Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

How to save energy through both societal and individual actions.

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 20 Nov 2017, 19:32:01

SeaGypsy wrote:"500 mile range" hauling what, where?
In another Tesla thread someone speculated it would have at least a "500 kwh battery". 1 kwh to haul a cemi 1 mile... Mmmm road better be flat as glass, ultra high pressure tyres, maglev bearings etc etc.

Test: send one over any section of the Rocky Mountains, with realistic commercial load. Bet: it won't make it.

The calculations I saw on Tesla related threads by various folks were on the order of 1 million KWH's, or double that. Presumably hilly areas like mountain ranges will have uphill areas and downhill areas. Battery regen when braking on the downhill parts is assumed in the calculations.

The issue to me is what does such a battery cost and what does it weigh? Apparently I didn't just miss it according to various articles I'm seeing -- but that hasn't been mentioned. Those are obviously KEY factors in determining the value of the beast. (The fact that Tesla doesn't mention those in its marketing can't be good news for those factors, IMO).
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Mon 20 Nov 2017, 19:33:02

Typical semi work rates in Australia are 100,000km+ per year. New buyers expect 4 years or 400,000km (whichever first) to sell with 1 year remaining warranty.
SeaGypsy
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9084
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 03:00:00

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 20 Nov 2017, 19:42:35

yellowcanoe wrote: For long haul trucking the recharge time is going to kill you. A truck only generates revenue when it is moving with a load. You could swap trucks to keep a load moving but that means a much larger capital investment in trucks would be required. Trucks are expected to have a very long working life so any form of fast charging that has the side effect of reducing battery life would be a no no.

The specs Musk gave were 500 mile range on a full charge, worst case, and then 400 mile recharge in 30 minutes.

So unless you have evidence to the contrary, that's 900 miles with only a 30 minute break. So that recharge time doesn't sound "killer" to me.

Now, Musk has stated these will have a million mile warranty against any breakdown. So unless you can show he's going to exclude the battery from that, or that he expects people to replace that gigantic battery frequently, you're just spewing FUD.

As I said in my previous post, the unstated truck cost and weight to make this happen might be a problem, though.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 20 Nov 2017, 19:57:00

The 85 kWh Tesla auto battery pack weighs 1,200 lb. So if the semi requires a 500 kWh battery (as Sea's comment suggests) then the pack will weigh 7059 lbs. The maximum load inside a trailer is about 50,000 lb. 14% capacity is lost to the batteries.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26526
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 20 Nov 2017, 20:03:28

pstarr wrote:The 85 kWh Tesla auto battery pack weighs 1,200 lb. So if the semi requires a 500 kWh battery (as Sea's comment suggests) then the pack will weigh 7059 lbs. The maximum load inside a trailer is about 50,000 lb. 14% capacity is lost to the batteries.

So in your mind the engine, transmission, fuel, fuel tank, etc. of a diesel semi tractor has zero weight?

Yes, there will be a differential. So the question will be whether the lower operating cost and the better reliability and the longer life will make up for the constraints like higher initial cost and more weight.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby GHung » Mon 20 Nov 2017, 20:05:44

pstarr wrote:The 85 kWh Tesla auto battery pack weighs 1,200 lb. So if the semi requires a 500 kWh battery (as Sea's comment suggests) then the pack will weigh 7059 lbs. The maximum load inside a trailer is about 50,000 lb. 14% capacity is lost to the batteries.


Not really. you have to subtract the weight of a conventional diesel drive train (engine, transmission, drive shaft(s), differentials, and fuel load) from the weight of the battery, motors, and control system . I'm betting the overall weight difference is less than what you may think.

Edit: Great minds think alike, eh, O_S?
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 20 Nov 2017, 20:10:03

GHung wrote:
asg70 wrote:Maybe that's why Musk started the Boring company. Why bother scaling mountains when you can drive right THROUGH them? It's kind of like the joke about how the US invented a pen that would work in zero-G and the Russians just used pencils (which is a bit of an urban legend, but the wisdom is sound). Point being that rather than trying to slap a bandaid on all of the inefficient ways we get things from place to place, maybe things should get from place to place via more efficient routes?
A lot of people made their livings designing, manufacturing, and marketing those Space Pens. It's capitalism at its finest. Let the tax payers fund the R&D while the share-holders reap the rewards. Creates jobs, and when production costs go up, move the plant to Taiwan. What could be more American?
That is an urban legend with no basis in reality. The company developed the space pen with it's own money, no tax dollars involved. NASA bought them for a few bucks each. So did the Russians. The space pen avoided the hazards that floating broken lead could cause like electrical shorts, fire, etc.

Fisher developed his space pen with no NASA funding. The company reportedly invested about $1 million of its own funds in the effort then patented its product and cornered the market as a result.

In 1967, after rigorous tests, NASA managers agreed to equip the Apollo astronauts with these pens. Media reports indicate that approximately 400 pens were purchased from Fisher at $6 per unit for Project Apollo.The Soviet Union also purchased 100 of the Fisher pens, and 1,000 ink cartridges, in February 1969, for use on its Soyuz space flights. Previously, its cosmonauts had been using grease pencils to write in orbit. Both American astronauts and Soviet/Russian cosmonauts have continued to use these pens.
The Fisher Space Pen

CLAIM: NASA spent millions of dollars developing an 'astronaut pen' that would work in outer space, while the Soviets fixed the problem much more cheaply and quickly by using pencils.
RATING: FALSE

The lesson of the infamous “space pen” anecdote about NASA’s spending a small fortune to develop a ballpoint pen that astronauts could use in outer space, while completely overlooking the simple and elegant solution adopted by the Soviet space program (give cosmonauts pencils instead), is a valid one: sometimes we expend a great deal of time, effort, and money to create a “high-tech” solution to a problem, when a perfectly good, cheap, and simple answer is right before our eyes.

As good a story and moral as that may be, however, this anecdote doesn’t offer a real-life example of that syndrome.

Both U.S. astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts initially used pencils on space flights, but those writing instruments were not ideal: pencil tips can flake and break off, and having such objects floating around space capsules in near-zero gravity posed a potential harm to astronauts and equipment. (As well, after the fatal Apollo 1 fire in 1967, NASA was anxious to avoid having astronauts carry flammable objects such as pencils onboard with them.)

When the solution of providing astronauts with a ballpoint pen that would work under weightless conditions and extreme temperatures came about, though, it wasn’t because NASA had thrown hundreds of thousands of dollars (inflated to $12 billion in the latest iterations of this tale) in research and development money at the problem. The “space pen” that has since become famous through its use by astronauts was developed independently by Paul C. Fisher of the Fisher Pen Co., who spent his own money on the project and, once he perfected his AG-7 “Anti-Gravity” Space Pen, offered it to NASA. After that agency tested and approved the pen’s suitability for use in space flights, they purchased a number of the instruments from Fisher for a modest price.

This is how Fisher themselves described the development of their Space Pen:
NASA never asked Paul C. Fisher to produce a pen. When the astronauts began to fly, like the Russians, they used pencils, but the leads sometimes broke and became a hazard by floating in the [capsule’s] atmosphere where there was no gravity. They could float into an eye or nose or cause a short in an electrical
device. In addition, both the lead and the wood of the pencil could burn rapidly in the pure oxygen atmosphere. Paul Fisher realized the astronauts needed a safer and more dependable writing instrument, so in July 1965 he developed the pressurized ball pen, with its ink enclosed in a sealed, pressurized ink cartridge.
Fisher sent the first samples to Dr. Robert Gilruth, Director of the Houston Space Center. The pens were all metal except for the ink, which had a flash point above 200°C. The sample Space Pens were thoroughly tested by NASA. They passed all the tests and have been used ever since on all manned space flights, American and Russian. All research and development costs were paid by Paul Fisher. No development costs have ever been charged to the government. Because of the fire in Apollo 1, in which three Astronauts died, NASA required a writing instrument that would not burn in a 100% oxygen atmosphere. It also had to work in the extreme conditions of outer space. Fisher spent over one million dollars in trying to perfect the ball point pen before he made his first successful pressurized pens in 1965. Samples were immediately sent to Dr. Robert Gilruth, Manager of the Houston Space Center, where they were thoroughly tested and approved for use in Space in September 1965. In December 1967 he sold 400 Fisher Space Pens to NASA for $2.95 each. Lead pencils were used on all Mercury and Gemini space flights and all Russian space flights prior to 1968. Fisher Space Pens are more dependable than lead pencils and cannot create the hazard of a broken piece of lead floating through the gravity-less atmosphere.
The Write Stuff
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Mon 20 Nov 2017, 20:39:40

GHung wrote:
pstarr wrote:The 85 kWh Tesla auto battery pack weighs 1,200 lb. So if the semi requires a 500 kWh battery (as Sea's comment suggests) then the pack will weigh 7059 lbs. The maximum load inside a trailer is about 50,000 lb. 14% capacity is lost to the batteries.


Not really. you have to subtract the weight of a conventional diesel drive train (engine, transmission, drive shaft(s), differentials, and fuel load) from the weight of the battery, motors, and control system . I'm betting the overall weight difference is less than what you may think.

Edit: Great minds think alike, eh, O_S?


Dr Google is way off, max weight per axel is usually 8,000 kg or 17,600+ pounds. A semi hauler usually has 3, allowance must be made for trailer hitch & brake displacement. I'm too busy to do all the maths, but the above is way off.
SeaGypsy
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9084
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 03:00:00

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby ralfy » Mon 20 Nov 2017, 20:43:30

Globally, diesel-powered vehicles will be critical for transporting necessities across rough roads, coupled with infrastructure that hardly exists (including a lack of electric grids, roads, bridges, etc.), low income levels, and lack of electricity. This generally describes most of the world.

The same goes for container ships, all sorts of heavy equipment, and even petrochemicals.

Just developing the infrastructure to use these vehicles will require lots of oil, among others.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4699
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby GASMON » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 06:43:16

The Boring company - well he got the name right !!

Over the pond in London, Crossrail is about to open. Its a new east west rail tunnel across London. 118 Km (73 miles) of which 26 miles (42Km) is in tunnel. Cost - £15 Billion ($20 billion). Just for ONE route.

Imagine the cost of all these underground freeways and interconnections under New York, Chicago etc.

Not going to happen.

Gas
The truth is sometimes incorrect
User avatar
GASMON
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat 29 Mar 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Lancashire England

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby asg70 » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 11:50:48

BTW, check out Iceland, poster-child of bankruptcy. It has long tunnels right through mountains. Never say never.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... in_Iceland

The whole purpose of the Boring company is to make it faster and cheaper, so don't compare it to existing boondoggles.

pstarr wrote:That is anything but boring. It's hysterical


Of course. Anything related to technological progress is ridiculous to you.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 13:35:35

Anything related to technological progress is ridiculous to you.


History of U.S. Wind Energy. Since early recorded history, people have utilized wind energy. It propelled boats along the Nile River as early as 5,000 B.C., and helped Persians pump water and grind grain between 500 and 900 B.C.

Alessandro Volta was a physicist, chemist and a pioneer of electrical science. He is most famous for his invention of the electric battery. In brief he: Invented the first electric battery – which people then called the “voltaic pile” – in 1800.

--------------------------

Some progress. Its all a fraud. You want to know why?

Answer: Because electricity is not *** DIRECTLY *** bankable (not in the financial meaning of the word)


The Progress Cult is holed up in Pumped Hydro Storage. Australia will be forced to ruin itself with "renewables", the power will go off, and that will trigger the worldwide collapse of fake money.
My physician has informed me that I am clinically mentally ill.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 14:29:40

StarvingLion wrote:Some progress. Its all a fraud. You want to know why?

Answer: Because electricity is not *** DIRECTLY *** bankable (not in the financial meaning of the word)


You sound like short whining about thermodynamics as he claims its impossible for the world to continue to use oil, even as the world oil supply and demand tends to increase quite steadily, year after year and decade after decade -- even though the price is volatile.

Electricity is useful. It is bought and sold. It powers a LOT of stuff. The stuff it powers is getting more powerful, more efficient, more versatile, and more useful, due to technology. (i.e. energy intensity per dollar of GDP trend is very solid, globally).

As solar and battery costs and improvements continue, electricity is getting more and more economic -- to the point that EV's are becoming a "thing", and are likely to largely supplant ICE's in coming decades.

A moderate CO2 tax would make HEV's and PHEV's a SCREAMING great deal now, if most people actually cared more about the environment than maximizing their pocketbook. They don't so the process is slower -- but it IS occurring.

It doesn't matter if you play with semantics like "directly bankable" or "not in the financial sense". It works. It's increasingly affordable. Given externalities like CO2 production and pollution, green sources will become increasingly superior.

That's what will matter in the real world. The Tony Seba vision is, IMO, overoptimistic in terms of how fast it happens, but it is generally correct as far as the basic direction and reason for change. And that cost advantage is all the motivation people will need, especially as the real world costs of AGW continue to become more apparent.

Endlessly chanting "everything is a fraud" without meaningful substance to back you up is contributing little to nothing here. How about a logical case, backed up by real world facts with credible sources for a change?
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 14:41:30

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
StarvingLion wrote:Some progress. Its all a fraud. You want to know why?

Answer: Because electricity is not *** DIRECTLY *** bankable (not in the financial meaning of the word)


You sound like short whining about thermodynamics as he claims its impossible for the world to continue to use oil, even as the world oil supply and demand tends to increase quite steadily, year after year and decade after decade -- even though the price is volatile.

Electricity is useful. It is bought and sold. It powers a LOT of stuff. The stuff it powers is getting more powerful, more efficient, more versatile, and more useful, due to technology. (i.e. energy intensity per dollar of GDP trend is very solid, globally).

As solar and battery costs and improvements continue, electricity is getting more and more economic -- to the point that EV's are becoming a "thing", and are likely to largely supplant ICE's in coming decades.

A moderate CO2 tax would make HEV's and PHEV's a SCREAMING great deal now, if most people actually cared more about the environment than maximizing their pocketbook. They don't so the process is slower -- but it IS occurring.

It doesn't matter if you play with semantics like "directly bankable" or "not in the financial sense". It works. It's increasingly affordable. Given externalities like CO2 production and pollution, green sources will become increasingly superior.

That's what will matter in the real world. The Tony Seba vision is, IMO, overoptimistic in terms of how fast it happens, but it is generally correct as far as the basic direction and reason for change. And that cost advantage is all the motivation people will need, especially as the real world costs of AGW continue to become more apparent.

Endlessly chanting "everything is a fraud" without meaningful substance to back you up is contributing little to nothing here. How about a logical case, backed up by real world facts with credible sources for a change?


I'm talking physics. Electricity cannot be directly banked. The battery is a chemical reactor whose limits are defined by quantum mechanics.

**** MODERN CIVILIZATION CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT A CHAIN REACTION MECHANISM ****

This link is about fusion but it contains an important comments of chain reaction mechanisms in general:

http://home.pcisys.net/~bestwork.1/NucF ... icult.html

The situation is analogous to ordinary chemical reactions where a certain energy barrier(activation energy) must be overcome to start the reaction. For example ,the gasoline in the tank of your car does not spontaneously combine with the oxygen in air; It takes a spark to ignite. That spark supplies the activation energy. But, the spark by itself is not enough; the reason gasoline burns so readily is that certain intermediate products with reduced activation energy are produced. These intermediate products will increase in number as the reaction proceeds. An oxygen molecule, for example may split into two atoms of oxygen. The oxygen atoms are more reactive than the original molecule. This doubling of reactants accounts for the rapid, sometimes explosive progress of the reaction
Last edited by StarvingLion on Tue 21 Nov 2017, 14:48:27, edited 1 time in total.
My physician has informed me that I am clinically mentally ill.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 14:46:35

The Tesla Truck has no "fuel" to charge the batteries.

Windmills: Nobody is paying the bills for these useless contraptions. Its total ponzi.
My physician has informed me that I am clinically mentally ill.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 14:54:26

StarvingLion wrote:
Outcast_Searcher wrote:
StarvingLion wrote:Some progress. Its all a fraud. You want to know why?

Answer: Because electricity is not *** DIRECTLY *** bankable (not in the financial meaning of the word)


You sound like short whining about thermodynamics as he claims its impossible for the world to continue to use oil, even as the world oil supply and demand tends to increase quite steadily, year after year and decade after decade -- even though the price is volatile.

Electricity is useful. It is bought and sold. It powers a LOT of stuff. The stuff it powers is getting more powerful, more efficient, more versatile, and more useful, due to technology. (i.e. energy intensity per dollar of GDP trend is very solid, globally).

As solar and battery costs and improvements continue, electricity is getting more and more economic -- to the point that EV's are becoming a "thing", and are likely to largely supplant ICE's in coming decades.

A moderate CO2 tax would make HEV's and PHEV's a SCREAMING great deal now, if most people actually cared more about the environment than maximizing their pocketbook. They don't so the process is slower -- but it IS occurring.

It doesn't matter if you play with semantics like "directly bankable" or "not in the financial sense". It works. It's increasingly affordable. Given externalities like CO2 production and pollution, green sources will become increasingly superior.

That's what will matter in the real world. The Tony Seba vision is, IMO, overoptimistic in terms of how fast it happens, but it is generally correct as far as the basic direction and reason for change. And that cost advantage is all the motivation people will need, especially as the real world costs of AGW continue to become more apparent.

Endlessly chanting "everything is a fraud" without meaningful substance to back you up is contributing little to nothing here. How about a logical case, backed up by real world facts with credible sources for a change?


I'm talking physics. Electricity cannot be directly banked. The battery is a chemical reactor whose limits are defined by quantum mechanics.

**** CIVILIZATION CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT A CHAIN REACTION MECHANISM ****

This link is about fusion but it contains an important comments of chain reaction mechanisms in general:

http://home.pcisys.net/~bestwork.1/NucF ... icult.html

The situation is analogous to ordinary chemical reactions where a certain energy barrier(activation energy) must be overcome to start the reaction. For example ,the gasoline in the tank of your car does not spontaneously combine with the oxygen in air; It takes a spark to ignite. That spark supplies the activation energy. But, the spark by itself is not enough; the reason gasoline burns so readily is that certain intermediate products with reduced activation energy are produced. These intermediate products will increase in number as the reaction proceeds. An oxygen molecule, for example may split into two atoms of oxygen. The oxygen atoms are more reactive than the original molecule. This doubling of reactants accounts for the rapid, sometimes explosive progress of the reaction


First, you're not bothering to show that your paragraph below the link is a quote from the article. There is a reason the quote function exists.

...

You lost me completely.

How does the viability of controlled hot fusion (which I agree is a pipe dream until proven otherwise, aside from in the gravity well of a star), have anything to do with the well proven concepts of green energy such as solar and wind?

With minimal maintenance, well constructed/installed solar panels and wind turbines can produce clean and reliable (although intermittent) energy for DECADES.

Using batteries, which if properly managed can already last a decade or more and largely be recycled, the intermittency problem is 99%+ solved, once batteries are relatively economic. I'm seeing articles on how older large batteries can be used for less demanding secondary jobs. For example:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... gs.3Ekv9EU

...

The sun constantly pours a HUGE amount of energy onto the earth. Many chemical chain reactions, involving processes like photosynthesis have happened for orders of magnitude more time than people have been around.

I don't see the problem. Again, you sound like short, doing the equivalent of yelling at clouds. The clouds don't care, and neither does the economy or the energy sources people use.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby Cog » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 15:50:17

The problem Outcast, is that the energy contained within a fossil fuel battery(pound for pound), aka a diesel tank, will always be more than that contained within a electric battery. There is no way to avoid that situation.

Try this Tesla truck when the weather is 0 Farenheit, with defrosters and heaters blasting so the driver doesn't freeze, going over the Rocky Mountains instead of onto a showroom floor, and tell me its going to work as advertised
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 16:09:24

Cog wrote:The problem Outcast, is that the energy contained within a fossil fuel battery(pound for pound), aka a diesel tank, will always be more than that contained within a electric battery. There is no way to avoid that situation.

Try this Tesla truck when the weather is 0 Farenheit, with defrosters and heaters blasting so the driver doesn't freeze, going over the Rocky Mountains instead of onto a showroom floor, and tell me its going to work as advertised

The range will be reduced in such weather, as has been well documented for the current crop of EV's.

Now, for a huge battery pulling a semi 500 miles, I would expect anything less than "crazy" heating to be FAR less than the 30 to 40 percent reduction repeatedly documented in very cold weather.

I would also think that prudent options like heated seats and wearing moderately warm clothes and keeping the cabin maybe 45 degrees (which works fine for me and I'm cold natured) might be a realistic alternative/compromise for a driver to make. So then, I'd expect under a 20% reduction, except perhaps in the coldest weather (allowing for less battery capacity in the cold -- although running heaters seems to be the main issue from what I've read).

So I'll agree that it won't work as well as on a 70 degree day. However, I completely reject the idea that cold weather means it won't work.

EV's are more efficient by ICE's by a long shot. And the battery isn't burned completely away each cycle. Each system has its merits. EV's are getting into the ballpark of parity -- with all their advantages, and lots of improvements to come, thus claiming they're not viable just isn't realistic any more, IMO.

(And this is NOT a claim that Tesla won't go bankrupt -- I'm talking EV trucks as a concept as far as viability).
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby Cog » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 17:15:46

Uh long haul truckers are not going to keep their cabs at 45 degrees. Oh and this works the other way driving across the desert when the outside temps are 100+. AC units suck a lot of energy. Here again Musk is selling the hype to keep the money flowing.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Tesla Truck Could Threaten Big Chunk of Oil Demand

Unread postby asg70 » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 18:25:22

It's not mutually exclusive. Musk is both selling hype and doing some good engineering.

It really doesn't matter whether fossil fuels are more energy dense than batteries. Fossil fuels are a) killing the planet and b) rapidly depleting (albeit not in a way that's impacting BAU at present). As long as batteries can get the job done, then this transition is gonna happen sooner or later. It will not require batteries to match or exceed on energy density.

Lead acid was never gonna get us there, but lithium is "good enough", especially considering that post-peak oil we really won't have an alternative other than donkey-carts. So most of this is first-world-problem whining.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

PreviousNext

Return to Conservation & Efficiency

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests