Heavy electric trucks cheaper than diesel goods trucks(chalmers.se)
chalmers.se
Heavy electric trucks cheaper than diesel goods trucks
https://www.chalmers.se/en/current/news/e2-heavy-electric-trucks-cheaper-than-diesel-goods-trucks/
177 comments
They had two selections of batteries and a specific real world route. That doesn’t sound like cherry picking, that sounds like basically how things work for most trucking. Long haul trucking is more visible but most trucking is moving goods along a short to medium length established route. Most EV have at least two battery configurations as options.
Sweden is doing a lot of good functional experiments and practical research leaning on much of existing tech. Like this experiment with electrified roads to help address EV truck range limits: https://www.carscoops.com/2023/05/sweden-will-open-the-world...
The E16 experiment looked really promising and would rely on all existing tech (contactors on power lines, like the old trolley buses of old) and hybrid power plant for last mile: https://www.iea.org/policies/7162-electric-highway-demonstra...
Can’t find any reported results of this, but seems small in scale (100km). The concept solves the range problem. Imagine for example in California to have these along the 5? Now you can move things from Los Angeles to Seattle without needing to recharge. Add to it some driver assists and you have a much safer and more efficient transportation system which is as clean as the electric grid. Then you can provide financial incentives to travel in off peak demand times, etc.
The E16 experiment looked really promising and would rely on all existing tech (contactors on power lines, like the old trolley buses of old) and hybrid power plant for last mile: https://www.iea.org/policies/7162-electric-highway-demonstra...
Can’t find any reported results of this, but seems small in scale (100km). The concept solves the range problem. Imagine for example in California to have these along the 5? Now you can move things from Los Angeles to Seattle without needing to recharge. Add to it some driver assists and you have a much safer and more efficient transportation system which is as clean as the electric grid. Then you can provide financial incentives to travel in off peak demand times, etc.
There are still active trolley bus routes that use overhead lines (Seattle, San Francisco, Lausanne, even Beijing has a trolly bus route).
But we can’t even electrify our rail routes. I doubt we would electrify I5. Although, trucks aren’t trains where diesel turbine electricity generation makes sense.
But we can’t even electrify our rail routes. I doubt we would electrify I5. Although, trucks aren’t trains where diesel turbine electricity generation makes sense.
> Although, trucks aren’t trains where diesel turbine electricity generation makes sense.
Contrary-wise in real world examples FedEX in the US first trialed onboard diesel turbine generated electric trucks back in 2014 and they've been a staple of the Australian (and other) mining industry for a good number of years now; that's on the order of a billion tonne per annum for a decade moved via means you imply only makes sense for trains.
You'll even find instances of hybrid onboard diesal off board trolly pantograph for gradient assist climbing in heavy haul trucks [1] from 2007 - although I admit that was an unexpected quirky find.
[1] https://www.australianmining.com.au/diesel-electric-haul-tru...
Contrary-wise in real world examples FedEX in the US first trialed onboard diesel turbine generated electric trucks back in 2014 and they've been a staple of the Australian (and other) mining industry for a good number of years now; that's on the order of a billion tonne per annum for a decade moved via means you imply only makes sense for trains.
You'll even find instances of hybrid onboard diesal off board trolly pantograph for gradient assist climbing in heavy haul trucks [1] from 2007 - although I admit that was an unexpected quirky find.
[1] https://www.australianmining.com.au/diesel-electric-haul-tru...
My previous understanding was that gas turbine trucks have been tried out, but not electric ones. But thanks for the correction.
No drama, as a rule you generally don't see 100+ tonne Haulpaks on the open road ... that aside they do operate 24/7/365 across the globe on minesites moving truly large tonnages - out of site of most people.
I5 passes relatively close to a lot of generation and the land around it in the south is pretty decent for more solar. Haven’t traveled into WA, but I suspect other sources would be better there.
In US, I suspect rail crosses large swaths that might be harder to electrify, but the sub 1% electrification is really disappointing compared to say EU: https://alternative-fuels-observatory.ec.europa.eu/transport...
In US, I suspect rail crosses large swaths that might be harder to electrify, but the sub 1% electrification is really disappointing compared to say EU: https://alternative-fuels-observatory.ec.europa.eu/transport...
I5 in WA from the BC border is busy. It is primarily urban until you get past Olympia and then it becomes more sane, but it isn’t really used by many trucks compared to the volume of cars on it.
Here's the actual paper that this article refers to:
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/6/2793
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/6/2793
It seems like battery swapping could potentially make battery charging a side issue.
Battery swapping is one of those ideas that sounds good but has enough disadvantages that it's rarely worth it.
- Your vehicle design will be less efficient and more expensive than one without the constraint of an easily-removable battery.
- Just like with phones, removable batteries mean that you have more ingresses for water and dirt, hurting reliability.
- You have to standardize on battery sizes and interfaces. If some new battery technology comes along, or you want to change the chassis (to improve crash safety, for example) you'll have to create a new standard.
- In modern EVs, batteries have liquid coolant pumped through them. This lets the vehicle keep the battery at optimal temperatures for charging, discharging, and avoiding degradation in hot climates. Swapping batteries means coming up with another solution for controlling battery temperatures.
- In addition to specially-designed cars and batteries, you also need specially designed swapping stations. Again if you ever change the standards, you'll have to upgrade these stations.
All of these issues mean that battery swapping drastically increases cost and complexity for little benefit. A swap will take five minutes, while charging to 80% can take as little as 15 minutes. There's also the issue that batteries are valuable, and the owner of the vehicle probably wants their original battery back (or at least one without more wear & tear). Then you get into issues of compensating or charging people thousands of dollars depending on their new battery's degradation level. It's much simpler to give up on swapping and focus on improving charging speeds, which is exactly what Tesla did.
- Your vehicle design will be less efficient and more expensive than one without the constraint of an easily-removable battery.
- Just like with phones, removable batteries mean that you have more ingresses for water and dirt, hurting reliability.
- You have to standardize on battery sizes and interfaces. If some new battery technology comes along, or you want to change the chassis (to improve crash safety, for example) you'll have to create a new standard.
- In modern EVs, batteries have liquid coolant pumped through them. This lets the vehicle keep the battery at optimal temperatures for charging, discharging, and avoiding degradation in hot climates. Swapping batteries means coming up with another solution for controlling battery temperatures.
- In addition to specially-designed cars and batteries, you also need specially designed swapping stations. Again if you ever change the standards, you'll have to upgrade these stations.
All of these issues mean that battery swapping drastically increases cost and complexity for little benefit. A swap will take five minutes, while charging to 80% can take as little as 15 minutes. There's also the issue that batteries are valuable, and the owner of the vehicle probably wants their original battery back (or at least one without more wear & tear). Then you get into issues of compensating or charging people thousands of dollars depending on their new battery's degradation level. It's much simpler to give up on swapping and focus on improving charging speeds, which is exactly what Tesla did.
> Battery swapping is one of those ideas that sounds good but has enough disadvantages that it's rarely worth it
Nio is doing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmWL1hZQmD0
Gogoro is doing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5ddtHj_N2E
Janus Trucks is doing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eYLtPSf7PY
Paying attention to what's going on in the real world is more useful than internet theorizing.
Nio is doing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmWL1hZQmD0
Gogoro is doing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5ddtHj_N2E
Janus Trucks is doing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eYLtPSf7PY
Paying attention to what's going on in the real world is more useful than internet theorizing.
Good videos and point. The situation involved around battery swapping and how to do it matters, versus wholesale dismissing the idea because of a fondness for ICE or close-mindedness. The answer to the question, is not to be stuck on oil forever or until the climate is destroyed.
Yes, these are all issues for personal-use vehicles.
It's much less of a concern for trucking companies, many of which already have multiple depos across their routes and thus are already in a position to swap batteries from one truck they own to another truck they own.
It's much less of a concern for trucking companies, many of which already have multiple depos across their routes and thus are already in a position to swap batteries from one truck they own to another truck they own.
Truck batteries are enormous and swapping them would be a huge logistical challenge / pain in the ass.
Better to just swap the whole tractor unit out if fast charging is not available for some reason. After all, it’s really just a battery (+motor and cab) on wheels.
Better to just swap the whole tractor unit out if fast charging is not available for some reason. After all, it’s really just a battery (+motor and cab) on wheels.
https://www.januselectric.com.au/ uses forklifts to change their batteries. That should be straightforward for a trucking company.
You are mostly right for passenger vehicles, but in the specific context of commercial trucks most of those disadvantages are substantially reduced or eliminated.
> - Your vehicle design will be less efficient and more expensive than one without the constraint of an easily-removable battery.
Commercial trucks sold as a cab-and-chassis configuration, i.e. all the ones that you see the same basic truck under hundreds of different bodies, are already substantially standardized behind the cabin. They are less efficient and more expensive than integrated designs, but as a tradeoff they get the option to use any of those addon bodies that happens to fit length-wise.
This same compatible frame design benefits swappable batteries in that they can be built to go under a standard frame width.
> - Just like with phones, removable batteries mean that you have more ingresses for water and dirt, hurting reliability.
Reliable self-cleaning connectors are already a thing in industry, it's a factor that needs to be considered but it's not a real roadblock.
> - You have to standardize on battery sizes and interfaces. If some new battery technology comes along, or you want to change the chassis (to improve crash safety, for example) you'll have to create a new standard.
This class of trucks has been heavily standardized for decades, CAN still works great for the data link, there's no reason to believe substantial changes will be needed in ways that would be relevant.
> - In modern EVs, batteries have liquid coolant pumped through them. This lets the vehicle keep the battery at optimal temperatures for charging, discharging, and avoiding degradation in hot climates. Swapping batteries means coming up with another solution for controlling battery temperatures.
No it doesn't, plug-and-play dry break connections are already well known. This is a solved problem.
> - In addition to specially-designed cars and batteries, you also need specially designed swapping stations. Again if you ever change the standards, you'll have to upgrade these stations.
Most heavy truck swappable battery designs I've seen either go under or in the front, either way a forklift can do it.
----
Again, for passenger cars I 100% agree, Tesla's one station that changed a dozen batteries was nothing but a mechanism to capture a tax benefit, it was never going to work in the big picture because passenger cars are so different. Commercial trucks are intentionally incredibly similar, so it's a different world.
> - Your vehicle design will be less efficient and more expensive than one without the constraint of an easily-removable battery.
Commercial trucks sold as a cab-and-chassis configuration, i.e. all the ones that you see the same basic truck under hundreds of different bodies, are already substantially standardized behind the cabin. They are less efficient and more expensive than integrated designs, but as a tradeoff they get the option to use any of those addon bodies that happens to fit length-wise.
This same compatible frame design benefits swappable batteries in that they can be built to go under a standard frame width.
> - Just like with phones, removable batteries mean that you have more ingresses for water and dirt, hurting reliability.
Reliable self-cleaning connectors are already a thing in industry, it's a factor that needs to be considered but it's not a real roadblock.
> - You have to standardize on battery sizes and interfaces. If some new battery technology comes along, or you want to change the chassis (to improve crash safety, for example) you'll have to create a new standard.
This class of trucks has been heavily standardized for decades, CAN still works great for the data link, there's no reason to believe substantial changes will be needed in ways that would be relevant.
> - In modern EVs, batteries have liquid coolant pumped through them. This lets the vehicle keep the battery at optimal temperatures for charging, discharging, and avoiding degradation in hot climates. Swapping batteries means coming up with another solution for controlling battery temperatures.
No it doesn't, plug-and-play dry break connections are already well known. This is a solved problem.
> - In addition to specially-designed cars and batteries, you also need specially designed swapping stations. Again if you ever change the standards, you'll have to upgrade these stations.
Most heavy truck swappable battery designs I've seen either go under or in the front, either way a forklift can do it.
----
Again, for passenger cars I 100% agree, Tesla's one station that changed a dozen batteries was nothing but a mechanism to capture a tax benefit, it was never going to work in the big picture because passenger cars are so different. Commercial trucks are intentionally incredibly similar, so it's a different world.
Sure, there are all sorts of workarounds you can apply, but all those workarounds have costs. At the end of the day, economics rules, and if doing all those workarounds costs more than just putting in a bigger battery, they’ll just put in a bigger battery.
Also, you’re forgetting something important: most countries have laws limiting driver hours / mandating driver rest. As a practical matter, with appropriately spaced charging stations, a tractor like the one Tesla built effectively imposes no cost in terms of charging time. That’s because the mandatory driver rest periods are sufficient to charge the battery using today’s battery & charging technology. And on that topic, if you try swapping a battery with a forklift, you’ve already lost (in terms of time). You need a dedicated battery swap machine for the “time economics” of battery swap to make any sense.
So why bother with all kinds of expensive connectors, and the rest when you don’t need it anyway? That’s what you’re up against.
Also, you’re forgetting something important: most countries have laws limiting driver hours / mandating driver rest. As a practical matter, with appropriately spaced charging stations, a tractor like the one Tesla built effectively imposes no cost in terms of charging time. That’s because the mandatory driver rest periods are sufficient to charge the battery using today’s battery & charging technology. And on that topic, if you try swapping a battery with a forklift, you’ve already lost (in terms of time). You need a dedicated battery swap machine for the “time economics” of battery swap to make any sense.
So why bother with all kinds of expensive connectors, and the rest when you don’t need it anyway? That’s what you’re up against.
While I don't have a rosy view of swappable batteries in general, I must pick a nit. Drivers are mandated rests, but the trucks are not. A delivery company could operate swappable EVs at near 100% uptime.
Fair point, and you could have multiple drivers too. But the most common objection to BEV trucks is with regard to long haul semis.
In the medium and heavy vehicle industry one of the big discussions is on reuse of batteries at economic EOL. The idea is that after maybe 600 charge cycles a vehicle-sized battery will have a lot of life left but will no longer support the range that high-duty-cycle vehicles require. So they can be recycled into grid storage in a way that creates a virtuous cycle.
Battery swapping might even be a good way to jump start such a system since it could produce a flexible system for curve flattening both by charging in off-peak hours while still supporting fixed-installation vehicle packs.
The downside is that this makes battery systems less flexible, since batteries have to be of some fixed physical dimensions. This may not be practical for certain compact vehicles, but could be implemented more easily with straight trucks.
Battery swapping might even be a good way to jump start such a system since it could produce a flexible system for curve flattening both by charging in off-peak hours while still supporting fixed-installation vehicle packs.
The downside is that this makes battery systems less flexible, since batteries have to be of some fixed physical dimensions. This may not be practical for certain compact vehicles, but could be implemented more easily with straight trucks.
As long as the packs can be taken out of the vehicle without damaging either and the packs don't have DRM crap, packs can trivially be re-used by attaching them to a charge controller.
The batteries can be recycled into raw materials and rebuilt as new packs with full health at greater than 99% efficiency.
I think the idea is that it costs much more labor and energy to fully recycle a battery pack than to repurpose it, and you can always do the recycling later on.
If you're suggesting the time, energy, and safety and compromises required to design vehicles around modular batteries might not be offset by the cost delta of recycling I think that's a reasonable concern. Combining this with swappable packs might change the variables.
A system by which packs are routinely switched out and frequently tested could easily lead to a robust circular economy and could provide a better alternative to Vehicle To Grid solutions for load shifting.
If you're suggesting the time, energy, and safety and compromises required to design vehicles around modular batteries might not be offset by the cost delta of recycling I think that's a reasonable concern. Combining this with swappable packs might change the variables.
A system by which packs are routinely switched out and frequently tested could easily lead to a robust circular economy and could provide a better alternative to Vehicle To Grid solutions for load shifting.
I think vehicles should have replaceable packs for service, but not beyond that without a really strong argument. These batteries degrade over a few years to about 80% and just sort of stay there for a long time. So just making them big enough to allow them to remain useful for 10-20 years seems more than good enough.
I also really liked the idea, but some specialists have argued it would be hard to provide rigidity. Given the load that heavy trucks have to face, this sounds like a bigger problem for trucks than for cars.
I think we should focus on either:
- charging on the go if those trucks use highways for long-distance, maybe have self-driving trucks drive at night and charge on the way; or better:
- moving that cargo on train lines and using trucks with small batteries for the distance between the nearest train station and the final destination. That opens the possibility of using smaller trucks for many routes, which would really help with road safety, especially in dense areas. Trucks that can pull 15 tons or more are unsafe near children.
I think we should focus on either:
- charging on the go if those trucks use highways for long-distance, maybe have self-driving trucks drive at night and charge on the way; or better:
- moving that cargo on train lines and using trucks with small batteries for the distance between the nearest train station and the final destination. That opens the possibility of using smaller trucks for many routes, which would really help with road safety, especially in dense areas. Trucks that can pull 15 tons or more are unsafe near children.
> I also really liked the idea, but some specialists have argued it would be hard to provide rigidity.
Do you happen to have any pointers to more info on this? I don't understand what would prevent the industry from standardizing on a structural battery pack rigid enough for the use case.
Do you happen to have any pointers to more info on this? I don't understand what would prevent the industry from standardizing on a structural battery pack rigid enough for the use case.
Then you overbuild the pack. The criticism of the new EV hummer's pack is an example, and it didn't even need swappability, is just trying to get the batteries to stay adequately in place. https://insideevs.com/news/668428/hummer-ev-battery-teardown...
Imo rigidity still feels like a semi bullshit gripe though. A lift should be able to rise up under the vehicle and uniformly support the batteries. The vehicle can then let them go. I imagine the batteries more or less suspended underneath the vehicle in this configuration, with a latching mechanism holding them up. Some cross bracing to provide structure.
Making sure the batteries stay attached though, that they don't give flying in a crash, is a significant & obvious problem though, now that I think of it.
Imo rigidity still feels like a semi bullshit gripe though. A lift should be able to rise up under the vehicle and uniformly support the batteries. The vehicle can then let them go. I imagine the batteries more or less suspended underneath the vehicle in this configuration, with a latching mechanism holding them up. Some cross bracing to provide structure.
Making sure the batteries stay attached though, that they don't give flying in a crash, is a significant & obvious problem though, now that I think of it.
When I've thought about swappable batteries for trucks it seems like you could locate them between the trailers frame rails. I'm sure there is enough structural meat on the frame rails to support a 4000lb battery.
My feeling is whether swappable batteries are viable or not is less of a engineering problem than an accounting and logistics one,
My feeling is whether swappable batteries are viable or not is less of a engineering problem than an accounting and logistics one,
rektide is right to point at the need to over-build the pack: you need the car to be rigid without the batteries, essentially, and the battery to be sturdy on its own. You could argue that the car only goes through significant stress when the two are together, but every mechanical engineer is not liking that math.
Another argument is what Sandy Monroe [0] think is the biggest one: moving connectors. It’s not just high-energy cables, but possibly coolant, etc. Those will be the first thing to fail.
Sandy also mentions the risk of using someone else’s over-worn battery, but that’s more his atrabilar personality than something that could be engineered away: have the platform the battery regularly, even have the car do diagnostic and remove the worst ones from circulation.
[0] https://youtu.be/Rb0Ix7UCtpA
Another argument is what Sandy Monroe [0] think is the biggest one: moving connectors. It’s not just high-energy cables, but possibly coolant, etc. Those will be the first thing to fail.
Sandy also mentions the risk of using someone else’s over-worn battery, but that’s more his atrabilar personality than something that could be engineered away: have the platform the battery regularly, even have the car do diagnostic and remove the worst ones from circulation.
[0] https://youtu.be/Rb0Ix7UCtpA
[deleted]
It's already being done by retrofitting diesel trucks. It's interesting they can change gears without having a clutch.
https://fullycharged.show/episodes/this-giant-electric-semi-...
https://fullycharged.show/episodes/this-giant-electric-semi-...
Yeah... battery swapping seems like the next big thing for e-vecs. Imagine we shared batteries and all batteries must have some sort of reporting mechanism to report its life and charge holding and it must always be at 80% before being repurposed / fixed? Could be interesting...
Consumer car batteries charge 20->80% in under a half hour these days, and are warranted for a minimum of 8 years.
30 minutes seems slow until you realize that you hardly ever need to charge the car away from home. I do not miss going to the gas station!
I’d guess the mechanisms needed to swap the battery would be more maintenance than they are worth.
I guess for delivery vans, which drive during peak solar production, doubling the number of batteries so you can charge during the day might make sense.
30 minutes seems slow until you realize that you hardly ever need to charge the car away from home. I do not miss going to the gas station!
I’d guess the mechanisms needed to swap the battery would be more maintenance than they are worth.
I guess for delivery vans, which drive during peak solar production, doubling the number of batteries so you can charge during the day might make sense.
FpUser(3)
Given that Tesla tried battery swaps and canned it, and that venture funded startups already burned a billion dollars trying it and failing, I don't think many companies are eager to repeat the experiment.
China is doing it. The key thing is you need more than just a billion dollars, you need a dozen times that (or more, but the CCP doesn't need to worry about money) and credible political commitment that customers won't be left stuck with useless cars down the road.
China is not worried about safety and reliability in the same way Western producers are. They don't have the same liability laws.
Tesla and the major automakers can't risk their name and reputation on a crap product.
Tesla and the major automakers can't risk their name and reputation on a crap product.
> Tesla [...] can't risk their name and reputation on a crap product.
Full Self Driving has entered the chat...
Full Self Driving has entered the chat...
NIO is doing some crazy crap, dunno how they pay for it.
They even have literal charging vans you can just order to come anywhere you want. You use an app to request one, they drive to your location and charge your car.
Plus they have the manned battery swap stations everyone has seen a video of.
They even have literal charging vans you can just order to come anywhere you want. You use an app to request one, they drive to your location and charge your car.
Plus they have the manned battery swap stations everyone has seen a video of.
China is throwing money at the problem, as simple as that. They're all too aware that their pollution issues need to be solved, and if it kickstarts an industry that can undercut Western competition, all the better..
Seems to be working well in Australia. They change batteries in 5 minutes using a fork lift, versus the ~20 minutes it takes to fill a truck with diesel.
https://www.januselectric.com.au/
https://www.januselectric.com.au/
I would naively think that putting the bigger part of the battery in the trailer is a good idea. Now someone can tell me why it isn't.
The limiting factor for electric vehicle production is batteries. Trailers spend a lot more time sitting around than tractor units. It's more economically efficient to use the batteries as much as possible rather than have them sitting around.
Trailers come in many form factors: container, flat bet, end-dump. Heck, sometimes you just want to tow another tractor. Those different form factors have different constraints in terms of battery size and shape.
You'd still need big batteries in some tractor units so that they could drop off trailers. All tractor units would need small batteries so they could go short distances without a trailer.
Trailers come in many form factors: container, flat bet, end-dump. Heck, sometimes you just want to tow another tractor. Those different form factors have different constraints in terms of battery size and shape.
You'd still need big batteries in some tractor units so that they could drop off trailers. All tractor units would need small batteries so they could go short distances without a trailer.
Unfortunately this ground breaking technology exists only in China.
Titanfall 2 showed us the way!
sneaks into the room
TRAINS!
sulks back out of the room
TRAINS!
sulks back out of the room
Last mile connectivity is a massive hurdle, though. Getting a railway connection is only a viable option for the very largest businesses. Your average business/industrial park would immediately be gridlocked if you replaced all trucks with trains, and getting trains inside cities is pretty much impossible.
Great option for long distance, terrible option for short distance, probably too much of a hassle for medium distance.
Great option for long distance, terrible option for short distance, probably too much of a hassle for medium distance.
With better last mile connectivity, trains should be the only option. But guess loading and unloading is the weak link along with last mile lack of options.
The problem with trains is that the infrastructure is very expensive, and also wildly unprofitable, and very slow to build.
How does that work, though? Aren't highways crazy expensive?
In what world can 2 metal tracks plus some small foundations be cheaper than 20m width of concrete, asphalt and much bigger foundations?
The economics of rail versus roads don't make any sense to me.
The only way they do, I imagine, is if roads are crazily subsidized.
In what world can 2 metal tracks plus some small foundations be cheaper than 20m width of concrete, asphalt and much bigger foundations?
The economics of rail versus roads don't make any sense to me.
The only way they do, I imagine, is if roads are crazily subsidized.
I studied civil engineering, with a focus on structural, but a heavy geotechnical element and some pavement design and rail desing.
Highways are cheaper and easier because they're usually less investment and planning at once. They have their own downsides, don't get me wrong, but no. Rail is long term, lots of property seizure, usually a single track across a vast distance, etc.
Rail makes sense for a lot of places, but for a country as large as America, it's hard to see the benefits as fast as highways and we need logistics to switch to electric quickly.
That said, to make highways more efficient more places should take a page off of the 407 in Ontario, Canada. The fluctuating pricing keeps the roads in high usage most of the time and it stops tragedy of the commons issues with sinks (the cities that highways dump their vehicles to) and keeps highway economic pricing honest against things like rail and sea.
Highways are cheaper and easier because they're usually less investment and planning at once. They have their own downsides, don't get me wrong, but no. Rail is long term, lots of property seizure, usually a single track across a vast distance, etc.
Rail makes sense for a lot of places, but for a country as large as America, it's hard to see the benefits as fast as highways and we need logistics to switch to electric quickly.
That said, to make highways more efficient more places should take a page off of the 407 in Ontario, Canada. The fluctuating pricing keeps the roads in high usage most of the time and it stops tragedy of the commons issues with sinks (the cities that highways dump their vehicles to) and keeps highway economic pricing honest against things like rail and sea.
> usually a single track across a vast distance, etc.
This is fairly short-sighted, isn't it? Make no mistake, highways are also long-term and involve lots of property seizure. We could build out railways with more than a single track, but rail is private and roads are public.
This is fairly short-sighted, isn't it? Make no mistake, highways are also long-term and involve lots of property seizure. We could build out railways with more than a single track, but rail is private and roads are public.
What about starting to use the rails we already have?
Aren’t most of our rails already used at capacity?
Much of the US rail system sees one train each direction a day or less.
The problem is those are feeder lines; the main lines can be at capacity even if they’re a relatively small percentage of the total rail.
The problem is those are feeder lines; the main lines can be at capacity even if they’re a relatively small percentage of the total rail.
>is if roads are crazily subsidized
That is very much reality.
That is very much reality.
Right but generally the argument goes that if subsidizing roads is worth it, it is probably worth it to subsidize trains as well.
One problem with market economies is that if you subsidize one thing, you have to subsidize everything else or there won't be a level playing field.
I suppose, but this hasn’t stopped us from doing this with roads, so I don’t see why we don’t do it with trains.
I'm 100% for subsidizing trains, or at least saying that train systems not turning a profit are for the greater good (as I do for public transportation).
Not just subsidized, but build and managed by the government!
By chance, not too long after reading this article, I ran across this article on Amtrak struggling to update even our existing tracks along the west coast to meet the challenges of climate change.
I am envious of the European and Asian train systems and wish we had the like in the US, but alas, we sunk trillions of dollars into our interstate system of highways. I don't think we should give up on trains in the US, and would dearly love to see some high-speed rail corridor investment toot suite, but it would be irresponsible to let our current investment go to ruin, even if we decided today to put all our chips on trains.'
I mean, we started with trains, right? And look what happened after we stopped investing in them. Just updating our current train system might be too heavy a burden for the US to bear these days.
What we really need is to prioritize investing in the US at every level, and finding better ways than borrowing against the future to pay for it. After all, it's not that the money isn't out there. Maybe we do need to make it investments rather than taxes. My personal politics are pretty far left, but in the US at least, leftist policies really struggle for traction. I'd rather see us making a better world, even if it doesn't follow my personal plan for getting there.
https://crosscut.com/environment/2023/05/when-it-comes-clima...
(lightly edited)
I am envious of the European and Asian train systems and wish we had the like in the US, but alas, we sunk trillions of dollars into our interstate system of highways. I don't think we should give up on trains in the US, and would dearly love to see some high-speed rail corridor investment toot suite, but it would be irresponsible to let our current investment go to ruin, even if we decided today to put all our chips on trains.'
I mean, we started with trains, right? And look what happened after we stopped investing in them. Just updating our current train system might be too heavy a burden for the US to bear these days.
What we really need is to prioritize investing in the US at every level, and finding better ways than borrowing against the future to pay for it. After all, it's not that the money isn't out there. Maybe we do need to make it investments rather than taxes. My personal politics are pretty far left, but in the US at least, leftist policies really struggle for traction. I'd rather see us making a better world, even if it doesn't follow my personal plan for getting there.
https://crosscut.com/environment/2023/05/when-it-comes-clima...
(lightly edited)
Trains aren't wildly profitable, but they are profitable when run correctly.
You can't just make an unicorn hockey stick curve train company, it's basic infrastructure like electricity and water.
You can't just make an unicorn hockey stick curve train company, it's basic infrastructure like electricity and water.
It'd be awesome if we could get the utilization ratio up. Any given section of highway has a vehicle over it let's say 1% of the time. Rail's utilization factor has got to be 1% of that.
My Sci fi dream is carrier trains, where a car is disaggregated into a pod and a skateboard. But one can drive their vehicle to a train & the pod comes off & mounts onto the train with standard mounting & then gets dropped back onto a rental skateboard at the destination.
Or maybe if we had right sized e-transit with ebikes & small e-cars, we could just ride on/off regular trains, quickly & efficiently.
My Sci fi dream is carrier trains, where a car is disaggregated into a pod and a skateboard. But one can drive their vehicle to a train & the pod comes off & mounts onto the train with standard mounting & then gets dropped back onto a rental skateboard at the destination.
Or maybe if we had right sized e-transit with ebikes & small e-cars, we could just ride on/off regular trains, quickly & efficiently.
It really depends on the railway line. A lot of Europe is running enough passenger trains that there literally isn't enough space to add more cargo trains into the mix.
In my country the minimum train-train spacing is five minutes, because any less and a train won't be able to stop if the preceding one has an accident. A substantial part of the network is already being limited by this, and we are seeing more and more quad-track sections.
Your "carrier train" already exists, to an extent. It is called "intermodal shipping containers".
In my country the minimum train-train spacing is five minutes, because any less and a train won't be able to stop if the preceding one has an accident. A substantial part of the network is already being limited by this, and we are seeing more and more quad-track sections.
Your "carrier train" already exists, to an extent. It is called "intermodal shipping containers".
It's not a fast nor available option. No one is going to commute this way regularly.
We're talking about trains, and to me, the occasional trip is not the active question: it's what we do day by day. This ain't it.
We're talking about trains, and to me, the occasional trip is not the active question: it's what we do day by day. This ain't it.
I could talk about how charging during a delivery is a no go. I could talk about the initial price. Or about battery life. Or infrastructure.
As I know people in the transport business I'm just gonna shut up and wait for them to switch for economic reasons. Until then it's just words.
As I know people in the transport business I'm just gonna shut up and wait for them to switch for economic reasons. Until then it's just words.
A combination of economics and policy will force this. California has outlawed new diesel truck sales after 2036, and other states aren’t far behind (you can drag the stragglers along).
Diesel truck pm2.5 emissions are harmful. Carbon emissions are harmful. Adapt or die. PepsiCo and Frito-Lay are already running Tesla Semis in production. The learning curve is bending up. To get better at this, we’ll have to first suck at it, in the aggregate.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/04/28/california-bans-the-sale...
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022...
https://electrek.co/2023/04/12/tesla-delivers-fleet-tesla-se...
Diesel truck pm2.5 emissions are harmful. Carbon emissions are harmful. Adapt or die. PepsiCo and Frito-Lay are already running Tesla Semis in production. The learning curve is bending up. To get better at this, we’ll have to first suck at it, in the aggregate.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/04/28/california-bans-the-sale...
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022...
https://electrek.co/2023/04/12/tesla-delivers-fleet-tesla-se...
Most states won’t be banning diesel trucks any time soon because EVs are more expensive in most scenarios and they don’t want their citizens to be poorer. The same is true of most countries. I agree with the comment above. This will be solved when EV trucks are definitively cheaper. There are already limited use cases where this is true. Technology is the solution here, not draconian legislation.
You only have to have enough of the market ban them to cause a death spiral where manufactures won’t build new fossil vehicles. This locks in the policy goal, it forces the supply chain to reconfigure.
No one cares if the dakotas don’t ban them if no one will build them for just their market.
Think in systems. Find lynch pins and apply maximum force. It’s either a climate emergency or it’s not, and if it is, treat it like an emergency.
No one cares if the dakotas don’t ban them if no one will build them for just their market.
Think in systems. Find lynch pins and apply maximum force. It’s either a climate emergency or it’s not, and if it is, treat it like an emergency.
This situation happened already with vehicles. California used to get special cars because of their strict emissions regulations. Now every car has "50 state legal" emissions because A) more states signed onto the California standards, B) it was cheaper to build one vehicle to the strictest standards than to make two for a single market.
What's the point in running a diesel semi when it can't be used to make deliveries to key states in the country? That will force a "relay" model in the freight industry which kills point-to-point delivery, where diesels deliver to a border state and an EV semis runs the last leg. Once that happens, then it becomes economical to run more EV semis between diesel relays, or add rail depots to the relays for ultra-low cost transport over long distances, then EVs for the last leg.
The diesel truck industry is going to die slowly, then all at once.
What's the point in running a diesel semi when it can't be used to make deliveries to key states in the country? That will force a "relay" model in the freight industry which kills point-to-point delivery, where diesels deliver to a border state and an EV semis runs the last leg. Once that happens, then it becomes economical to run more EV semis between diesel relays, or add rail depots to the relays for ultra-low cost transport over long distances, then EVs for the last leg.
The diesel truck industry is going to die slowly, then all at once.
A figure that I've seen bandied about is that there are 17 states that have already adopted rules based on some portion of the CARB advanced clean transportation rules, and that those states represent I think 35% of the population and 50% of the economic activity in the US. That is less definitive than saying that all of these states will adopt the same rules (like the most recent Advanced Clean Fleets rule). But it's still enough that fleet operators, government procurement officers, and vehicle manufacturers are investing in zero emission vehicles and infrastructure faster than they would without those regulations.
>No one cares if the dakotas don’t ban them if no one will build them for just their market.
New producers of diesel vehicles would show up to cater to those markets. Econ 101.
>Think in systems. Find lynch pins and apply maximum force. It’s either a climate emergency or it’s not, and if it is, treat it like an emergency.
Very emotionally charged rhetoric there. That kind of action would result in bifurcation of the market. Balkanization. Separate economies. That sort of thing.
New producers of diesel vehicles would show up to cater to those markets. Econ 101.
>Think in systems. Find lynch pins and apply maximum force. It’s either a climate emergency or it’s not, and if it is, treat it like an emergency.
Very emotionally charged rhetoric there. That kind of action would result in bifurcation of the market. Balkanization. Separate economies. That sort of thing.
Developing a new vehicle is quite a substantial fixed cost.
So I think what will happen is that a few existing car manufacturers decide they're OK with being a larger share of a smaller market. Or else a new/adjacent player buys out legacy IP and operations while the original manufacturer focuses on EVs. Or there's a bunch of remanufacturing going on to keep hydrocarbon vehicles running.
Either way, there'll be quite... boutique prices.
So I think what will happen is that a few existing car manufacturers decide they're OK with being a larger share of a smaller market. Or else a new/adjacent player buys out legacy IP and operations while the original manufacturer focuses on EVs. Or there's a bunch of remanufacturing going on to keep hydrocarbon vehicles running.
Either way, there'll be quite... boutique prices.
Right, but it would make it more expensive to ship, which makes pretty much everyone in that state poorer. States do not want this.
Yes. Humanity has been living on credit essentially for the last century through cheap fossil fuels. No one likes having to pay true costs for what they want. We’ll innovate (as we’ve clearly done with renewables, storage, and heat pumps to name a few tech) and grit our teeth in equal measures as we unfuck our enegy systems. What’s the alternative? Not? I admit it is an inconvenient truth. But the bill has come due.
If the poor cannot afford the transition, fix this with policy. We have the aggregate system wealth. Allocate accordingly.
If the poor cannot afford the transition, fix this with policy. We have the aggregate system wealth. Allocate accordingly.
Every time i see such emotionally charged language about what we must sacrifice for the environment I think "there is no way this person grows any of their own food". That is the kind of change and sacrifice that needs to be made.
Part owner in a family farm that raises steer as well as cash crops, and occasionally assist with fall harvesting ops when short handed.
Edit (throttled, replying here): Growing your own food for self sufficiency is an unreasonable ask and challenging at best for your average citizen. Check out how many acres and the work involved for a family of four’s annually nutritional needs. It simply doesn’t scale (no pun intended), although it can work for those with ample land and no time commitments.
Edit (throttled, replying here): Growing your own food for self sufficiency is an unreasonable ask and challenging at best for your average citizen. Check out how many acres and the work involved for a family of four’s annually nutritional needs. It simply doesn’t scale (no pun intended), although it can work for those with ample land and no time commitments.
No need to have to grow all their own food, any kind of a supplement at all is a positive.
Plenty of single family dwellings with grass yards.
And time commitments/work involved? I guess they aren't serious about climate change. This just reinforces my original point. Screeching about climate change but unwilling to do any of the work or make any _real_ sacrifices.
It only takes a few hours a week to operate a backyard garden that produces more than even a large family can consume.
Plenty of single family dwellings with grass yards.
And time commitments/work involved? I guess they aren't serious about climate change. This just reinforces my original point. Screeching about climate change but unwilling to do any of the work or make any _real_ sacrifices.
It only takes a few hours a week to operate a backyard garden that produces more than even a large family can consume.
Increasing density to the point where folks don't have a yard to grow produce in would be even more positive than families growing a small amount of produce that still wouldn't cover their nutritional needs. That's also a real sacrifice, and like your proposal, it's not one that would be accepted, and not one that meets the needs of varied people.
You're taking an extreme, untenable, position as an alternative to an incremental solution that generally fits everyone's needs at a slightly higher cost.
Electrification is inevitable.
You're taking an extreme, untenable, position as an alternative to an incremental solution that generally fits everyone's needs at a slightly higher cost.
Electrification is inevitable.
Then why aren't you pushing the "grow your own food" mantra rather than the "get rid of fossil fuels" mantra. We wouldn't need such volumes of liquid fuels if not for industrial agriculture and transportation of food. That seems like much lower hanging fruit than eliminating fossil fuels.
How is it lower hanging fruit? If people move out into the country, then non-food goods will have to be transported to them instead. You're just swapping one problem for another.
[deleted]
You can grow surplus food in the yard of a single family dwelling. No one has to move anywhere.
This is like suggesting the solution to plastic pollution is recycling and reduction by individuals. You can't regulate your way to changing people's behavior, but you can regulate away the source of the problem.
Individual action isn't the solution to a systemic problem, because there's more incentive to cause the problem than to fix it. Individual action requires time, money and effort on behalf of the individual, whereas the ones causing the problem have financial incentive to continue causing it, in greater amounts.
Individual action isn't the solution to a systemic problem, because there's more incentive to cause the problem than to fix it. Individual action requires time, money and effort on behalf of the individual, whereas the ones causing the problem have financial incentive to continue causing it, in greater amounts.
If the states want to avoid costly shipping, what would they do if someone published some research suggesting that "Heavy electric trucks cheaper than diesel goods transport"?
If passenger cars move to electric, wouldn’t that push diesel pricing down for the truck industry?
Best I can figure, Big Oil pricing is based on what the market will bear. Versus in response to supply, demand, cost of production, and so forth.
Primary evidence is their profitability.
Every couple of years, some politician gets some press for initiating an investigation into price gouging. If a hearing actually happens, no one ever makes the mistake of saying anything concrete.
Nothing ever changes.
And now we have analysis which shows that 50% (?) of recent consumer price inflation is just Big Oil charging more.
And nothing will change.
Silver lining is that price gouging will hasten switch to EVs, so yay for small victories.
(FWIW, my uncle works in a refinery making diesel. He couldn't explain pricing. So what hope do noobs like me have of lifting the veil?)
Primary evidence is their profitability.
Every couple of years, some politician gets some press for initiating an investigation into price gouging. If a hearing actually happens, no one ever makes the mistake of saying anything concrete.
Nothing ever changes.
And now we have analysis which shows that 50% (?) of recent consumer price inflation is just Big Oil charging more.
And nothing will change.
Silver lining is that price gouging will hasten switch to EVs, so yay for small victories.
(FWIW, my uncle works in a refinery making diesel. He couldn't explain pricing. So what hope do noobs like me have of lifting the veil?)
That really isn't true: supply is very important, which is why OPEC tries to restrict it and things fall apart when Russia pumps too much or a Saudi Sheik decides to buy a new private jumbo jet. Also, the cost of production in the Americas is high enough that it isn't even profitable to bother unless oil is over $100/barrel.
My guess is that things won't change as much as diesel fuel becomes more niche in terms of distribution, but the pressure will be against future price rises, especially if that hastens the move to EVs. The Saudis have to sell their oil before there is no demand for it.
My guess is that things won't change as much as diesel fuel becomes more niche in terms of distribution, but the pressure will be against future price rises, especially if that hastens the move to EVs. The Saudis have to sell their oil before there is no demand for it.
You're certainly correct; price of gasoline (petrol) tracks with crude oil.
I meant to read up on govt's allegations of price gouging (profiteering), to maybe understand what's going on, but got distracted.
So many outrages, so little time.
Cheers.
I meant to read up on govt's allegations of price gouging (profiteering), to maybe understand what's going on, but got distracted.
So many outrages, so little time.
Cheers.
It is a balancing act.
> they don’t want their citizens to be poorer
If this was true, we would have walkable and bike able cities...
I feel like there is a lot of misinformation when it comes to bans. No one is coming to your house to take away your existing cars and trucks as far as I know. We are talking about disincentivizing new sales after a certain date.
> they don’t want their citizens to be poorer
If this was true, we would have walkable and bike able cities...
I feel like there is a lot of misinformation when it comes to bans. No one is coming to your house to take away your existing cars and trucks as far as I know. We are talking about disincentivizing new sales after a certain date.
> Frito-Lay
Makes sense when your cargo is air.
Makes sense when your cargo is air.
And yet the context was:
> PepsiCo and Frito-Lay
Which I would assume that the PepsiCo product is about as heavy and dense as you could expect in normal freight scenarios, being liquids.
> PepsiCo and Frito-Lay
Which I would assume that the PepsiCo product is about as heavy and dense as you could expect in normal freight scenarios, being liquids.
Well PepsiCo doesn't only make Pepsi, they own so many different brands it's entirely possible that what they're transporting with the EV fleet isn't a drink.
Huh, amongst all the other news, I had missed that any Tesla Semis actually existed, let alone had been delivered…
People with a financial stake in the outcome have decided to invest a lot of money into electric semis despite knowing about all of these limitations (and many more) ahead of time. So they must have some plan for overcoming these hurdles.
Perhaps these limitations aren't as rigid as people swear they are, or maybe shipping modalities change in order to play to the strengths of EVs. For example, there's nothing stopping shipping from becoming a relay-based, rather than point-to-point. Or maybe it becomes financially feasible to have drivers swap trucks. Yeah, that kills the "owner operator" long-haul trucker, but that model is pretty untenable anyway.
Even industry experts can call an idea patently absurd, then have it become dominant over the next 20-30 years. Cable television is a good example of this, it's crazy to attach physical cables to every house in the USA in order to deliver TV, which can be sent over-the-air at a fraction of the cost. But we did just that. The benefits out-weighed the (tremendous) costs.
Perhaps these limitations aren't as rigid as people swear they are, or maybe shipping modalities change in order to play to the strengths of EVs. For example, there's nothing stopping shipping from becoming a relay-based, rather than point-to-point. Or maybe it becomes financially feasible to have drivers swap trucks. Yeah, that kills the "owner operator" long-haul trucker, but that model is pretty untenable anyway.
Even industry experts can call an idea patently absurd, then have it become dominant over the next 20-30 years. Cable television is a good example of this, it's crazy to attach physical cables to every house in the USA in order to deliver TV, which can be sent over-the-air at a fraction of the cost. But we did just that. The benefits out-weighed the (tremendous) costs.
> So they must have some plan for overcoming these hurdles.
Aren't a lot of countries basically forcing companies to do this early before the support infrastructure is in place?
I'm still curious how people living in the mountain of condo buildings in most major cities are going to charge their consumer cars, without having to line up for hours at gas-station style charging stations, considering most condo parking garages I've seen only have 3-4 charging spots.
Solving it for trucks delivering to various locations across non-urban areas seems a bit easier, given it's less of a real estate problem, but still a huge investment.
I'm guessing loading docks at warehouses will need to set up individual plugs while it loads/unloads and pre-planned trucks stops all along the highways? Any time they eat/rest will be designed around charging.
Aren't a lot of countries basically forcing companies to do this early before the support infrastructure is in place?
I'm still curious how people living in the mountain of condo buildings in most major cities are going to charge their consumer cars, without having to line up for hours at gas-station style charging stations, considering most condo parking garages I've seen only have 3-4 charging spots.
Solving it for trucks delivering to various locations across non-urban areas seems a bit easier, given it's less of a real estate problem, but still a huge investment.
I'm guessing loading docks at warehouses will need to set up individual plugs while it loads/unloads and pre-planned trucks stops all along the highways? Any time they eat/rest will be designed around charging.
I know several people who own Telsas and don't have home charging. One is my cousin who manages to drive 2 hours to visit us on holidays. And my good friend has a garage, but never bothered to install a charger because it's unnecessary.
Maybe it's different where you live, but Superchargers are all over here. Most of the grocery stores around me have them, and they have lots of spots available even at peak hours (some have EA and Superchargers next to each other). Chargefinder.com shows tons of public charging options around.
Even the lowest range Model 3 has more "range" than my petrol car, and I still only fill up at the grocery store gas station most weeks.
The infrastructure is already there and it's growing quickly. But unless you have an EV, you probably don't even notice it's happening.
Maybe it's different where you live, but Superchargers are all over here. Most of the grocery stores around me have them, and they have lots of spots available even at peak hours (some have EA and Superchargers next to each other). Chargefinder.com shows tons of public charging options around.
Even the lowest range Model 3 has more "range" than my petrol car, and I still only fill up at the grocery store gas station most weeks.
The infrastructure is already there and it's growing quickly. But unless you have an EV, you probably don't even notice it's happening.
I’m talking about when everyone has them when ICE bans are on. Obviously you can live without home chargers these days?
> considering most condo parking garages I've seen only have 3-4 charging spots
Easy: condos will place more chargers.
Currently the paradigm is to place a few high-power chargers and have people occupy the charger as little as possible. Once electric cars hit a certain threshold everyone will want a charger, so it'll become more viable to just equip every single parking space with a low-power charger, and have everyone slow charge overnight.
Easy: condos will place more chargers.
Currently the paradigm is to place a few high-power chargers and have people occupy the charger as little as possible. Once electric cars hit a certain threshold everyone will want a charger, so it'll become more viable to just equip every single parking space with a low-power charger, and have everyone slow charge overnight.
> condos will place more chargers.
All of them?
I guess there will be either be rapid improvements to charging time where the real estate burden for charging won’t be too bad or the private landlords will have to pay for it (or get subsidized to). There’s a ton of buildings in each city which aren’t exactly in a rush to do investments in old properties.
All of them?
I guess there will be either be rapid improvements to charging time where the real estate burden for charging won’t be too bad or the private landlords will have to pay for it (or get subsidized to). There’s a ton of buildings in each city which aren’t exactly in a rush to do investments in old properties.
> So they must have some plan for overcoming these hurdles.
Or maybe their plans is to get the first mover advantage and see what pans out ? Or get the whole market à la Uber by spending a lot of VC money and then figure out how to recoup ? See farming tech.
Or maybe their plans is to get the first mover advantage and see what pans out ? Or get the whole market à la Uber by spending a lot of VC money and then figure out how to recoup ? See farming tech.
Uber had several long-term plans for making money. Surge pricing, predictive analytics, combined trips, tiered service, etc.
Uber makes a gross profit of over $12 billion on a revenue of nearly $32 billion. They lose money on paper because they keep reinvesting profits and further investments back into the business. They've almost doubled revenue YoY.
So even the most ludicrous SV startup you can think of pulled this off.
Uber makes a gross profit of over $12 billion on a revenue of nearly $32 billion. They lose money on paper because they keep reinvesting profits and further investments back into the business. They've almost doubled revenue YoY.
So even the most ludicrous SV startup you can think of pulled this off.
Isn't this still based on adjusted EBIDTA? I don't believe they are profitable on EBIDTA.
Thanks, I bought into the uber for free because of vc money meme.
You weren't wrong. Prior to going public, Uber relied on VC money to make the unit economics work. The unit economics now work (Uber doesn't lose money on every ride) but Uber is still losing money.
It's also not true to say that Uber's loss is due solely to R&D, since R&D only represents $1 billion in expenses, per Uber's 2022 annual report and their Q1 financials. Uber would still be unprofitable even if it did no R&D, since it has very large G&A, marketing costs, and CORS (cost of revenue).
It's also not true to say that Uber's loss is due solely to R&D, since R&D only represents $1 billion in expenses, per Uber's 2022 annual report and their Q1 financials. Uber would still be unprofitable even if it did no R&D, since it has very large G&A, marketing costs, and CORS (cost of revenue).
Translation: you can't argue against me with facts so you make fun of me.
> Translation: you can't argue against me with facts so you make fun of me.
I am not following. I didn't mean to make fun of you, I honestly thanked you for correcting my warped vision of Uber's VC situation. Sorry if it sounded ironic or aggressive.
I am not following. I didn't mean to make fun of you, I honestly thanked you for correcting my warped vision of Uber's VC situation. Sorry if it sounded ironic or aggressive.
Why is charging during a delivery a no go? Charging during loading would be the most reasonable solution, the truck will be stationary for 30-60 minutes or more anyway.
The battery life issue is mostly offset by lower operating costs: electricity is a lot cheaper than diesel / 100km and electric motors are pretty much maintenance free
The battery life issue is mostly offset by lower operating costs: electricity is a lot cheaper than diesel / 100km and electric motors are pretty much maintenance free
The study took those things into account (fixed route deliveries, maintenance cost models and computerized scheduling address all your concerns and have been common place for decades).
Anyway, I saw an electric ford van on a delivery run yesterday.
Anyway, I saw an electric ford van on a delivery run yesterday.
[deleted](1)
If you include the true cost of remediating the diesel’s pollution then the electric truck comes our way ahead.
What about including the true cost of remediating lithium pollution?
Or retooling the overall transportation infrastructure?
Yes, pollution is bad. Diesel trucks are a highly visible form. However, there are too many unknowns for these sweeping statements about 'true' costs to be taken seriously. It is another example of the economic calculation problem.
Try as they might, researchers can't sit in a bureau and come up with figures to plan an economy with.
Yes, pollution is bad. Diesel trucks are a highly visible form. However, there are too many unknowns for these sweeping statements about 'true' costs to be taken seriously. It is another example of the economic calculation problem.
Try as they might, researchers can't sit in a bureau and come up with figures to plan an economy with.
I guess the devil's advocate is similar but it's coal to produce the electricity compared to the diesel truck. Thinking both aren't great.
Only 19% of electricity generated today in the US is from coal, trending toward 0. Then consider larger fossil fuel power plants are far more efficient than the tiny engines in vehicles.
"Coal is used to power electric vehicles," is an argument that is more noise than signal.
"Coal is used to power electric vehicles," is an argument that is more noise than signal.
This is regional dependent. The last time I looked in Colorado, and electric vehicle is actually spews more pollution when running than a gas car b/c of the amount of coal power plants that we run - much to the chagrine of all the Boulderites in their Teslas.
This site suggests a Tesla 3 in Boulder gets 66 mpg-equivalent (more if they have solar):
https://evtool.ucsusa.org/
https://evtool.ucsusa.org/
Colorado is 30% NG and 30% coal, probably because a lot of coal is mined in adjacent Wyoming and MT. The rest are renewables. The coal number keeps dropping, so EV use will improve over time without upgrading the vehicle.
[deleted]
EVs emit less CO2 than diesel trucks even when the electricity is produced using coal power plants. And the best part is that coal is on its way out, rapidly being replaced by gas and renewables, so EVs get even better over time!
This study is from Sweden, and there are no coal power stations in Sweden. They closed the last in 2020.
You are arguing against coal power plants. No one is disagreeing with you there.
I think I'm arguing that we should look at the long tail of power source/generation of both diesel and electric vehicles.
The problem may be that "both aren't perfectly great" and maybe the best solution, despite Capitalism, is to use less as one of the only ways to well: save ourselves from destroying the Planet.
The problem may be that "both aren't perfectly great" and maybe the best solution, despite Capitalism, is to use less as one of the only ways to well: save ourselves from destroying the Planet.
Who determines the 'true' cost? How much is that exactly? Are there any other figures or dissent in regards to the premise?
There are two things you can look at:
1. The consequences of global warming
You could ask people how much they’d pay to keep chocolate or coffee, bananas, pineapples, or mangoes. Most of Florida’s coastline, about half of California. There are things that specialists disagree about, but all have no doubt that all those crops will not be cultivated (outside) if we stay the course. Florida and California are now seeing insurance companies bailing out, so we are moving from scientific certainty to economic reality.
Naturally, there’s more: most people think that Cajou nuts, açai berries, passion fruits, agave, prickly pears, should be on this list (because of temperature) but if we start looking at that, then people think pollinator collapse or opportunist infection are going to be there first… So I tried to make a conservative list.
Typically the answer to the question “What would you pay to keep those (chocolate, coffee, etc.)?” is that whatever cost to save those things is worth it. You can try to find numbers, but the US famously started wars to end democracies in several countries to grow just bananas (that gave us “Banana Republic”), so we are closer to amounts where it’s less money measured in many billions and more state-sponsored violence.
All that long rant to say: whatever is the cost of not destroying those, that is the “true” cost.
2. The cost of CO2 extraction and storage
With current rock-bottom electricity prices in Iceland, ClimateWorks research facility can extract CO2 for a bit more than $3,000 per ton (depending on accounting for research costs; that number is just OpEx IIRC).
To convert that to the cost of transporting goods, you can apply a ratio of 50 grams of CO2 per tonne-kilometer [1]. A 40-ton truck will have to pay $600 to compensate for every 100 km.
That sounds like a lot, even without considering the cost of storage.
ClimateWorks hope to lower the price by an order of magnitude [0], which specialists think is unlikely. In truth, much cheaper electricity makes electric trucks that much more appealing. You will never save any money by burning fuel and then spending energy trying to re-capture that CO2 at low concentrations. It’s engineering nonsense. A better idea would be to have trucks carry a balloon with their emissions and that’s obviously a clownish idea. All that, again, before we even have a scalable solution for storage. A cousin works on that project for Statoil. Sure it might work (with the right salt cave) but it’s nowhere ready to scale to handle emissions from trucks all over the world.
So we will never be even close to making ICE trucks a sound idea if we consider the environmental impact.
[0] https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/carbon-capture-and-storag...
[1] https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021...
1. The consequences of global warming
You could ask people how much they’d pay to keep chocolate or coffee, bananas, pineapples, or mangoes. Most of Florida’s coastline, about half of California. There are things that specialists disagree about, but all have no doubt that all those crops will not be cultivated (outside) if we stay the course. Florida and California are now seeing insurance companies bailing out, so we are moving from scientific certainty to economic reality.
Naturally, there’s more: most people think that Cajou nuts, açai berries, passion fruits, agave, prickly pears, should be on this list (because of temperature) but if we start looking at that, then people think pollinator collapse or opportunist infection are going to be there first… So I tried to make a conservative list.
Typically the answer to the question “What would you pay to keep those (chocolate, coffee, etc.)?” is that whatever cost to save those things is worth it. You can try to find numbers, but the US famously started wars to end democracies in several countries to grow just bananas (that gave us “Banana Republic”), so we are closer to amounts where it’s less money measured in many billions and more state-sponsored violence.
All that long rant to say: whatever is the cost of not destroying those, that is the “true” cost.
2. The cost of CO2 extraction and storage
With current rock-bottom electricity prices in Iceland, ClimateWorks research facility can extract CO2 for a bit more than $3,000 per ton (depending on accounting for research costs; that number is just OpEx IIRC).
To convert that to the cost of transporting goods, you can apply a ratio of 50 grams of CO2 per tonne-kilometer [1]. A 40-ton truck will have to pay $600 to compensate for every 100 km.
That sounds like a lot, even without considering the cost of storage.
ClimateWorks hope to lower the price by an order of magnitude [0], which specialists think is unlikely. In truth, much cheaper electricity makes electric trucks that much more appealing. You will never save any money by burning fuel and then spending energy trying to re-capture that CO2 at low concentrations. It’s engineering nonsense. A better idea would be to have trucks carry a balloon with their emissions and that’s obviously a clownish idea. All that, again, before we even have a scalable solution for storage. A cousin works on that project for Statoil. Sure it might work (with the right salt cave) but it’s nowhere ready to scale to handle emissions from trucks all over the world.
So we will never be even close to making ICE trucks a sound idea if we consider the environmental impact.
[0] https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/carbon-capture-and-storag...
[1] https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021...
Fantasy theories that ignore many of the core transportation facts, which include
very volatile costs of fuel (diesel is nosebleed higher than gasoline in California this year, a disaster for businesses and tradesmen)
Effective, efficient, fast refueling networks
Complexity of fleet equipment, speed to repair
Tires - an 18 wheeler gets through a lot of tires in its lifetime in service. EVs are very heavy unloaded
Fleet trucking is a brutal business where every penny counts and owner/operators are whipsawed by fuel prices, demand waxing a waining and endless politicla meddling.
Once we have nuclear, a credible supply grid and have overcome the battery capacity and fire issues EV will be viable to businesses. Until then it is the unrealistic slow motion disaster being forced through in California.
https://www.freightwaves.com/ is a good site to track developments
very volatile costs of fuel (diesel is nosebleed higher than gasoline in California this year, a disaster for businesses and tradesmen)
Effective, efficient, fast refueling networks
Complexity of fleet equipment, speed to repair
Tires - an 18 wheeler gets through a lot of tires in its lifetime in service. EVs are very heavy unloaded
Fleet trucking is a brutal business where every penny counts and owner/operators are whipsawed by fuel prices, demand waxing a waining and endless politicla meddling.
Once we have nuclear, a credible supply grid and have overcome the battery capacity and fire issues EV will be viable to businesses. Until then it is the unrealistic slow motion disaster being forced through in California.
https://www.freightwaves.com/ is a good site to track developments
A few things of note:
1. Fuel prices are much higher in the EU, especially in the Nordics due to disincentive taxes (US gas is practically free in comparison), and we simultaneously have vast deployments of renewables and a EU-wide energy exchange that make energy cheaper (heck, electricity cost was negative again today in Denmark). This means that the EV benefit is much greater here. The US really should get their tax game together here...
2. Refueling of long-distance trucks over here are usually done in few, large highway locations that include sleeping areas to comply with driving time limits, and not city gas stations. Fewer locations to equip, making it easier to upgrade for fast charging.
3. Our 18-wheelers are usually smaller and lighter, and while road trains are used in e.g. Sweden, those are only for long-haul with the associated lower tire wear of driving at a constant speed and angle. Short-haul is usually just a light 3-axle box euro truck. But yes, there will be an increased tire-wear which offsets the fuel savings a bit.
2. Refueling of long-distance trucks over here are usually done in few, large highway locations that include sleeping areas to comply with driving time limits, and not city gas stations. Fewer locations to equip, making it easier to upgrade for fast charging.
3. Our 18-wheelers are usually smaller and lighter, and while road trains are used in e.g. Sweden, those are only for long-haul with the associated lower tire wear of driving at a constant speed and angle. Short-haul is usually just a light 3-axle box euro truck. But yes, there will be an increased tire-wear which offsets the fuel savings a bit.
Seems to me that fuel price volatility is a point in favor of electric, as grid electricity prices are less volatile cyclic price swings (day/night) can be planned for, and grid energy is fed by an array of sources, which reduces volatility compared to being dependent on a single energy source.
Fuel with subsidies and unmet externalities is already a slow-motion disaster...
Fuel with subsidies and unmet externalities is already a slow-motion disaster...
Have you checked electricity prices in the last 10 years ? Or just say, 1 year ?
That's volatility
A lot of energy prices are linked together, by the way, because many countries use one to produce the other (burn coal or oil to produce electricity, for instance)
That's volatility
A lot of energy prices are linked together, by the way, because many countries use one to produce the other (burn coal or oil to produce electricity, for instance)
Here's California electricity prices for the last ten years:
https://ycharts.com/indicators/california_electric_utility_r....
There's a clear seasonal pattern and steady increase over time, but isn't particularly spiky otherwise.
And here's diesel, with a nice wall of an increase (~50%) in March last year due to a certain geopolitical event. https://ycharts.com/indicators/california_no_2_diesel_retail...
Electricity went up at the same time from about 21¢ to 24¢, less than half the relative increase in diesel prices.
And this is pretty typical: geopolitical events cause price spikes (or sometimes dips, when the producers happen to try to undercut one another), and then slowly normalize.
Electricity, by contrast, is lots of sources rolled together, spread all over the planet. Shocks in one source will certainly show up, but are stacked by other sources.
There's a clear seasonal pattern and steady increase over time, but isn't particularly spiky otherwise.
And here's diesel, with a nice wall of an increase (~50%) in March last year due to a certain geopolitical event. https://ycharts.com/indicators/california_no_2_diesel_retail...
Electricity went up at the same time from about 21¢ to 24¢, less than half the relative increase in diesel prices.
And this is pretty typical: geopolitical events cause price spikes (or sometimes dips, when the producers happen to try to undercut one another), and then slowly normalize.
Electricity, by contrast, is lots of sources rolled together, spread all over the planet. Shocks in one source will certainly show up, but are stacked by other sources.
Yes, but I for one welcome the volatile electricity price swings in the Nordics. Electricity cost was negative today in Denmark. Yay for renewable energy.
Despite attempts to artificially stabilize oil prices, volatility there does not spark quite the same joy. Marie Kondo would trash it in an instant.
Despite attempts to artificially stabilize oil prices, volatility there does not spark quite the same joy. Marie Kondo would trash it in an instant.
Sure !
You understand that not all people lives in denmark Here, in France, we have 12 times more people than denmark, the highest point is a bit higher than 171 meters and there is a lot of land not really close to the sea
Point is : good for you, but your country' situation is an exception
You understand that not all people lives in denmark Here, in France, we have 12 times more people than denmark, the highest point is a bit higher than 171 meters and there is a lot of land not really close to the sea
Point is : good for you, but your country' situation is an exception
You also have nuclear power as 75% of your supply and buy our excess renewable on the energy exchange, so you are doing excellent - just make sure that number goes up, not down, unlike a certain ill-advised neighbor of yours.
Our environment-focused market-regulating taxes are also not altitude dependent.
Fun fact, nuclear power has the lowest direct and indirect (e.g., cancer, pollution) death rate per Wh of any supply source - despite high-profile disasters - beating even wind power which while entirely harmless has a considerably higher deaths from accidents during construction and maintenance. The only negative aspect is high up-front construction cost, but that is a low price for the many human lives saved by reduced oil or coal pollution from the plants that were replaced where wind or solar is not an option.
Our environment-focused market-regulating taxes are also not altitude dependent.
Fun fact, nuclear power has the lowest direct and indirect (e.g., cancer, pollution) death rate per Wh of any supply source - despite high-profile disasters - beating even wind power which while entirely harmless has a considerably higher deaths from accidents during construction and maintenance. The only negative aspect is high up-front construction cost, but that is a low price for the many human lives saved by reduced oil or coal pollution from the plants that were replaced where wind or solar is not an option.
Their estimation was based on Swedish gas prices that, like all European fossil fuels, were artificially maintained very low thanks to staggering subsidies this winter.
Gas price volatility is an argument, but one that they ignored and that will never be in the interest of gas engines. Gas can’t be much cheaper than it is: carbon pricing, restriction on new wells, and instability in the Middle East will only make it more expensive.
Electric engines are measurably simpler. Every estimation I’ve seen is that maintenance for cars is at least an order of magnitude cheaper. I wouldn’t be surprised if e-trucks were more expensive to maintain than e-cars, but all the things that make trucks more tedious than cars (oil, brakes, clutch) are what makes EVs much better. Every specialist who has used an electric truck is very bullish on maintenance.
I definitely agree that the real issue with trucks is their size: current eighteen-wheelers are to big. It’s unsafe; their tires are expensive and need to be changed often. Brakes too, but that’s something EVs fix. The biggest issue is how fast they damage the road.
Lighter trucks would be the best idea. The solution for me is something that Sweden, California already do, but not enough; something that every modern country should do a lot more: carry goods on (electric) freight trains, and use smaller trucks for the last mile.
> Once we have nuclear,
Nuclear energy is part of the grid mix in Sweden, California, continental Europe… Not sure what you mean by this.
Gas price volatility is an argument, but one that they ignored and that will never be in the interest of gas engines. Gas can’t be much cheaper than it is: carbon pricing, restriction on new wells, and instability in the Middle East will only make it more expensive.
Electric engines are measurably simpler. Every estimation I’ve seen is that maintenance for cars is at least an order of magnitude cheaper. I wouldn’t be surprised if e-trucks were more expensive to maintain than e-cars, but all the things that make trucks more tedious than cars (oil, brakes, clutch) are what makes EVs much better. Every specialist who has used an electric truck is very bullish on maintenance.
I definitely agree that the real issue with trucks is their size: current eighteen-wheelers are to big. It’s unsafe; their tires are expensive and need to be changed often. Brakes too, but that’s something EVs fix. The biggest issue is how fast they damage the road.
Lighter trucks would be the best idea. The solution for me is something that Sweden, California already do, but not enough; something that every modern country should do a lot more: carry goods on (electric) freight trains, and use smaller trucks for the last mile.
> Once we have nuclear,
Nuclear energy is part of the grid mix in Sweden, California, continental Europe… Not sure what you mean by this.
> diesel is nosebleed higher than gasoline in California this year, a disaster for businesses and tradesmen
Diesel at the pump in California costs about 10% more than regular gas, and contains 20% more energy (volumetrically) so it's ~10% cheaper than gas. At the peak of last year's fuel price spike, diesel in California was $7.011 and regular gas was $6.438, a 9% difference, still in favor of diesel.
The rest of your collection of sentence fragments is also a bunch of nonsense, but this is the easiest factual point to rebut.
Diesel at the pump in California costs about 10% more than regular gas, and contains 20% more energy (volumetrically) so it's ~10% cheaper than gas. At the peak of last year's fuel price spike, diesel in California was $7.011 and regular gas was $6.438, a 9% difference, still in favor of diesel.
The rest of your collection of sentence fragments is also a bunch of nonsense, but this is the easiest factual point to rebut.
@jeffbee My diesel truck is mostly parked this year in California due to high fuel costs.
People who need to drive 100's of miles daily in diesel vehicles are having to pass on their increased energy costs to the customers ...which then equals fewer customers.
I cited California because it 'leads the way' in idiotic legislation by out of touch bureaucrats and to some degree influences European environmentalists who are eager to leverage the conceptual idea this is going well. i do know a long distance trucker in Sweden who regularly drives Skorna>Stockholm. I'd be interested to know battery performance on an EV Heavy truck in winter there, at least it's relatively flat.
Gasoline and diesel in California was around $3 3 years ago which has a huge supply chain impact on the overall economy. your suggestion that heavy vehicles going through a lot of tires is 'a bunch of nonsense' demonstrates a lack of real world experiences. Truck tire pollution is a very real problem and heavier EV battery powered vehicles are exacerbating this problem, particularly due to the different torque characteristics of EVs which are similar to diesel engines.
https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-...
People who need to drive 100's of miles daily in diesel vehicles are having to pass on their increased energy costs to the customers ...which then equals fewer customers.
I cited California because it 'leads the way' in idiotic legislation by out of touch bureaucrats and to some degree influences European environmentalists who are eager to leverage the conceptual idea this is going well. i do know a long distance trucker in Sweden who regularly drives Skorna>Stockholm. I'd be interested to know battery performance on an EV Heavy truck in winter there, at least it's relatively flat.
Gasoline and diesel in California was around $3 3 years ago which has a huge supply chain impact on the overall economy. your suggestion that heavy vehicles going through a lot of tires is 'a bunch of nonsense' demonstrates a lack of real world experiences. Truck tire pollution is a very real problem and heavier EV battery powered vehicles are exacerbating this problem, particularly due to the different torque characteristics of EVs which are similar to diesel engines.
https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-...
> Gasoline and diesel in California was around $3 3 years ago
That's just an exercise in cherry-picking a starting date. 15 years ago the price of diesel fuel in California was $5. And California is hardly distinguished by its change in nominal fuel price from 2020 to 2023. Gulf coast states for example saw an increase from $2.18 to $3.58.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=E...
It is loosely correct to say that on-road diesel prices have been about the same in inflation-adjusted dollars for the last 20 years.
That's just an exercise in cherry-picking a starting date. 15 years ago the price of diesel fuel in California was $5. And California is hardly distinguished by its change in nominal fuel price from 2020 to 2023. Gulf coast states for example saw an increase from $2.18 to $3.58.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=E...
It is loosely correct to say that on-road diesel prices have been about the same in inflation-adjusted dollars for the last 20 years.
>Once we have nuclear, a credible supply grid and have overcome the battery capacity and fire issues
I'm not wrong right? That's all this generation's Moon Shot in scope.
I'm not wrong right? That's all this generation's Moon Shot in scope.
It should be, but sadly the fantasy of windmills and solar panels continues.
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energ...
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energ...
Well, Germany is a pretty special case given the Ukraine war totally screwed them energy-wise.
Oh and you missed performance at extreme weather/temps.
Electric engine performance drop at low temperatures is less steep than for gas engines. It’s just that people generally don’t monitor it for ICE: you have to fill up more often, but individual drivers don’t realize it. Managed fleets do, though but they don’t mind because that usually matches the Christmas season.
You have it backwards.
Gas engines have a significantly less steep drop in performance than do electric engines, since gas engines generate lots of heat, and electric engines do not.
A gas engine might lose 10% range at 0 degrees F with most of that related to getting the engine up to proper operating temperature, but once up to temperature a gas engine can maintain that temperature with a small hit to performance efficiency. In contrast, an EV will lose over 20%+ range at the same temperature (and can lose as much as 40% of their range at sub-zero temperatures.)
Gas engines have a significantly less steep drop in performance than do electric engines, since gas engines generate lots of heat, and electric engines do not.
A gas engine might lose 10% range at 0 degrees F with most of that related to getting the engine up to proper operating temperature, but once up to temperature a gas engine can maintain that temperature with a small hit to performance efficiency. In contrast, an EV will lose over 20%+ range at the same temperature (and can lose as much as 40% of their range at sub-zero temperatures.)
When you say engine performance, does that factor in drop in battery capacity? I know diesels also have problems running (and getting up and running) cold.
Current batteries maintain themselves warm with a heat pump to avoid that degradation. The drop is mainly the energy of activating that pump. If you have a Tesla, that’s the fridge-like noise you hear when you warm it up.
Diesel engines typically run (inefficiently) to warm themselves up and be efficient, but that is a larger energy cost, mainly because that process captures a fraction of the heat from the combustion.
Diesel engines typically run (inefficiently) to warm themselves up and be efficient, but that is a larger energy cost, mainly because that process captures a fraction of the heat from the combustion.
Diesel engines have electric preheaters. Electric battery warmers have to use battery power...
Where does that electricity come from?
An inefficient Diesel engine driving the dynamo.
An inefficient Diesel engine driving the dynamo.
That's vacuously true for just about everything.