Tesla Truck or not all disruption is good.

STM317 said:

GameboyRMH said:

 

STM317 said:

Are we just assuming that somebody is going to come up with new battery tech that doesn't require raw materials in relatively short supply? Lithium and cobalt are the primary elements used in current batteries. There's a very finite amount of each. In fact, all of the cobalt that we know about on the planet pretty much comes from just one place right now (the Republic of Congo, or whatever it's known as these days).

Lithium and cobalt can be recycled, they aren't consumed when they're put into a battery. And there are battery types being researched that don't use them at all.

So that's basically a "yes, we're hoping something better comes along." It might. With enough time, and money, smart people are capable of so much. But there's no guarantee however. How much time and money have smart people spent trying to cure cancer? 

Being recyclable is a good thing! But how many batteries will be recycled? If EVs are more reliable than ICEs, cars and trucks won't need to be replaced as often due to mechanical failure. And if the self-driving tech continues to spread, there should be fewer accidents that would render vehicles useless. Unless the goal is to turn cars into throw away appliances, I'm not sure that there's a net gain there in battery supply. And if the goal is to make vehicles throw away appliances that become obsolete after 4 or 5 years, just to keep these corporations in business, that seems incredibly wasteful doesn't it?

"We're hoping something better comes along" is an option and pretty much a certainty, but not a requirement. Solid-state lithium is plenty enough for an electric car that can replace an ICE car - range isn't quite as much, but recharging speed is fast enough that a short food & bathroom break will give you hundreds of miles of charge.

Making an entirely different kind of battery is nowhere near as hard as curing cancer. If you're as old as I am, when you were a kid the best rechargeable batteries available were Ni-Cad or NiMH, and now there's li-ion and li-po and very soon, solid-state lithium.

I'm thinking roughly all of the EV batteries will be recycled, just as roughly all cars are recycled now. They get stripped for parts, the dud battery gets pulled for recycling, and what's left gets crushed into a cube.

Curing cancer is harder because it would be economically disastrous.  The most profitable businesses in the country would be out of business.

Developing batteries is a profit-making business.

I work at a cancer treatment center.  I would gladly give up my job if someone found a cure, but it would wreak havoc on our national economy.  I'm pretty sure any cure found would be quickly bought up and buried deeply.  

^You're right, but that's an economic problem, not a scientific/medical one. Curing cancer would in fact save money overall - to go back to the example of the broken window fallacy, it would be equivalent of developing indestructible windows (you know, like, coated lexan )

In reply to GameboyRMH :

You're right, but curing cancer is ALSO harder scientifically than developing a new battery! lol!!

GameboyRMH said:

mad_machine said:

Going back to the short comings of the Tesla Trucks. At what point does somebody produce a "tesla trailer" to go with it that has a range extending batter built into it and solar recharging on the roof?

 It could be done, but the amount of energy it could provide would take more than 3 days of continuous sunlight to put a full charge into the truck's battery:

https://www.wired.com/story/could-tesla-power-its-electric-truck-with-solar-panels/

Right, but if you're saying 72 hours of sunlight would take the battery from dead to full, that means that 12 hours of sunlight in a normal day would increase the range by 1/6th, or 17%. Thats nothing to sneeze at. And that certainly seems like that would be the intent of solar panel charging, not to fully recharge it from nothing.

It would become a cost vs roi calculation. 

Since a truck would not be attached to the grid, net metering and power company rebates would not be available. Any potential excess power would be lost. 

The 17% may not be enough to offset the raw cost of installing panels. 

Plus, keeping them clean would be a nightmare. Ever seen the top of a tractor trailer?

^Excess power would be unlikely to be a problem, that would only happen if the truck were parked in the sun fully charged (without any kind of grid connection that could be used to feed the solar power back into the grid), or if a truck close to fully charged was doing a lot of downhill driving on regen. At that point, regen braking would also be lost unless the truck has a resistor bank to dump the excess energy through.

Even at 17% per day, the container-top solar might take too long to pay off. It could make sense for some corner cases like trucks that are driven short distances occasionally (the truck could fuel itself), or military use where transporting fuel is a PITA but budgets are practically infinite.

If they can make quick charge stations and/or battery swap stations, a truck wash is feasible. 

In reply to SVreX :I’m sorry but until post World War Two our prime transportation was rail and river.  

It wasn’t until post Eisenhower era that roads dominated.  Following America’s victory over Germany  General Eisenhower saw how efficient German autobahns were and pushed a road building bill through Congress.   

So about 50 years is all America has been road dependent 

GameboyRMH said:

^Excess power would be unlikely to be a problem, that would only happen if the truck were parked in the sun fully charged (without any kind of grid connection that could be used to feed the solar power back into the grid), or if a truck close to fully charged was doing a lot of downhill driving on regen. At that point, regen braking would also be lost unless the truck has a resistor bank to dump the excess energy through.

Even at 17% per day, the container-top solar might take too long to pay off. It could make sense for some corner cases like trucks that are driven short distances occasionally (the truck could fuel itself), or military use where transporting fuel is a PITA but budgets are practically infinite.

Right.

Most tractor trailer DO spend a lot of time sitting... it's totally wasted.

frenchyd said:

In reply to SVreX :I’m sorry but until post World War Two our prime transportation was rail and river.  

It wasn’t until post Eisenhower era that roads dominated.  Following America’s victory over Germany  General Eisenhower saw how efficient German autobahns were and pushed a road building bill through Congress.   

So about 50 years is all America has been road dependent 

 

Way to miss the point...

50 years, huh?  1967...    Better check your math.  I have great memories of 1967, and we were most definitely road dependent at that point.

Eisenhower authorized the Federal-Aid Highway Act in 1956- That's 60 years. But road dependency started long before the Federal Highway system.  The PA Turnpike was designed and built in the 1930's.  Asphalt roads have existed in the US since 1870.

Was your point trying to get me to argue about something that was completely irrelevant?

In reply to SVreX : trains dominated American life from basically the civil war through the 1950’s. 

Yes roads existed but they tended to be local rather than national. That’s what the interstate system did. 

The interstate system caught America up with other developed nations. As far ss your memory, I have similar memories but the interstate system wasn’t finished in 1967 

SVreX said:

frenchyd said:

 

 

 

Was your point trying to get me to argue about something that was completely irrelevant?

Gosh SVrex, I would hate to see you of all people get on here and argue about something irrelevant. I would probably think somebody hacked your account or something. :P

In reply to frenchyd :

The years don't matter.  You win.  Does that help?

The point was that trucks are more capable at meeting our needs than trains.  The train argument died a long time ago. 

SVreX said:

In reply to Appleseed :

I am assuming you are pointing out that our electric generation capacity is not a clean industry.  You are right.

But infrastructure decisions should be made in line with end-line user needs.  You don't build a system by starting with the core infrastructure and delivering whatever the heck you want to to the end line users.  You start by identifying the user needs, then building the system to match.

100+ years ago, we made a decision that our primary transportation end line user experience would be a network of roads and independently powered vehicles.  We built the network to serve the need. That's why rails can't meet our needs- rails are a secondary system that are not capable of meeting our primary transportation needs.

Similarly, if we make the cultural choice to say that electric vehicles meet the primary needs of our end line users most effectively, we can build the infrastructure to support that decision.  Once electric vehicles are in place, it's easy to modify the generation system for more efficient and appropriate power generation methods, especially since there are multiple ways to generate electricity (but only 1 way to make petroleum).

I know many people believe in the "build it and they will come" model.  I think systems develop more organically, and are most effective when they develop from the grassroots up.

I owe you an explanation and a bit of an apology.  When you said a hundred years ago we made the decision...

First “We” never made such a decision and even today if you stand in major Urban centers you will see tens of thousands of people riding light rail. 

Geographically we don’t have the space needed to keep up with urban traffic growth and absolutely must look to other solutions.  

By not explaining that to you I wandered off in a history lesson and for that I do owe you an apology. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Rails serve a purpose.  No disagreement.

Rails can not replace trucks in the US.

This thread is about trucks.  

In reply to SVreX :

About trucks? As in Peterbuilt is better than Frieghtliner. Or as in trucks, trucking and the future?

If the later then we need to consider the present and how future choices will impact that.  Trucking isn’t really about the open road. It’s about the flexibility of the last miles.  We already know that rails can deliver goods cheaper than roads right up to the point rails end. 

That’s where trucks like the Tesla will absolutely shine. Now there are circumstances like produce and high end electronics where delivery costs play second fiddle to speed.  Can a Tesla Truck compete in those circumstances? 

I guess that is to be seen.  

In reply to frenchyd :

That's fair.

I just think it is unfair to measure autonomous trucks against trains for efficiency on the open road at this point.  We don't know how they will be used.  It's completely untested.

The Department of Energy found that autonomous vehicles could reduce fuel consumption by as much as 90%, or increase it by more than 200%.  The range is so ridiculously huge because the variables in how they may be used are so extreme.

Fuel consumption may decrease drastically through the the use of convoying, optimized routes, traffic avoidance, speed optimization, etc.  But it is also possible consumption could INCREASE a lot- excessive urban sprawl, vehicles programmed to drive around in circles rather than find parking spaces, radius of operations increasing when driver fatigue and limitations are no longer a factor, etc. etc.

The Department of Energy is essentially saying there could be a big decrease OR a big increase.  No one knows.

For passenger vehicles, I think the jury is out.  However, for commercial vehicles, I think it is extremely likely the vehicles will be programmed to optimize fuel consumption, in order to maximize profits. If that happens, it is reasonable to surmise that autonomous truck convoys could easily rival trains in efficiency in long distance hauling.  Only time will tell.  

In reply to SVreX :

I don’t believe that it’s a given that self driving trucks will lead to unemployment. 

As I've said planes are essentially self driving and have been for decades. Yet every commercial airplane has a pilot and copilot. 

If somehow the rules change, then things will work out. Centuries ago Luddites were convinced the new steam engine would cost jobs.  

In reply to frenchyd :

You are welcome to your opinion.  We disagree.  If self driving trucks do not lead to reduced costs in the labor force (read: unemployment), then there is no reason for them to be developed at all.

The investment in this technology is specifically for the purpose of reducing costs and increasing profits.  I see no other options.

Why would a trucking fleet spend nearly twice as much per truck just so they could be "clean"? (and have to deal with range issues, new tech issues, etc...)

Pricing for the Tesla Truck has been announced. $150k gets you a truck with 300 miles of range. $180k gets you 500 miles of range. Both of those require a deposit of $20k. The first 1000 trucks made will be part of a special series and owners will have the privilege of paying the full amount of $200k upfront.

The first 1000 orders alone would get Tesla $200 million in unregulated, no-interest cash flow. The 20k reservations for the rest will only add to that. The Roadster announced at the same time as the Truck has a similar pricing model, so you can roughly double that amount.

Tesla is currently burning their cash reserves at a rate of  $8k per minute, so each of the first 1000 reservations that they grab should keep the lights on for 25 minutes, and additional reservations will add 2.5 minutes to that. This is totally not a way to fill previous orders with new investor money though... This business is totally sound... Just write the check and you'll probably get your vehicle someday...

In reply to STM317 :

Apparently the legal departments of Walmart and Ryder disagree with you.  I'm pretty sure they would not dump their money down a hole.

I appreciate your input.  There are definitely a lot of things to consider (2 days ago, the price was $250K, and no mention of "Founder's trucks", so I have no idea what THAT means)

I think the investment value has a lot to do with the autonomous capabilities of this truck.  If it's just electric, a lot of fleets will say "No".  But if it has the capacity to go full autonomous with a basic upgrade in a couple years, its a game changer.

In reply to SVreX :

WalMart ordered 15 trucks. JB Hunt and Ryder have ordered "multiple" trucks, but that could be 2, or 200. If it were a substantial order, you can bet that we would've heard exactly how many they ordered though, because that would be good PR for each company. The reality is that when you operate a fleet of several hundred or thousands of trucks, 15 trucks is a blip. They're ordering these trucks as a trial to test the feasibility, not as a wide spread overhaul of their fleets. It's very common for large fleets to do trials like this when new chassis or engines come out. You can bet that WalMart, JB Hunt, and Ryder probably have similar orders with truck makers like Daimler, Navistar, and PACCAR. And they'll likely fit each chassis with various new engines from Cummins, Detroit Diesel, PACCAR, Volvo, etc. They'll run the trucks for a year or 2 to see how they hold up, and what the real running costs end up being. Then, they'll base future purchase decisions on what they're able to determine from the trial. Things like upfront cost, freight efficiency, downtime due to repairs, the size of the service network, and even driver feedback can all affect the results of a trial like this.

In reply to STM317 :

I understand. 

I realize $3 million is not much to WalMart at all. But why blow it with a company you expect to be out of business within 4 months?

They vet their vendors pretty carefully. 

In reply to SVreX :the return for the companies is the same return airlines get, fewer mistakes and accidents,   fuel savings, better on time performance, lower wear and tear from drivers/ pilot abuse, 

the same return trucking companies got when they added power steering, air conditioning etc etc.  

Besides Tesla isn’t just about self driving, it’s also an all electric with the benefits that offers. 

A lot of factories have been using electric forklifts for many decades because they cost less to operate and have other benefits.