The issue is power density still, 243 watt hours per kilo is all the current battery tech in teslas is good for. Diesil is 35.86 MJ/L, or about 12583 watt hours per kilo. Newer trucks get efficiencies that peak at 45%, but even assuming that 40% was more realisitic to account for some motor wear and gear changes thats still 5033 watt hours per kilo, or 20.71 times the energy per mass.
Since there are sleepers and day cabs sold, we can rule out most long haul trucks by considering day cabs only, which gives an average tank size range of 90-150 gallons (340-567L) with diesels density of 0.84 kg\L. So we are talking 286-477 kg of fuel in the shorter range fleet, or a 6,000 to 10,000 kg battery youâd need to swap every time you fill in the short range fleet⌠sleepers are normally in the 300gallon range, so 20,000kg of battery. Current average day cab tractors weigh ~16,000lbs (7,258kg), and the typical tractor motor is only on the order of 1,000kg (325-425hp 11L). This gives a weight loss of 1,286kg for taking the motor and fuel off, thus a average daycab weight of 5,972kg⌠we can add the battery weight for the same energy (6,000kg) to get an âEV Daycabâ weight of a min of 11,972kg (26,394lbs), to 15,781kg (34,791lbs). This doesnât sound silly, by its a weight increase of 65% to 117%, resulting in a payload loss of 4,714kg (29%) to 8,523kg (54%) under current US semi trailer max weight, even ignoring the per axle loading rules that likely make such trucks much more difficult to implement.
Since the average US semi truck gets 6.5 miles to the gallon, the smaller fuel capaity numbers give a max theoretical range of ~585 miles to run a truck dry, therein the proposed Tesla semiâs 300 mile range is likely the required ballpark, since I think truck battery swap points are fair more expensive and niche than fuel stations, and the stop and swap still takes time and labor, I donât see a reduction in range below that as very sustainable for the first few generations of the technology. I also donât see that with constantly improving safety and comfort standards, lower road wear setups ect that you could build a truck to contain these batteries thatâd be much lighter than the daycab average sans fuel and motor. Thus a min loss of payload I see as ~15%.
As for cost, Tesla claims to be able to make batteries âbelow $190/kWhâ currently, and GM claim it could reach $145/kWh. So based on the GM number the 6ton pack is worth $211,410 or $108,415 to match teslaâs 300 miles. This sounds like a cheap cost, but the hazard is it only does 1,200 cycles before range rapidly starts to tail off (0-1200 is 95% cacapity, then it drops to dead packs pretty fast, on teslas model S thats about 300,000 miles), this is heaps for a car, but on the truck Tesla claimed range of pack only 360,000 miles, or 120 weeks (2.4 work years). In other words the lease would be $45,173 usd per year for tesla to pay off battery wear at the price it leaves the factory, without accounting for the casing and electronics inside, let alone swap station costs, or the costs of an actual distribution network for >3ton packs of lithium ion with the transport and admin that entails⌠the $25k a year with a profit evannex list simply cannot work even if cell endurance doubles⌠and possibly not if it quadrupled.
And since its not one of my posts without a because 'Stralia comment, we have a max three axle weight of 23 ton vs the USA 24.5 ton, but here the max combination is 172 ton, vs the USA 36.3 ton⌠did somebody say electric road train?