to buy one and turn it into a massively overpowered SUV/truck thing for drag racing.

Re:What we are really waiting for.

[Kernel Kurtz]

I am waiting to see who the first person is to buy one and turn it into a massively overpowered SUV/truck thing for drag racing.

If it is like any other Tesla is will be fast for one short spurt. Then it will go into limp mode.

http://www.thedrive.com/news/5...

Re:What we are really waiting for.

[pezpunk]

ikf you're talking about drag racing, nope, totally wrong. it can do quarter mile runs all day without going into limp mode.

it cannot go around the nurburgring. but nobody suggested that.

Re: What we are really waiting for.

[dougdonovan]

theres a reason why people drive a truck and not a mouse.

Re: What we are really waiting for.

[dougdonovan]

tesla is looking for intelligent truck drivers. not complainers. i doubt they have a suggestion box. either learn their way or wash dishes.

Re: What we are really waiting for.

[dougdonovan]

char...u r on the right track. invest to profit.

Purchase price is one thing

[FrankHaynes]

but what is the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership)? Maybe the batteries are ridiculously expensive to maintain?

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[arbiter1]

Lets also not forget the setup needed to recharge these things which i doubt a standard EV charge point is gonna cut the mustard without take 20+ hours. Having to wait that long is def expensive issue when companies put miles on these trucks they do. IMO only viable option for electric semi would be hybrid setup like used in trains for many years.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Anonymous Coward]

TCO should be dramatically lower than diesels, but at the trade of vehicle range. Still, there's a lot of short and medium haul routes which could use one of these.

Electricity is much cheaper than fossil fuel, maintenance is way cheaper since there are fewer mechanically meshed parts depending on lubrication, and battery life is shaping up to last a loooong time on electric cars), so amortized battery cost per mile is low. People with 250K kms on electric cars are reporting range only slightly lower than when new.

These should be quite much cheaper than normal trucks to run, especially when maintenance is considered.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Rei]

Typical degradation for Tesla batteries is about 4% in the first year, then 1/2 to 1% in each subsequent year. See the raw data and charts here. And that's for Model S, which uses NCA packs. Semi using NMC cells, which are even more durable.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[haruchai]

What maintenance or repairs have been needed, even if free?

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[fluffernutter]

Good question. Time commitment should be a factor here.

Re: Purchase price is one thing

[Anonymous Coward]

By "certainly", I assume you mean "possibly".
These semi batteries have got to be enormous, and I hate to break it to you, but electric car batteries are already prohibitively expensive to the average consumer.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[beelsebob]

They already announced that the TCO is roughly 20% lower than that of a diesel truck when electricity is priced at $0.07 (which is the price they intend to charge at mega charger stations).

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[beelsebob]

Range isn't traded off at all. These things have a 500 mile range. That's 8 hours continuous driving at a trucker's maximum speed. They've already published that they'll be able to charge to 400 miles range in 30 minutes from a mega charger. That means you can get to 180 miles in only 10 minutes.

180 miles is another 3 hours of driving. That's your trucker's 11 hours maximum driving time covered with only 10 minutes spent charging.

That means these are completely open to long haul trucking with basically indefinite range, as long as the mega charger network rolls out fine.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[stabiesoft]

She must have a light foot. The S is about 5500lbs and if you push that much weight hard it will eat tires.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Rei]

Oh shit! You better hurry and tell Tesla that a standard EV charge point isn't going to work!!! You swear that Tesla is run by a bunch of idiots who haven't the foggiest clue about electricity!

The other funny one you see a lot is the concept that Tesla hasn't the foggiest clue about semis. Never mind that the head of Tesla's Semi programme, Jerome Guillen, headed the Cascadia program at Daimler, and that the Semi unit is packed full of truck people, and the truck was engineered in close cooperation with major fleet operators (which is why they had orders already lined up at the launch event).

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Rei]

There's an interesting thing to consider about the megachargers. I think a lot of people considered Musk's line about the stations being solar powered to be a throwaway remark, along the lines of "they'll have solar awnings, so "a little" of the power provided is solar". Furthermore, I think a lot of people see the announced price ($0,07/kW) to be just a loss leader. But after going over the numbers.... I think they've hit on something huge. Much bigger than just Semi.

Semi uses NMC cells, same as Tesla's grid products. And when you compare the price on the 500 mile vs. the 300 mile Semis, you come up with a price per kWh of something like $80-85/kWh... *after* profit. Tesla usually uses a 25% margin, so you're looking at under $70/kWh. Now, while impressive, and a huge leap forward in battery prices, it's certainly possible. The whole point of the Gigafactory was to make battery prices approach raw material costs, and raw materials for them are something like $50/kWh (and that's with currently elevated raw material costs).

Traditional superchargers draw straight from the grid, but they're increasingly starting to use Powerpack battery buffers, and Megacharger will certainly require them in bulk. The battery buffers reduce demand charges from the grid by evening out load and simplify the charging process (cheaper chargers), but you have to pay for them, and they're expensive.

Now let's diverge for a moment and look at solar power. Solar power is getting *cheap*. Around $1,10/W installed in the US nowadays, and falling. The problem with solar (which increases its costs) is, you need either peaking or a battery buffer to handle nighttime and cloudy days. There's also wind power, which is also now very cheap, but also suffers from the same intermittency problem (only more random). And battery buffers are very expensive.

Or, at least, they were. Because the prices on these NMCs are crazy cheap, and they're the same batteries that are used in Tesla's grid products. But wait, it gets even better. Megachargers need a battery buffer to be able to surge charge vehicles. Solar and wind power need a battery buffer to handle intermittency. The key is, you don't need two separate buffers - only the one. The very battery buffer that lets you run a megacharger will also buffer solar and wind. And the price on said buffer should now be far cheaper than it used to be.

I've run some numbers over on the Tesla Motors Club forum, but the short of it is... if Tesla's batteries really are this cheap, then they really should be able to run the stations for solar and wind at $0,07/kWh and turn a profit. Not mere "solar awnings", of course; it means grid-scale solar plants (and/or wind farms), connected to the megacharger. But it's a paradigm shift. And the drop in storage prices is a paradigm shift everywhere, not just for chargers.

Caveat: some assumptions had to be made:
  * The size of the battery packs on the Semi models (but that should be pretty accurate)
  * That Tesla isn't deliberately undervaluing the cost of the larger battery vs. the smaller one (lower margin, etc). Although it's not clear why they would want to do that; it seems just as likely that they would do the opposite, and either way, the cost of the vehicles as a whole argues for cheap batteries.
  * That the trucks in general aren't some sort of big loss leaders (but there's no way Tesla could afford that - at least not for any significant length of time)
  * That the prices Tesla thinks the batteries will cost are correct

Honestly though... I think that it's simply what it appears to be: that through manufacturing scale and advancing research, li-ion batteries are (finally!) starting to approach their raw materials costs. And that's a game changer.

Re: Purchase price is one thing

[Rei]

4:30 now. Welcome to the weekend. :)

Re: Purchase price is one thing

[Rei]

If by "enormous" you mean around 5 tonnes or so, then yes.

Re: Purchase price is one thing

[znuggz]

Like the ones built by Hyliion

Re: Purchase price is one thing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not 8 year infinite warranty. It's 8 years infinite non-commercial warranty. If you drive for Uber and single time the warranty is voided.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Cyberax]

If you're doing 3 full cycles a day then you're driving around 500 miles a day. If you're just doing small top-ups then there's little to no additional degradation.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Cyberax]

My Tesla's tires worked fine for 40000 miles (they are rated for 50000 miles). I'm not light-footed - the ESP on Teslas is really good and prevents tires slipping in normal conditions.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Cyberax]

My Tesla is at 70000 miles right now and I'm still using the factory brake pads. They will probably survive until the end of car's life. Regenerative braking FTW!

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[thegarbz]

Semi uses NMC cells, same as Tesla's grid products.

Nitpick: From what I can tell Tesla's grid products use NCA cells, same as their cars. Tesla's home power option uses NMC. The reason behind it makes sense too:

NMC: Designed for long continuous discharge and high depth of discharge and extreme cycling. e.g. A home solar batttery system or a vehicle travelling longs distances on a highway.

NCA: Designed for short bursts and high powered when needed. e.g. A battery to provide grid stabilisation against a very rough swing in demand but not necessarily deep discharge, and stop start city traffic.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[donaldm]

but what is the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership)? Maybe the batteries are ridiculously expensive to maintain?

My wife has a Tesla Model S. Here are the maintenance costs so far:

Battery maintenance: $0 Oil changes: $0 New oil filters: $0 Brake pads: $0 Tire rotation: Free Windshield wiper fluid: $6 New spark plugs: $0 Radiator fluid: $0 Air filters: $0

Total: $6

Fantastic, however, you left out the most important part. What is the cost of charging and how far can you travel on a single charge? Like it or not electrical charging does have a cost whether you use mains or solar (ie. cost of installation). You also have to consider the initial price and resale value of the car although to be fair that should be a consideration for any car.

It was rather pointless stating the items which are related to a gas/petrol/diesel car although you will have to replace the tires, air conditioning filter and brakes (yes I am aware of regenerative braking) over the electric cars lifetime which should be fairly minimal.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[rally2xs]

My 2012 Subaru WRX brake pads lasted 'til 110,000 miles sooo... what does brake pad wear prove?

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[drinkypoo]

I'm not light-footed - the ESP on Teslas is really good and prevents tires slipping in normal conditions.

That's not ESP, that's just TC. ESP is only involved when you try to point the vehicle in one direction, and it goes in another direction. It's what happens after slip actually occurs. Traction control involves two pieces, torque management and wheel slip detection. The vehicle knows about how much power it will have to feed in to cause wheel slip, and most vehicles will do their best to avoid it under a given pedal position which varies from manufacturer to manufacturer and vehicle to vehicle.

In normal driving conditions, an ESP system does nothing at all. It's not until a wheel slips and the accelerometers detect that you're not going the way the steering wheel position sensor says you're trying to turn the vehicle that it kicks in.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[drinkypoo]

Solar power is getting *cheap*. Around $1,10/W installed [greentechmedia.com] in the US nowadays, and falling.

I keep seeing people say things like this, but after having no less than 8 quotes for solar power over the last year, I can unhappily report that no installer was willing to go below $5/Watt.

This is for solar plants, not for solar cells on your rooftop. Your kiddie-grade installer-killing rooftop installation is irrelevant in the grand scheme at this point.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[oobayly]

We have a Nissan Leaf as a company car. It goes in for a service and MOT every year. My colleague who has sole use of it says that the garage measures the brakes to gather data for Nissan. No other reason, just data, as the mechanic said he's never changed a Leaf's pads.

I put it down to the little tree on the dashboard* (Mistubishi apparently has it too). It "grows" providing you drive efficiently and many of us who used it to see what it was like to drive an EV saw it as a challenge to get the most trees. Not braking was key, you rely on engine braking which also recovers a small amount of charge (every little helps). For instance I could get a full tree on my way into work (10 minute drive), but not on the way back because of the geography.

* Not completely, but it puts you in the mindset of being efficient.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[oobayly]

What is the cost of charging...

Because petrol or diesel is free... We pay £0.148 per kWh of electricity in our office. A 85kWh Model S will (apparently) get 265mi. Assuming you use 100% of the battery charge (you won't), that's 3.1mi/kWh, which is £0.05 per mile.

A similar size diesel saloon might get get 60mpg, which at UK prices (£1.236 / litre) gives about £0.09 per mile, so almost twice as much.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[vtcodger]

Nothing against EVs, but there's a lot of hyperbole out there. For a realistic appraisal of EV capability, let me recommend this article by UCSD physics professor Tom Murphy. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/201... This is based on his persanal EV.

Murphy's conclusion

"I am not yet personally convinced that we will see an EV revolution. Gasoline price fluctuations are a short-term killer of long-term planning. Batteries still do, and likely always will, disappoint. I am learning similar lessons on the nickel-iron battery front. We may have to face the fact that gasoline has been the ultimate transportation fuel, and the economists’ picture of universal substitutability may not apply."

That said. Batteries suck, but they are improving -- albeit rather slowly.. If you believe Murphy (and i do), EVs are sort of OK today in a warm climate (Murphy lives in San Diego). My guess is there are applications -- and trucking might be one of them -- where EVs are competetive with/superior to fossil fuel vehicles and others where they aren't. My guess is that there are a few applications, fire engine's, jet aircraft, ... where the high energy density of hydrocarbon fuel will always be superior to electricity.

Re: Purchase price is one thing

[maple_shaft]

These are the kinds of insightful comments that have brought me back to this site since the 90s. Thanks for the detailed analysis!

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Rei]

This is not correct. Tesla was very clear during the unveiling that semi uses NMC. It's not clear whether Model 3 is NMC or NCA. Model S and X are NCA. Who knows about Roadster.

Re: Purchase price is one thing

[Rei]

Most Tesla owners supercharge. It does not kill the batteries.

  * With the old NCAs, there are no limits at all
  * With the new NCAs (silicon in the anodes), they limit current after several dozen supercharges (although it's not that big of a slowdown)
  * Semi uses NMCs, which are used in Tesla's grid products and by their very nature designed to surge charge / discharge.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Rei]

More to the point, if you do three 1/3 cycles, that's less degradation than doing 1 full cycle. Significantly.

Re: Purchase price is one thing

[hey!]

This isn't different than any other facility which consumes a lot of electricity, like a data center. You don't use the power lines in the street meant to support a handful of houses with 100 amp service. If you're supporting a fleet of trucks you get your own connections to the grid.

At some point, as fleets become large and the networks they serve become complex, there will be quite a bit of operations research type thought spent on optimizing where to put charging, but it's not a "gee this is too hard to figure out" problem, not at the outset anyway.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Charcharodon]

They already talked about that. The important recharge points won't be on the road, but at the loading/unloading docks. For fast recharge they are talking about 1 hour.

For a quick charge on long hauls 30 minutes for roughly half the trucks range. Driver could be sleeping/stopping on break etc.

Pretty sure if the numbers are there companies will figure out a way to make these vehicles work for them.

Also you are forgetting the big market for early adoption is not the US, but Europe. Most of the major cities are getting ready to ban all heavy trucks that burn diesel from the city centers. That range and the hassle of charging will dovetail right in to their environmental regulations. Diesel fuel ~ $6 a gallon.

Long haul trucks in the US will be diesel for some time. Unless of course driverless auto pilot finally gets approval. Then you are going to be seeing nothing but auto drive trucks hauling cargo on the highway in the middle of the night.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Charcharodon]

I can put it in for less than $2 a watt. Cut out the electrician and be your own engineer (that degree was worth something after all) and you can avoid that $3,000 per 1000 watt markup.

That's why the tax credits aren't all that great of a deal. All the dealers just bumped their prices to absorb it and you get squat.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[stabiesoft]

I've taken front tires out in 20K miles on a 4400 lb car. You have a light foot. TC will not save if you corner aggressively. I regularly hit .9g on corners. Tires are rated for 40K.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Aighearach]

Priced at $150,000, which is almost free for a truck like this, they can sell them wherever they want.

Tesla is manufacturing constrained and they can presell their whole production for years. So it doesn't matter where the "early adopters" are. They're not pricing it to tease it out to early adopters, they're pricing it to immediately disrupt the industry, and leave everybody that doesn't pre-order wishing they did.

Maintenance on trucks is really, really expensive. Electric vehicles cut the maintenance down to almost nothing. Normally, you pay for that up front with a much higher vehicle price, but this thing is priced competitively and when you consider maintenance, the companies that get them will almost be getting paid to drive it!

If they wanted to sell using an early adopter model they'd make more money in the short term, but they'd have a lot less market share 10 years out because the other brands will follow. This way, their early sales are going to the same people as later sales, and they build the brand loyalty where it counts right from the start! Very very different industry than consumer electronics, or luxury cars. I'm very impressed that Tesla is able to make such a bold and boring play.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Aighearach]

In Oregon we set up the tax credit so that you can get if you do your own install, you just have to hire a technician to do an inspection.

This prevented the credit from boosting install prices, and is part of the reason we have low cost installation available.

Sunsets in December though; we now have the thriving solar industry it was designed to encourage!

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Aighearach]

He's personally disappointed by batteries, and yet other people have noticed how great battery technology is these days! I can understand having been disappointed in NiMH batteries in the past, but why would people still be just waving their hands and declaring batteries to suck forever? That already stopped being true!

And a lot of the EV revolution already happened. Anywhere you drive you see lots of cars with ev markings on the back, and you never see people pushing them down the side of the road, unable to reach their destination!

I don't live in a "warm climate," and yet, there are lots of EVs everywhere.

Definitely not subscribing to his newsletter.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Aighearach]

Wait, it doesn't have a cabin air filter?!?! You might have missed another $12 that is coming up! Time to start saving.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Aighearach]

Here is a little helper for those people: Regenerative braking can decelerate as hard as you can accelerate.

This is not true. The reason is that to get the battery to accept the energy back, it needs to be higher voltage than the battery. However, the voltage of the motor windings will be the voltage that you applied to the motor, minus a little bit! So that means you have to boost the voltage. EV motors are three phase of various types, and you're switching the current through two of three legs normally. So for braking, you leave the top side disconnected, and then switch the bottom, which creates a DC-DC boost converter using one half of the motor windings (one half of what you're using at a time, not half the total number available) and treating the motor as an inductor.

Now, Tesla has great engineers, and you don't need a huge voltage difference if you have high quality batteries, which they do, so instead of the normal 48% of the power you used to maintain that speed, you can probably get it a bit higher. Maybe even 75% or something. The good news is, because of the weight of the vehicle and how the affects traction, you can never brake nearly as fast as you can accelerate and the regenerative braking should be able to reach the traction limit just fine if it has good enough firmware. But the braking power is always proportional to speed!

This is why if you're designing an EV using simple braking firmware then you're still mechanical braking for over 50% of the stopping power, and for cars with high quality firmware they get it up to 65 or 75%.

More good news though; most of the wear to mechanical brakes is from heating, not from stopping power used, and if you reduce the stopping power needed by the brake by 50% you've reduced the heat by much more than 50%. So the brakes end up lasting the life of the vehicle in many cases. Under regular use, mechanical brakes overheat and are damaged. If you apply 50% less mechanical braking power, you're no longer degrading them very much.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[thegarbz]

Next time you say "This is not correct" it's worth actually correcting me rather than simply repeating what I said ;-)

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[WindBourne]

Considering that a number of major companies have ordered these, I would say that TCO of these are being taken seriously.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[WindBourne]

LOL.
The major truck is thought to be around 1MWH worth of electricity. These will NOT be plugged into simple 120 or even 240s.
It will use a single super charger for that 6-8 hr charge.
And it will take their new mega charger to get that 40 minute recharge.

Now, if you look a who is ponying up for these trucks, it is obvious that they are counting on going distribution point to distribution point. In general, it will be some 300-400 miles. But it is 1000 miles from Denver to Chicago. If needed, they can drive for 500 miles, charge for about 1 hour and then drive another 500 miles.
This will cover some 80% of all trucks and train loads.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[haruchai]

"Around $1,10/W installed [greentechmedia.com] in the US nowadays, and falling"
Not sure if such low pricing will become the norm but that is a remarkable decrease over just a couple years ago.
The Suniva petition, if successful, will make imported panels more expensive.

Re:Purchase price is one thing

[Charcharodon]

So it is impossible to link up the equivalent of 10 fast chargers into one charging station?.....interesting. I didn't realize we had those sort of limitations with modern engineering. I mean even say just having 4 plugs on the truck that you can hook up to regular superchargers that must boggle the mind of the average electrical engineer. Or fuck having say 4 plugs on each side so the truck could pull up and plug 8 Tesla super chargers. Nigh IMPOSSIBLE!

Holy shit how about this, I know its crazy but hear my out. They take a 4 cable power cord, where could we find one of those?, the aviation industry with it's 4 giant inch thick wires that provides enough power for a 747 to run all it's internal electronics and air condition and we put that at a gas station, and then we can use the same big ass plug on the truck, and get this hook up the truck and I don't know say run 72,000 watts through it and charge the fucking batteries in say 30 minutes.

Madness? MADNESS? THIS IS TESLA!! you bunch of fucking mouth breathers.

Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[RhettLivingston]

wow. Between fuel and maintenance savings, the 500-mile range version will probably pay back double its cost! If that holds true, it will become a "must purchase to stay in business" type of item.

I have long thought it insane that the EV business did not start with RVs first, then big trucks and buses, then commercial vans, then SUVs, and finally cars. The torque and maintenance benefits of electric over diesel should allow it to dominate the big vehicle applications. Anyone who has passed an RV struggling through the Rockies or pulled over to the side with steam hissing out of the engine compartment should know that the big vehicles beg for this tech.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[arbiter1]

Um so a Semi can do 500 miles in what 8 hours? 9 tops? if they are doing 60-65ish, If i remember right that is 2 hours yet of driving time driver has but would be forced to stop cause outta juice. Next issue, Recharge time which given the battery's needed to power this thing probably gonna take 15+ hours to recharge, which current law's say need 10 hours of off time before can start again. With current rig's that driver is now 7 hours of highway ahead of tesla driver before he even gets back on the road. As much as you say it saves money if 1.26$ per mile is right doesn't seem like much savings after $ per diesel per mile and driver then top on to it how much longer it would take that tesla to get from A to B if its over its limit. If there is a shake up to be had it would be a Hybrid semi that is diesel engine running a generator like on train's.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alongside the semi announcement were several others, including that of a new 'megacharger' network which can add 400 miles of range to this beast in about 30 minutes. Yeah, you can come up with plenty of scenarios where this wouldn't work, but as far as I know, no one expected the stats on the electric semi to be as good as announced in *any* category, let alone *all* of them. The plain fact is, you are looking at disruptive technology which will have a tremendous effect.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Mashiki]

This is from a NA perspective, but first problem, the average driving day is 10h-12hrs. That makes the vehicles already less then the average driving range. Some places allow up to 14hr days, you can even get waives for up to 16hrs/day which require 18hrs off after that single trip.. On top of that long hauling is usually a trip in one direction, so they need place to charge up. They don't exist at all right now. Even companies with massive fleets don't have places in their depots for this. Which is why "truck stops" are so common for fueling. Look at Schnider trucking for example or TST-Overland. The average range between two depots is usually 800 miles or more.

What you should expect is to see a 2-phase system coming into existence, where the battery system is used during initial startup and getting to highway speed, and then used in creep/low gear areas.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[RhettLivingston]

The market this is aiming at is the regional distribution trucking business where a driver leaves his home in the morning, goes to work drives a load to a destination, possibly picks one up, drives back, and goes home to his own bed for the night. This is the majority of the trucking business in America. A 500-mile range covers it nicely. Even if it didn't, a 30 minute stop at a megacharger could get you home.

The reason I said fleet is because they are the ones with the resources to take advantage of this and wipe out those that don't have the resources.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[AvitarX]

I assume they'll charge quicker and be good for regional hauls.

That's not most trucking, but a lot. From ports to distribution centers would be a good job for this truck.

It's a better market for the battery swap concept too, if that's something they're working on.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is from a NA perspective, but first problem, the average driving day is 10h-12hrs.

If you are a long haul trucker, pretty much all of your points apply. That's what they're not selling this to the long haul market. The target market for this is short haul regional trucking. The sort of thing where the guy goes home at the end of the day. Obviously one would not buy a truck such as this that was not appropriate for their needs.

If Tesla wants to enter into the long haul market, they'd obviously need to consider trucks with longer range, for certain. Ones that address pretty much all of your points.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[MangoCats]

Waiting for charging will be a bummer.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Rei]

More to the point, US trucking regulations are:

  * A 14 hour window containing...
  * 11 hours of driving, with...
  * A 30 minute break no more than...
  * 8 hours since the last rest period

30 minutes break at a megacharger adds 400 miles to a Semi (900 total). At the rated 60mph, that's 15 hours - far more than the maximum drivers are allowed to drive.

Of course, those mileage figures are for 60mph. Speed doesn't affect freight vehicles as much as passenger vehicles (freight vehicles have a lower ratio of aero drag to rolling drag), but it's still significant. Likewise, at higher driving speeds, you burn through miles faster regardless. 70mph with a 30 minute charging stop should be nearly 11 hours driving exactly. For 80mph, you need two 30 minute charge periods to fill up the full 11 hours (but that still comes well under the 14 hour driving window).

Truck speed limits in the US vary greatly. In higher speed limit states, trucks tend to significantly vary in speed, with more time-sensitive goods going faster, while goods where keeping fuel costs down matters more move slower. With electric, since the "fuel" is so much cheaper, you can expect faster driving to be the more economically optimal case (since it doesn't push drivers out of their legal driving windows).

In Europe it's way too easy. It's just simply: 45 minutes break every 4 1/2 hours or less

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[MangoCats]

Next up: self driving electric semi trucks.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[fluffernutter]

Truck drivers never work in shifts? One sleeps while the other drives.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Registered Coward v2]

I have long thought it insane that the EV business did not start with RVs first, then big trucks and buses, then commercial vans, then SUVs, and finally cars. The torque and maintenance benefits of electric over diesel should allow it to dominate the big vehicle applications.

I always though buses would be a natural for EVs. Fixed routes and schedules that cold be tailored to an EV's charging cycle. City buses could have chargers at the depot and recharged between operations, WalMart makes sense since it's trucks would go from distribution stations to stores which allows for fixed schedules and charging stations at distribution centers or stores as needed.

Re: Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Rei]

You're going to pay someone for sleeping in a truck?

Re: Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Rei]

What do you mean "another"? You have to take it either way. What's wrong with charging during it (aka, extending the range to 900 miles)?

Re: Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Elfich47]

Tesla claims their mega charger will give 400. Lies range in 30 minutes.

Re: Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the question mark at the end of your question? Can YOU fucking type?

Re: Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Anonymous Coward]

It happens in Australia all the time.
Perth to Sydney route is 4500 km+

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Mashiki]

The target market for this is short haul regional trucking. The sort of thing where the guy goes home at the end of the day.

A friend of mine drives to michigan every day from central south-western ontario. Her round-trip route is 1079km(670mi), she's back home every night. But can still spend upwards of 12hrs on the road every day, that is considered a "short haul" in north america.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[gravewax]

500 mile range is way to short, that means the truck is spending way to much valuable time plugged into a charger, even with the fuel saving I doubt it could come close to recovering the losses from not being on the road.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Uberbah]

This is from a NA perspective, but first problem, the average driving day is 10h-12hrs. That makes the vehicles already less then the average driving range.

Which is easily taken care of if the driver takes their legally required breaks at a charging station. But even if they didn't....what's with the "one-size-must-fit-all" meme when it comes to EV's? Do you call a Prius worthless because it can't haul fifteen passengers while at the same time towing an 8,000 lbs trailer? Do you call an E-350 worthless because it can't park in the same space (while getting the same gas milage) as a Prius?

Re: Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[swillden]

You're going to pay someone for sleeping in a truck?

Obviously not. The driver who is sleeping isn't getting paid, the driver who is driving is getting paid. A lot of couples drive this way. They make almost as much as what they'd make if both of them were driving separate trucks, but without having to spend all of their time apart. It works very well for the truck owner (which is often the couple) because the truck is rolling nearly 24 hours per day, maximizing the return on capital investment.

Of course, what would be an even better use of capital investment is a couple shift-driving the lead truck of a "train", with the following vehicles self-driving. But mega-charging a train could be tricky, and time-consuming. Plus, rolling 24 hours per day will require more capacity than Tesla is putting in the trucks, even with megacharging. The obvious answer is: put batteries in the trailers.

I mentioned this to my brother (who drives trucks, medium-haul -- for a company that has already ordered several Tesla Semis) yesterday, and he pointed out that they don't even have to give up cargo space to do that. Some haulers have experimented with using the undercarriage area for additional cargo capacity. It has some significant advantages, in that it lowers the trailer's center of gravity (good on windy routes) and eliminates the need for an undercarriage fairing, but it's not much used because loading and unloading the undercarriage compartments is difficult. So... put batteries there. It adds weight, but doesn't consume cargo space.

He also points out that his company's tractors stay in motion nearly 24x7, but the trailers spend a good chunk of each day in a depot getting loaded or unloaded. So, if the trailer batteries can be charged while that's going on, there's less need for the tractor to stop moving.

Big batteries in tractors is probably necessary at the beginning, but I don't think it will be too long before the majority of the capacity moves out of the tractors and into the trailers, at least for long-haul routes.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Mashiki]

Which is easily taken care of if the driver takes their legally required breaks at a charging station.

You mean at the end of their shift? You can drive on the road non-stop for 10-12 hours in most places in north america, that's 100% legal. You're not even required to take 30 minutes off half-way through your shift if you want, you can just keep driving. You have no idea exactly what happens in that industry do you.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[AmiMoJo]

Maybe you should consider safer limits on working hours. In Europe the maximum is half that and includes mandatory breaks every few hours. That limit is based on the best available scientific evidence.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[drinkypoo]

* A 14 hour window containing...
    * 11 hours of driving, with...
    * A 30 minute break no more than...
    * 8 hours since the last rest period

Ahhh, THAT is why I thought we didn't have a mandatory rest period. It only comes after eight hours, when the actual standard for how long you can drive before impairment is more like two. That's not a break, it's a fucking meal.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Mashiki]

Maybe you should consider safer limits on working hours. In Europe the maximum is half that and includes mandatory breaks every few hours. That limit is based on the best available scientific evidence.

Maybe you can tell those so-called leftwing/progressive governments to do just that. It was left-leaning governments that allowed longer driving hours, but that doesn't seem to have had any effect on collisions. The number of truck/truck and truck/car collisions has been dropping the last 30 years, and it's literally safer now to be on the highway with 4x the amount of traffic. Comparatively speaking, accident rates are even lower then European countries.

So it seems there's something else going on with that, what it is? I have no idea. But I used to drive from southern ontario to indiana every weekend(around 700km), leaving on friday night and driving back on sunday morning for work. The biggest problem we used to have was with highway hypnosis especially in the 401 corridor between London and Tilburry, it was bad, really bad.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Registered Coward v2]

Can you fucking type it?

It

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Ichijo]

We already have electric vehicles that can travel thousands of miles without charging. Let's use those pantograph-equipped vehicles for long hauls and these battery-electric semis for short hauls. The right tool for the right job!

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Dog-Cow]

You mean it's legal to shoot at random truckers? Or is reckless endangerment something only truckers get a pass on?

Re: Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Dog-Cow]

Repeating until runs over the shit that posted the parent comment. Then its job will be done.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[ChatHuant]

You can drive on the road non-stop for 10-12 hours in most places in north america, that's 100% legal. You're not even required to take 30 minutes off half-way through your shift if you want, you can just keep driving.

This seems contradicted by the FMCSA regulations here. I quote: May drive only if 8 hours or less have passed since end of driver's last off-duty or sleeper berth period of at least 30 minutes. Are you saying those regulations don't apply?

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[gravewax]

trucking companies swap drivers and no 10 hours is not the maximum at all, it can be upto 16 hours for the driver, a truck though is not limited to only one driver. while it is measured in distance that will obviously depend heavily on load and traffic conditions.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Aighearach]

It doesn't matter if it is "rare," it matters if it is "common." ;)

It isn't common. Great theory, sounds believable, but it isn't common.

It is mostly couples who own their own trucking business.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Uberbah]

You mean at the end of their shift? You can drive on the road non-stop for 10-12 hours in most places in north america, that's 100% legal. You're not even required to take 30 minutes off half-way through your shift if you want, you can just keep driving. You have no idea exactly what happens in that industry do you.

California - which accounts for many of Tesla's preorders - isn't "most places" and requires breaks for truck drivers. Now, since you were so busy being an ignorant, arrogant know-it-all that you skipped over the point on range-wankery (most likely on purpose) I'll copy and paste:

What's with the "one-size-must-fit-all" meme when it comes to EV's? Do you call a Prius worthless because it can't haul fifteen passengers while at the same time towing an 8,000 lbs trailer? Do you call an E-350 worthless because it can't park in the same space (while getting the same gas milage) as a Prius?

If you're going to be a good capitalist bootlicker and hook yourself up with a catheter so you can drive 14 hours straight without stopping, then this probably isn't the rig for you. For people who aren't corporatist toadies, it will work just fine when they stop for a burger after 8 hours on the road.

It was left-leaning governments that allowed longer driving hours

Bootlicker, you know Carter was a right winger, yes? Party labels have jack to do with how "left" or "right" someone is - otherwise gay rights, gun control and abortion rights are prized conservative values, because Mike Bloomberg.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Mashiki]

California - which accounts for many of Tesla's preorders - isn't "most places" and requires breaks for truck drivers. Now, since you were so busy being an ignorant, arrogant know-it-all that you skipped over the point on range-wankery (most likely on purpose) I'll copy and paste:

Except the part where Telsa isn't pushing just for California. So I'll bring you up to speed that EV's have serious problems hauling "different types" of cargo as well. For example, they're much better at liquid freight with regenerative braking but terrible for standard run of the mill durable goods.

If you're going to be a complete idiot, you can do so on your own time. Or you can think really, really, really hard why you see all those jugs of piss on the side of the road, or why when some company hires a bunch of 3rd world guys to drive their trucks, they suddenly cut a hole in the floor and the mechanics refuse to work on them. Gee, I know I broke your little view on just what's actually happening in that industry didn't I.

Bootlicker, you know Carter was a

Don't worry shit for brains. Everyone knows that Dalton McGuinty was a left winger. Party labels have an awful lot to do with how "left or right" someone is and the policies that they push, or used to push. You know like how left-leaning generally was for worker rights, but it seems that right-leaning is taking worker rights more seriously, while left-leaning is pushing the opposite. Not always true of course in every case, but far more then you'd thin.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Mashiki]

Are you saying those regulations don't apply?

No. Because they're effectively guidelines because every state(and every province) has their own effective trucking guidelines. Don't forget this part: Does not apply to drivers using either of the short-haul exceptions in 395.1(e). [49 CFR 397.5 mandatory âoein attendanceâ time may be included in break if no other duties performed.

You can get around mandatory breaks by filing "long haul" and making into multiple "short hauls" as well. It's shady as fuck, and it happens a lot, there was a big and I do mean big discussion on it in several trucking mags a half year back, and demands from trucker associations and unions to get it changed. That's not even touching on the companies that hire from fly-by-night trucking schools, those drivers you should be worried as fuck over. Here in Ontario, the OTA(Ontario Trucking Association) has been pushing the Liberal Government(both Wynne and McGuinty) to shut down the fly-by-night schools for nearly 8 years at this point. Looks like *something* might finally be happening, after one of the wiped out a family on the 400 a month or so back at 140km/h(100km/h posted 86mph/62mph). And that's with mandatory regulators on the trucks already in law so they can't drive over 105km/h(65mph).

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Mashiki]

You mean it's legal to shoot at random truckers? Or is reckless endangerment something only truckers get a pass on?

You should go drive for a year, or become friends with a trucker. Because the industry is currently a shitshow, it got worse in the US under Obama. Regs were pushed down hard, because US trucking companies need more drivers, more trucks on the road and so on. It's going to get far worse before it gets better as well, and most of the really big problems come from fly-by-night schools and shady companies that use them to hire directly and are basically imported people from poor countries where driving regulations really don't exist.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Gussington]

Truck drivers never work in shifts? One sleeps while the other drives.

That sounds like an awesome career, where do I sign up?

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Mashiki]

Got a problem though. The grid is already straining under the low number of electric vehicles on the road in several places, so that means utility upgrades and all the rest. What's that mean? Well it means higher electricity prices to offset those upgrades.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[drsquare]

A technology as world-changing as EVs isn't going to be stopped by a matter as trivial as drivers' piss breaks.

Anyone priced a semi lately?

[ai4px]

Semi trucks commonly cost more than $150,000. A boon for fleet owners will have batteries on site to swap, so the long charge time is a non issue. Not particularly good for long haul and owner operators.

Re:Anyone priced a semi lately?

[Mashiki]

O/O's want to be on the road as much as possible, on routes that are profitable so you're spot on with that. The fleet owners want the most distance possible, and most already operate so you're going 800mi or more before a fillup. Semi's can be picked up 1-2yrs old for $30k-40k that were previously fleet owned. A lot of fleets are switching to automatics which give better fuel mileage then standard for one thing, which is further driving down the costs of stick shift trucks in the 2nd hand market right now. As for charging/battery swaps? The range doesn't exist to get them from depot to depot, and those companies aren't going to build a second depot for it. And truck stops are already limited space, with next to no storage available for things like batteries.

Re:Anyone priced a semi lately?

[Mashiki]

tesla is going to have charging stations for these on major highways

Time is money. It takes 16 minutes to fill both tanks on a standard truck right now, and have it paid and rolling back out on the road. The range that these batteries provide isn't anywhere close to what the average driver spends for a normal driving day, so you'd be splitting up the time. It will likely take 20-30 minutes to swap batteries. It will likely take an hour or more to charge them. Every hour you're sitting you're losing around $50(very roughly), some companies have a higher per-mileage rate, even those that have pay when you're "in dock" and so on only pay about half the mileage rate.

I haven't even touched on JiT(just in time) shipping or anything else yet. Now just imagine the truck has a 500mi range(in best conditions) but you're only getting 350mi, the haul of parts from a supplier to a manufacturing plant is 450mi away. Now we're talking about shutting down an entire assembly line because the parts to make the cars aren't there. People don't realize how much JiT is used in the automotive industry for example. Or even in grocery stores and whatnot. Trucks are basically used as rolling warehouses and have been for the better part of 25 years now.

Re:Anyone priced a semi lately?

[drinkypoo]

And truck stops are already limited space, with next to no storage available for things like batteries.

The batteries can go underground. Although that costs more, it doesn't cost so much more than it can't be done. Put them underneath stuff that big trucks won't be driving over, like the building.

Also, they will build new truck stops for these vehicles. You wouldn't retrofit in with the other ones. There's plenty of cheap land along interstates where they can be built, and since there's no fuel spillage risk they can be built in places where petrochemical fuel stations can't because of potential environmental impact.

Re:Anyone priced a semi lately?

[Mashiki]

The batteries can go underground. Although that costs more, it doesn't cost so much more than it can't be done. Put them underneath stuff that big trucks won't be driving over, like the building.

In most places you can't put fuel tanks underground anymore because of environmental regulations. The same goes for battery storage. They have to be above ground by law in most places. The type of batteries that tesla uses requires a specialized vault, so you're not going to be putting those under the building either. If you need an example, go find a NPDC and you'll quickly find out why they put those batteries for lift trucks in special places incase they explode while charging.

Also, they will build new truck stops for these vehicles. You wouldn't retrofit in with the other ones. There's plenty of cheap land along interstates where they can be built, and since there's no fuel spillage risk they can be built in places where petrochemical fuel stations can't because of potential environmental impact.

Since in most places those truck stops are regulated by cities, counties, state or province? You're not going to have a new truck stop every 40 miles to cover all those trucks. Also see first part of my post, in most places storage for batteries must be above ground.

Re:Anyone priced a semi lately?

[WindBourne]

So many assumptions and so so wrong.
Tesla has already shown that they would switch batteries in 90 seconds on the MS when ppl were screaming that it would take 30-60 minutes like the Europeans do.
However, Musk has said that they will NOT be switching batteries. Why not? Because the average truck driver does less than 800 miles / 24 hour period, and MUST stop at least once during an 11 hour period, and be down for some 90 minutes.
However, it takes 30 minutes to charge it 400 MPC, and an 60 minutes for a full 500 miles. But if they start off with 450 MPC, then another 400 at required stop is 950 Miles which is more than what they are legally allowed to travel.

Re:Anyone priced a semi lately?

[Mashiki]

Tesla has already shown that they would switch batteries in 90 seconds on the MS when ppl were screaming that it would take 30-60 minutes like the Europeans do.

It takes longer then 90 seconds to swap the 2.5T batteries used in lift trucks. On top of that, they must be sealed away from the driver of the vehicle and since it's a "work" vehicle there's secondary checks that must be done. And since the vehicle has been "fixed" the driver must also complete a secondary walk, and check the operation of the vehicle. The average check is between 15-30 minutes, just a FYI.

However, Musk has said that they will NOT be switching batteries. Why not? Because the average truck driver does less than 800 miles / 24 hour period, and MUST stop at least once during an 11 hour period, and be down for some 90 minutes.

Better check those laws, because in Ontario that's 12 hrs. Michigan too, OH, IN, IA, and on, and on and on and on.

However, it takes 30 minutes to charge it 400 MPC, and an 60 minutes for a full 500 miles. But if they start off with 450 MPC, then another 400 at required stop is 950 Miles which is more than what they are legally allowed to travel.

See above sentence, you have so many assumptions wrong on the current state of trucking it's scary. There's a hell of a lot of stuff that needs to be fixed, but you bet your ass you can run for 900mi in a 12 day and have zero downtime. Hell in some places, governments allow you to buy these as a "fine" to allow your drivers to work longer. You can even buy those fines to allow a 50hr work week and not require OT, at any period above 42hrs. And that exists in Canada and the US.

Re: Anyone priced a semi lately?

[WindBourne]

In the end, it really does not matter what assumptions you or I make. What matters, is what will companies that own/operate trucks do? Right now, the large players are forking out money for reservations on Tesla trucks and that is shortly after they have test driven them, and seen it working, and then crunched numbers. That speaks louder than anything you and I can assume here.

Re:Anyone priced a semi lately?

[drsquare]

The thing about your comments, is that you're looking for problems and reasons why it can't work. Musk seems problems as mere obstacles to be overcome rather than something that kills the idea stone dead. His mentality has gotten him pretty far. If he can put Superchargers everywhere then he can put Megachargers everywhere.

And one thing I've learnt about truckers is that they always whine, about everything, all the time. When the Model T came out they probably were all saying that it could never beat horses.

RV+Solar.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your transportation between towns could be almost free if you figure a 1-4kw array on the roof of the RV and a couple days at each stop to recharge.

Without fuel costs interfering you live as a roaming programmer or construction worker throughout your region with little fixed rent, especially if you have friends you can stop in with a few days in each area.

Re: RV+Solar.

[Rei]

Realistically, an electric RV needs a couple weeks to solar charge. But a couple days on 50A would do the job as well. Add in the option of 30 minute megacharges..

Semi?

[msauve]

Tesla will be selling a tractor. A "semi" is the trailer part (as in semi-trailer).

charging stations

[Elfich47]

I expect the first owners of the Tesla trucks will be fleet owners (Walmart for example). I will bet Tesla will have a mega-charger for the trucks. Then you mount the mega-charger on a boom arm so the truck is charged while the trailer is filled. If it takes an hour to charge the truck, it is no time lost against the loading time.

Re:charging stations

[Gavagai80]

We have numerous truck stops and regular mandatory breaks for the drivers. Until these are self-driving, there's no real need for a quick charge. Once it's self-driving, then sure they'll want to charge fast while loading to shave more hours off the trip.

Re:charging stations

[vtcodger]

I suspect that Megacharger is going to be massive and expensive. And that the power cables are going to be impressive and kind of scary. They likely aren't going to want to move the charger around their facility or wrestle with the power cables.

My guess is that they'll cycle their electric tractors through their charger(s) on a schedule. The charged tractors will pick up the loaded trailer(s) after charging.is completed.

But there are lots of other possibilities. They'll presumably do whatever makes sense.

Re:charging stations

[Charcharodon]

That usually isn't the case in large fleets. My time in UPS the truck was rarely hooked up to a trailer until it was almost ready to leave (full or scheduled time to depart). They'll probably have a charging yard with these things lined up like shopping carts. I can see that as a thing say at a Walmart where an inbound truck might hang around for its trailer to be unloaded. Though there are probably a couple sitting empty that they just swap out and hit the road. Big equipment can't make you money if they are sitting around waiting.

The one thing everyone seems to be forgetting though is while autopilot may not be legal for use on the highway it is certainly legal for use on private property. Having the trucks move themselves around the yard and self parking will become a thing pretty quick. Truck enters the yard. The driver bounces. Truck parks itself in the loading bay. Ground crew disconnects the trailer. Takes itself over to the charge/maintenance yard. A charged truck hooks up to an outbound trailer. Ground crew makes the connection and hits the go button. Then it goes to the front waiting area to pick up its driver. Driver hops in and off it goes.

Re: charging stations

[Guspaz]

Everybody seems to have forgotten that they announced at the launch event 400 miles in 30 minutes via new megachargers. Itâ(TM)s hardly a mystery when they already told us how fast it charges.

Re: charging stations

[Guspaz]

The charging port on the semi has four times as many sockets as the existing supercharger port. Based on the assumption that the vehicle has an 800 kWh battery (this seems to be the general consensus), charging it to 400 miles (80%) in 30 minutes with 90% charging efficiency with would require roughly 1.4 megawatts.

Considering the quadrupled connector, this would be roughly the equivalent of pulling 350 kW through a current supercharger. Coincidentally, the next generation superchargers are planned to put out 350 kW.

So, it all seems reasonable to me. We're not talking about a large number of charging stations here, we're talking about a very limited number that are located either at fleet motor pools and waystations on trucking routes. Grid connections aren't really a problem, lots of commercial buildings draw far more power than that.

Re:charging stations

[Charcharodon]

vtcodger go look up "Hobart ground power unit". We ran 50-75KW ground generators up to aircraft all the time. This tech is more than 50 years old. The cord wasn't all that bad to deal with. 4 big cables in a bundle. Beside all they have to do is break it up into four separate power cords if all the elderly truck drivers don't want to lug that much copper around. All of a minute to hook all four up. The power was scary, but it was common place. After a while you didn't even think about it. We had the carts (diesel generators) and had ground connection (grid). Never saw or head of an catastrophic failure in my 20 years in as an aircraft maintainer.

Easy peasy. This is a nothing sandwich part of the deal.

There are other options

[Invalidator]

If the US had not decided that motor vehicles (cars and trucks) were the ONLY transport methods worth keeping, this discussion would be quite different. In Europe, where I live, we still have goods trains - that is trains that carry cargo. In the UK, some goods used to be carried by canal boats. But the UK, much like the US, has had for many years a conservative government that also looks at motor vehicles as a primary transport of goods. Conservatives are holding back free thought.

Re: There are other options

[LDAPMAN]

Itâ(TM)s true that passenger trains are relatively limited in the US, the freight network is huge. It carries far more tonage than all the rail lines in Europe.

Re: There are other options

[hey!]

Especially if you count coal into the tonnage. Trains are the only way economical way to transport coal from the mines to power plants, and the trains that do this are mind-bogglingly vast.

Much of the US long-distance passenger rail network uses freight tracks, and the coal trains are given higher priority on some sections over passenger trains. I crossed the country some years ago on the California Zephyr, which was often delayed for hours by passing coal trains. They left the tracks a mess too. The rolling stock used on the Zephyr is capable of speeds of 100 mph, but in places has to crawl along at jogging speed because of track conditions.

I'll save all the Musk haters some time

[hyades1]

There aren't enough charge stations for these tractors, and there never will be. They are grossly overpriced, because you can buy a used diesel tractor that has only about five times as many parts to break down for about a third the cost. It's all government subsidized and oil companies have never received any kind of subsidies, and the US isn't all tangled up in the Middle East and getting American soldiers killed because oil. That's just a lie. And Elon Musk is a loser and electric cars are for losers and solar power is for losers and it doesn't work when the sun isn't shining.

So this truck will fail just like everything else Musk has ever done. Guaranteed. 100%.

Does that about cover things?

Re:Weight is a factor

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody's saying a peep about how much this thing weighs compared to a common diesel.

The diesel one will vary by 800 pounds depending on if the tank is full or empty. (Guess where those pounds end up, matter doesn't disappear.)

Either way I would like to see a system set up where emissions are moved out from the cities.
With semis you can move the cargo over to an EV without having to reload everything.
Diesel semis could do the long transportation with few start/stops that it is good at and then hand it over to an EV semi at the city limit that does the last part to keep emissions away from where people live and avoid most of start/stop situations that diesels are so bad at.

Musk is great at marketing

[bradley13]

Look! A squirrel!

- Tesla production lagging, massive problems... Look! I build a battery plant in Australia!

- Tesla can't even produce enough cars to fill the pre-orders... Look! We're going to revolutionize trucking!

- Tesla hasn't got enough materials to build car batteries - maybe because it all went to Australia... Look! Another squirrel!

How long are people going to be fooled?

There are so many reasons that Tesla electric semis are not going to go anywhere; it's not even worth listing them. Tesla will build a couple, to serve as additional distractions from their problems, but doing so will just make Tesla's production problems even worse...

Re:Musk is great at marketing

[Miles_O'Toole]

You must be really smart to predict how Tesla's truck is going to fail. No doubt this explains why you're so rich, while Elon Musk is begging for quarters.

Re:Musk is great at marketing

[Rei]

1) Tesla has no materials shortages. But hey, go ahead and make up whatever you want.
2) Model 3 is about 3 months behind schedule. Oooh, stop the presses. Meanwhile, the production rate has really shot up in the past couple weeks.

Will this affect rail electrification?

[b0s0z0ku]

Electrified rail is still the most efficient way to move freight. US should be moving in that direction. Steel-on-steel = less friction. Power from overhead wires = no environmentally costly batteries. No charging/discharge losses either.

Far better than electric long-distance trucks would be getting the freight OFF the roads and onto rail. Ideally highly-automated. Use smaller electric engines to pull shorter trains that can be directly routes from points A to B using highly automated switching control software. Then load it onto electric trucks for the last 25-50 miles or so.

Re:Will this affect rail electrification?

[CanadianMacFan]

Unfortunately a lot of rail has been pulled up in North America. I've thought that the best thing to do is to have rail transport goods between large and medium-sized cities and then use trucks to make the local deliveries and to the smaller cities, towns, and rural areas. It would make the roads safer, lengthen the lives of highways due to the decrease in truck traffic, and reduce pollution (especially around large cities).

This would mean a better fit for electric trucks because they would be shorter runs instead of cross-country trips. Trucks would either be collecting containers and taking them to the train yard or making deliveries from there.

When dealing with a distributor such as a large chain store it is especially important that only the container would be going back to the warehouse and not the truck or trailer. The container would most likely be empty, or contain very little, and would not add much to the pollution emitted by a train compared to a truck taking the container back.

For this to happen the railroads would have to expand their networks and improve their services. In addition passenger services would most likely have to be moved over to their own lines. I think it would be worth it though. I've come out of Toronto at night and the highway is mostly trucks going to the same places. It just seems stupid to have all of those people in all of those trucks driving to the same place. Half of the number of drivers could make the same number of deliveries and do it during the day if the trailers were carried by train over the long distance.

Re:Will this affect rail electrification?

[WindBourne]

America is LOADED with rail that carries cargo. The issue is that the owners do NOT want to switch to electric, which is too bad. It would make for expensive maintenance costs. Note that in a place like EUrope, Japan, etc. that has EXTREME population density, these make great sense.

Now, if the hyperloop really comes about, esp. if they are elevated over cargo rails, you can bet that they will switch to electrified cargo rail. But otherwise, if hyperloop is buried or not allowed to run over the rails, then they will not switch to electric.

And yes, electric trucks are CHEAPER to run than both ICE trucks as well as diesel-electric trains. It will be interesting to see what happens as BN switches to Nat Gas-electric trains. Those might be much cheaper to run than even electric trucks.