It would be easier and cleaner for the environment if we just retrofitted these trucks to an engine that consumes natural gas. Boone Pickens has a plan, I guess he isn't as sexy as Musk.
I think that might make sense once someone finally figures out how to "diesel" a gas engine. Until then the thermodynamics of a diesel engine would still come out far enough ahead that it'd be hard to justify natural gas, I think.
In car mags I keep reading that car companies are getting close to diesel thermodynamics with gas, e.g. super high compression, direct injection, etc. But I don't think they're there yet. And even then it might take special gas formulations. But having a special tank of additives wouldn't be the end of the world....some diesel engines already have urea injection anyway.
Mazda says they have done this and are preparing to launch their Skyactiv-X (as they call it) HCCI engines in the next model Mazda 3 There are already test mules driving around Germany (due to their laws allowing such testing) that have been driven by various journalists.
Edit: Wifey has the last model Mazda 3 turbo diesel and we will be waiting for initial reviews once launched to upgrade. That TD torque is pretty additive in a small car like the 3
I'm entirely not sure, I know that the author extrapolated his maths linearly though. I'm surprised that no one caught the glaring error regarding drag. While the truck is 3x the size of the car the drag coefficient IIRC will be considerably larger since drag increases exponentially. Wiki link for the geeks.
Actually, Tesla claims a Cd of 0.36 which is pretty good for a truck, compared to 0.24 for a Model S which is super efficient.
The frontal area of the truck is much greater but that is a linear factor, about 3x I would guess. If you do the math, that would made the Fd about 4.5x compared to a Model S. Definitely not 10x as much for this truck.
Musk is really becoming the P.T. Barnum of our time:
"Thermal nuclear explosion resistant glass"????
"You can go 250 miles, deliver your load and come back," he said. That said, charging to 80% would take only 30 minutes, "or about the time of the average driver break" on a new solar-powered Megacharger network.???
According to CEO Elon Musk, Tesla’s ultra high-powered Megacharger will be capable of replenishing 400 miles of range (the video he claims the semis range is 500 miles) in as little as 30 minutes of charging. However, unlike a Supercharger that has a power output of roughly 120 kW, Tesla’s Megacharger will see more than ten times the power levels.
Tesla notes on its website that the semi-truck will consume “less than 2 kWh / mile”. If we’re to factor in a worst case scenario of 2 kWh of energy used per mile travelled, this would equate to 800 kWh of energy consumed in 400 miles (644 km) of travel. Tesla’s Megacharger would need to have a tremendous power output of 1.6 MW, or thirteen times the power level of a standard Supercharger to be able to replenish 400 miles of battery range in 30 minutes. This, of course, is based on the assumption that the Tesla Semi will consume 2 kWh of energy per mile which in reality will probably be less, as Tesla notes
Regardless, Tesla’s Megacharger will likely see over 1 MW of power.
1,000,000 watts is a lot! I don't know how you can break this up into volts x amps. I've read: A drawback of higher voltages is the greater "potential" for sparking. 600 volts DC will readily break down an air gap of .003 inches for example. It is also possible to draw arcs across the surface of an insulator. There will be wear and tear on outdoor cables and connectors and contamination of charging cable and connector surfaces
I've also seen dudes fried on liveleak working with way less wattage.
A "solar-powered Megacharger" would require roughly - $2 million and a couple of acres:
"Most solar panels are about 300 watts. So 1,000,000 divided by 300 is 3,434 panels. 43,560 square feet is one acre Each 300 watt panel is about 6 feet square You can fit about 7,200 panels into an acre, so you would need about half an acre for a 1MW power plant. On average it's best to model for about 5 hours of sunlight per day, so to generate 1 MW for 24 hours you would need 4x the amount of space (and panels). The equivalent of a 1 MW power plant would require 2 acres of land, nearly 14,000 solar panels and a ton of batteries. I hope my math is right."
$2 per watt- solar panels are around $2 million:
He also guarantees 7 cent kWh price for electricity. I believe the average for US is around 14 cents kWh. I don't know where Musk is going to get all this cheap electricity (maybe it will be subsidized)?
A million mile warranty? Surely this can't include the one thing that starts wearing out from day one... the batteries.
Maybe some of the truck drivers who are put out of work by driverless AIs could learn to operate a forklift instead ;-)
Doesn't have to be a single battery of course, could be 8 x 1 ton batteries, but agree that making even that work would require a degree of standardisation of both truck and battery design that I simply can't see happening. And if they were to standardise at such an early stage of development it seems it would be massively limiting for future innovation.
If they can actually hit 500 mile range and 30 minute recharging time (a big if) how much of an issue is it anyway? I think most countries have rules requiring drivers to take a rest break periodically anyway. At 65mph a 500 mile range already gets you ~7 hours of driving time between stops, seems that's already in the right ballpark.
I am sure Telsa never thought about what it would take to actually charge the batteries.
Feel free to criticize their production or business model or environmental impact claims, but I would have a hard time believing that the engineers at Telsa couldn't do the simple math that this thread is focused on.
some diesel engines already have urea injection anyway. //
Not sure about commercial, but I believe that all small trucks have this now. Dan just got a new 3500 truck with a separate tank for urea, and I think his 2012 also had one. So at least here in CA they are standard. In Texas you probably just need a tailpipe, or not..(-;
DEF is definitely being used in commercial trucks.
Which brings up a question I have. How many of you that have defended Tesla as being the future have shares in the company? If you have shares, be honest, do you think you're being objective when you're defending Tesla?
A "solar-powered Megacharger" would require roughly - $2 million and a couple of acres:
"Most solar panels are about 300 watts. So 1,000,000 divided by 300 is 3,434 panels. 43,560 square feet is one acre Each 300 watt panel is about 6 feet square You can fit about 7,200 panels into an acre, so you would need about half an acre for a 1MW power plant. On average it's best to model for about 5 hours of sunlight per day, so to generate 1 MW for 24 hours you would need 4x the amount of space (and panels). The equivalent of a 1 MW power plant would require 2 acres of land, nearly 14,000 solar panels and a ton of batteries. I hope my math is right."
I would be curious about the math and assumptions here. Specifically what is the density of solar panel placement? At least based on general observations (solar sites I have been to or seen), it seemed like at best you can have panels on about 50-60% of the land area in a dedicated farm based on needs to access panels for installation and maintenance, running conduit, contour of the land, etc. I assume there is some "rule of thumb" for this, I just don't know what it is. Likewise, as pointed out, you also need rooms for batteries, switchgear, etc. The point being that when you start comparing a solar facility to something like an AP1000 nuclear plant (1000 MW electrical output), the solar facility starts require a huge amount of land area.
Which brings up a question I have. How many of you that have defended Tesla as being the future have shares in the company? If you have shares, be honest, do you think you're being objective when you're defending Tesla?
I don't have shares because per my other post I think that Musk sees Tesla as a tool to achieve his goal, and his goal is to pivot us away from fossil fuels. He needs money to do that, but making money isn't his goal. I prefer to invest in companies whose primary goal is making money!
I also don't necessarily think that Tesla is the future, but do think it could well be the catalyst that brings about or at least speeds up the future by creating buzz and demand for EVs and launching flagship models that raise the bar in terms of what an EV can be. If they can produce high quality cars in sufficient volumes then they could also be the company that cashes in on that demand and becomes hugely successful, but at this point I think it's more likely that they'll struggle with volume/quality and it will be the other automotive manufacturers that end up meeting most of the demand that Tesla have helped generate. And if that's the case I really don't think Musk will care that much who's selling the cars as long as they're electric cars.
I am sure Telsa never thought about what it would take to actually charge the batteries.
Feel free to criticize their production or business model or environmental impact claims, but I would have a hard time believing that the engineers at Telsa couldn't do the simple math that this thread is focused on.
Lol! Just because Elon says something, this does not mean his engineers have proven it so.
My first example was from his video “Thermal nuclear explosion-proof glass"
"A primary form of energy from a nuclear explosion is thermal radiation. Initially, most of this energy goes into heating the bomb materials and the air in the vicinity of the blast. Temperatures of a nuclear explosion reach those in the interior of the sun, about 100,000,000° Celsius, and produce a brilliant fireball."
So a thermal nuclear explosion is hot. It is vaporizing. It vaporizes you, the truck, all your hopes and dreams, whatever cargo was in the back (let’s say, lettuce), all of it gone, gone in an instant. I would like to see the Tesla engineer's documented proof that the windshield would survive.
I guess if you are far enough a way from ground zero, the glass would be ok, but you could also say this about anything including a snowflake. Next up... Musk develops a snowflake that could survive a thermal nuclear explosion!
Which brings up a question I have. How many of you that have defended Tesla as being the future have shares in the company? If you have shares, be honest, do you think you're being objective when you're defending Tesla?
I don't understand why they didn't go after the urban panel van/trucks first. I could see electric being great for like the early AM deliveries from a bakery, etc.
Which brings up a question I have. How many of you that have defended Tesla as being the future have shares in the company? If you have shares, be honest, do you think you're being objective when you're defending Tesla?
I don't own any. Are you shorting it? :)
LOL, a person's needs money to gamble silly like that. Honestly don't even follow Tesla much beyond my own belief that it's over valued.
I don't understand why they didn't go after the urban panel van/trucks first. I could see electric being great for like the early AM deliveries from a bakery, etc.
Big rigs seem like a much harder problem.
^^^
I was thinking UPS or FedEx or even U.S. Mail carriers because they stop and go so much. Look at UPS, for example -- they worked on optimizing their routes for right-turns, to save on fuel costs.
They are trying to avoid extra time spent idling, and extra starts / stops because those cost fuel. But they could do even better with electric vehicles which are off at idle, and have regenerative braking. The right-turn strategy would still be good for avoiding potential accidents, of course.
