Monster Trucks

0-60 in 5 seconds (unloaded) and 20 seconds (fully loaded)?
Competitive price?
Much cheaper to operate?
Plenty of range?
Larger load?

Here's a comparison with Mack's top of the line truck.

Watch your 6. This is a tesla site!

But, as a first entry I don't believe it can be just ignored. These claims are being tested.

 

Absolutely - it's going to be really interesting to see how that semi pans out.

In general, EVs are getting better about taking environmental issues into account when telling the driver how many miles they have left. I'd add that my hybrid doesn't do a good job of that. If I'm driving a couple hundred highway miles on flat terrain it gives me a rosy picture that doesn't meet reality.

EVs are known to have shorter max distance in cold weather. Terrain is another, as all cars require more energy per mile.

I think it's growing common for EVs to use heat pumps. If they have to use electrical resistance heating, that would surely make a difference in distance.

Didn't the vid include a claim that the Tesla semi gathers heat from the batteries? In general, batteries need cooling when in use. And, the semi sure has a bunch of batteries!

 

Elon is on the right track. But we really don’t have enough detailed specifications to make a good comparison to current trucks. We don’t know the actual weight of the vehicle so we can’t compare potential payload. We don’t know if the frame and suspension were compromised to cut weight. If they were, the 1,000,000 mile drivetrain service life is not particularly relevant.

We know federal regulations on combination vehicle gross weights were re-written to allow EVs an extra 2000 lb GVW above what is allowed for current diesel trucks. That has to be considered as subsidization by other taxpayers same as the $40,000 per unit rebate/incentive through the inflation reduction act provisions.

The good:
1) Regenerative braking! Engine braking (jake brakes) are prohibited in pretty much every urban and suburban area now because of “noise pollution”. The Tesla’s regenerative brakes solve this problem leading to huge savings on brake pads and drums.

The reason for so much traction control to avoid jackknifing is necessitated by the powerful regenerative braking of the two drive axles.

2) Performance is spectacular (if the units are light enough to allow 50,000-54,000 lbs of freight). The ability to maintain speed on uphill grade not only saves time, but makes it safer for all other traffic as well

The bad.

1) To save weight there are currently no sleeper equipped units.

2) Support. Who is going to fix the thing when it blows a small electrical component on a mountain pass or the center lane of a busy metropolitan intestate? Where will you have to take it for repairs?

3) Charging support. Nobody’s power grid can handle much volume of this kind of unit.

4) Tires. 0-60 in 20 seconds loaded is going to eat tires like crazy. Also, the continuous power axle tires will wear very differently than the acceleration axle tires.

The unknowns.

1) The 300/500 mile ranges advertised don't appear to be in cold weather. We have no information on the logistics of running air brakes on whatever trailer is being used. The batteries are going to have to run a compressor and stop and go traffic is going to require orders of magnitude more compressor time than rural interstate travel.

2) Faster acceleration and deceleration sounds good on paper. How that translates into increased or decreased safety is debatable. I’m guessing it will lead to less attentive driving. Hopefully the electronic safety measures like collision warning etc. can compensate for an 82,000 lb 50+ ft long vehicle accelerating and decelerating like a passenger vehicle.

 

Good comments!

Yes, it's getting support from government.

For me, the bottom line is going to be to see it work in a real world. Will Pepsi be happy?

I've heard that Mack is adding jackknife prevention technology as well.

As for charging, I think the idea is that freight is hauled between warehouses that have the charging needed. I suppose that will extend to truck stops if this is successful.

Aren't there trucks sold today with no sleeper? The Tesla truck doesn't really go far enough to require a sleeper, does it? Of course, it could if there were charging stations at truck stops - but, I think it will be a while before that happens.

I'm sure truck drivers will use their acceleration capability responsibly. Any truck can be abused. And, if there was ever a truck that could monitor driver behavior, this would be it!!

 

Not really. It’s getting support from me and other current and future taxpayers.

Pepsi will probably be relatively happy. I and other taxpayers will pay for them to install numerous charging stations in excess of $100,000 each. With dedicated routes and known freight weights there shouldn’t be problems with logistics an owner operator would face. Pepsi will save a lot of money because their per mile freight costs will decrease and most of the added expenses in equipment and infrastructure will be paid by the taxpayer. Just more corporate welfare progressives claim to hate, but support every chance they get.

All semis have had jackknife prevention technology for decades! It’s called trailer brakes!

You are right though, tech we’ve seen in passenger vehicles is making it’s way into commercial transportation vehicles. Overall it’s probably a positive thing. When it works correctly it’s an advantage, especially for inexperienced drivers Layering technology has the very real disadvantage of increased downtime though and even the occasional piece of equipment that simply can’t be repaired.

Yes, as pointed out above, large corporations will have no trouble getting charging installed for little or no cost to the company. It’s really a very clever wealth transfer scheme. Corporations like Pepsi will reap billions in infrastructure and increased net revenue from taxpayers.

States that have access to more power can add charging at truck stops. I doubt places like CA that don’t want average Joe’s charging passenger vehicles at peak demand hours are going to be able to power very many EV semis. Maybe that will change in the future but probably not the near future.

That’s the biggest hurdle for mainstream EV freight movement. There just isn’t enough electric power to replace the diesel energy being used now.

Sure, there are lots of day cab trucks around. Probably 30% of trucks in my “world” (production agriculture) are day cabs. But they don’t work for everyone. I’ve never been tempted to go that route because the ability to sleep in a truck always outweighs the weight savings over time (for me).

The 300 mile range Tesla models I wouldn’t see much need for a sleeper. But the 500 mile (if they actually are capable of that in the real world) would definitely benefit from a sleeper. These things are supposed to be able to recharge 70% in 30 minutes. That’s how long it takes some truckers to get out of their truck, take a dump, and eat a piece of pie. That gives you 850 miles range for your allotted “log book” on duty time. Then you need a sleeper or a hotel. But yeh, I agree with you charging stations outside of private facilities are going to be rare.

In my use case I would want a sleeper. I typically haul 5-6 loads approximately 80 miles round trip. So that’s under 500 miles and there is no 30 minute window to charge. If you took 30 minutes out to charge you would cut one load a day out.

To get the 5-6 loads in you typically have to arrive at the grain elevator late at night or early morning (2:00-4:00 am) to be first in line when the facility opens to unload at 7:00-8:00 am. A sleeper makes this possible.

What I’m getting at is the 500 mile model would fit my use case almost perfectly—if it had a sleeper and could go 500 miles with 90,000 lbs instead of 82,000 lbs. I didn’t think Elon would pull off a 500 mile model to be honest. And I’m still skeptical it will be repeatable in the real world.

Monitoring has probably helped curtail a lot of nonsense over the last several years. Many fleet vehicles already either record all performance/driving style data or make it available in real time or both. I’m not really talking about “abuse”. Just the inherent differences in performance and what that means from a purely physics perspective and from a human psychology perspective.

For example, a truck driving down a street with a stoplight at every intersection is going to face very different risks depending on whether it achieves 35 mph in one block distance or if it achieves the speed limit of 50 mph in that one block distance. The stopping distance (especially in an unloaded vehicle) is always limited by tire performance regardless of how good the regenerative braking is compared to jake brakes and/or air brakes.

From a psychological perspective, in the old days truck drivers were taught to stay alert about traffic and road conditions at least a mile ahead of you. In a vehicle with better performance, that awareness becomes very unlikely except for the most disciplined driver. And new drivers that start on EVs are not going to have that discipline. But they are still driving an 82,000 lb 53 ft long vehicle subject to the laws of physics. They are just more lackadaisical about awareness and preparedness. They are likely to drive the truck like they do their F150.

I’m sure you’ve noticed the average truck driver’s abilities and road manners have declined significantly over the last 20 years. I don’t think added performance will help that trend.

I wonder if owners will have the ability to govern the performance of these trucks? I would assume so. Most fleet vehicles are already governed for top speed and many for acceleration etc.

 

Well, I hope I don't have to identify those who pay for stuff each time I mention that the government does it. Taxes is certainly one source. Usage fees (like toll roads/bridges, gas tax, etc.) is another. Loan guarantees can make investment possible, without just paying for the work.

Pepsi is not depending on infrastructure built or paid for by our government as far as I know.

Also, charge points pay for themselves, as they don't supply electricity for free. Like toll bridges, they have to be built. But, then they pay off the loan. There are cases where government is directly paying for the work from tax dollars, as there are benefits in encourage the success of EVs.

Good info!! Mack IS proud of adding jackknife protection in recent models. I think the Tesla uses all systems of power and braking to try to keep the cab in front.

Agreed, though I think charging stations will be paid for by users once installed.

Interesting info!!

Tesla claims 500 miles max, I think. I believe that's an area where "your mileage may vary".

For example, mileage in electric vehicles can be less than max advertised when there is cold weather or hills/mountains. Plus, there is the manufacturer's corporate advertising issue.

My experience with truck drivers on the road is that they are serious professionals who are doing an amazing job on our shared roads.

I hope there isn't anything about EVs that degrades that kind of care by drivers of all vehicles. And, I hope acceleration capability doesn't lead to irresponsibility.

It seems to me that most of the technology related to information available to drivers could be added to ICE vehicles. Diesel doesn't mean you can't have more cameras, more traffic warning, more record keeping, etc., if shipping companies want it.

My wife thinks the safety stuff could make drivers less serious about paying attention and doing it themselves! She sees that as a negative for EVs in general. I'm on the other side and hope more info and safety technology doesn't lead to more problems.

Your comments are great - those with experience need to be listened to on all these issues.

It's a young industry! First entries are not going to be the best.

 

Except for usage fees, everything you listed above is taxpayer funded. Loan guarantees are made by “government” but funded by taxpayers. I think it’s important to remember EVs are being subsidized in large part by people least able to afford them and the subsidies are going to mostly corporations and individuals with the most resources to afford EVs without subsidies.

The first 15 Tesla’s delivered to Pepsi were paid for 100% by one of the most egregious taxes ever devised to transfer wealth from the low end of the economic spectrum to the wealthiest corporations. Pepsi is having these first 15 units paid for entirely by the California Air Resource Board (CARB). This state government entity is funded by carbon tax credit auctions that give the largest, wealthiest corporations the advantage in being able to consistently out-bid smaller and lower margin businesses and start ups.

After paying for the Tesla’s with the $15 million grant from CARB, Pepsi can still claim the $40,000 tax credit per unit offered under the Inflation Reduction Act provisions.

As I said, it’s a very clever wealth transfer scheme. And flying completely under the radar apparently

Charging stations are highly subsidized by Federal tax dollars. I could get $30,000 in federal money to put in a level 3 charger before the new Biden EV funding. I don’t know how much now. If I made it public accessible, 90% of cost would be covered by other incentives.

When a charging station is installed with virtually no cost to places like Wal Mart etc., it’s nothing but profit sharing between Wal Mart and the charging station contractor. Power is sold at 3-4 times the local KWh rate with very little upfront cost in infrastructure. It’s a no-brainer for big business and it’s money in their pockets from taxpayers and consumers.

I’m sure Mack’s new traction control consists of more than the ever present trailer brake handle. I think “modern” driver’s manuals recommend against trailer braking to correct imminent jackknifing even though their reasoning for doing so makes no sense to actual drivers.

Mack is probably using load sensing and variable air braking pressure to each axle based on instantaneous load on that axle. I’ll have to see what Mack is up to. I’ve heard of physical mechanical limiting of fifth wheel angles as well, but don’t know who is and who isn’t using them. I’ll never buy another newer diesel rig because of the problems with emissions controls so won’t have to “worry” about such technology.

My neighbor bought a very new (used) truck recently. It was operational three days out of the 2.5 month harvest period. Two of those days were the last two days of harvest after he got it back from one of the few places left willing to do deletions. That’s another subject but I can tell you emissions controls on diesel equipment will force consumers into pursuing EVs even in farm equipment. Diesel equipment is becoming so unreliable and impossible to repair based on emission control systems any problems with EVs will seem minor in comparison if service up time is even slightly better. I wonder sometimes if it wasn’t intentional.

What would be really awesome in an EV semi would be independent motors with regenerative braking for each axle or even each axle end on the truck and trailer. Then the traction control could be seamless and unlimited. Right now using a combination of trailer and steer axle air brakes and drive axle regenerative braking the options are limited.

Again, this tech is probably very advantageous to new and inexperienced drivers. I’m still not a fan of anti lock brakes. In my driving conditions they cause more trouble than they solve problems. I don’t have any experience with traction control beyond anti lock brakes.

They are paid for with rebates, tax credits, and grants. Income is gravy for those with resources to install them. I mean a little capital, property, and existing access to specifically 3 phase power.

Yes, I agree. The test I read about appeared to be average or better than average driving conditions. I wouldn’t expect 500 miles at my place when it’s 0°F. It would be nice if Tesla would publish more specifications like weights, range based on conditions, how they handle things like air compression etc. I think people like myself that would soon be interested in trying the technology would be more apt to actively pursue the tech if it were more transparent. I can’t really seriously consider trying something I can’t comprehensively compare to the current alternatives. Hopefully that changes soon now that trucks are out on the market.

In the past I would have wholeheartedly agreed. Not so much now. Accident rates per million truck miles have been on the increase. Just a 100 mile drive down the interstate in a passenger vehicle today vs. 20 years ago shows why. Commercial drivers are more aggressive, less polite, and make more driver errors (mostly minor that don’t result in an accident) than in the past. It’s no surprise as it’s increasing difficult to find drivers and the bottom of the barrel (in intelligence and aptitude) is often scraped just to keep fleets moving.

It’s probably going to cut both ways. The traction control etc. features will help with safety and added “performance” will get some bad actors in trouble no technology can get them out of. Of course added performance can help keep you out of trouble as well. It’s only fair to acknowledge that.

Sure. They have been adding all those things as well as more stringent government regulation on service hours and logs that are harder to manipulate. Unfortunately accidents per mile rates are still increasing. Hopefully tech can reverse that trend.

I think tech has made all drivers less capable. It’s just not possible to retain skills you don’t use regularly. Or gain skills you never use.

I’m pleased the Tesla is apparently being designed by some people who understand trucks. I’m pleasantly surprised. This truck is better than I expected for the first production model. The future is exciting—until you remind yourself we don’t have any way to supply power to any but a very few trucks.

 

Again, NONE of the charging stations you are listing here can be used by one of these Trucks. It requires far more powerful charging. The reason for supporting charging stations for cars is EV manufacturers (except Tesla) are struggling. When Biden met with these manufacturers, they stated that charging stations are a major issue.

Think of having a gas car, but very few gas stations sprinkled around the nation.

The average cost of electricity to CA homes is $0.27 per KWH. The cost of electricity at charging stations is running at $0.32 per KWH.

I seriously doubt your claims on charging cost, though maybe someone somewhere is doing some gouging.

Yes. Bringing down the pollution of ICE vehicles is not cheap or easy. This is also true for mileage increases.

As I understand it, there are several motors powering all wheels on the Tesla truck. There are motors specifically oriented to acceleration. And, there are other axels that are used for efficient cruise. I don't know about the trailers - like whether they do regenerative braking.

I had a Lexus with acceleration control, done similarly to antilock braking. One could put the pedal to the floor in gravel and the car would throw no gravel and accelerate at the fastest possible rate by ensuring the tires are maintaining traction. I don't know how common this is today.

I think there is another reason. A small upscale shopping center near me has a row of about a dozen Tesla charging points. I notice that it's common for most of those slots to be in use.

The drivers are never in their cars. They are in the stores.

OK, I think the main issue with subsidies is what should warrant a subsidy.

The justification for EV subsidies include less pollution (from burning fossil fuels in our cities), lower healthcare costs, less climate impact, less dependence on oil, and lower and more stable "fuel" costs.

Also, manufacturers the world over believe that the transportation industry is moving to EVs. Analysts agree. So, there is the issue of the future of the US auto industry - something that seems important to our economy, employment, foreign competition, etc.

Stellantis, the major auto manufacturing group and others have found that switching plants from making ICE vehicles to EV vehicles is not a successful direction. Thus they are shutting down the plant in Belvidere, IL that has made Jeep Cherokees rather than try to make EVs there as they had planned to do. There are also the issues of battery production, as some analysts are saying that manufacturers are building so many different models of EVs that there is no chance that they can sell enough of them to make a profit - simply because it would take more batteries than can be manufactured.

Another issue is that ICE manufacturers seem to be struggling to understand the EV market. So, they come out with models like an EV Hummer(!), an EV Corvette, etc. Manufacturers need time to figure out the market as well as time to figure out manufacturing.

Anyway, the move to EVs is seriously difficult for ICE manufacturers. There are valid arguments that as they lose even a fraction of their sales of ICE vehicles, they will be in trouble.

I would argue that what is being done for EVs is not out of scale with other kinds of business support and the justifications used. Plus, there is real evidence that the US audo industry is facing serious challenge.

That DOES NOT MEAN that EV related subsidies shouldn't be analyzed to determine if we are doing too much. But, I think it does mean that what is being done isn't just crazy.

 

Of course they can. Tesla has been using their level 3 supercharger to charge their semi through the testing and rollout phase. They can also use the new level 4 mega chargers but they certainly can use existing level 3 chargers. That’s why I mentioned the rebates and incentives for level three chargers previously and why they need 3 phase power.

But yes, charging stations are part of the logistics problem for EVs. A guy came up from Kansas a couple years ago in an EV to buy a kune kune pig from my wife. He drove hundreds of miles further to get here than if he had driven an ICE vehicle because there were not enough charging stations on the shortest routes. I’m still shaking my head over that one….

With electric rates 80% higher than national average there isn’t much room for stations to build in margin without driving down demand in CA.

One example is Nevada. Their commercial rate is $0.08 per KWh but Electrify America charging stations are listed at up to $0.43 per KWh there. That’s five fold markup at a level 2 and 3 station.


https://evcharging.enelx.com/resour...e-to-electric-vehicle-public-charging-pricing

https://getjerry.com/electric-vehicles/electric-car-charging-stations-nevada

I suppose if the poor amongst us must suffer more while the most wealthy gain more wealth, that’s the price you are willing to pay. If that’s the general feeling of the progressive movement then they need to stop claiming they care about wealth inequality. Because the environmental policies they pursue are HUGE wealth transfer schemes to transfer wealth from the “have nots” to the “haves”.

The Tesla has two drive axles just like a diesel semi. One drive axle is powered by a single motor. This is the “cruising” low energy consumption driver axle. When no acceleration is needed the single motor is in use. The second drive axle is powered by two motors for quick acceleration. When accelerating, all three motors are in use.

As far as I know Tesla is focused on power units, not trailers. It would be economic suicide to attempt to build a dozen different types of trailers (with motors on each axle or wheel end) you would need to break into the trailer market significantly. They may be selling a dry van but that’s it. Having motors 40+ ft away from the batteries on a high voltage system would be counter productive as would a second set of batteries in the trailer close to the trailer axles. That may change in the future but far too complex for the first generation.

The Tesla was supposed to have 4 motors originally but had to be reduced to three to achieve the ranges desired using current production motors.

Sure. It’s a way to draw business away from competitors. Wal Mart and others are masters at that—have been forever. Again, more money for the biggest corporations at the expense of others.

Reducing pollution is a noble goal. But it should not be done on the backs of the poor. California is a prime example of the consequences of doing so.

https://calmatters.org/california-divide/debt/2021/03/california-high-electricity-prices/

This is why I often point out the appeal to emotion arguments on climate change that are based on false premises. When policy is formed on false premises that’s bad enough. When that policy hurts the most disadvantaged and transfers massive amounts of wealth from the poorest to the most wealthy I can’t support that.

I’m concerned that the demographics most vocal about wealth inequality in the past are pushing policy to greatly exacerbate the problem out of the other side of their mouth. I don’t know if they are unaware of the wealth transfer schemes climate and environmental policy are formed around or they don’t care. Either way I’d like the average Joe to be aware of it and understand it.

Yes, the US auto industry is run by fools. Yes, they are making big mistakes. But the thing is they don’t HAVE to make wise decisions. Uncle Sugar (actually the poor and the middle class) will bail them out of any mess they create for themselves or create in partnership with Uncle Sugar.

I know how this stuff works. I’m involved in another industry that prostituted itself to Uncle Sugar and still services his every whim in exchange for a little $. We partnered up with Uncle Sugar and destroyed the nation’s topsoil, the nation’s health, and vast areas of coastal waters. The healthcare costs you refer to from pollution are orders of magnitude less than the healthcare costs my industry’s partnership with Uncle Sugar created.

Just because Uncle Sugar subsidizes something doesn’t make that thing good or proper or advantageous over time. Even when the reasons given were attractive to populists of one party or another or both.

To be clear, I’m not at all opposed to EVs. I’m opposed to economically destroying the lives of some demographics to cater to the feelings of other demographics while greatly exacerbating the wealth disparity “problem”.

 

Good post!!

My comment about charging the semi is more that the level 3 stations I see are not constructed such that a semi truck without trailer could manage to get close enough to use it. If a truck stop had a level 3 charger I'm sure that would work. However, my understanding is that current buyers are planning for charging at their warehouses. Plus in the long term, they will surely want the mega chargers rather than waiting for their giant batteries to be charged at a level 3 station.

Interesting. I hadn't seen these figures and missed the commercial rate point!

However, I don't see a problem here, as electricity at current rates is cheaper per mile than is gas and we're still far from having real competition in charging stations.

Another factor is that about 80% of EV owners charge at home or at work. I would suggest those who have that possibility are slightly more likely to buy EVs right now. (cite on request, but there are many sites saying this.)

I'd also point out that about 23 states have laws that prevent charging station owners from charging on a kwh basis. They say that only the electric utility may do that!! So, stations in those states are limited to charging by the connection minute!!

Overall, your data seems positive for having even cheaper charging as there is room for competition and rational laws to bring prices down.

Because of commercial rates, maybe fast charging will get to the point where people prefer to charge at the local mall, because of lower than retail prices for electricity.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

?? None of the shops in that shopping center are mega corps. There is no Walmart or Gucci, etc. This direction works, because the shopping center as a whole can share in the cost and space for adding charging.

Plus, you are claiming that charging stations are a money winner, at least right now.

I don't believe that article supports your arguments regarding EV charging.

For example, it points out that there are inherent features in CA that cause electric distribution to be more expensive. That's not EV related.

Also, it is the poor who are most impacted by the healthcare costs of pollution, since our US healthcare system and our system of payment for healthcare is especially hard on these people.

Yes, air pollution is not the only issue.

The air pollution problem does hit those less wealthy with healthcare costs, and those costs are more difficult for that demographic to withstand.

You may reject clearly evident climate change and the world wide sciences identifying its sources, but that is NOT the only cost of pollution.

And, pollution isn't the only justification for federal encouragement. America is benefitted by having an American auto manufacturing industry. We do have Tesla. However, one corporation doesn't really answer for US auto manufacturing.

Reducing our dependence on oil is a significant benefit in many ways. We twist our economy and even our foreign policy around oil. That's a significant problem.

These are the kinds of factors that we need to consider when evaluating support for the change in auto technology that is taking place.

I know there are other serious problems such as you mention. I'd add water as a serious issue for significant sections of America.

 

It’s my understanding they are using cable extensions now to utilize charging stations without room for semis to get close. I agree most will want the new mega chargers. Tesla’s pickup will use the mega charger as well. Eventually Tesla will probably move all EVs to that model charger. They have figured out how to cool the cables during fast DC charging so faster charging of all EVs will be possible.

The problem I’m pointing out isn’t cost comparison to fossil fuels or per mile costs. I’m pointing out EV charging is a wealth transfer scheme transferring wealth from the “have nots” to the “haves”. Prices come down on fossil fuels and big screen TVs. That’s not the point. The point is the whole EV rollout model is currently mostly a wealth transfer scheme.

I know. That’s the problem. The current EV rollout in the US is a HUGE wealth transfer scheme and most are completely unaware of it. Those who have historically been opposed to wealth inequality are supporting this wealth transfer scheme more than any other demographic. Just like they supported the biggest transfer of wealth in world history over the last three years after complaining about wealth inequality for decades.

No, the shops aren’t mega corps. But they don’t own the charging station either. Mega corps like Simon Property Group Inc. for example own the strip mall. Huge corporations. The charging station is likely owned by another large corporation like Electrify America (essentially Volkswagen Inc.) and some profit is shared by them with the Simon Property Group Inc. I don’t know about your strip mall specifically, this is just an example of how the majority of these things work. The shops get a little bump in business traffic, but the big corps are the ones making bank.

I linked the article to show CA admits the poor are ALREADY being taken to the cleaners. The wealth transfer EVs are facilitating just make it worse. Of course the CA government isn’t going to tell you that! They don’t want you to know the things I’m telling you about big corporations being the big winners with EVs. Remember CA is taking money from small businesses and using it to buy Tesla semis to GIVE to Pepsi.

All the more reason not to transfer more wealth from the poor to the wealthy. What happened to the ACA? I thought the poor were insured now?

What climate change have I “rejected”? Please be specific as I’m not aware of every rejecting climate science at any level.

Federal encouragement of EVs is transferring HUGE amounts of wealth from the least wealthy to the most wealthy. I’m just pointing out you can’t support government “encouragement” of EVs and also lament wealth inequality. Government “encouragement” is exacerbating wealth inequality in a big way.

Sure. Oil is not the best energy source especially when you consider particulate pollution. And yes+ the US government has funded the military industrial complex as well as energy companies through energy policy of the past. Don’t be fooled into thinking support for “cleaner” energy is anything different. It’s just different big corporations getting a huge payday at the average Joe’s expense.

 

I'm pointing out where we are.

Buying electricity is no different than buying gasoline or diesel. If it costs less per mile, then people will be more likely to go in that direction.

If there is inordinate profit in the system, then competition will arrive. This is no more than capitalism.

This is the same thing that happened with large flat screen TVs. New technology is more expensive during the startup period.

People can still buy ICE cars, both new and used.

The question is simply whether there is justification for the aid. One issue is whether there is value in helping the US auto market stay alive. Another is whether it is better for our nation, especially in our cities, for pollution to be cut, as it is a source of huge healthcare expenditures today - plus a loss in productive labor and life.

THAT was the question I asked.

The ACA does not make insurance free.

Medicare is another case where healthcare is not free, due to the various limits.

States and the federal government use our taxes to support these systems.

Maybe none. I have tried to keep CO2 out of this issue, as people get totally crazy whenever climate science gets mentioned.

Sorry if I pushed on this inappropriately.

Yes, this is the same old question of whether supporting the US auto industry is worthwhile.

Having some general rules would be helpful, I think.

For example, what are the justifications for spending our taxes to subsidize every new oil well drilled? I'm sure there are some, but I don't know what they are.

 

And I noticed that that video was very clearly a love letter to Elron Musk. And basically was a repeat of what he said when he announced the thing.

And as usual, talked about things that do not matter, while never mentioning the things that do matter.

Case in point, the claim that both weigh 80,000 pounds fully loaded. That is the maximum limit for the weight of a truck and trailer by law, but how much do the trucks weigh?

Well, the Mac comes in at around 35,000 pounds (which is higher than a standard truck at 25k pounds or less). That leaves 55,000 pounds for cargo.

The thing is, Tesla has yet to actually say how much their truck weighs! However, most estimates place it in the range of 50,000 pounds for the truck alone. That only leaves around 30,000 pounds for cargo. That means that it carries half the cargo, and twice as many trucks will be needed to haul the same load.

Most trucks typically have 1 or 2 120 gallon tanks, giving them a range of between 500 and 1,200 miles before they need to refuel. And refueling takes about 15 minutes.

The Tesla, a range of around 500 miles. And recharging? here is the thing, nobody knows. They have given conflicting times required, and the "supercharger" for it does not actually exist yet. And many question if they can exist, because of the massive power requirements. That recharging one truck would use the same amount of power as 3,000 homes in an hour.

And once again, talking about the "0 to 60" speed. It's a freaking semi, not a sports car! Absolutely no truck drivers worry about something like that, they are freight haulers not speed demons.

I have actually done some of the math, and it's a good thing these things will never work as if we tried to mandate all trucks become electric, it would destroy the country. It would take on average from 4-10 of these to replace each truck on the road today. Especially as a lot of freight is hauled by team drivers. Not one driving working for 600 miles then taking their mandatory break, but at 600 miles changing over so the second driver can put in their 600 miles. Then rinse and repeat until they reach their destination. Refilling their tank on average every other shift change.

But no, now they would need two trucks to carry the same payload, and spend time at a yard changing trucks to continue driving. And then repeating that process, removing probably about an hour of driving each shift, and mandating a new truck as others go onto recharge.

 

Not in 12 years in California. That is when their gas powered car ban will go into effect.

 

Yes - the direction is no sales of new ICE cars after that date.

If the EV or hydrogen direction doesn't live up to that objective, there will be changes in requirements.

(I doubt the hydrogen direction, but...)

 

Oh, California has long been making these predictions, then having to reverse course.

Myself, I do think that Hydrogen is the future. But not in elaborate fuel cells or other such things, but in modified ICE engines that use hydrogen as the raw fuel itself.

The KISS principal. So many are spending billions to "discover" some new way, and forgetting that we already have the technology for that and have had it for over 100 years.

 

Why would you use hydrogen to drive pistons when it is so much more efficient to use hydrogen fuel cells to generate electricity??

ICE engines are NOT simple or efficient. They have large numbers of moving parts and support systems, all of which cost energy. They require transmissions. They can not come within a country mile of the efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells coupled with electric motors.

 

Which is easier and the least expensive to build? Which requires the least amount of complex electronics and elaborate systems in order to operate?

You can convert almost any standard ICE engine to use hydrogen as a fuel right now. Good luck in converting one to fuel cells.

Oh, I forget that you live in a world where everybody on the planet can just buy a new car any time they want.

 

Those building hydrogen cars are not doing what you propose. While it would probably be a cheaper change to manufacturing to do what you propose, manufacturers with gigantic investments in ICE manufacturing are choosing not to do that.

My understanding is that an ICE vehicle runs at about 50% energy efficiency while electric motor cars run at about 80% efficiency.

That would be a factor in the comparison of ICE and electric hydrogen vehicle fuel cost and range.

Even as it is, hydrogen cars are expensive in fuel. Also, the history in CA has been that the hydrogen fueling locations for hydrogen cars sold here can be found to have no hydrogen.

There may be advantages in using hydrogen fuel cells rather than batteries. But, I think we're a long way from having a serious hydrogen refueling network.

 

Sure. Where we are is a massive wealth transfer scheme most are completely unaware of.

The problem is that it is very similar to gasoline. The policies they tell you are going to be good for everyone simply transfer more wealth from the poor to the wealthy. Everyone is free to support wealth inequality of course. I just want you all to understand what exactly it is you are supporting—large corporations and the wealthy.

Oh dear. Capitalism refers to private ownership and control of production. It’s based on free markets and voluntary exchange. Transfers of wealth facilitated by government is NOT capitalism at all because it’s not voluntary exchange. Neither is it free markets when large businesses are favored over small businesses and consumers by government policy.

Those who have studied history know a word that describes business and government partnerships sold to the people with populist rhetoric. Those who have studied history know that populist rhetoric always centers on what is “good for the country” or society in general. Do you know what that word is? It’s not capitalism.

Wealth transfer facilitated by government is not capitalism.

No. Government isn’t buying big screen TVs for large corporations with money raised from the poor. The problems I’m referring to are not economy of scale problems. I’m pointing out government/business partnerships designed to transfer massive amounts of wealth to those already most economically advantaged.

Not sure how that’s relevant to wealth inequality, but that is already changing. California has already set timetables for no more new ICE vehicle sales.

Sure. Good questions to ask. I just want everyone to be aware that the current policies regarding EVs are diametrically opposed to past stated goals of reducing wealth inequality.

It’s called the affordable care act not the free care act. It was supposed to make healthcare affordable and accessible to lower income families and individuals. Free healthcare is another populist idea but has no relevance here. I’m just a bit curious why transferring wealth from taxpayers to insurance companies and large healthcare networks hasn’t resulted in the equality of care that we were told was the goal.

From a human health and survivability standpoint, particulate/aerosol/ozone pollution is the only legitimate justification for cessation of fossil fuel use. I agree CO2 shouldn’t be a part of this conversation. Particulate and ozone etc. pollution is a problem that could be solved with cleaner energy sources. We are in complete agreement on that.

Subsidizing oil was a mistake. The justification was/is the political necessity of a growing economy and especially a “growing” stock market.

The negative consequence is it kept oil prices artificially low and prevented the market from deciding what energy sources made the most sense. We need to stop referring to massive wealth transfers that short circuit free markets as capitalism. It’s not capitalism nor is it socialism as those on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you claim. I propose we look at EV subsidization critically from all angles so we don’t keep making the same old mistakes. If wealth inequality matters let’s start acting like it, not just paying the problem lip service and then exacerbating it with every conceivable subsidization policy.

As far as the US auto industry, that’s a whole different debate. Does endless bailouts and subsidization of businesses that aren’t competitive on their own make sense? Or do you just create an industry uninterested in excellence or being globally competitive because they don’t have to be?

A little more on the importance of ensuring environmental policies don’t exacerbate wealth inequality. Just to show what I’m presenting here is not just my unsubstantiated opinions.

Here’s one example of a study on how wealth inequality impacts longevity/health.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...ferral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=072321

What have we gained if we save one life by reducing particulate pollution, but lose two as a result of massive wealth transfer to the already wealthy at the expense of others?

 

It's interesting how this is talking about car performance not really truck performance. 0 to 60 time isn't really that important and if you have a battery that you have to recharge and it will probably take hours it's probably stupid to use the maximum 0 to 60 speed you can because that will cause your battery to go dead faster. Truck drivers are paid by the hour they drive not by how fast they move for a little bit of time.

What really needs to be discussed here is durability, payload capacity operation through hills and valleys. Amount of time it can be driven while under load before needing a recharge and the amount of time it takes to recharge it.

I don't think a fully electric truck is the future though I do think this is a stepping stone toward it I think the future would be diesel electric much like a locomotive. Is this what eliminate charge times and likely cut the fuel costs greatly. Plus you would have all of the performance of an electric car and none of the drawbacks.

 

Great post.

Yes, a semi truck isn't a race car. I think the reason acceleration gets pitched is that acceleration is important in highway traffic and grade situations. It will be far better when acceleration can be seen while pulling a realistic load.

I totally agree with your central issues of payload, range, durability, charging, fuel cost. That's where these EV semis will find a niche or die.

I'm not aware of a way to cause diesel electric to reduce fuel costs.

Locomotives use electric motors because they give constant torque with no transmissions. Then, the massive energy for braking is just discarded, unlike with the EV semi. If this design were used in a semi it would be a lot of wasted energy, which would be a fuel cost hit.

A hybrid semi might be possible, but hybrids have a lot of complexity. They have batteries that capture brake energy. Both electric and gas engines can be engaged in driving. I'm not sure that the transmissions hybrids use would be appropriate for pulling the loads semis pull.

 

The only "wealth transfer" I see is that EVs are getting subsidized to some extent today.

But, those subsidies are NOT going to be permanent. In fact, the subsidies that have been in place have limits and run out, after which - no subsidies. Plus, the federal subsidies are not going to EVs built in Mexico or other places. So, the EV Ford Mustang doesn't get those subsidies.

The idea is to promote the American auto industry, as every automaker sees that EVs are going to dominate - with the only question of who will be the players in the auto manufacturing industry. Our government would like to see Ford and the Stellantis group of manufacturers survive, as well as the startups such as Tesla, Rivian, Lucid, and the various other startups in America.

You worry about fuel cost, but that is already cheaper than the cost of gasoline. In fact, you have shown that there is a lot of room for electric recharging to be cheaper than it is today. Fuel cost of EVs can NOT be pitched as a problem for anyone in the car market. Plus, if you are right about electricity rates, that is a huge financial reason for extending the recharging network to cover America in an effective manner.

EV prices have been high. That's what always happens with new technology. Today, we see Tesla and others reducing EV prices and coming out with models that are less expensive. Capitalism is NOT going to ignore the vast market of those who can not pay high prices for a car.

I think your only issue is that of subsidies aimed at ensuring America has a viable automotive manufacturing industry.

Helping US manufacturing survive the transition seems justified to me, as the alternative looks like it will be far more dominated by China and Tesla.

 

no it's not really 0 to 60 is race car stuff. The 18 wheelers now can accelerate a lot faster than they do it just is hard on them and it will be hard on these two for nothing less than battery depletion

the problem with them will probably be the same problem with any other electric vehicle charging. From most of what I'm reading and learning about them charging is the issue. Tesla does have the best charging network but it's still an issue

yeah most people don't know much about the subject. So when you use a diesel generator to generate electricity it's not pulling the weight of the truck it's just turning a generator and because it's not loaded to that level it's not going to burn the same kind of fuel it would if it was pulling the vehicle rotating a rotor in the side of a stator doesn't take a lot of energy rotating a transmission in first gear does. The fuel savings will be there regardless of your ignorance.

but they avoid the problem of electric vehicles by generating their own energy

a diesel electric semi would be the exact same thing as an EV just instead of burning coal at a coal fired power plant you're burning diesel in a power plant that sits in the frame of the vehicle it's a smarter solution.

why do you think the proximity to the power source changes anything?

it wouldn't be a hybrid because a hybrid has a synergy drive that means the engine directly Powers the wheels through a transmission and axles and so forth It's just that it has a generator to take over from time to time. Diesel electric light kind of locomotive is an electric vehicle. Think about a Tesla with pulling a trailer with a generator on it powering the Tesla that's not a hybrid it's still a Tesla it's still an electric car and it still has all of the same technology that it did before.

Yeah you're describing a hybrid he's a little electric is not a hybrid. It's a cordless electric vehicle.

Imagine instead of having a stationary power plant that has to deliver massive amounts of voltage over high tension wires you have a small power plant the frame of the vehicle and produces the electricity that the batteries need. It would be an electric vehicle you could do this with an electric vehicle now in fact you do this with an electric vehicles all electric vehicles are hybrid in this sense because you plug them into a charger that's connected to an engine of some sorts somewhere that's producing power for it.

Pulling the power plant off of the frame and putting it somewhere else actually limits the usefulness of an electric vehicle placing it in the frame so that all you have to do is purchase fuel and much less of it because again a generator charging a battery doesn't use as much energy as a diesel engine hauling 80,000 pounds up a hill it just rotates the generator that's the only load that will ever be on the engine the batteries take the brunt of it.

Making everyone require a stationary charging port would make a truck less useful because if it's not moving it's not making money.