Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sans_culottez t1_izzcsi0 wrote

Reply to comment by privated1ck in Tesla Semi 500-Mile Trip Video Shows Truck May Have Had a Lower GVW Than 81,000 Lb by Ssider69

That’s cool, I just kinda wonder about the truck that’s been stuck for 4 hours on an upward slope, like it’s not that that it doesn’t happen to ICE trucks either, if they got low on fuel and got stuck, but if that happens, they can get AAA or highway patrol to come out and give them a bit of fuel to get further down the line to the next station. What happens if an EV truck gets stuck in a situation like that where it tried to get over a hump that shouldn’t have taken much power, while not being at peak power itself, and then sat there for so long because of an accident that it could no longer get further up the hill?

1

privated1ck t1_izzg7a8 wrote

I suppose they will bring out a generator 🤣

2

Sans_culottez t1_izzgert wrote

That’s a capable enough fix in theory, but involves a lot more supply costs.

Edit: assuming both trucks have fully functional working engines and have just ran low on fuel:

You pay the person delivering the fuel to the ICE truck, the cost of their time and fuel costs, they deliver it, the truck gets on their way.

It takes maybe 15 mins to refuel the truck.

For a generator: you pay a lot more for the weight of the generator, plus fuel, plus the time it takes for the person who delivered the generator to run it and charge the EV.

It takes 15mins to set up the truck and the generator, and then at least another 30 to charge the truck assuming the best charging and generator tech available.

That’s not an insignificant amount when you consider you are also blocking off a road way to do this for a lot more time.

1

privated1ck t1_izziorg wrote

Only thing that matters to big logistics companies that buy semi tractors, is over the aggregate, does it save money?

Also. I am not an electric truckologist, but I'm not sure that sitting for 4 hours doing nothing but heating/air conditioning the cabin or even running a refrigeration unit on the (presumably well insulated) payload would put a significant drain on a 500 mile battery. And this is a bit of an extreme situation, involving someone who went into the mountains unprepared for the possibility of sitting on a road for 4 hours.

Again with regard to my first comment above, we're not concerned about "black swans", if in the aggregate significant money is being saved on shipping.

1

Sans_culottez t1_izzj0r6 wrote

That’s because at the moment they are allowed to offload a lot of the externalities of their business not only onto their drivers, but on the public as a whole, i see that getting clipped down somewhat (hopefully) as those externalities start being subjected onto the average person in a more readily identifiable way.

1

Sans_culottez t1_j005jfx wrote

Regarding “black swans” when considering a logistics fleet that does not have a fairly secured transit line like trains (again the answer is always trains.), these sort of “black swan” events happen every day on on a major truck transit hub.

And something like a battery tunnel fire is equivalent to a black swan event like the Hindenburg.

You can’t just write them off as statistical noise.

Edit: like this isn’t me just shitting on EV’s it’s obviously the way of the future if you want to survive climate change.

But it’s going to involve infrastructure costs that are not reflected in the price per kwhat hour of travel. Like in general even with ICE trucks I think there should be laws and physical barriers that slow ALL traffic during tunnel entry, and probably roadway laws that make you follow other trucks 3 car lengths away when entering a tunnel.

It’s just when a tunnel accident happens that is full of fires that can’t be put out without killing people, and even then it does millions of damages to tunnel structures, that I think these kinds of logistical costs will actually be considered.

1

privated1ck t1_j008wbr wrote

I'm pretty sure that a semi tractor with full tanks of diesel fuel is just about as dangerous. You can't put that fire out with water either, and in fact diesel fuel flows and floats, making it possibly even more dangerous than a lithium battery fire.

And in a world where major manufacturers choose to pay accident victim's families instead of recalling dangerous vehicles, you can be damn sure it's all about the money.

But that's outside my scope here.

2

Sans_culottez t1_j00a2nj wrote

Well that’s kinda my point, existing regulations about transportation of fuel trucks discourage them from going through tunnels, generally.

1

privated1ck t1_j00cisc wrote

Not talking about a fuel truck, I'm talking about a semi tractor with side tanks full of diesel fuel for the tractor.

2

Sans_culottez t1_j00d6gr wrote

Okay, we’ve already accounted for that for ICE trucking, but we don’t put that shit in our actual total volume of inventory by Mile, even now.

Like I’m not okay with how ICE trucking companies let off their externalities onto their workers and other people that have to be on the road. But they already do it.

And now you’re introducing another very different engine plan that is evaluated without any of of the logistical hurdles, only the specific engine costs.

That’s not gonna work.

1

privated1ck t1_j00eb62 wrote

When you speak of companies who "let off their externalities" onto others, I assume You're about the trucking companies that employee independent truckers who own or lease their own vehicles? Assuming I understand what you even talking about, that's not the model that works best for an emerging technology like this. I'm talking about massive logistics companies with their own fleets. They can afford to absorb the initial costs, and average out the effects of cost and risk over a large number of vehicles over a large amount of time with plenty of capital to cushion the shocks.

2

Sans_culottez t1_j00f40v wrote

Oh no, I I mean all logistics companies that happen to involve truckers. They by and large treat all of their workers like shit, it just gets a lot worse with “independent” trucking companies like you mentioned.

Even the best companies, that treat their workers the best (which basically doesn’t exist in the US), still offload a lot of externalities onto the localities that they work through, they just don’t offload it onto their workers directly.

You end up paying it through taxes to repair your roadways, only that’s the only way you see it when you’re a flyby town with only a gas station, and then wonder why no one in your town ever gets up unless they get out.

Edit: also, I’m not a demon mind that figures all this shit out for the company. I’m just someone with a weird intelligence that just so happened to have a lot of family in the trucking industry.

The demon minds will figure this shit out for the logistics companies, after your town has been burnt to the ground from them figuring it out.

1

privated1ck t1_j00wdcg wrote

This comment thread is getting way off track. The way the trucking industry treats its workers is completely independent of whether those trucks are electric or petroleum powered. The question of whether fleets will replace their petroleum-powered trucks with electric powered trucks is strictly a matter of the economics of one versus the other, all other fixed costs/common considerations being equal. And large companies will be the movers in this space because their economies of scale make the risk proposition worthwhile.

0

Sans_culottez t1_j00wqfe wrote

No honestly it is very much not. The way the trucking industry gets away with pretending it is efficient In the US is by offloading externalities onto its workers and municipalities.

It’s passing the buck right along, and that’s very easy to do so long as someone else gotta pay for it.

Edit: and yo, again about how somebody else has to pay for it, how many truckers you know ended up with a crank habit to make their deadline?

That’s company time you gotta pay on your family line.

0