Tesla Semi Truck

[AndyH]

I'm not suggesting that everyone has to derate 40%, although as most companies consider 70% of initial capacity to be end of life, I allow 10% on top of that for everything else, which is pretty liberal. Obviously, not every company does so - the 2011-2012 LEAF's warranty was nominally 66.25%, the Smart's (if you leased it) 80%, and the Bolt's is 60%. Every trucking company will decide for themselves what economic end of life is, based on how much loss of operational capacity they can accept.

As to why you went to a PHEV you state exactly the point I was making - the Smart's range was too constraining for your needs, so you moved to a vehicle that didn't constrain you, which you could afford.

The industry standard point for battery end of life is 80%, not 70 or 60. You're free to set your personal goalposts where you wish, but I'll be sticking with established standards.

I've listed industry 'standards', and showed how they vary. Let's use 80%, allow 10% as an emergency reserve and another 10% for less than ideal conditions, which gets us right back to 60% as dependable capacity. I consider a 10% reserve and 10% for inclement conditions to be inadequate, but the companies will determine what their needs are and whether running the battery that low routinely is a good idea from a TCO perspective, once they've got the data.

You're not seeing it, are you? How about this: Tell me how many gallons of fuel I should reserve for a daytime/visual flight in a 1972 Cessna 172. Got any ideas? No? Not a pilot? Oh.

Sure - I can play BS numbers too. Let's put a 20Ah main drive battery in a 5 ton submarine. If we put a 10C load on it to get the sub moving on the surface, and de-rate it 10% for the times we need to use the searchlight and 40% for effects of next week's EMP, it can't go very far. Wow - that sucks! Who in their right mind would do that? Yeah, right: Nobody. That excursion through the rabbit hole is as valid as your suggestion that 60% is 'dependable capacity' from a ginormous truck battery.

You still don't understand why I chose the vehicles I did, but you still think you do. This has been a recurring theme that I'm still failing to get through to you that you're not reading it right. My vehicle choices are mission specific. The smart was the perfect vehicle for me at the time. And my current choice performs the functions I need long-term. (Did you detect a change in needs this time? Hopefully...)

Did your needs change, or just your willingness to put up with limitations? I'm just taking your own words. In the Outlander thread you wrote:

[For a point of reference...in order to make it to my in-law's place in my smart (with her city car aerodynamics ) I had no problem on the interstate, but had to keep my speed down to 55. Driving faster meant that I didn't have enough charge to make it to a charge location. As it was, I'd often drag in to Fredericksburg with 1-2% remaining and a max speed of 30. Being able to drive 63 on the highway is a nice upgrade. ]

It doesn't appear you needed to change cars to continue making that trip. In another message in that thread, you wrote:

I took a 170 mile drive up I-35 to Cabela's** starting with about half a charge and 9 EV miles showing on the guess-o-meter. Speeds ranged from suburban 35/45 mph, to afternoon rush hour stop and start, to regular interstate driving. The only thing I did for economy was kept my speed below 65...most of the time. . . . **That's a drive I've been wanting to make for almost a year - I got a gift certificate for my birthday last year. My smart would have needed four charge stops to make the trip and it doesn't have fast charge capability. There isn't infrastructure in the right places to make the trip possible, even if I wanted to spend 15 hours getting L2 charges enroute.

That doesn't read to me as if your mission changed, only your willingness to put up with the Smart's limitations due to limited range and lack of infrastructure. In short, inconvenient time sucks and preventing you from going a place you wanted to for a year, which is exactly what I said about why you upgraded. It's the same reason that I don't consider any BEV to meet my mission needs yet, because I simply can't get to many of the places I want to drive to in one, of if I can it involves great inconvenience in extra time or choice of routes.

Guy, the above is the sort of massive circle-jerk that occurs when someone without the background to understand and clearly without reading the rest of the posts tries to blame someone else for what they don't understand. Yes you are using some of my words - but out of context and twisted to fit your worldview.

I said I base my lease/purchase decisions on mission needs, and that my mission needs changed. I posted the details of how and why in the smart thread. I intended to rent a car for longer drives and did just that when necessary. The car was perfect for the grocery trips, doctor visits, and commutes to school. I did not choose to rent a car to go to Cabela's - that is NOT a limitation with the smart. It's no different than saying I couldn't use the car to get plywood from the lumber yard. I did the same thing with the smart that I did with my VWs - I used Home Depot's flat-bed.

Also - as I've also stated a number of times: My drives to the in-law's place were well beyond max range of the smart. If I drove up at 55 MPH, I could make it to the charge point closer to the destination and charge for 1 hour. I didn't 'have' to do that - I chose to do that - because driving 55 rather than 60 or 65 cut a charge stop - the overall trip was faster if I drove a bit slower. Since I didn't have cruise control on the car, I simply tucked-in behind a semi.

As I've said a number of times on this forum since it launched: I see 'mission planning' an EV trip much the same way I fly missions in small airplanes: For the local 1-hour afternoon flights to the lake and back, RPM and mixture management isn't important because the airplane can fly for 4 hours at wide-open throttle and I'm only going to be in the air for an hour. This feels exactly the same to me as getting into the smart (70 miles of range) and driving to two grocery stores and the pet shop, because the entire journey is about 7 miles. One has to pay attention to fuel stops and other factors when approaching or exceeding max range - and this is exactly the same if one is flying a small airplane, driving an EV, or driving a '96 VW Passat TDI to New England. Beyond max range is beyond max range regardless if the number is 4 hours, 70 miles, or 1100 miles. There were times I slowed down in each of the example vehicles as conditions changed. That's a 'vehicle thing' and not just a 'bev thing'.

Yes, I read them, and they are truck protocols (for diesels) , so let's not compare them to EPA car cycles for PEVs and assume they cross over. When Tesla submits to such tests for trucks, we'll have some useful independent info to compare.

Still adding info to other people's definitions. At least it's not just me. No, Guy, those aren't "diesel test protocols" - they're class 8 truck protocols - and (kicking the podium here) - they are the metrics that will be used to rate the subject tractor. You don't have to like it, but you can't hand-wave that away.

Tesla isn't 'claiming' anything at this point - and they're certainly not pointing to an ass and claiming it's an elephant. They are simply stating the design bounds. As has been previously noted, they tend to hit the goals that aren't tied to Musk Time Dilation(tm).

Good, we agree that they haven't yet tested it to those protocols, but they are certainly making multiple claims about range and TCO. Let's also not pretend the test protocols used for passenger cars have any bearing on those for commercial trucks, as their usage cycles are completely different. And it's not just lateness at Tesla, but also QC issues (and high cycle degradation data) that will be critical for determining TCO, unless you think multiple drivetrain replacements per vehicle, or multiple trips to repair issues, as has been the case with more than a few Model S/X and RAV4s, would be acceptable for a business. There's no question that BEV trucks will have a place once they can show that they have acceptable TCO, but they've just started to enter service (panel trucks), so it's all just hot air and hand waving at the moment.

Word salad from hell. So...ok...trying to follow this...

No, I don't agree that they haven't tested to the EPA protocols - I have zero information to confirm or deny. If I was them, I'd be putting the truck on a dyno and running the tests. How else does a company know if they'll hit targets unless they TEST?! EV race bike teams do the math, and then they run the prototypes on the track. GM ran the Volt all over lower Michigan, from road to test track as well as running dyno tests. That's the norm. I'd bet money that they've run at least one of the prototype tractors through the 'treadmill' tests.

I'm not saying anything about TCO - that seems to be your thing. Since it's got nothing to do with EPA test cycles or range, I'm going to ignore it.

You're the only one saying anything about car tests - of COURSE nobody in their right mind is going to evaluate trucks against LA06. (Do we really have to keep saying this?!)

Quick charging is becoming well known. It doesn't do much damage to a LEAF battery, and it does less to a water-cooled battery. Charging to 80% in 30 minutes is a less than 2C charge rate. Modern lithium cells are happy at 6-10C rates. Additionally, I'm thinking nobody on the planet is in a better position to estimate the effect of high rates of DC charging on a liquid-cooled battery than Tesla. So yeah, I'm ok giving them the benefit of the doubt here.

RAV4s and Model S/X? Panel trucks? Those have what to do with Class 8 tractors? I'm beginning to have Eliza flashbacks.

[GRA]

The industry standard point for battery end of life is 80%, not 70 or 60. You're free to set your personal goalposts where you wish, but I'll be sticking with established standards.

I've listed industry 'standards', and showed how they vary. Let's use 80%, allow 10% as an emergency reserve and another 10% for less than ideal conditions, which gets us right back to 60% as dependable capacity. I consider a 10% reserve and 10% for inclement conditions to be inadequate, but the companies will determine what their needs are and whether running the battery that low routinely is a good idea from a TCO perspective, once they've got the data.

You're not seeing it, are you? How about this: Tell me how many gallons of fuel I should reserve for a daytime/visual flight in a 1972 Cessna 172. Got any ideas? No? Not a pilot? Oh.

Had a friend who was CFII/ATP. Was going for my license with him but stopped when I realized I would have had to give up all my other hobbies at the time (30-odd years ago) to afford maintaining a level of proficiency I would have been comfortable with. He'd still let me fly whenever I felt like it (with him along to make it legal, of course), the occasional day trip, shoot a few landings whatever. I always enjoyed flight planning process (when it was needed. see your comments below). Never cared for the 172, much preferred the club's '74 Cardinal RG aka 177RG (modified with the slotted stabilator) for its performance, noise level (used to cruise oversquare at 25"/2100 doing 150TAS, which also saved us money as it was tach rather than Hobbs time), view and control feel, and I simply didn't fit in a 150/152; spent all my time scrunching down in the seat trying to see out to the sides, and even so we almost got T-Boned from 3 o'clock by a BAE 146 which was descending into Concord one hot, hazy day outside of Mode C airspace (IIRR, at the time Mode C was only required if you were in the San Francisco TCA Fro some reason we'd decided to see how high we could get the 150 up to, and staggered up to about 11k before we quit). Cherokee 140 was okay, if boring, and I never got any time in one of the non-Hershey bar wing versions. My friend preferred the Debonair (straight tail 225hp Bonanza with a throwover yoke) to the Cardinal, but the Cardinal was much better for sightseeing. Got a ride once in the back seat of a Mooney M20(G?) modified with a twin turbo, but all I learned from that is how cramped it was back there, although even with four of us that sucker could climb and scoot. Always wanted to try a Citabria or a Grumman (American) AA-5b Tiger, but never managed to.

Sure - I can play BS numbers too. Let's put a 20Ah main drive battery in a 5 ton submarine. If we put a 10C load on it to get the sub moving on the surface, and de-rate it 10% for the times we need to use the searchlight and 40% for effects of next week's EMP, it can't go very far. Wow - that sucks! Who in their right mind would do that? Yeah, right: Nobody. That excursion through the rabbit hole is as valid as your suggestion that 60% is 'dependable capacity' from a ginormous truck battery.

Feel free to give your own numbers as to what level of degradation and allowances you feel are cost-effective. Speaking of subs, cycle life can be rather critical: Japan's late war HA-201 subs used batteries rated at only 100 cycles to save weight, which made them fast, but really screwed their practicality.

You still don't understand why I chose the vehicles I did, but you still think you do. This has been a recurring theme that I'm still failing to get through to you that you're not reading it right. My vehicle choices are mission specific. The smart was the perfect vehicle for me at the time. And my current choice performs the functions I need long-term. (Did you detect a change in needs this time? Hopefully...)

Did your needs change, or just your willingness to put up with limitations? I'm just taking your own words. In the Outlander thread you wrote:

[For a point of reference...in order to make it to my in-law's place in my smart (with her city car aerodynamics ) I had no problem on the interstate, but had to keep my speed down to 55. Driving faster meant that I didn't have enough charge to make it to a charge location. As it was, I'd often drag in to Fredericksburg with 1-2% remaining and a max speed of 30. Being able to drive 63 on the highway is a nice upgrade. ]

It doesn't appear you needed to change cars to continue making that trip. In another message in that thread, you wrote:

I took a 170 mile drive up I-35 to Cabela's** starting with about half a charge and 9 EV miles showing on the guess-o-meter. Speeds ranged from suburban 35/45 mph, to afternoon rush hour stop and start, to regular interstate driving. The only thing I did for economy was kept my speed below 65...most of the time. . . . **That's a drive I've been wanting to make for almost a year - I got a gift certificate for my birthday last year. My smart would have needed four charge stops to make the trip and it doesn't have fast charge capability. There isn't infrastructure in the right places to make the trip possible, even if I wanted to spend 15 hours getting L2 charges enroute.

That doesn't read to me as if your mission changed, only your willingness to put up with the Smart's limitations due to limited range and lack of infrastructure. In short, inconvenient time sucks and preventing you from going a place you wanted to for a year, which is exactly what I said about why you upgraded. It's the same reason that I don't consider any BEV to meet my mission needs yet, because I simply can't get to many of the places I want to drive to in one, of if I can it involves great inconvenience in extra time or choice of routes.

Guy, the above is the sort of massive circle-jerk that occurs when someone without the background to understand and clearly without reading the rest of the posts tries to blame someone else for what they don't understand. Yes you are using some of my words - but out of context and twisted to fit your worldview.

I said I base my lease/purchase decisions on mission needs, and that my mission needs changed. I posted the details of how and why in the smart thread. I intended to rent a car for longer drives and did just that when necessary. The car was perfect for the grocery trips, doctor visits, and commutes to school. I did not choose to rent a car to go to Cabela's - that is NOT a limitation with the smart. It's no different than saying I couldn't use the car to get plywood from the lumber yard. I did the same thing with the smart that I did with my VWs - I used Home Depot's flat-bed.

Andy, you said that the SMART met your needs for three years. Now, if you put off a trip for a year, it obviously wasn't meeting all your needs for that time. That you chose not to rent a car indicates that you didn't consider going to Cabela's a priority, so perhaps this is a question of not meeting your wants rather than your needs. The car you now have doesn't so limit you, thus can meet an expanded mission set, in fact virtually any mission set that doesn't require a truck.

Also - as I've also stated a number of times: My drives to the in-law's place were well beyond max range of the smart. If I drove up at 55 MPH, I could make it to the charge point closer to the destination and charge for 1 hour. I didn't 'have' to do that - I chose to do that - because driving 55 rather than 60 or 65 cut a charge stop - the overall trip was faster if I drove a bit slower. Since I didn't have cruise control on the car, I simply tucked-in behind a semi.

And if you were willing to drive even slower you could have made it without cutting it so fine, or without all the 'flight planning.' The car you now have allows you to just get in and go, knowing that whenever you need to refuel it will be available almost everywhere and can be done quickly, but most of the time you simply won't need to do so.

As I've said a number of times on this forum since it launched: I see 'mission planning' an EV trip much the same way I fly missions in small airplanes: For the local 1-hour afternoon flights to the lake and back, RPM and mixture management isn't important because the airplane can fly for 4 hours at wide-open throttle and I'm only going to be in the air for an hour. This feels exactly the same to me as getting into the smart (70 miles of range) and driving to two grocery stores and the pet shop, because the entire journey is about 7 miles. One has to pay attention to fuel stops and other factors when approaching or exceeding max range - and this is exactly the same if one is flying a small airplane, driving an EV, or driving a '96 VW Passat TDI to New England. Beyond max range is beyond max range regardless if the number is 4 hours, 70 miles, or 1100 miles. There were times I slowed down in each of the example vehicles as conditions changed. That's a 'vehicle thing' and not just a 'bev thing'.

And we agree on this.

Still adding info to other people's definitions. At least it's not just me. No, Guy, those aren't "diesel test protocols" - they're class 8 truck protocols - and (kicking the podium here) - they are the metrics that will be used to rate the subject tractor. You don't have to like it, but you can't hand-wave that away.

Tesla isn't 'claiming' anything at this point - and they're certainly not pointing to an ass and claiming it's an elephant. They are simply stating the design bounds. As has been previously noted, they tend to hit the goals that aren't tied to Musk Time Dilation(tm).

Good, we agree that they haven't yet tested it to those protocols, but they are certainly making multiple claims about range and TCO. Let's also not pretend the test protocols used for passenger cars have any bearing on those for commercial trucks, as their usage cycles are completely different. And it's not just lateness at Tesla, but also QC issues (and high cycle degradation data) that will be critical for determining TCO, unless you think multiple drivetrain replacements per vehicle, or multiple trips to repair issues, as has been the case with more than a few Model S/X and RAV4s, would be acceptable for a business. There's no question that BEV trucks will have a place once they can show that they have acceptable TCO, but they've just started to enter service (panel trucks), so it's all just hot air and hand waving at the moment.

Word salad from hell. So...ok...trying to follow this...

No, I don't agree that they haven't tested to the EPA protocols - I have zero information to confirm or deny. If I was them, I'd be putting the truck on a dyno and running the tests. How else does a company know if they'll hit targets unless they TEST?! EV race bike teams do the math, and then they run the prototypes on the track. GM ran the Volt all over lower Michigan, from road to test track as well as running dyno tests. That's the norm. I'd bet money that they've run at least one of the prototype tractors through the 'treadmill' tests.

As they've got one or at most two prototypes in existence, I imagine they're still trying to get them to work. Serious testing will come later, once the vehicles are reliable enough (and close enough to production configuration) to make the numbers useful. the drivetrain problems with the RAV4 and Model S are well known - Edmund's long-term test Model S had to have it's drivetrain replaced 3 times among numerous other issues, the RAV 4 forum reported similar problems, and Edmund's Model X has a similarly long laundry list of problems (although not the drivetrain IIRR).

I'm not saying anything about TCO - that seems to be your thing. Since it's got nothing to do with EPA test cycles or range, I'm going to ignore it.

Actually, that's Tesla's thing, as their claims of cost savings are about TCO.

You're the only one saying anything about car tests - of COURSE nobody in their right mind is going to evaluate trucks against LA06. (Do we really have to keep saying this?!)

Quick charging is becoming well known. It doesn't do much damage to a LEAF battery, and it does less to a water-cooled battery. Charging to 80% in 30 minutes is a less than 2C charge rate. Modern lithium cells are happy at 6-10C rates. Additionally, I'm thinking nobody on the planet is in a better position to estimate the effect of high rates of DC charging on a liquid-cooled battery than Tesla. So yeah, I'm ok giving them the benefit of the doubt here.

RAV4s and Model S/X? Panel trucks? Those have what to do with Class 8 tractors? I'm beginning to have Eliza flashbacks.

As noted above, Tesla has repeatedly had difficulty achieving acceptable QC and reliability in the past when they are introducing a new vehicle (the Model 3 seems to be following the same arc), so what makes you think they'll be any different next time? Any company except the biggest ones who can afford to do trials will hold off until they get some numbers and Tesla can work out most of the bugs. Their car customers have been willing to put up with this process, but I doubt most trucking companies will be willing to act as beta testers.

[RegGuheert]

It seems Daimler's head of trucks doesn't fully understand the ramifications of being a laggard in a fast-moving technology space:

If Tesla really delivers on this promise, we’ll obviously buy two trucks — one to take apart and one to test because if that happens, something has passed us by. But for now, the same laws of physics apply in Germany and in California.

This statement was well-fielded by commenter "Nafnlaus":

Indeed. Elektrek keeps pushing this "oh, its so impossible" narrative, and the numbers just don't back up this stance.

Tesla has halved the æro drag (not by "magic", just standard streamlining techniques). That's half of 60% of the truck's cruising power. For the remaining 40%, rolling drag, they have the trailer on super singles, which is another big power slashing. 1MWh is on the upper end of possible pack sizes; 600-1000 kWh is plausible. Tesla has only stated "under 2kWh/mi", without specifying how far under.

But hey, let's go with the worst possible figure, 1MWh. And let's take Tesla's lowest energy density packs, ignoring the fact that generally as you scale a pack up, energy density gets better. So 150 Wh/kg. So 6,7 tonnes for the pack. A typical day cab is around 10 tonnes. Now the pack is heavier than an ICE drivetrain - perhaps instead of 7,5 tonnes to build the remainder of the cab they have 4 in this worst-case scenario - but so what? Does Tesla build their vehicles out of simple mild steel body-on-frame structures? Of course not. Semi will have alumium panels, a UHS steel (5x the strength as mild steel) structure, etc. They don't *need* as much mass.

This "defies the laws of physics " thing is nonsense of the highest order.

We've previously discussed the numbers in some detail in this thread.

Part of what Elon Musk does that management in slow-moving industries don't get is he "skates to where the puck will be" instead of where it is presently. That is critically important given the steady increase in battery capacity and the incredibly-fast pace at which battery prices have been coming down. This has been the modus operendi in the commercial aircraft world for many decades: Boeing and Airbus don't sell the specifications they can meet today, but rather they sell the specifications which they can meet in about five years' time, depending on the steady pace of improvement in engine, materials and aero technologies.

If Daimler needs a bigger battery pack, Proterra has one rated for 660 kWh that they developed together with LG Chem:

We've talked to a lot of companies and when you look at the specs of our battery pack it fits right between the chassis rails of a Class 8.

Based on Proterra's specifications, I estimate the weight of that pack to be 6,000 lbs. That puts the pack-level specific energy at around 240 Wh/kg. (It may actually be just a bit lower due to some overhead weight which my estimate misses, but that is certainly the marginal, or incremental, specific capacity for that battery pack for the last 220 kWh.)

[RegGuheert]

While DHL's President of Transportation feels [url=https://electrek.co/2018/02/23/tesla-se ... vings-dhl/]the company can save tens of thousands of dollars per year with each Tesla Semi they purchase[/quote], he is also properly focused on one of the main challenges they will face as they work to electrify their fleet:

The biggest issue is going to be how is that grid provided and how is it supported and how quickly can we get a network out there for use nationwide, throughout North America, throughout the world. That’s a big question mark. So that to me would be one limiting factor.

The current penetration rates of BEVs have not yet strained the electricity grids anywhere in the world that I am aware of, but as more BEVs are fielded they will eventually put strains on the network wherever they are prevalent. This will be much more of an issue for a trucking company than for homeowners simply because while a homeowner may need to draw kilowatts or sometimes tens of kilowatts, a trucking company may try to draw TENS OF MEGAWATTS at a single location. These companies are going to begin to experience demand charges like they have never seen before. Even in areas where no demand charges currently exist, expect them to appear as the utilities work to protect their grid from unmanageable spikes in usage.

While photovoltaics can help offset energy consumption, they will not address the issue of power consumption, as some of that is certain to happen at nighttime. Some truck depots will likely require grid upgrades in order to support their fleet of battery-electric trucks.

While this might appear to be an opportunity to sell stationary batteries, I seriously doubt that will happen, simply because of the size of the battery that would be required.

Ultimately, these companies will need to do several things to achieve the operational savings that BEV trucks have the potential to provide:
1) They will need to work with the utilities to obtain network upgrades and manageable electricity rates.
2) They will need to install as much photovoltaic production capability as they can manage.
3) They will need to use operational techniques to allow them to maximize their ability to deploy BEV trucks. This could involve route planning and timing.(I just read an article about how London is using software to maximize the number of buses that can charge at the same time, but I cannot put my hands on it.)

[GRA]

Ultimately, these companies will need to do several things to achieve the operational savings that BEV trucks have the potential to provide:
1) They will need to work with the utilities to obtain network upgrades and manageable electricity rates.
2) They will need to install as much photovoltaic production capability as they can manage.
3) They will need to use operational techniques to allow them to maximize their ability to deploy BEV trucks. This could involve route planning and timing.(I just read an article about how London is using software to maximize the number of buses that can charge at the same time, but I cannot put my hands on it.)

Re #3, see post in AFV truck topic about UPS trialing smart charging in London: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... 90#p519846

[RegGuheert]

Re #3, see post in AFV truck topic about UPS trialing smart charging in London: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... 90#p519846

That's it! Thanks for posting the article and for posting the link to remind me where I had seen it!

[lorenfb]

The current penetration rates of BEVs have not yet strained the electricity grids anywhere in the world that I am aware of, but as more BEVs are fielded they will eventually put strains on the network wherever they are prevalent.

But you don't live here in SoCal! Where with increasing sales of the Bolt, many charging stations are typically occupied now or vehicles are
left unattended. Within the next 6 months to a year, without any increase (not going happen) in the number of charging stations
(the network), driving my Leaf beyond its overnight charge (~ 60 miles - 50Ahrs left ) will be highly inconvenient.

[RegGuheert]

But you don't live here in SoCal! Where with increasing sales of the Bolt, many charging stations are typically occupied now or vehicles are left unattended. Within the next 6 months to a year, without any increase (not going happen) in the number of charging stations (the network), driving my Leaf beyond its overnight charge (~ 60 miles - 50Ahrs left ) will be highly inconvenient.

True enough.

But I'm not talking about how much charging infrastructure is in place. In the case of electric semi trucks, that is an inexpensive piece which will be built as needed. What I am talking about is the demand charges that will certainly be put in place by utilities once truck depots start to draw megawatts of power from the grid. These will be intended to limit capital expenses which are required to meet the demand, but eventually both more distribution AND new production capacity will be needed to electrify transportation.

[GRA]

Re #3, see post in AFV truck topic about UPS trialing smart charging in London: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... 90#p519846

That's it! Thanks for posting the article and for posting the link to remind me where I had seen it!

You're welcome. I thought that might be what you were remembering.

[lorenfb]

But you don't live here in SoCal! Where with increasing sales of the Bolt, many charging stations are typically occupied now or vehicles are left unattended. Within the next 6 months to a year, without any increase (not going happen) in the number of charging stations (the network), driving my Leaf beyond its overnight charge (~ 60 miles - 50Ahrs left ) will be highly inconvenient.

True enough.

But I'm not talking about how much charging infrastructure is in place. In the case of electric semi trucks, that is an inexpensive piece which will be built as needed. What I am talking about is the demand charges that will certainly be put in place by utilities once truck depots start to draw megawatts of power from the grid. These will be intended to limit capital expenses which are required to meet the demand, but eventually both more distribution AND new production capacity will be needed to electrify transportation.

Yes, I was aware of that aspect (grid demand), but you also mentioned;

but as more BEVs are fielded they will eventually put strains on the network wherever they are prevalent.

.
That's what (strains on the network) is now becoming the case here in SoCal. Anyway, I agree with your overall comments.