Drivers logging considerably fewer miles per work day is not "disruptive".
Who said they'd log fewer miles per day?
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Drivers logging considerably fewer miles per work day is not "disruptive".
Worth posting here is this graphic (and animation in the source), of the most common job by state.
View attachment 222737
Given the point of the poster was that a greatly expanded 'refueling' distributed network would have to be formed or expanded; what's the difference?
Super-Swap or Super-Charge or both - the swapped battery has to be recharged, and the slower the charge the tougher the distribution of availability becomes. Assuming Swap is deployed, integration with and therefore expansion of, SC is the path of least resistance- rather than a point of disagreement imo. And both will need critical expansion -cross country and short-haul alike.
Is Tesla going to come out with a semi that needs huge infrastructure?
I think it is more likely that the first version will be aimed a warehouse distribution. The truck can charge at the walmart distribution center, and possibly at the walmart store when it is being unloaded.
I am far from being a trucking expert, but I think charging via SC would not be very practical. Now, sure, the tucks would still have a charge port for emergencies or to charge back at the HQ, but, I think in trucking every minute not spent on the road is a loss.Semis might work with a truck-specific V3 Supercharger network with +350kW/h charging along major interstates. Range would not be as much of an issue with V3's every 150-200 miles. Full charge in ~15 min. This would definitely help reduce the CO2 emissions trucks produce.
View attachment 222652
Perhaps use in-flight refueling? Every few hours a gas turbine-electric generator drives onto the highway and connects to the truck.. hmm, nah
Yes I think the traditional super charging could be the best solution, if the larger battery is split in car-sized modules the charging time could be similar?Uh no. These guys already have a gas turbine hybrids of some sort: nikolamotor.com
They also have some kind hydrogen solution don't know a ton about it, but seems like a good solution short of fully electric. Hopefully Tesla's solution is fully electric with some kind of next level super charging. I think a battery swap could happen but will take a long time to build out that infrastructure where as Tesla will continue to add supercharging for the cars.
Uh no. These guys already have a gas turbine hybrids of some sort: nikolamotor.com
They also have some kind hydrogen solution don't know a ton about it, but seems like a good solution short of fully electric. Hopefully Tesla's solution is fully electric with some kind of next level super charging. I think a battery swap could happen but will take a long time to build out that infrastructure where as Tesla will continue to add supercharging for the cars.
A lot of trucks are parked overnight.I'll take the other side on this. I think batter-swapping is the way to go.
Solution for Tesla Semi is different than for cars. Semis will mostly travel on highways, and Tesla can build out a battery-swap infrastructure relatively easily vs. charging station infrastructure. If you think about it, it's really not that many routes that are common for Semis. Combined with a larger battery size, how many locations does Tesla really need for a robust infrastructure?
The main issue I see with the charging solution is time. Trucking is an industry where companies pay two drivers at a time to keep the truck going non-stop. I can't see them being okay with their truck idle for hours at a time to charge, or even for one hour.
At this point we can mostly speculate, but I think one thing that should be fairly clear is that this is about more than just selling electric trucks. What is needed is a whole network of logistical support so that these tractors can keep rolling at minimal costs. It's got to be a highly integrated business model for Tesla and clients.
Roughly speaking the annual costs of operating a class 8 tractor is around
$12k tractor lease/loan
$24-36k fuel, 12.5k gallons
$20k maintenance
??? driver, insurance, taxes
(Better numbers are welcomed.)
Just selling tractors is a small slice of this total market.
Going after fueling cost by supplying charging/swapping infrastructure as well as generating solar/wind power is the biggest single opportunity.
If the tractor can be designed so that maintenance is cut in half, that could justify a huge premium on purchase price or become a very profitable service plan.
AP and vehicle autonomy saves trucker lives, increases their productivity, and reduces insurance. Also sorts of logistical planning and optimization programming services are needed to keep a fleet operating at minimal cost. I don't see this as replacing truckers. Rather it is a technological upgrade to their jobs that make them safer, more productive, and more rewarding. The ton-miles that one driver can move in a day will go up.
So for an entrepreneur like Musk, this opens up all kinds of opportunities to offer new products, services and solutions. Tesla will pick over the best best options for an integrated business. So it will be fascinating to see what they go after and what they pass up.
Swap stations and semi charging stations has the "chicken and egg" problem. Tesla would need to make a huge infrastructure investment before electric OTR trucks would become feasible. Tesla is capital limited in just building vehicles.
My guess is that in some of those transition years (and others, honestly), the numbers are pretty close. I bet "Janitor" is up there across the board, but never quite peeks out from behind the curtain. That's a pretty globally needed profession.Find it interesting that the most common job in DC is a "Lawyer" since 2000. Previous to that it was "Secretary". Except 1994 where is was "Lawyer", then followed by 1996, where it was "Janitor". What's up with 1996?
One other potential downside will be the additional weight. Semis are already blamed for the majority of road damage. A semi loaded with batteries and freight could potentially be even more damaging. This was dismissed in the reddit cross-post upthread but I'm not terribly satisfied with the reasoning: "they won't be much heavier overall." That remains to be seen, and the fact is that they will indeed be heavier, so road strain will increase by some amount unless there are mitigating suspension/tire details.
That's a reasonable amount of energy.
Added benefit for refrigerated trailers is some reduction in heat from sun in addition to powering refrigeration.
I'm not having the easiest time finding all of the data online, but I did find that one particular engine (Detroit Diesel DD15) for a long range semi is about 2,880 lbs. A transmission (Fuller 8LL) weighs 690 lbs. There is, of course, the lack of fuel in an electric semi, and some of the other drive components (shaft, differential) which won't exist. But that's only 3570 lbs. My X weighs over 5200 lbs.I remember somebody mention how many tons the engine and transmission in a tractor normally weigh, and that when replaced with motors and batteries should be very similar in weight.
Model S/X needs 20kW level to drive. A semi would likely need ten times if that. Having solar panels on its roof is as feasible as having them on Model S/X.Interestingly a semi could be large enough to mount a useful area of solar panels.
1 sq metre of panel would normally give ≈150-200W. Not very much when it takes 20,000 for a car to drive along.
But a semi would offer an area roughly 13m x 2.5m = 32.5 sq.m. 32.5 * 175W ≈ 5,700W. That's a reasonable amount of energy. Now a semi would need more than 20kW to drive, but still.
Why are we assuming that the solar cells ought to be sufficient for propulsion? I find the fraction of energy supplied to be irrelevant. The question is whether the cells provide enough energy to be worth the cost of the cells, maintenance and weight. For example if the added cost is a levelized 8c/kWh, then that is likely cheaper than most other charging options. So even if it only provides 1% of energy needed, it would be a cost effective upgrade.Model S/X needs 20kW level to drive. A semi would likely need ten times if that. Having solar panels on its roof is as feasible as having them on Model S/X.
I see your point now.Why are we assuming that the solar cells ought to be sufficient for propulsion? I find the fraction of energy supplied to be irrelevant. The question is whether the cells provide enough energy to be worth the cost of the cells, maintenance and weight. For example if the added cost is a levelized 8c/kWh, then that is likely cheaper than most other charging options. So even if it only provides 1% of energy needed, it would be a cost effective upgrade.
But supposing you could get 6kW PV that can yield 10 to 15 MWh per year against consumption of about 100MWh per year (to displace an average of about 12,500 gallons per year). The potential to get 10% of your energy at lower cost and not having to stop it seems worth exploring. Ordinary solar panels (not optimizes for this use) are under 50c/W. So if the cost of adding 6kW PV was only $3000 for 10 to 15 MWh per year, breaks even in under 4 years. I don't know if 50c/W actual pencils out for this application, but even $1/W would seem to make the economics work. For comparison, utility scale solar is about $1.25/W, but that entails costs of installing in fields, interconnections, transmission lines, inverters, etc. At factory installation efficiency, a trailer roof could be even cheaper.
BTW, if Tesla could add solar to the Model S or X at below $1/W, I think that would be worthwhile too.