5 ms·

This is a much-needed move for the commercial EV sector. With Greenlane focusing on medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, long-haul electric trucking could finally b

This is a much-needed move for the commercial EV sector. With Greenlane focusing on medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, long-haul electric trucking could finally become a reality. It's interesting that they plan to add hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure and eventually chargers for passenger EVs, making it a more comprehensive network. Exciting times ahead for the decarbonization of the trucking industry!

sofixa 3y ago
> long-haul electric trucking I wonder, does it even make sense? Long-haul (electric of course) rail + short to medium haul trucking make more sense - it would be much more efficient. Do long haul electric truck even make sense? Don't the batteries needed weigh too much?
- bombcar 3y ago
  Long haul could "work" but the effort needed is immense, compared to replacing delivery/short-haul trucking (which is doable with equipment we have today). For long-haul the best may be something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3P_S7pL7Yg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3P_S7pL7Yg (Trains have advantages and disadvantages compared to long-haul trucks)
  - oblio 3y ago
    So, trolley-trucks.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Or you could just really invest in rail rather then investing even more in highways.
- Robotbeat 3y ago
  It’s an engineering challenge, but doable as you get about a ton of extra weight for EVs. The main mental miscalculation I think people make when they say “why not just trains” is ignoring that rail is a super conservative industry, at least in the US, and in the case of passenger rail (not on existing tracks) that building out new rail infrastructure is super expensive, particularly for HSR where rights of way have to obey Newton’s Laws when it comes to turning radius. It literally may take more time to do the environmental review for adding, say, catenary lines to existing rail than to just go to electric trucks. Some companies have been really effective at building out charging infrastructure. Additionally, just convincing the rail industry to make changes to enable/allow electrification (especially in non traditional ways) could take a generation. Additionally, the US has removed a lot of seldom-used rail, so you just need a lot of trucking. Moving cargo from truck to rail to truck just may be a lot more cost and hassle than direct via truck. Electrifying trucking, even long haul trucking, is just potentially the fastest way to electrify a lot of current logistics given the cultural, infrastructure, regulatory reality we live in today, as opposed to the ideal cultural, infrastructural, regulatory world we’d LIKE at here to be. Engineering a decarbonization transition with realistic assessments of infrastructure & industry/regulatory inertial as a constraint is very different than “ideally we use trains for logistics as they have a lower coefficient of friction.”
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    It makes perfect sense. Roads let people take a variety of vehicles and loads anywhere they want. Rail needs specific drivers who can strike, construction and maintenance people same, and a load of land and planning and budget to add any addition destination.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      Large trucks also destroy roads at a far faster rate then they trains destroy tracks. Trucks need specific drivers to, they can strike too. The reason its harder is because there are more companies, the same could be done for rail, the system as it exists now in the US as compared to most of the world. The reason trucking is so successful is that the government spends an absolutely huge amount of money on roads from highways to local roads, in what amounts to a absolutely gigantic subsidy. Trains on the other hand are incredibly profitable industry running on decaying infrastructure (that was once funded with government grants).
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        I don't really see the distinction you're drawing between government subsidized roads and government subsidised tracks. And the difference is that roads are useful for everything, driven by anyone. I can't go on strike and stop myself from driving somewhere.
        panick21_ 3y ago
        Trains in most nations are useful for everybody. And they are far more energy efficient, better for air quality and most importantly more space efficient. So when analysis what a government should invest in, it makes sense to invest in trains. I know that you can go everywhere with your car, but what if I told you not every single person had a car. I know, I know for Americans this is very hard to understand that such a thing is possible. Roads aren't for everybody, roads are for people that can afford cars. And roads still need to be designed far larger if you also use them for cargo, and because trucks are so heavy the need to be fix these roads very often otherwise they will lose utility for everybody. And I don't understand the obsession with strikes that Americans seem to have. As if everywhere outside of the US nobody would ever get anywhere because everybody was always striking.

sofixa 3y ago

> long-haul electric trucking I wonder, does it even make sense? Long-haul (electric of course) rail + short to medium haul trucking make more sense - it would be much more efficient. Do long haul electric truck even make sense? Don't the batteries needed weigh too much?

bombcar 3y ago
Long haul could "work" but the effort needed is immense, compared to replacing delivery/short-haul trucking (which is doable with equipment we have today). For long-haul the best may be something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3P_S7pL7Yg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3P_S7pL7Yg (Trains have advantages and disadvantages compared to long-haul trucks)
- oblio 3y ago
  So, trolley-trucks.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Or you could just really invest in rail rather then investing even more in highways.
Robotbeat 3y ago
It’s an engineering challenge, but doable as you get about a ton of extra weight for EVs. The main mental miscalculation I think people make when they say “why not just trains” is ignoring that rail is a super conservative industry, at least in the US, and in the case of passenger rail (not on existing tracks) that building out new rail infrastructure is super expensive, particularly for HSR where rights of way have to obey Newton’s Laws when it comes to turning radius. It literally may take more time to do the environmental review for adding, say, catenary lines to existing rail than to just go to electric trucks. Some companies have been really effective at building out charging infrastructure. Additionally, just convincing the rail industry to make changes to enable/allow electrification (especially in non traditional ways) could take a generation. Additionally, the US has removed a lot of seldom-used rail, so you just need a lot of trucking. Moving cargo from truck to rail to truck just may be a lot more cost and hassle than direct via truck. Electrifying trucking, even long haul trucking, is just potentially the fastest way to electrify a lot of current logistics given the cultural, infrastructure, regulatory reality we live in today, as opposed to the ideal cultural, infrastructural, regulatory world we’d LIKE at here to be. Engineering a decarbonization transition with realistic assessments of infrastructure & industry/regulatory inertial as a constraint is very different than “ideally we use trains for logistics as they have a lower coefficient of friction.”
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  It makes perfect sense. Roads let people take a variety of vehicles and loads anywhere they want. Rail needs specific drivers who can strike, construction and maintenance people same, and a load of land and planning and budget to add any addition destination.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Large trucks also destroy roads at a far faster rate then they trains destroy tracks. Trucks need specific drivers to, they can strike too. The reason its harder is because there are more companies, the same could be done for rail, the system as it exists now in the US as compared to most of the world. The reason trucking is so successful is that the government spends an absolutely huge amount of money on roads from highways to local roads, in what amounts to a absolutely gigantic subsidy. Trains on the other hand are incredibly profitable industry running on decaying infrastructure (that was once funded with government grants).
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      I don't really see the distinction you're drawing between government subsidized roads and government subsidised tracks. And the difference is that roads are useful for everything, driven by anyone. I can't go on strike and stop myself from driving somewhere.
      - panick21_ 3y ago
        Trains in most nations are useful for everybody. And they are far more energy efficient, better for air quality and most importantly more space efficient. So when analysis what a government should invest in, it makes sense to invest in trains. I know that you can go everywhere with your car, but what if I told you not every single person had a car. I know, I know for Americans this is very hard to understand that such a thing is possible. Roads aren't for everybody, roads are for people that can afford cars. And roads still need to be designed far larger if you also use them for cargo, and because trucks are so heavy the need to be fix these roads very often otherwise they will lose utility for everybody. And I don't understand the obsession with strikes that Americans seem to have. As if everywhere outside of the US nobody would ever get anywhere because everybody was always striking.