3 ms·
Now do it with volume. Plus, aren't you forgetting that electric vehicles need an motor too? Also, I think you mean 80k lbs, not 80 tons? And it's the range + t
by bumby 3y ago
Now do it with volume. Plus, aren't you forgetting that electric vehicles need an motor too? Also, I think you mean 80k lbs, not 80 tons? And it's the range + time that's a killer. Recharging time would likely be a deal breaker even if you could get the same cargo capacity.
FWIW, I agree that electric trucking is the future, just disagree how close we are to that as a reality. My main gripe is how the problem tends to get oversimplified in people's assessment. "All you gotta do is.." is usually a red flag when talking about complicated problems. I'd argue that if it were simple, it would have been done already.
- bryanlarsen 3y agoYou're right. It's a 5% hit, not a 2% hit. Trucks spend a lot of time loading, unloading and on mandatory driver rest breaks. Charging can and will be done during those times. The biggest expense in a trucking operation is diesel. Trucking has cut-throat margins. Once electrification starts in the industry, everyone will switch quickly, or go bankrupt. Some routes will be hard to electrify, but the cost savings on the rest will be worth a lot more than a little bit of inconvenience. It's not easy, but the savings will incentivize overcoming the obstacles.
- bumby 3y agoYou are right about the costs and margins. However, a large portion of the cost disparity is because diesel fuel costs incorporate a lot of taxes to fund road maintenance. The electric costs do not, and I suspect that will have to change. Road maintenance funds will have to come from somewhere, and most states are reluctant to take from other tax areas.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago24 cents per gallon of diesel aren't a significant portion of fuel costs nor do they come anywhere close to paying for the roads.
- bumby 3y agoI'm guessing you're just reading federal taxes. There are a barrage of taxes applied to fuel. California shows over $1.24 per gallon in total. Nationally it's over 64 cents/gal. That's tens of billions of dollars nationally, and more than we spend on the energy & environment in total. One of the major problems with infrastructure spending is that these numbers have barely budged in decades. Combine that lack of political will with improvements in fuel mileage and increase in EVs means big budget shortfalls. That money has to be made up from somewhere and I can all but bet it won't come from cutting entitlements. A 'mileage driven' tax seems like a reasonable solution.
- bryanlarsen 3y agoFuel taxes collect $50B/year and road maintenance is $200B/year. Significant, but obviously not a roadblock.
- bumby 3y agoBy that same notion, we could eliminate the $50B funds to energy and the environment, no big deal. $50B is a lot and it doesn't help to trivialize it because it sounds good. Thats double what was spent on Medicare. More than double what was spent on education and social services, Dept. of Education, NASA, etc. Over 10x what was spent on the Dept. of Transportation. The point is, it's a lot of money and that money has to come from somewhere. Most economists would say it makes the most sense to get that money from the people who most use the roads. That sounds like a mileage tax, tolls, or some other mechanism. I don't see why EVs would get a (literal) free ride here.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoIf California Fuel tax is $1.24 per gallon in total (20%), which is about $0.15 per mile revenue. Tesla semi is supposably about 2kwh/mile. PG&E commercial vehicle electric rates for off peak are about $0.20 per Kwh, which translates to $0.40/mile. If California wanted to collect similar revenue, that 0.15 would be about 35% of the operational fuel cost.