e-truck insanity

[markslawson + 1,058]

Just when I think the Australian state and Federal governments have a lock hold on insanity, the US EPA does something which makes them look good by comparison.

I read in one newsletter that the "Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is mandating that 60% of urban delivery trucks and 25% of heavy rig sales become electric by 2032".

Surely this is some sort of joke? Battery electric passenger vehicles at least are feasible and can even compete on price in certain market segments. Although, the market is bathed in blood at the moment that's because the major car manufactures were stupid enough to believe the hype and thought e-cars might be more than a niche item. However, an electric 18-wheeler represents a serious step back in productivity, not to mention the huge investment required in installing charging points at depots and so on. How long does it take to recharge a heavy freight truck? The problem is not as bad for battery operated urban delivery trucks, but they also represent a major step back in productivity and wasteful capital investment. But 60 per cent in just 8 years? What are they smoking at the EPA and surely its illegal? 

The most likely result of this insane ruling is an aging of the truck fleet (resulting in an increase in emissions from aging engines) and a thriving second hand market as transport companies look for some way round the EPA mandate.

Still I take comfort that the EPA is crazier than Australian institutions...   

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

12 hours ago, markslawson said:

Just when I think the Australian state and Federal governments have a lock hold on insanity, the US EPA does something which makes them look good by comparison.

I read in one newsletter that the "Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is mandating that 60% of urban delivery trucks and 25% of heavy rig sales become electric by 2032".

Surely this is some sort of joke? Battery electric passenger vehicles at least are feasible and can even compete on price in certain market segments. Although, the market is bathed in blood at the moment that's because the major car manufactures were stupid enough to believe the hype and thought e-cars might be more than a niche item. However, an electric 18-wheeler represents a serious step back in productivity, not to mention the huge investment required in installing charging points at depots and so on. How long does it take to recharge a heavy freight truck? The problem is not as bad for battery operated urban delivery trucks, but they also represent a major step back in productivity and wasteful capital investment. But 60 per cent in just 8 years? What are they smoking at the EPA and surely its illegal? 

The most likely result of this insane ruling is an aging of the truck fleet (resulting in an increase in emissions from aging engines) and a thriving second hand market as transport companies look for some way round the EPA mandate.

Still I take comfort that the EPA is crazier than Australian institutions...   

Was this the article?

EPA Finalizes Heavy Truck Emissions Rule, Looks to Boost EVs by 2032 | Engineering News-Record (enr.com)

Cant see where it mandates 60% or that they have to be electric only that they need to conform to the new emissions standards??

Maybe it wasnt this article? Would be useful to post the article Mark.

[Meredith Poor + 897]

14 hours ago, markslawson said:

However, an electric 18-wheeler represents a serious step back in productivity, not to mention the huge investment required in installing charging points at depots and so on.

This is a completely scientifically/technically illiterate statement. Diesel trucks are maintenance intensive and messy - in the US, at least, it is necessary to run diesels with something called DEF (Diesel Emissions Fluid), which is basically urea. From a standing start, an engine that has to maintain a minimum RPM just to keep running is at a disadvantage in comparison to a motor that can deliver full torque at 0 RPM. This affects all kinds of elements in the clutch and transmission, which have to be overbuilt and break routinely. Similarly, once diesel fuel is burned, there's no way to get it back, whereas electric trucks regenerate on braking.

Battery energy densities and safety continue to increase. Keyword search 'M3P Battery' for one example. Also keyword search '720Wh per kg', although this is still 'blue sky' until it is possible to buy one at a retail store.

Someone in China is purportedly offering solar panels for sale at 2 cents per watt. This thing could be an 'Easter egg' - basically something planted in the listings to motivate people to search through a lot more listings. There are a lot of listings at 9 cents to 11 cents per watt in kilowatt quantities.

A gallon of diesel fuel in the US is equivalent to 40Kwh of electrical energy, and at present costs $4 per gallon where I live. 40 kwh divided by 5 hours per day of solar exposure is 8 kilowatts of solar panels. 8 Kw * 2 cents per watt = $160. $160 / $4 per gallon is payback in 160 days. Obviously this is silly given all the other costs of setting up solar panels, but it illustrates just how trivial solar power is now becoming.

Warehouses, big box stores, and factories have large flat roofs and huge paved over parking lots - all perfect places for placing large solar arrays.

Which is more expensive, running a 480volt supercharging cable from a transformer, or burying a 10,000 gallon tank of diesel and putting in the plumbing for a pump and payment processor? How likely is it one would fuel a diesel truck while it is being loaded and unloaded, in comparison to recharging one that is electrically powered?

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

5 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

This is a completely scientifically/technically illiterate statement. Diesel trucks are

 

I agree.  That is a completely scientifically/technically illiterate statement... and then you proved it so as you then blathered on about solar which has nothing to do with reality, but rather wishes/dreams for nice constant temp warm climates where cold weather does not decrease battery capacity by 50%...

For a technology to take off it must be UNIVERSAL.  Now I could argue(and have done so) and you could argue(you have done so) that trucks SHOULD be hybrid, where it is electric drive, with diesel generator as that is a UNIVERSAL solution and allows long term viability for everyone regardless of range or load.  This solution is already done on heavy duty equipment with hydraulic drive for instance.  A short range truck with a small battery which is not driven all the time could at a SMALL business charge overnight, but a medium business requiring a half dozen trucks/equipment, this would be nigh impossible due to CHARGING impossibilities, as it more than likely would require a $100,000 at minimum change in their electrical grid tie.    Now said medium trucking business could MOVE to an industrial park with higher current 480V distribution, but these areas are EXPENSIVE to lease, and only available in a FEW select locations. So, Hundreds of thousands in moving expenses AND higher LEASE... genius... that = pitifully BAD business practice.  

Pure Electric drive, battery power storage, is NOT a universal solution without Trillions spent in Grid Voltage increase at local level to 1200V which~ isn't going to happen any time soon due to insulation problems, baring a new flexible insulation material and VAST changes to Electrical Code.  Thus limiting to 480V 3p which means a viable truck can only realistically suck down ~3X as much power as a sedan.... A piddly diddle Pick Up truck already does that making this hopeless. 

Newsflash: Trucks require VASTLY more than 3X power requirements compared to a sedan and Said trucks and equipment have ZERO way to charge in the field--> ZERO...  Making an electric only option utterly useless for any form of the military, farming, or construction from which ALL new forms of equipment come.  It is NOT the civilian market which drives change at all.  Military, farming, construction equipment drive change as the HEAVY industry is what the civilian market piggy backs off of.  Without the Heavy industry there is no food etc.  So, until you can satisfy the Military, Farming, Construction end of things--> You have nothing.  Why Tesla Truck is STUPID.  If Tesla had instead gone to John Deer, Case, CAT, BobCat, etc, Tesla would be selling electric motor drive trains and batteries as fast as they could sell IF, uh hem, IF they made it tie directly to a diesel generator. Civilian trucking has ~zero margins, heavy duty equipment has HIGH margins. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

Our governing bodies are in chaos right now. They seem to believe making outrageous rulings/laws/policies will achieve great results.

Just more progressive dribble. American auto manufacturer has already closed the door on EV production..

[notsonice + 1,255]

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Our governing bodies are in chaos right now. They seem to believe making outrageous rulings/laws/policies will achieve great results.

Just more progressive dribble. American auto manufacturer has already closed the door on EV production..

just more BS from you as you are in full support of the Chaos party

all you have left is a choice to vacate your own leadership (again)

enjoy your parties own inability to get anything done

and enjoy the Green machine and the new emissions standards (you do realize that these standards help everyone live a better life) 

[markslawson + 1,058]

8 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

This is a completely scientifically/technically illiterate statement. Diesel trucks are maintenance intensive and messy - in the US, at least, it is necessary to run diesels with something called DEF (Diesel Emissions Fluid), which is basically urea. From a standing start, an engine that has to maintain a minimum RPM just to keep running is at a disadvantage in comparison to a motor that can deliver full torque at 0 RPM. This affects all kinds of elements in the clutch and transmission, which have to be overbuilt and break routinely. Similarly, once diesel fuel is burned, there's no way to get it back, whereas electric trucks regenerate on braking.

Meredith - look, sorry, but you really need to read stuff other than seriously silly e-propaganda. One point I didn't cite in the original post is that e-trucks cost two-to-three times their petrol counterparts and the batteries take up a sizable portion of the load. They are clearly less efficient. The maintenance issues which you cite pale in comparison. As for DEF its injected into the tail pipe to reduce emissions. It's just part of running the truck. In any case, all those factors can be left up to the market and the market has firmly ruled against e-trucks for the reasons cited. Among other problems is the need to invest in infrastructure, such as charging stations, big time and these are having all cites of teething problems as you might know if you read the media at all. The EPA policy is a serious insane one. I'd advise you against smoking what they're smoking.   

[markslawson + 1,058]

10 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Cant see where it mandates 60% or that they have to be electric only that they need to conform to the new emissions standards??

Maybe it wasnt this article? Would be useful to post the article Mark.

Good point - the original item is behind a paywall but here is an opensource report  that says the same thing. The policy was announced on good Friday would you believe.

 

[markslawson + 1,058]

8 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Battery energy densities and safety continue to increase. Keyword search 'M3P Battery' for one example. Also keyword search '720Wh per kg', although this is still 'blue sky' until it is possible to buy one at a retail store.

Here is an excerpt from an article on the issue. These are just the start of the problems with the policy. It is seriously insane.

Start with the fact that no electric long-haul tractors are currently in mass production. Most electric trucks can’t go more than 170 miles on a charge. Electric semis require bigger and heavier batteries, which means they must carry lighter loads to avoid damaging roads. Fleet operators will have to use more trucks to transport the same amount of goods.

This will increase vehicle congestion, especially around ports and distribution centers. EPA says its rule will reduce pollution in “environmental justice” communities near major truck freight routes. But more traffic will result in more pollution. Electric trucks also generate more soot from their wear and tear on roads and vehicle braking.

Power generation and transmission will have to massively expand to support millions of new “zero-emission” trucks. An electric semi consumes about seven times as much electricity on a single charge as a typical home does in a day. Truck charging depots can draw as much power from the grid as small cities.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

Former AG William Barr's free market group sues California over EV truck mandate | Fox News

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

33 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Former AG William Barr's free market group sues California over EV truck mandate | Fox News

If the laws are a problem California can just change their laws.

Tobacco lobbyists tried all this type of crap way back. "You can't tell the people smoking is bad!  You can't make us put warnings on packages!" How did that work out for big tobacco? 

Many people complained about banning 2-stroke.  How did that work out?  Are 2-strokes still sold in Cali?

This washed up fossil can sue all he wants.  Fossil human whose outdated ideas will soon die with him.

 

Edited April 6 by TailingsPond

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

11 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

If the laws are a problem California can just change their laws.

Tobacco lobbyists tried all this type of crap way back. "You can't tell the people smoking is bad!  You can't make us put warnings on packages!" How did that work out for big tobacco? 

Many people complained about banning 2-stroke.  How did that work out?  Are 2-strokes still sold in Cali?

This washed up fossil can sue all he wants.  Fossil human whose outdated ideas will soon die with him.

 

Your about as intelligent as your cheerleader notsosmart. But hey, at least he's American, even though extreme left he has a right to make comments about US policy. 

 

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

24 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Your about as intelligent as your cheerleader notsosmart. But hey, at least he's American, even though extreme left he has a right to make comments about US policy. 

 

If you are so smart you would know it is "you're."   Very amusing!

You don't think you have a right to comment on global politics? Of course you do.  Meddling in affairs of other countries is the most American thing you can do!

You didn't answer the questions.  Did the lobbyists or the law win?

William Barr is as corrupt as can be. He kissed Trumps ass and lied for him for years, then told the truth upon his resignation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Barr

"Barr testified that before resigning as attorney general, he had told president Trump that allegations of election fraud were "bullshit." At times during his testimony he could not control his laughter at the absurdity of some fraud allegations, such as the Italygate theory that satellites controlled from Italy had flipped votes from Trump to Biden, and that former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez had orchestrated an election fraud scheme, despite having died seven years earlier. Barr testified Trump never gave "an indication of interest in what the actual facts were," adding the president had "become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff.""

 

 

Edited April 6 by TailingsPond

[Ulysses + 21]

13 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

If the laws are a problem California can just change their laws.

Tobacco lobbyists tried all this type of crap way back. "You can't tell the people smoking is bad!  You can't make us put warnings on packages!" How did that work out for big tobacco? 

Many people complained about banning 2-stroke.  How did that work out?  Are 2-strokes still sold in Cali?

This washed up fossil can sue all he wants.  Fossil human whose outdated ideas will soon die with him.

 

How about letting the marketplace determine which cars consumers can buy? Why limit people’s choices?

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

11 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

How about letting the marketplace determine which cars consumers can buy? Why limit people’s choices?

The environment, health, natural beauty.

Rules against pollution are nothing new.  Why not let factories just dump their toxic waste anywhere they want?  That would be the cheapest way to deal with the waste - market forces would dictate that course of action. 

We limit plenty of people's choices.  Laws are there for a reason.  Just like you might think it is okay to smoke that doesn't mean you should be allowed to pollute the air in shared public spaces.  Running a dirty truck near a child is the same as smoking a cancer stick next to a babies crib.  They both make air pollution and effect people who did not make that choice for themselves.

[Marcin2 + 726]

On 4/5/2024 at 2:32 AM, markslawson said:

Just when I think the Australian state and Federal governments have a lock hold on insanity, the US EPA does something which makes them look good by comparison.

I read in one newsletter that the "Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is mandating that 60% of urban delivery trucks and 25% of heavy rig sales become electric by 2032".

Surely this is some sort of joke? Battery electric passenger vehicles at least are feasible and can even compete on price in certain market segments. Although, the market is bathed in blood at the moment that's because the major car manufactures were stupid enough to believe the hype and thought e-cars might be more than a niche item. However, an electric 18-wheeler represents a serious step back in productivity, not to mention the huge investment required in installing charging points at depots and so on. How long does it take to recharge a heavy freight truck? The problem is not as bad for battery operated urban delivery trucks, but they also represent a major step back in productivity and wasteful capital investment. But 60 per cent in just 8 years? What are they smoking at the EPA and surely its illegal? 

The most likely result of this insane ruling is an aging of the truck fleet (resulting in an increase in emissions from aging engines) and a thriving second hand market as transport companies look for some way round the EPA mandate.

Still I take comfort that the EPA is crazier than Australian institutions...   

My company wanted to be ecology wise so we bought 18  LNG trucks instead of all  diesel fleet. And you know it is not worth its price. LNG trucks can go for 800 -900 km 550 miles, whereas diesel trucks keeep up to 1000 miles. It was bad investment. I do not even have fantasy about buiyng electric trucks.

We have a fleet of 50 some electric last mile delivery small trucks (with 2000-2500 pound capacity) and only for some clients that really pay for this, for each mile driven by electric small trucks. But it is a PR thing, most of our clients stll want us to travel their loads in diesel trucks.

[Stre1996 0]

On 4/5/2024 at 3:32 AM, markslawson said:

Just when I think the Australian state and Federal governments have a lock hold on insanity, the US EPA does something which makes them look good by comparison.

I read in one newsletter that the "Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is mandating that 60% of urban delivery trucks and 25% of heavy rig sales become electric by 2032".

Surely this is some sort of joke? Battery electric passenger vehicles at least are feasible and can even compete on price in certain market segments. Although, the market is bathed in blood at the moment that's because the major car manufactures were stupid enough to believe the hype and thought e-cars might be more than a niche item. However, an electric 18-wheeler represents a serious step back in productivity, not to mention the huge investment required in installing charging points at depots and so on. How long does it take to recharge a heavy freight truck? The problem is not as bad for battery operated urban delivery trucks, but they also represent a major step back in productivity and wasteful capital investment. But 60 per cent in just 8 years? What are they smoking at the EPA and surely its illegal? 

The most likely result of this insane ruling is an aging of the truck fleet (resulting in an increase in emissions from aging engines) and a thriving second hand market as transport companies look for some way round the EPA mandate. You can check this website.

Still I take comfort that the EPA is crazier than Australian institutions...   

Electric trucks? Hmm, feels like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it? I mean, I'm all for going green, but this seems like a big ask. Wonder how they plan to pull it off practically.

Edited April 24 by Stre1996

[markslawson + 1,058]

2 hours ago, Stre1996 said:

Electric trucks? Hmm, feels like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it? I mean, I'm all for going green, but this seems like a big ask. Wonder how they plan to pull it off practically.

They've been trying but the bizarre part of the EPA directive is that e-trucks are a miniscule part of the heavy-haulage market. Those who wish to obscure the truth of this will quote some percentage or other of world sales but a closer look at the figures show that almost all the sales are in China where weird stuff happens - they have battery swap stations for trucks. In western, advanced countries where markets operate heavy e-trucks sales are tiny. The electrification of light delivery trucks operating in suburbs makes some sense, albeit at a cost.  

[Ron Wagner + 710]

On 4/5/2024 at 10:20 AM, Meredith Poor said:

This is a completely scientifically/technically illiterate statement. Diesel trucks are maintenance intensive and messy - in the US, at least, it is necessary to run diesels with something called DEF (Diesel Emissions Fluid), which is basically urea. From a standing start, an engine that has to maintain a minimum RPM just to keep running is at a disadvantage in comparison to a motor that can deliver full torque at 0 RPM. This affects all kinds of elements in the clutch and transmission, which have to be overbuilt and break routinely. Similarly, once diesel fuel is burned, there's no way to get it back, whereas electric trucks regenerate on braking.

Battery energy densities and safety continue to increase. Keyword search 'M3P Battery' for one example. Also keyword search '720Wh per kg', although this is still 'blue sky' until it is possible to buy one at a retail store.

Someone in China is purportedly offering solar panels for sale at 2 cents per watt. This thing could be an 'Easter egg' - basically something planted in the listings to motivate people to search through a lot more listings. There are a lot of listings at 9 cents to 11 cents per watt in kilowatt quantities.

A gallon of diesel fuel in the US is equivalent to 40Kwh of electrical energy, and at present costs $4 per gallon where I live. 40 kwh divided by 5 hours per day of solar exposure is 8 kilowatts of solar panels. 8 Kw * 2 cents per watt = $160. $160 / $4 per gallon is payback in 160 days. Obviously this is silly given all the other costs of setting up solar panels, but it illustrates just how trivial solar power is now becoming.

Warehouses, big box stores, and factories have large flat roofs and huge paved over parking lots - all perfect places for placing large solar arrays.

Which is more expensive, running a 480volt supercharging cable from a transformer, or burying a 10,000 gallon tank of diesel and putting in the plumbing for a pump and payment processor? How likely is it one would fuel a diesel truck while it is being loaded and unloaded, in comparison to recharging one that is electrically powered?

Natural gas trucks are used widely all over the world. They should be used in the United States to a much larger degree. If clean air is the goal, they are the best answer not only for trucks but for ships of all sizes. The technology is fully developed and has been tweaked for decades. https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/how-do-natural-gas-class-8-trucks-work

[Meredith Poor + 897]

5 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

Natural gas trucks are used widely all over the world. They should be used in the United States to a much larger degree. If clean air is the goal, they are the best answer not only for trucks but for ships of all sizes. The technology is fully developed and has been tweaked for decades.

Another development related to natural gas: making diamonds at atmospheric pressure.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07339-7

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

8 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

Natural gas trucks are used widely all over the world. They should be used in the United States to a much larger degree. If clean air is the goal, they are the best answer not only for trucks but for ships of all sizes. The technology is fully developed and has been tweaked for decades. https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/how-do-natural-gas-class-8-trucks-work

Actually, Should be running NG turbines to electric drive.  More efficient.  Tech is FULLY developed for ships anyways, with a LITTLE development in a smaller turbine for a truck.  If Nations were not MASSIVELY subsidizing shipping industry, NG would have been the fuel of choice 2 decades ago as it would be cheaper to run than bunker fuel.  Would take up marginally more volume of the ship though.  . 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Actually, Should be running NG turbines to electric drive.  More efficient.  Tech is FULLY developed for ships anyways, with a LITTLE development in a smaller turbine for a truck.  If Nations were not MASSIVELY subsidizing shipping industry, NG would have been the fuel of choice 2 decades ago as it would be cheaper to run than bunker fuel.  Would take up marginally more volume of the ship though.  . 

Wow we agree!

There are some newer alternatives in the offing such as SMR's and ammonia powered cargo ships, but the tech is new and maybe cost preventative currently.

The Case for Nuclear Cargo Ships - IEEE Spectrum

Jiangnan Shipyard unveils design for the 'world's largest' nuclear-powered containership - Offshore Energy (offshore-energy.biz)

South Korean partnership to develop SMR-powered ships : New Nuclear - World Nuclear News (world-nuclear-news.org)

Why the Shipping Industry Is Betting Big on Ammonia - IEEE Spectrum

Time will tell on these but may provide alternatives to bunker fuel longer term.

If the US submarine fleet can be powered by nuclear then why not cargo ships?

General Dynamics Electric Boat (gdeb.com)

 

 

Edited April 26 by Rob Plant

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

5 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

If the US submarine fleet can be powered by nuclear then why not cargo ships?

General Dynamics Electric Boat (gdeb.com)

 

 

 

They certainly could be powered by nuclear but it raises so many concerns it likely won't happen outside of the military.

Any accidents become much harder to clean up properly, if that is possible at all.  Worst case is if a reactor falls into the wrong hands and they use it to make a "dirty bomb."  They are not a nukes but a regular explosive that spreads radioactive waste over a large area.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

6 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

If the US submarine fleet can be powered by nuclear then why not cargo ships?

General Dynamics Electric Boat (gdeb.com)

?  Are you insane?  Or just ignorant yet again?

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Guys you clearly havent read the article

The design uses Molten Salt Reactors, operating under high temperature and low-pressure conditions, mitigating the risk of a reactor meltdown from the outset.

Notably, in the event of a breach accident, the reactor can be swiftly halted to prevent further escalation, underscoring the commitment to safety standards in the development of this ultra-large nuclear-powered container ship, as disclosed by China State Shipbuilding Corporation Limited, Jiangnan Shipyard’s parent.

In the event of a breach accident, rapid solidification at ambient temperature is ensured. Post-accident, beyond employing standard shutdown procedures, the fuel salt can be swiftly discharged from the reactor to effect prompt shutdown, averting the escalation of the incident. The power plant on this ship type is strategically positioned for safety, featuring a double-sided redundant design in the power system to fully guarantee its integrity. Additionally, it incorporates an emergency evacuation function from personnel gathering areas, the shipyard explained.

And this

2. Inherent Safety It can be said that ‘inherent safety’ means that the possibility of danger itself has been eliminated. There are two possible approaches to realising this concept in nuclear power: (a) Even if a core meltdown occurs and the radioactive materials inside the reactor diffuse outdoors, radiation is generated only to the extent that it does not affect health at all. (b) Although there is a considerable amount of radioactive material, the core does not melt down, or even if it does, the radioactive material remains in the containment vessel and does not diffuse into the environment. This is called ‘practically eliminated’ (PE), short for ‘the possibility of the radioactivity release could be practically eliminated’.