There's also an inherent bias in that everyone talks about failure rates immediately after a rocket fails - aka, the time at which its failure rate is worst.
Actually, road tripping is very popular in Teslas. On the forums it's very common to hear people road tripping a lot more after they got the Tesla. Why? Reasons vary, but include it being more fun/comfortable to drive, your travel is a lot cheaper, it's more enjoyable when you're not trying to push yourself for nonstop no-breaks travel, and if you really want to be cheap, Teslas are great for "camper mode" (seats fold flat and you can leave the climate control on without idling an engine). Probably the most popular Tesla-related videos on Youtube are from a Norwegian guy, Bjørn Nyland, who uses his Teslas for courier service in Norway / travels around Europe and the US for fun; he puts huge amounts of mileage on them.
Is that meant to be a lot? In the US, the average driver drives that in a year and a half. The average car on US roads is nearly a decade old, meaning an average lifespan of nearly two decades.
A typical gasoline car burns in the ballpark of its weight in gasoline every year.. So obviously plastic sales do not make up for that.
That said, there's no question that oil companies will adapt to changing times. The timeframes are long, and their histories are built on market adaptation. Heck, the reason that Shell is called "Shell" is that it literally started out as a company importing and selling seashells.
Tesla was not started to "capitalize on the ZEV... mandate", nor was it started in 2015. Tesla was started in 2003 because Eberhard (and subsequently Musk) fell in love with the AC Propulsion tzero, but couldn't convince AC Propulsion to build more for them to buy.
And I'm totally sure institutional investors doing their due diligence on Tesla totally forgot to check how much of the company's money comes from ZEV credits when making their valuations. The simple facts are that Tesla has a ~25% gross profit margin per vehicle. That Tesla as a company also gets ZEV credits (purchased very inconstantly, often for half their value) which it uses to reduce how much of a capital raise it has to do during its scaleup is irrelevant to that fact.
How Much Does It Cost to Start a Gas Station in the United States?
These are the key expenses you are expected to make when starting a medium scale but standard gas station company business in the United States of America;
The total fee for registering the business in the United States of America – $750. Legal expenses for obtaining licenses and permits (Health department license and business license) and permits (Fire department permit, Air and water pollution control permit, and Sign permit et al) as well as accounting services (CRM software, Payroll software, P.O.S machines and other software) – $15,300. Marketing promotion expenses for the grand opening of the gas station in the amount of $3,500 and as well as flyer printing (2,000 flyers at $0.04 per copy) for the total amount of $3,580. The cost for hiring business consultant (including writing business plan) – $2,500. The cost for insurance (general liability, theft, workers’ compensation and property casualty) coverage at a total premium – $30,400. The cost for leasing a standard facility in a good and centralized location along a major road or expressway – $250,000 The cost for remodeling the gas station facility and construction of underground gasoline tanks/reservoirs – $400,000. Other start-up expenses including stationery ($500), phone and utility (gas, sewer, water and electric) deposits ($6,500). The operational cost for the first 3 months (salaries of employees, payments of bills et al) – $60,000 The cost for start-up inventory (supply of nonautomotive fuel, automotive fuels (e.g. diesel fuel and gasoline), cooking gas, and automotive-related goods) and for fuel dispensing machines and equipment (automobile repair tools, vulcanizing tools, and wheel alignment tools) – $550,000 The cost for the purchase of gasoline tanker – $45,000 The cost for store equipment (cash register, security, ventilation, signage) – $13,750 The cost for the purchase of furniture and gadgets (Telephone, printing machines, computers, tables and chairs et al) – $14,000. The cost for building and hosting a website – $600 The cost for opening party – $8,000 Miscellaneous: $10,000
Unfortuantely they don't break down the $400k between the cost of modifying the building to be a gas station, and the cost of installing the underground tanks. But I seriously doubt that modifying an existing commercial building to be a gas station retail operation is more expensive than tank installation. The startup inventory ($500k) is, with only a couple minor exceptions, pretty much exclusive to selling fuel.
The ~$250k represents all of Tesla's costs for supercharger station installation, not just the charging hardware. Tack some more on if you want to add on a convenience store, but then you better also up Tesla's profits. Tesla is generally given land for superchargers for free because businesses want Tesla owners coming, plugging in there, and then going in and shopping in their stores / restaurants / etc, then leaving and new customers taking their place.
Tesla's supercharger system is set up from the beginning with long-term profit in mind. While early MS/MX owners were given free supercharging, and the network was built with solid intent that for years most of it would receive only low usage, the remote (low utilization) stations will be getting much busier with the M3 rollout (a lot of Tesla's focus now is in densifying supercharging networks within cities, to prevent them from getting overloaded by the M3 rollout). The goal is about 30% utilization per station. Tesla buys power at industrial rates (something like $0,07/kWh in the US) and sells it at $0,20/kWh, so $0,13/kWh profit. Say $0,12 after conversion losses. A V2 supercharger (we'll ignore V3 for now because we don't know the exact spec
The very reason that we know that Tesla is targeting 200-300 miles range is because they're partnering with fleet operators. Specifically, it was someone from Ryder who leaked the information. They're not just off doing this isolated on some volcanic island deep in the South Pacific.
Depends on where you are. What word works for you? Lorry? Vörubíll?;)
My understanding of the US term is that it's because they haul semi-trailers. "Semi-trailers" because they don't have front wheels, and are thus not complete trailers.
Waits are generally nonexistent at superchargers. It actually made the news when there were lines at some in northern California and a few other places during the eclipse, because waits are such an unusual thing. But I guess if having to wait half an hour at a gas station even on trips is what you enjoy - let alone how you have to use gas stations in your normal life rather than starting out every day with a full "tank" - then power to you.
A typical gas station costs about a million dollars to build, give or take. A typical Tesla supercharger station costs about $250k. There's no excavation and big tanks full of environmentally-sensitive fluids; the only digging is a trench, the chargers come on pallets and go into a simple outdoor enclosure, and the pedestals sit over the trenched conduit at the ends of parking spaces. Very, very simple. And that $250k figure is at the current rate of production, let alone with the larger-scale production you'd have at wider adoption. Furthermore, superchargers benefit from sharing between chargers, since rates of charge vary between different vehicles (vehicle type, state of charge, etc). And adding a second (or third, or fourth) cable is a nothing expense. Currently Tesla superchargers split two stalls per charger. Expect more with V3.
Note that we're only talking about current charging speeds, let alone where they're headed.
Lastly: if you plan to not take rest breaks on long drives, could you do everyone else a favour and let them know before you head out, so that they can avoid the areas where you'll be? Thanks!
Bloody everyone in every conversation points out electrics pollute per mile depending on how the electricity is made.
Fixed that for you.
It is true some pollutants locally are less, and it may be better for a semi that travels long distances as opposed to cars, but a significant portion of CO2 and other pollutants (typically half for CO2 in cars) are generated by manufacturing it.
Incorrect, unless your definition of "significant" is different from mine. Said graph is from:
J. B. Dunn *a, L. Gaines a, J. C. Kelly a, C. James b and K. G. Gallagher (2015) "The significance of Li-ion batteries in electric vehicle life-cycle energy and emissions and recycling's role in its reduction" DOI: 10.1039/C4EE03029J (Analysis) Energy Environ. Sci., 2015, 8, 158-168 (The significance of Li-ion batteries in electric vehicle life-cycle energy and emissions and recycling's role in its reduction - Energy & Environmental Science (RSC Publishing) DOI:10.1039/C4EE03029J
Blue + red is energy burned in operation. Green plus purple plus light blue is energy used in manufacture, with no mass production in the EV case. Green plus purple (without light blue) is energy used in manufacture, with mass production in the EV case. To make the results of the above study even more extreme, a lot of EV manufacturers don't plan to power their production with grid power at all; Tesla, for example, plans to power the gigafactory almost exclusively with solar.
Really, it should be obvious that vehicle operation causes much more emissions than vehicle production. An average gasoline car burns its own weight in fuel every year. And beyond that, a sizeable chunk of the energy of its manufacture is recovered at the end of life via recycling.
Ed: I should be saying "diesel" rather than "gasoline" since we're comparing to semis. I wish there was a less awkward generic term for ICEs than "ICE"; I hate having to specify specific fuels when the conversation applies to them all.
I doubt a battery system would do so well in stop and go traffic all day?
Actually, EVs tend to go further in low-speed stop-and-go conditions than they do at high speeds. EV range is strongly correlated to velocity. Gasoline engines cancel out the increased aero losses at speed by the increased efficiency they gain from being in a higher torque regime. Gasoline vehicles (excepting hybrids) also do not regen, and they idle at stops.
As for over the road which is generally irregular routes, the ideal that you could just pull into a truck stop and charge up your electric truck for eight plus hours after only 300 miles is also ridiculous
What hat are you pulling that "eight plus hours" from? I have no clue what Cummins' plans are (presumption: "not much"), but long charge times has never been part of Tesla's game plan. Tesla battery packs are generally designed to fill approximately 50% in ~20 minutes, to 80% in ~40, and then taper down from there. Semi's launch will correspond with the rollout of Supercharger V3. All that we know about V3 is that it will be battery buffered (so the grid doesn't limit how fast it can discharge), and that it will make 350kW look like "a childrens' toy". Current superchargers are 145kW / max 120kW per stall (2 stalls per charger).
I pretty much averaged 400 miles plus a day easily,
So if you were driving, say, 70mph (go ahead and fill in the details yourself), that would be 5,7h, meaning somewhere on the ballpark of one hour of charging spread out over the course of your day of Tesla goes with fast charging for semi, even less if they go for battery swap (some people think they will; I do not). Whoop-di-doo. Fuel costs generally are double driver salaries anyway for a fleet operator. Also worth noting that in the EU, a driver isn't even allowed to drive more than 4,5 hours without 45 minutes of total breaks.
and how is Tesla measuring this distance?
Again, this article is about Cummins, but anyway, EPA ranges are based on the 5-cycle or an equivalence factor thereof. It's actually quite realistic. If you want a cycle to complain about, it's Europe's reliance on the ridiculous NEDC (it inflates EV ranges by 15-20%).
What about 6 % grades up mountains?
Grades are big loss factors for ICE vehicles, but not for EVs. An EV that rolls down the opposite side without regen loses almost nothing at all. If it has to regen, losses of the energy spent in climbing are generally only 25-50%, depending on the efficiency of the motor and battery. In the real world, the vast majority of climbing energy is recovered via rolldown rather than regen, and hence practical losses are very minimal.
Sorry trucking is a business model with around 3% profit
Which is why cutting fuel costs in half in the US, and by 60-85% in Europe, is a Big Freaking Deal.
most trucks are not owned they are leased
Are you trying to hit all of the selling points? The fact that it's leased makes it much easier because even if you have to pay a higher lease payment each month, you're saving much more than that in fuel payments each month, so it makes it a no brainer.
. Limiting weight capacity because of all those batteries
Tesla's Model 3 comes in at pretty much the same weight as other competitors in its class (BMW 3-Series, Audi A-4, Mercedes C350, etc). Semi will be no different. The packs on Semi will probably come in around 2 tonnes, give or take (it'll be easier to say once we're given exact specs). The drive units will add another 0,5 tonne or so. Compared to the weight of the engine and transmission they're replacing, that's not that much.
It will also almost certainly be the most powerful diesel truck ever. Expect
When the cars were operating under controlled laboratory conditions - which typically involve putting them on a stationary test rig - the device appears to have put the vehicle into a sort of safety mode in which the engine ran below normal power and performance. Once on the road, the engines switched out of this test mode.
It even looks stupid. Why build it in the shape of a classic US style "big rig" (I don't know the proper name), it's not like you need room for a huge motor under that front protrusion.
Indeed. Sadly, "making vehicles look like ICEs because that's what consumers will expect and they'll call anything that doesn't look like that 'ugly' " is probably going to be with us for quite a while. Want better aerodynamics and an unobstructed view of the road ahead of you, with the frontmost point only dictated by crash safety? Too bad; you get a giant, minimally-tapering protrusion ahead of you, complete with fake grille!
Frunks actually make the problem worse, because not only does giving up more "front end space" mean "looking less like the ICEs that they're used to", but now they've become accustomed to having a frunk (even though the space would be much better utilized added to the rear end instead). Of course, the need to improve streamlining is shrinking frunks, to the point where Tesla's Model 3 can only handle a carry on.
"Clean diesel" is a marketing term. While the origin is earlier, they really began plugging the term about 15-20 years ago to try to take the thunder first off of HEVs, then PHEVs and BEVs. They had a big marketing campaign about how diesel now is so clean that it's emissions are like gasoline, except with a lower CO2 footprint. And they sold quite a lot. And then it was discovered that almost the entire industry was rigging their diesel emissions scores by detecting when the vehicle was being tested and putting itself into a degraded performance / lower emissions mode for the duration of the testing.
Hey, I'm not saying anything bad abut Hyundai. Of the non-Tesla companies who I feel "get" the market, Hyundai would be at the top. The Ioniq is a great vehicle for its price point (although their inability to deliver in significant quantities is concerning, and makes me worry that they may be loss leaders).
No, the "fuel" that Tesla runs on is the fact that the market thinks it has massive profit potential, and has consequently pumped capital into it valuing the company as one of the world's largest automakers based on said profit potential.
But then again, random Slashdotters living in their moms' basements disagree, so clearly major capital funds and their due diligence analysis of the company's financials are wrong.
Note: there is a wide spread on the value guidance from different investors on Tesla - it's one of the curious market stories of our time. These figures generally range from bulls who think it should be around $200 to bears who think it should be around $450. But even with TSLA at $200, it would still be a massive company.
BMW owners used to say the same thing about their "ultimate" vehicle (right before it started a never-ending journey into repair shops)
Given that the person's Tesla will have a 8 year / unlimited mileage warranty on the battery pack and drive unit....
No, those aren't the only things that can break in a vehicle (the rest is 4 years / 50k miles), but just pointing out, Tesla's warranty coverage on the S and X is superb. And it didn't come with the 8 year / unlimited mileage warranty on the drive unit - they added that in for free to all owners when the early drive units started having bearing issues. I mean, what sort of company does that? And they generally go ahead and replace any early drive units if they make any sound at all, just as a precaution to avoid any problems down the road that might be past the warranty period.
In case you're curious, the battery packs have held up amazingly well - even in heavy service like taxi duty in harsh climates. The relatively small number of battery replacements have been almost exclusively nothing to do with the packs themselves, but a switch / connector on them. As mentioned further down in the thread (with a link to data), typical degradation for a Tesla pack is about 4% in the first year of ownership, and then it slows down greatly, with typical 5-year degradation at around 6-7%. Which is pretty much the sort of "range degradation" you'll see in a gasoline vehicle as well, since gas engines become less efficient with age and thus you don't go as far on a fixed-size tank. The primary difference being that gasoline vehicle tanks are primarily sized to minimize how infrequently you have to through the inconvenience of detouring from your daily life to go to a gas station, while EVs start each day with a full charge and the concept of "range" doesn't even come into play unless you go on a road trip - wherein a Tesla, that means "several hours of driving, then a lunch break, then back on the road for several hours more driving..." etc. Depending on the model, a 10 minute bathroom/stretch break when stopped at a supercharger means another hour or so of range. A half-hour stop to eat means about 2 1/2 hours more range. In short, it's only a minor, leaves-you-properly-rested-like-you're-supposed-to-be slowdown on long trips, while in your everyday life it means you never even have to think about whether you have to detour from your schedule to go stand outside at a place full of carcinogenic evaporating gas drips and exhaust fumes while paying out the nose for fuel.
Wear down? You mean degrade? If so, no, that's not "the way it is in electric cars".
Driving on modern EVs is much less stressful than charging. A 300 mile Tesla driving at 70 mph discharges fully in 4,3 hours. It can then fill up half its pack in 20 minutes. The rate of putting energy into packs is much higher than the rate of taking them out, unless you're driving full out on the track.
Secondly, supercharging has little to no impact on a Tesla pack's life, as confirmed by numerous comparisons. Nor is degradation even much of an issue at all, period. Here is collected data on Tesla vehicles. Click on "charts". You'll see that typical degradation is about 4% in the first year of ownership, and then it strongly declines; after five years, the average total degradation is about 6-7%. Roadster owners (aka much older vehicles) usually report about 10% degradation. Tesla warranties their packs for 8 years (with unlimited miles on the S and X). And 8 year battery warranties are actually pretty much the industry standard these days.
That of course doesn't mean that you can't make a bad battery pack; it's actually easy. Early Leafs had bad problems with degradation in hot climates, for example, because their packs are only passively cooled rather than climate controlled (they still suffer worse degradation than Teslas, but they're not as bad as they used to be). It all comes down to what type of cells you use (because chemistry / design greatly affects properties; all li-ions are most definitely not equal) and how much you baby them.
You are however correct that freeway driving on EVs is much less energy (not power) efficient than in the city. EV ranges, however (at least for passenger vehicles - I've never looked into semis) are rated on the EPA 5-cycle or an equivalency metric (such as US-06 times a downward adjustment factor of 0.7). They're for "normal" highway driving, supposed to be an average of how people drive. That said, if you drive faster than average, you'll get significantly poorer performance. On the flipside, if you're a slowpoke, you'll significantly exceed the range.
Slashdot Mirror
There's also an inherent bias in that everyone talks about failure rates immediately after a rocket fails - aka, the time at which its failure rate is worst.
3 failures now; it was previously 2.
That said, a 7% failure rate is not unusual in the rocketry world.
Actually, road tripping is very popular in Teslas. On the forums it's very common to hear people road tripping a lot more after they got the Tesla. Why? Reasons vary, but include it being more fun/comfortable to drive, your travel is a lot cheaper, it's more enjoyable when you're not trying to push yourself for nonstop no-breaks travel, and if you really want to be cheap, Teslas are great for "camper mode" (seats fold flat and you can leave the climate control on without idling an engine). Probably the most popular Tesla-related videos on Youtube are from a Norwegian guy, Bjørn Nyland, who uses his Teslas for courier service in Norway / travels around Europe and the US for fun; he puts huge amounts of mileage on them.
Is that meant to be a lot? In the US, the average driver drives that in a year and a half. The average car on US roads is nearly a decade old, meaning an average lifespan of nearly two decades.
A typical gasoline car burns in the ballpark of its weight in gasoline every year.. So obviously plastic sales do not make up for that.
That said, there's no question that oil companies will adapt to changing times. The timeframes are long, and their histories are built on market adaptation. Heck, the reason that Shell is called "Shell" is that it literally started out as a company importing and selling seashells.
Tesla was not started to "capitalize on the ZEV ... mandate", nor was it started in 2015. Tesla was started in 2003 because Eberhard (and subsequently Musk) fell in love with the AC Propulsion tzero, but couldn't convince AC Propulsion to build more for them to buy.
And I'm totally sure institutional investors doing their due diligence on Tesla totally forgot to check how much of the company's money comes from ZEV credits when making their valuations. The simple facts are that Tesla has a ~25% gross profit margin per vehicle. That Tesla as a company also gets ZEV credits (purchased very inconstantly, often for half their value) which it uses to reduce how much of a capital raise it has to do during its scaleup is irrelevant to that fact.
It does not "happen" in the EU (the place that the person mentioned) without you losing your license. Trucks have a "black box" that logs your hours.
And since the tank hasn't changed size, lower mpg = lower range.
From this:
Unfortuantely they don't break down the $400k between the cost of modifying the building to be a gas station, and the cost of installing the underground tanks. But I seriously doubt that modifying an existing commercial building to be a gas station retail operation is more expensive than tank installation. The startup inventory ($500k) is, with only a couple minor exceptions, pretty much exclusive to selling fuel.
The ~$250k represents all of Tesla's costs for supercharger station installation, not just the charging hardware. Tack some more on if you want to add on a convenience store, but then you better also up Tesla's profits. Tesla is generally given land for superchargers for free because businesses want Tesla owners coming, plugging in there, and then going in and shopping in their stores / restaurants / etc, then leaving and new customers taking their place.
Tesla's supercharger system is set up from the beginning with long-term profit in mind. While early MS/MX owners were given free supercharging, and the network was built with solid intent that for years most of it would receive only low usage, the remote (low utilization) stations will be getting much busier with the M3 rollout (a lot of Tesla's focus now is in densifying supercharging networks within cities, to prevent them from getting overloaded by the M3 rollout). The goal is about 30% utilization per station. Tesla buys power at industrial rates (something like $0,07/kWh in the US) and sells it at $0,20/kWh, so $0,13/kWh profit. Say $0,12 after conversion losses. A V2 supercharger (we'll ignore V3 for now because we don't know the exact spec
(The volcanic island is, of course, Musk's personal lair and only open to his top henchmen)
The very reason that we know that Tesla is targeting 200-300 miles range is because they're partnering with fleet operators. Specifically, it was someone from Ryder who leaked the information. They're not just off doing this isolated on some volcanic island deep in the South Pacific.
Ed2: "most powerful class 8 truck", not "most powerful diesel truck".
Ned too porffraed beter. :P
Depends on where you are. What word works for you? Lorry? Vörubíll? ;)
My understanding of the US term is that it's because they haul semi-trailers. "Semi-trailers" because they don't have front wheels, and are thus not complete trailers.
Waits are generally nonexistent at superchargers. It actually made the news when there were lines at some in northern California and a few other places during the eclipse, because waits are such an unusual thing. But I guess if having to wait half an hour at a gas station even on trips is what you enjoy - let alone how you have to use gas stations in your normal life rather than starting out every day with a full "tank" - then power to you.
A typical gas station costs about a million dollars to build, give or take. A typical Tesla supercharger station costs about $250k. There's no excavation and big tanks full of environmentally-sensitive fluids; the only digging is a trench, the chargers come on pallets and go into a simple outdoor enclosure, and the pedestals sit over the trenched conduit at the ends of parking spaces. Very, very simple. And that $250k figure is at the current rate of production, let alone with the larger-scale production you'd have at wider adoption. Furthermore, superchargers benefit from sharing between chargers, since rates of charge vary between different vehicles (vehicle type, state of charge, etc). And adding a second (or third, or fourth) cable is a nothing expense. Currently Tesla superchargers split two stalls per charger. Expect more with V3.
Note that we're only talking about current charging speeds, let alone where they're headed.
Lastly: if you plan to not take rest breaks on long drives, could you do everyone else a favour and let them know before you head out, so that they can avoid the areas where you'll be? Thanks!
Fixed that for you.
Incorrect, unless your definition of "significant" is different from mine. Said graph is from:
J. B. Dunn *a, L. Gaines a, J. C. Kelly a, C. James b and K. G. Gallagher (2015) "The significance of Li-ion batteries in electric vehicle life-cycle energy and emissions and recycling's role in its reduction" DOI: 10.1039/C4EE03029J (Analysis) Energy Environ. Sci., 2015, 8, 158-168 (The significance of Li-ion batteries in electric vehicle life-cycle energy and emissions and recycling's role in its reduction - Energy & Environmental Science (RSC Publishing) DOI:10.1039/C4EE03029J
Blue + red is energy burned in operation. Green plus purple plus light blue is energy used in manufacture, with no mass production in the EV case. Green plus purple (without light blue) is energy used in manufacture, with mass production in the EV case. To make the results of the above study even more extreme, a lot of EV manufacturers don't plan to power their production with grid power at all; Tesla, for example, plans to power the gigafactory almost exclusively with solar.
Really, it should be obvious that vehicle operation causes much more emissions than vehicle production. An average gasoline car burns its own weight in fuel every year. And beyond that, a sizeable chunk of the energy of its manufacture is recovered at the end of life via recycling.
Ed: I should be saying "diesel" rather than "gasoline" since we're comparing to semis. I wish there was a less awkward generic term for ICEs than "ICE"; I hate having to specify specific fuels when the conversation applies to them all.
Actually, EVs tend to go further in low-speed stop-and-go conditions than they do at high speeds. EV range is strongly correlated to velocity. Gasoline engines cancel out the increased aero losses at speed by the increased efficiency they gain from being in a higher torque regime. Gasoline vehicles (excepting hybrids) also do not regen, and they idle at stops.
What hat are you pulling that "eight plus hours" from? I have no clue what Cummins' plans are (presumption: "not much"), but long charge times has never been part of Tesla's game plan. Tesla battery packs are generally designed to fill approximately 50% in ~20 minutes, to 80% in ~40, and then taper down from there. Semi's launch will correspond with the rollout of Supercharger V3. All that we know about V3 is that it will be battery buffered (so the grid doesn't limit how fast it can discharge), and that it will make 350kW look like "a childrens' toy". Current superchargers are 145kW / max 120kW per stall (2 stalls per charger).
So if you were driving, say, 70mph (go ahead and fill in the details yourself), that would be 5,7h, meaning somewhere on the ballpark of one hour of charging spread out over the course of your day of Tesla goes with fast charging for semi, even less if they go for battery swap (some people think they will; I do not). Whoop-di-doo. Fuel costs generally are double driver salaries anyway for a fleet operator. Also worth noting that in the EU, a driver isn't even allowed to drive more than 4,5 hours without 45 minutes of total breaks.
Again, this article is about Cummins, but anyway, EPA ranges are based on the 5-cycle or an equivalence factor thereof. It's actually quite realistic. If you want a cycle to complain about, it's Europe's reliance on the ridiculous NEDC (it inflates EV ranges by 15-20%).
Grades are big loss factors for ICE vehicles, but not for EVs. An EV that rolls down the opposite side without regen loses almost nothing at all. If it has to regen, losses of the energy spent in climbing are generally only 25-50%, depending on the efficiency of the motor and battery. In the real world, the vast majority of climbing energy is recovered via rolldown rather than regen, and hence practical losses are very minimal.
Which is why cutting fuel costs in half in the US, and by 60-85% in Europe, is a Big Freaking Deal.
Are you trying to hit all of the selling points? The fact that it's leased makes it much easier because even if you have to pay a higher lease payment each month, you're saving much more than that in fuel payments each month, so it makes it a no brainer.
Tesla's Model 3 comes in at pretty much the same weight as other competitors in its class (BMW 3-Series, Audi A-4, Mercedes C350, etc). Semi will be no different. The packs on Semi will probably come in around 2 tonnes, give or take (it'll be easier to say once we're given exact specs). The drive units will add another 0,5 tonne or so. Compared to the weight of the engine and transmission they're replacing, that's not that much.
It will also almost certainly be the most powerful diesel truck ever. Expect
Link:
Once manufacturers deployed their "fixes" to current vehicles on the road, the result was a significant loss of power and worse fuel consumption.
As for their ad campaign, I'm surprised you never saw it. The even hired the Mythbusters crew at one point to plug it.
Indeed. Sadly, "making vehicles look like ICEs because that's what consumers will expect and they'll call anything that doesn't look like that 'ugly' " is probably going to be with us for quite a while. Want better aerodynamics and an unobstructed view of the road ahead of you, with the frontmost point only dictated by crash safety? Too bad; you get a giant, minimally-tapering protrusion ahead of you, complete with fake grille!
Frunks actually make the problem worse, because not only does giving up more "front end space" mean "looking less like the ICEs that they're used to", but now they've become accustomed to having a frunk (even though the space would be much better utilized added to the rear end instead). Of course, the need to improve streamlining is shrinking frunks, to the point where Tesla's Model 3 can only handle a carry on.
"Clean diesel" is a marketing term. While the origin is earlier, they really began plugging the term about 15-20 years ago to try to take the thunder first off of HEVs, then PHEVs and BEVs. They had a big marketing campaign about how diesel now is so clean that it's emissions are like gasoline, except with a lower CO2 footprint. And they sold quite a lot. And then it was discovered that almost the entire industry was rigging their diesel emissions scores by detecting when the vehicle was being tested and putting itself into a degraded performance / lower emissions mode for the duration of the testing.
Hey, I'm not saying anything bad abut Hyundai. Of the non-Tesla companies who I feel "get" the market, Hyundai would be at the top. The Ioniq is a great vehicle for its price point (although their inability to deliver in significant quantities is concerning, and makes me worry that they may be loss leaders).
No, the "fuel" that Tesla runs on is the fact that the market thinks it has massive profit potential, and has consequently pumped capital into it valuing the company as one of the world's largest automakers based on said profit potential.
But then again, random Slashdotters living in their moms' basements disagree, so clearly major capital funds and their due diligence analysis of the company's financials are wrong.
Note: there is a wide spread on the value guidance from different investors on Tesla - it's one of the curious market stories of our time. These figures generally range from bulls who think it should be around $200 to bears who think it should be around $450. But even with TSLA at $200, it would still be a massive company.
Recursion (n): See 'Recursion'.
Given that the person's Tesla will have a 8 year / unlimited mileage warranty on the battery pack and drive unit....
No, those aren't the only things that can break in a vehicle (the rest is 4 years / 50k miles), but just pointing out, Tesla's warranty coverage on the S and X is superb. And it didn't come with the 8 year / unlimited mileage warranty on the drive unit - they added that in for free to all owners when the early drive units started having bearing issues. I mean, what sort of company does that? And they generally go ahead and replace any early drive units if they make any sound at all, just as a precaution to avoid any problems down the road that might be past the warranty period.
In case you're curious, the battery packs have held up amazingly well - even in heavy service like taxi duty in harsh climates. The relatively small number of battery replacements have been almost exclusively nothing to do with the packs themselves, but a switch / connector on them. As mentioned further down in the thread (with a link to data), typical degradation for a Tesla pack is about 4% in the first year of ownership, and then it slows down greatly, with typical 5-year degradation at around 6-7%. Which is pretty much the sort of "range degradation" you'll see in a gasoline vehicle as well, since gas engines become less efficient with age and thus you don't go as far on a fixed-size tank. The primary difference being that gasoline vehicle tanks are primarily sized to minimize how infrequently you have to through the inconvenience of detouring from your daily life to go to a gas station, while EVs start each day with a full charge and the concept of "range" doesn't even come into play unless you go on a road trip - wherein a Tesla, that means "several hours of driving, then a lunch break, then back on the road for several hours more driving..." etc. Depending on the model, a 10 minute bathroom/stretch break when stopped at a supercharger means another hour or so of range. A half-hour stop to eat means about 2 1/2 hours more range. In short, it's only a minor, leaves-you-properly-rested-like-you're-supposed-to-be slowdown on long trips, while in your everyday life it means you never even have to think about whether you have to detour from your schedule to go stand outside at a place full of carcinogenic evaporating gas drips and exhaust fumes while paying out the nose for fuel.
Wear down? You mean degrade? If so, no, that's not "the way it is in electric cars".
Driving on modern EVs is much less stressful than charging. A 300 mile Tesla driving at 70 mph discharges fully in 4,3 hours. It can then fill up half its pack in 20 minutes. The rate of putting energy into packs is much higher than the rate of taking them out, unless you're driving full out on the track.
Secondly, supercharging has little to no impact on a Tesla pack's life, as confirmed by numerous comparisons. Nor is degradation even much of an issue at all, period. Here is collected data on Tesla vehicles. Click on "charts". You'll see that typical degradation is about 4% in the first year of ownership, and then it strongly declines; after five years, the average total degradation is about 6-7%. Roadster owners (aka much older vehicles) usually report about 10% degradation. Tesla warranties their packs for 8 years (with unlimited miles on the S and X). And 8 year battery warranties are actually pretty much the industry standard these days.
That of course doesn't mean that you can't make a bad battery pack; it's actually easy. Early Leafs had bad problems with degradation in hot climates, for example, because their packs are only passively cooled rather than climate controlled (they still suffer worse degradation than Teslas, but they're not as bad as they used to be). It all comes down to what type of cells you use (because chemistry / design greatly affects properties; all li-ions are most definitely not equal) and how much you baby them.
You are however correct that freeway driving on EVs is much less energy (not power) efficient than in the city. EV ranges, however (at least for passenger vehicles - I've never looked into semis) are rated on the EPA 5-cycle or an equivalency metric (such as US-06 times a downward adjustment factor of 0.7). They're for "normal" highway driving, supposed to be an average of how people drive. That said, if you drive faster than average, you'll get significantly poorer performance. On the flipside, if you're a slowpoke, you'll significantly exceed the range.