Hypothetical 2024, you receive a Tesla Semi ordered years earlier

TL;DR - California are begging other states for more electricity as a result of their extremist renewable energy initiatives leaving the state in the dark.

Nuclear power is an absolute must for the future, as it is basically the best combination of high energy density, reliability, and cleanliness. California's power crisis would have been much less of a problem if they keep Diablo Canyon running and re-commission their other big nuke plant, San Onofre.

If there's one thing that California are leading the way in, it would be showing that solar, wind, and even hydro alone won't cut it. "All you have to do is store the energy" yeah no, it's not even close to being that simple. The problem is all the paranoia surrounding nuclear plants which have led so many people to think that nukes are stuck in 1950's Soviet technology.

The bigger problem is that realistic solutions to anthropogenic climate change do not involve more cars on the road. Mass public transport is one thing. Electric city buses, high speed rail/maglev, bicycling, subways, even motorcycling.

Going back to the original post, putting more trucks on the road doesn't make sense either.

Here in Michigan, we have higher GVWR limits (which are actually "grandfathered in" through clauses in federal law) as our laws for weight are based on axle loading, not total vehicle weight. AASHTO, MDOT, and a few others have shown that it is axle loading that is primarily responsible for higher pavement wear. Whereas the federal weight limits allow up to 40 short tons over 5 axles, in Michigan you can go up to 82 tons, spread over 11 axles.

So if you carry twice as much weight, but spread it out over twice as many axles, you have only slightly higher axle loading so you don't put much additional wear on the pavement. In fact, what we've found is that compared to a single more powerful truck carrying 80 tons on 10 or 11 axles, two smaller trucks carrying 40 tons each would have higher axle loadings due to the weight of an additional tractor and would increase the wear rate on pavement by about 60%.

We've also found that our higher weight limits make our roads generally safer, despite our weather taking a huge beating on them:

"The use of heavy trucks under Michigan’s axle-weight law enhances highway safety. There are fewer trucks on the road because each 164,000-pound truck can carry the cargo of about two and a quarter 80,000-pound trucks. Without Michigan’s axle weight law, an additional 10,000 to 15,000 trucks would be on our highways, resulting in a greater exposure to traffic crashes."

"Vehicle braking capability and resistance to overturning are improved by having more axles and wheels, each of which is equipped with brakes, and by carrying lower weight per axle."

"Congestion on Michigan’s highways is reduced because fewer trucks are required to move our freight. Each truck occupies roadway space equivalent to approximately four automobiles. This is particularly important in urban areas where many truck users are located."

If we raised the federal weight limits, we would have fewer trucks on the road, but they'd be carrying more freight per truck. This can reduce pollution drastically. The Tesla Semi, as it is right now, would be doing the opposite - putting more trucks on the road, as it can't haul much as a Diesel truck even if that Diesel truck had the biggest sleeper in the world. Despite having zero direct emissions, Tesla semi tractors would be putting a lot more wear on our pavement due to them being much heavier in weight and higher in number.

 

If charging at home over the course of a night, a Tesla 3 doesn't really require huge amounts of electricity at all.
And within a very short time, there will be plenty of EV options for F150 equivalent trucks.

 

I would not call it a small amount, about like a home drier.

The thing is, we actually have HUGE excess electrical generating capacity in the US. In order to meet peak summer daytime demand, we have capacity nearly TWICE what we use on a spring night. All that unused capacity sits around doing nothing the rest of the year, hugely inefficient.

in graph form:
Edited, graph won’t hot link.

click on link for the graph:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915


Clearly, there is a lot of generating capacity available to charge EV’s at night. And that, incidentally, would improve the efficiency of all the plants that are now starting up and cooling down every day, which in turn would reduce our average electric costs.

Now, let’s think like engineers,.......what else can we do to further reduce costs and increase grid stability? If we make the EV batteries bi-directional and leave them plugged into the wall when not driving..........we could increase the peak supply of electricity, without building additional capacity. Simply by using the EV fleet as a huge backup battery bank. Which will further reduce average electricity costs, since peaker plants are inefficient when used, and expensive per watt because they are used so little.

All that said, full electrification of the transport system will require substantial increases in total electricity generation, and I think it is safe to say that will come with significant growing pains.

 

That data must be very flawed, if they claim 50,000 miles, is equal to 100,000 kms, right off the top. I'll not nit Pick the rest.

But will say batteries don't like being run low regularly, develop internal shorts with age, etc. So its not just losing capacity, and being able to drive less and less distance all the time, batteries just simply fail. Brand new GMC SUV wouldn't start 3 weeks after my neighbor bought it, battery failed. She had it towed to the dealer, and they told her they see it regularly, batteries can just up and fail. Battery technology may get better in another 50 years, but for now isn't very good.

Now would you like to address the many tesla fires, and terrible reliability record. Consistently called a terrible vehicle year after year. Maybe by 2055 they will have solved some of the many issues, but they haven't yet.

 

It takes a massive amount of power to charge an electric car. I know someone who has a Leaf, they had to have an electrician come wire in a special circuit, wire it with special heavy duty wire, expensive breaker, and they had to choose what they were willing to lose for circuits in their home, to even get it. And it sure did raise their power bill, about tripled it they said, and that isn't draining it daily, just their regular commute. It was a novelty for them at first, but 6 months later they regretted their choice to go electric. Well they have since sold it, much to restrictive, and they have a gas powered SUV now.

 

Incorrect really. I can only speak for Tesla not a Leaf, but it's just a regular 40 amp breaker that charges it overnight. A special circuit with expensive breaker and wire that triples power bill? Get a new electrician if one tells you that is the game plan!

The speed at which one wants to charge determines the draw. An overnight charge is nothing special at all.

 

You're conflating a bunch of different ideas and mudding the waters.

First, bringing in axle configuration is a red herring - there is no reason that Tesla trucks can't haul trailers with more axles, and if designed for it can haul more gross weight as well. I know my cascadia won't do well with loads that put me over 80k either.

Secondly, electric generation isn't the main issue. The reason for California's 'plea for power" wasn't a generation issue, it was a transmission problem. Most of Calis power issues come from antiquated transmission equipment - they have the power but can't get it to where it needs to be. The other part is peak power usage- planning for the surge of power at various points in the day. England has special plans for the end of all of its world cup matches because they know everyone is going to simultaneously put the kettle on and in the past it's caused brown outs.

When the auto industry started, it was heavily subsidized through government contracts and through governments ( city and state) building roads, not to.mention all the help the oil industry got to get off the ground. If you want to end ev subsidies I'm all on board, but we need to end all other energy subsidies as well.

 

When manufacturers suggest you park your electric vehicle outside away from combustible buildings it tells me they have no confidence in their products either.

 

They used to tell suv owners not to park over leaves or on grass . . .

 

There's 1 Tesla fire per 205 million miles traveled.
There's 1 gasoline car fire per 19 million miles traveled.

Your home is more likely to burn down due to a laundry dryer than an EV. Better get rid of your dryer.