Where is the Tesla Semi?

[radar]

Originally Posted by jharrell

As an engineer I know a good design when I see it, BEV's are simpler mechanically, they are solid state devices right up to the motor and single speed transmission to wheels. The only thing holding them back is battery cost and weight and charging infrastructure. Lithium batteries didn't exist commercially until the early 90's, this is not a repeated mistake, technology has improved in both battery chemistry and motor control, this was not feasible until now.

Battery cost is one tenth what is was 10 years ago and continues to fall. They are approaching $100 kWh rather quickly at which point there will be no cost advantage for ICE.

Battery energy density has tripled in 10 years and continues to rise which means weight is going down. Currently between 200-300Wh/kg, the theoretical limit of lithium is 2600Wh/kg. At even 1000Wh/kg the weight issue becomes meaningless, electric planes are waiting for 400Wh/kg to become viable.

The number of charging stations have gone up thirty times in 10 years. It much easier to build a new charging station than a gas station. Silicon carbide is an amazing thing for both the motor controllers and the charging stations for voltage conversion.

The data is obvious, it is more efficient to burn hydrocarbons at a centralized plant with lower emissions and centralized emissions equipment and distribute via electricity than burn it in the vehicle, on top of that the energy source is decoupled from the vehicle and can be switched to nuclear, solar, wind or whatever as needed.

Its also pretty clear that even with the emission from battery production using current energy sources BEV emit less lifetime emissions: https://energypost.eu/latest-data-sh...petrol-diesel/

This can be debated many ways, bottom line if we move to electrification and renewable sources the mining and production will also produce less emissions. Solar panels make solar panels which make batteries and cars and trucks and mining equipment . Batteries are also very recyclable that itself will be huge industry and where smart money is investing now.

Both the math and science agree, its getting pretty hard to ignore which is why you see most automakers moving quickly toward electrification now, the result isn't pretty, the industry is changing quickly:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gas-eng...it-11627046285

“We don’t want to be left making the best buggy whips” is a good quote from a parts supplier.

The horse was proven standard for road transportation for more than a hundreds years, things change. I always like the quote attributed to Henry Ford: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses".

Great post. Bottom line, within 15 years, any manufacturer not primarily focused on EV’s is done. No one is going to want a noisy, stinky, gutless high maintenance, expensive to run gasser that you can’t fuel at home car.

Jmho.

[move on]

There is a lot of irrational exuberance out there with regard to EVs and I think some of it based on the mistaken idea that EVs are inherently more efficient in their energy use than ICEVs. This is not necessarily true. A diesel powered vehicle uses less fuel than an EV, as does a car with an Atkinson cycle engine such as a Toyota Prius. The problem that an EV has is that it relies on a fossil fuel powered electric generating station for its power and these are not very efficient, having an average thermal efficiency of only 35% in actual use as compared to 40% for a diesel or Atkinson engine. In addition, there is another 10% loss of electrical energy attributed to transmission and distribution before it gets to the charge station. Now, you lose another 10% just in charging the EV battery and then you lose another 20% from the battery to the wheels, while a mechanical drive train loses only 10% after the engine. In other words the ICE is actually more efficient and therefore more environmentally friendly than an EV. There is a tendency for EV enthusiasts to ignore the efficiency problem of EVs by assuming that power comes from wind and solar and that it's essentially free and unlimited, but of course we know that too is just another myth.

[radar]

Originally Posted by move on

There is a lot of irrational exuberance out there with regard to EVs and I think some of it based on the mistaken idea that EVs are inherently more efficient in their energy use than ICEVs. This is not necessarily true. A diesel powered vehicle uses less fuel than an EV, as does a car with an Atkinson cycle engine such as a Toyota Prius. The problem that an EV has is that it relies on a fossil fuel powered electric generating station for its power and these are not very efficient, having an average thermal efficiency of only 35% in actual use as compared to 40% for a diesel or Atkinson engine. In addition, there is another 10% loss of electrical energy attributed to transmission and distribution before it gets to the charge station. Now, you lose another 10% just in charging the EV battery and then you lose another 20% from the battery to the wheels, while a mechanical drive train loses only 10% after the engine. In other words the ICE is actually more efficient and therefore more environmentally friendly than an EV. There is a tendency for EV enthusiasts to ignore the efficiency problem of EVs by assuming that power comes from wind and solar and that it's essentially free and unlimited, but of course we know that too is just another myth.

Efficiency schmiciency. It costs us a 1.70 to drive to costco in the next town. It costs my neighbour 10.50 to do the same trip in her car which is a gutless, stinky, noisy, hi maintenance money pit which she can’t fuel at home.

Just sayin.

[jharrell]

Originally Posted by move on

TA diesel powered vehicle uses less fuel than an EV, as does a car with an Atkinson cycle engine such as a Toyota Prius. The problem that an EV has is that it relies on a fossil fuel powered electric generating station for its power and these are not very efficient, having an average thermal efficiency of only 35% in actual use as compared to 40% for a diesel or Atkinson engine. In addition, there is another 10% loss of electrical energy attributed to transmission and distribution before it gets to the charge station. Now, you lose another 10% just in charging the EV battery and then you lose another 20% from the battery to the wheels, while a mechanical drive train loses only 10% after the engine.

Sorry your numbers are off.

Combined cycle power plant is 60% efficient, most natural gas plants are combined cycle and we have a lot of natural gas right here in the US. There is no reason you can't do combined cycle on oil plants either, there just hasn't been demand to upgrade old oil burning plants because its mostly natural gas. Even an old simple cycle oil plant is 40% effcient.

A small combustion engine that must be housed in a vehicle cannot compete with a large combustion engine with virtually unlimited space and no concerns for weight along with a crew maintaining it. They can put as many heat recovery cycles and run high combustion temp turbines and as much emission equipment as needed.

You are also ignoring refining losses, thats 15% for diesel and gas. It's half that for No. 4 fuel oil and there are power plants that run off crude oil for nearly zero refining.

You are ignoring the losses of transporting refined fuel to the gas station.

Grid losses are average 6% not 10% in the US.

Tesla only lose 5% from battery to wheels at cruise not 20%.

It has been verified many times burning fossil fuels at a power plant and charging a BEV is more efficient than combusting them in the car not even counting nuclear, solar and wind mixed in that boost it even further.

[move on]

Originally Posted by jharrell

Sorry your numbers are off.

Combined cycle power plant is 60% efficient, most natural gas plants are combined cycle and we have a lot of natural gas right here in the US. There is no reason you can't do combined cycle on oil plants either, there just hasn't been demand to upgrade old oil burning plants because its mostly natural gas. Even an old simple cycle oil plant is 40% effcient.

A small combustion engine that must be housed in a vehicle cannot compete with a large combustion engine with virtually unlimited space and no concerns for weight along with a crew maintaining it. They can put as many heat recovery cycles and run high combustion temp turbines and as much emission equipment as needed.

You are also ignoring refining losses, thats 15% for diesel and gas. It's half that for No. 4 fuel oil and there are power plants that run off crude oil for nearly zero refining.

You are ignoring the losses of transporting refined fuel to the gas station.

Grid losses are average 6% not 10% in the US.

Tesla only lose 5% from battery to wheels at cruise not 20%.

It has been verified many times burning fossil fuels at a power plant and charging a BEV is more efficient than combusting them in the car not even counting nuclear, solar and wind mixed in that boost it even further.

You're wrong on several levels. Yes, a combined cycle can hit 60% thermal efficiency but it doesn't normally operate anywhere near that. But also be aware that we now have ICEs that can operate at over 50% thermal efficiency. Basically, they use something akin to a combined cycle by capturing exhaust energy. This is coming to road cars soon.

I dispute your statement that an electric drive train is more efficient than a mechanical drive train. It's simply not true and I urge you to look it up.

We can dispute the exact numbers but it's a fact that an EV has much more loss downstream from the prime mover than an ICE due to transmission and distribution, battery charging and the inherent losses of an electric drive train, so even if you assume the best possible scenario the Prius comes out as more environmentally friendly than the Model 3 (and a lot cheaper).

[jharrell]

Originally Posted by move on

You're wrong on several levels. Yes, a combined cycle can hit 60% thermal efficiency but it doesn't normally operate anywhere near that. But also be aware that we now have ICEs that can operate at over 50% thermal efficiency. Basically, they use something akin to a combined cycle by capturing exhaust energy. This is coming to road cars soon.

Yes I know this, Frieghtliner super truck, they added a steam turbine just like a combined cycle power plant, big and heavy and complicated and expensive on top of existing diesel. Might work one day to get a diesel close to a current power plant now you have to maintain it and repair it instead of power plant. Somehow the combined cycle in a vehicle is going to operate better than a grid scale one, come on, power plants will always be able to outperform small scale ICE's this has been know for a long time.

Then you're just looking at the differences in grid distribution vs refining and truck transport, grid wins there.

Originally Posted by move on

I dispute your statement that an electric drive train is more efficient than a mechanical drive train. It's simply not true and I urge you to look it up.

Tesla motor controller / inverter is high 90's efficiency, motor is high 90's and much simpler and lighter the engine, single speed transmission is lighter, simpler and more efficient than multispeed in car. We can go around in circles all day, there is no debate in the real world here.

Well to Wheel efficiency analysis shows over and over BEV wins every time even with battery manufacturing factored in.

[move on]

Originally Posted by jharrell

Yes I know this, Frieghtliner super truck, they added a steam turbine just like a combined cycle power plant, big and heavy and complicated and expensive on top of existing diesel.

I was referring to the MGU-H (motor generator unit-heat). This is derived from the traditional turbocharger. Mercedes developed it for their formula one engine. It has enabled a gasoline engine to surpass 50% efficiency. Basically, a turbine captures the exhaust heat energy that the traditional turbocharger cannot use. The turbine drives a motor generator that runs the turbo compressor and the excess goes to charging the hybrid battery.

As far as reliability you need only look at the Prius which has proven itself over two decades. I'm not sure a Tesla with a damaged battery pack would fare as well.

[radar]

Originally Posted by move on

You're wrong on several levels. Yes, a combined cycle can hit 60% thermal efficiency but it doesn't normally operate anywhere near that. But also be aware that we now have ICEs that can operate at over 50% thermal efficiency. Basically, they use something akin to a combined cycle by capturing exhaust energy. This is coming to road cars soon.

I dispute your statement that an electric drive train is more efficient than a mechanical drive train. It's simply not true and I urge you to look it up.

We can dispute the exact numbers but it's a fact that an EV has much more loss downstream from the prime mover than an ICE due to transmission and distribution, battery charging and the inherent losses of an electric drive train, so even if you assume the best possible scenario the Prius comes out as more environmentally friendly than the Model 3 (and a lot cheaper).

And yet Prius sales continue to plummet compared to model 3 and model y sales. In spite of increased year over year production the waiting list for model 3 and model y (or any Tesla) continues to grow.

[Gordon Dewald]

Originally Posted by radar

Efficiency schmiciency. It costs us a 1.70 to drive to costco in the next town. It costs my neighbour 10.50 to do the same trip in her car which is a gutless, stinky, noisy, hi maintenance money pit which she can’t fuel at home.

Just sayin.

This is one of those misleading assertions that will not last very long. Government loves taxes and needs taxes to continue supporting whatever "cause" they are pursuing.

You might be riding on 1.70 for the short term but when the fuel tax that is now being collected on petroleum is gone it will be placed on electricity. What formula will be used and how it is applied will undoubtedly raise the price of electricity. For speculation sake say the price of electricity in BC goes to something similar to Ontario plus a surcharge for roads?

Next talking about roads. Surfaced with petroleum. Heavy petroleum. Roads are not going to be phased out any time soon. They will be replaced or repaired using more petroleum products.

Light components of petroleum used for ICE fuel are not good products for road surfacing. What will be done with the fuel oil during the refining process? An alternate use for them will have to be found. The price of gasoline and light diesel will have to drop as there is now a surplus.

[move on]

Originally Posted by radar

And yet Prius sales continue to plummet compared to model 3 and model y sales. In spite of increased year over year production the waiting list for model 3 and model y (or any Tesla) continues to grow.

It's not just the Prius, the hybrid drive train developed by Toyota is now found in many different vehicles. And with good reason: it's cheap, more efficient and more environmentally friendly than an EV. It's a little underpowered for some, but it will still win an Indy 500 race against any EV.

[radar]

Originally Posted by Gordon Dewald

This is one of those misleading assertions that will not last very long. Government loves taxes and needs taxes to continue supporting whatever "cause" they are pursuing.

You might be riding on 1.70 for the short term but when the fuel tax that is now being collected on petroleum is gone it will be placed on electricity. What formula will be used and how it is applied will undoubtedly raise the price of electricity. For speculation sake say the price of electricity in BC goes to something similar to Ontario plus a surcharge for roads?

Next talking about roads. Surfaced with petroleum. Heavy petroleum. Roads are not going to be phased out any time soon. They will be replaced or repaired using more petroleum products.

Light components of petroleum used for ICE fuel are not good products for road surfacing. What will be done with the fuel oil during the refining process? An alternate use for them will have to be found. The price of gasoline and light diesel will have to drop as there is now a surplus.

I have no issues with the petroleum industry although the subsidies tick me off a bit. It’s an important industry and we get a ton of products from them. It will be interesting to see how they sort some of these issues out.

[Gordon Dewald]

Originally Posted by radar

And yet Prius sales continue to plummet compared to model 3 and model y sales. In spite of increased year over year production the waiting list for model 3 and model y (or any Tesla) continues to grow.

No accounting for marketing. People will pay more for pants with holes in the knees than for unblemished. Used to be a price discount for blemished goods.

[jharrell]

Originally Posted by move on

I was referring to the MGU-H (motor generator unit-heat). This is derived from the traditional turbocharger. Mercedes developed it for their formula one engine. It has enabled a gasoline engine to surpass 50% efficiency. Basically, a turbine captures the exhaust heat energy that the traditional turbocharger cannot use. The turbine drives a motor generator that runs the turbo compressor and the excess goes to charging the hybrid battery.

Your are referring to turbo-compounding which has been around since WW2 but we do have the benefit of of electrical turbo compounding now days, however I can find no reference of a MGU-H allowing 50+% thermal efficiency. Since its uses exhaust gases directly to drive the MGU-H it needs high exhaust temperatures otherwise it has poor energy capture it also does not capture waste heat from the rest of the engine only exhaust gas expansion.

Freightliner went with a Rakine cycle (steam turbine) system because it captures heat from the exhaust and the engine itself along with being able to convert more of the heat to useful work at lower temperatures, they actually achieved 50% thermal efficiency.

Freightliner also tried an electric heat recovery turbine (Still steam powered) and went with the direct mechanical drive just like the old WW2 turbo-compounders, because it was more efficient (recovered more power) for highway cruise which is whats important for a semi and a RV. Hybrid systems have little use at highway cruise with a diesel engine.

This is their system to achieve 50% thermal efficiency in a heavy highway vehicle, which is what power plants use on a larger scale to achieve 60+%,just please the diesel engine with a natural gas turbine:

[radar]

Snip. “ No accounting for marketing. People will pay more for pants with holes in the knees than for unblemished. Used to be a price discount for blemished goods“.



That’s true Gordon. But Toyota has a marketing and advertising budget in the billions of dollars. Tesla’s advertising budget is exactly zero dollars.