4 ms·

”Stations will have the minimum number of batteries on hand to ensure there is always one available to swap in.” Therein lies the problem. You may be able to o

”Stations will have the minimum number of batteries on hand to ensure there is always one available to swap in.” Therein lies the problem. You may be able to optimise your network, scheduling truck routes according to availability of swaps, etc. But it’s always going to require a substantially greater number of batteries than trucks. And for what gain? Time savings are zero-to-minimal, and fast charging is cheaper, easier, and more flexible than swapping. Also, truck batteries are going to be much bigger than car batteries. A long-range truck pack will weigh several tonnes. A station that can swap these quickly in a semi-automated way is likely to be a substantial, expensive undertaking.

netsharc 8y ago
Trucks already have a mechanism to attach and detach their cargo trailers, I'd imagine any battery swap feature would use this as a starting point.
jessriedel 8y ago
> But it’s always going to require a substantially greater number of batteries than trucks. I already addressed this is my comment. It's a loss that applies just as well to batteries that cannot be attached to vehicles, so it's not an argument against detachable batteries. > Also, truck batteries are going to be much bigger than car batteries. A long-range truck pack will weigh several tonnes. Stations already have massive underground infrastructures for dealing with fuel, which has an effective energy density that is less than a factor of two smaller than batteries. And unlike fuel, which must be stored on-site for the entire time between fuel shipments (~24 hours), you don't need to store a comparable number of batteries on site, just enough to have them continuously charging. > A station that can swap these quickly in a semi-automated way is likely to be a substantial, expensive undertaking. Putting in miles and miles of overhead charing capabilities is, I claim, significantly more expensive. But I'm not interested in having a detailed conversation on the expense of swapping machinery if we can't even agree on the simple point about utilization rates of swappable batteries being as least as large as non-swappable ones.

netsharc 8y ago

Trucks already have a mechanism to attach and detach their cargo trailers, I'd imagine any battery swap feature would use this as a starting point.

jessriedel 8y ago

> But it’s always going to require a substantially greater number of batteries than trucks. I already addressed this is my comment. It's a loss that applies just as well to batteries that cannot be attached to vehicles, so it's not an argument against detachable batteries. > Also, truck batteries are going to be much bigger than car batteries. A long-range truck pack will weigh several tonnes. Stations already have massive underground infrastructures for dealing with fuel, which has an effective energy density that is less than a factor of two smaller than batteries. And unlike fuel, which must be stored on-site for the entire time between fuel shipments (~24 hours), you don't need to store a comparable number of batteries on site, just enough to have them continuously charging. > A station that can swap these quickly in a semi-automated way is likely to be a substantial, expensive undertaking. Putting in miles and miles of overhead charing capabilities is, I claim, significantly more expensive. But I'm not interested in having a detailed conversation on the expense of swapping machinery if we can't even agree on the simple point about utilization rates of swappable batteries being as least as large as non-swappable ones.