Comment by RobinL | Hacker News Reader

Comment by RobinL | Hacker News Reader

The video argues that, with current battery technology, to achieve the same range as a current semi, most of the weight of the truck will be batteries, leaving little weight for cargo (3 tonnes relative to 19 tonnes).

I've noticed there is a common theme to arguments against electrification: that they assume it's necessary for an electric vehicle needs to match all the capabilities of a fossil fuel equivalent. i.e. trade offs are not possible.

Why can't the truck just have shorter range (and thus more cargo capacity) and charge more regularly?

If there was proper carbon taxing, the cost of the driver waiting around for charging would be mitigated by the savings made from avoiding carbon tax.

Similarly with electric cars, I'm happy to stop on a very long trip for charging if it means my environmental impact is significantly lower.

I'm assuming the maths in the video is correct. The key figure seems to be that you need 20kg of batteries to achieve the range of 1kg of petrol. Which sounds plausible, but I'm no expert.

>Why can't the truck just have shorter range (and thus more cargo capacity) and charge more regularly?

This seems inevitable in the short term. But then, the trade-offs tilt less in favour of electrification. For example, shorter ranges likely means more trucks, and these trucks will likely be heavier and do more damage to roads.

Cargo transport needs long distance and big capacity. You don't need those in cars so they're not comparable. The video is not against electrification, it just argues it doesn't work with cargo transport, it is very inefficient.

> Cargo transport needs long distance and big capacity.

In the US, "Approximately 50 percent of the weight and 37 percent of the value of goods were moved less than 100 miles between origin and destination in 2015" according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics [0]. This is well within the range of the Tesla Semi. I'm not sure the capacity of the Tesla Semi, though.

[0] https://www.bts.dot.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/FFF_201...

Or just swap out the batteries on the way. I think someone on here once suggested to do so at existing weigh stations in the US.

Swappable battery packs seem like a good idea. It might even be faster than waiting to pump 100 gallons of fuel.

I'm thinking existing truck stops would have a better chance of working than the weigh stations. let's leave the government it, they are barely competent at weighing a truck. Some trucks might not see a weigh station for a week. Some stations are nothing more than a pull out on the side of the road.

Ah good point, I like that idea, especially as it utilizes that infrastructure and doesn't make them disappear when there's a transition to electric.

Does the Tesla semi have hot-swappable battery packs?

Not as far as I know, but a standard may emerge, as there is not way that an interstate system can operate if they all had hot swaps for each maker of trucks. I am sure they makers will develop a standard if swapping wins this game.

The history of the entire industries that have a perfectly functional (more functional) alternative re-factoring themselves to match some new offering is quite poor.

I agree that industries will not do this voluntarily. They will just chase a profit. Climate change is a market failure so we need governments to change incentives to make it in industries' interest to change. A carbon tax is one option.

In this case, not matching the range of existing trucks means that you need to have more trucks and more drivers.

It can be used to transport battery while using it?

who pays the driver during the recharging? The truck absolutely need to match the driver endurance, so that recharges can be planned during drivers downtime. The trucks are expensive, sure, but an asset. Drivers are the cost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com