America's Scam, Part 65023
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.


Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2017-11-25 15:39 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 1008 references Ignore this thread
America's Scam, Part 65023 *
[Comments enabled]
Category thumbnail

There's no reason Elon Musk shouldn't be under indictment right now.

Let's look at the latest monstrosity claim from him: His "truck".

The truck can drive 500 miles on a single charge, which was higher than some analysts had expected. That may mean that, in terms of range, the vehicle could meet the needs of long haul truck drivers.


Tesla will also build a network of Tesla "Megachargers" that will charge the trucks' batteries to a 400 mile range in 30 minutes.

Ok, let's talk about this.

There apparently were eight charging ports, and with a 100kw battery behind each that would be 800Kw.  To deliver 90% of capacity in 30 minutes you'd have to deliver approximately 1.5 Megawatts plus losses; batteries are 80-85% charge efficient during the bulk phase until they reach about 80% of capacity (at which point their efficiency goes down materially) and the electronics to control the charge have loss too -- probably in the neighborhood of 10%.  So we have a 76%, more or less, efficiency on the charge rate which means we must deliver almost exactly 2 Megawatts to the truck for that 30 minutes.

I note that 500 kilowatts has to be dissipated somewhere for that entire period in the truck or the batteries, controller equipment or both catch on fire.  This is a serious problem all on its own that I am not convinced Musk can solve.

Then there is the economic issue.  Musk claims he's going to "guarantee" a 7c/kwh price for all that power.  How he thinks he can do this in a commercial environment where demand meters are used by law is beyond me; the first time a trucker needs to be charged at 4:00 PM on a 95 degree day there will be a very large surprise delivered in the form of the bill.  Never mind that the trucker (or company) will be paying for the 25% losses too; you get to pay for the entire megawatt-hour even though you only keep 75% of it; the rest heats the air.  Apparently Musk thinks that he can simply build "battery packs" to store energy and thus charge them when the power is cheaper.  Ok, that's fine and well, except (1) now you have another 25% loss, stacked (you take one when you charge the pack when "cheaper" and then when the truck is charged) and for each truck's worth of capacity in said battery bank he gets to buy another battery that would otherwise go in the truck, plus another 25% to cover the losses when the truck is charged, plus the electronics to charge, discharge and control that "banked" pack.  Somehow this all is going to "work out" to 7 cents/kwh.

Let me make this clear: No it won't.  If Tesla guarantees that rate to the buyer then Tesla will absorb billions in losses and the more trucks are on the road and the more miles they drive the more money the company loses.

But it pales beside what Musk claims to be able to do when it comes to charging these trucks in the first place.  The average house in the United States consumes about 12 megawatt/hours of energy over the entire year, or about a megawatt-hour per month.  Musk intends to suck twice as much energy from the electrical grid as your house consumes in a month in 30 minutes.

To put some perspective on this that means that one such truck charging will place approximately the same load on the grid as 1,400 houses.  One truck.

What happens when 20 of them show up at the truck stop?  You know they do that today -- they fill their diesel tanks and they're on their way, although they typically only fill said tanks half as often as these batteries will require charging.

So it won't be 20 of them it will be 40 since their range-before-refueling is about half of common OTR trucks now.  Now we're talking about the load of roughly 57,000 additional houses that will be instantly presented to the grid and which the grid must be able to support -- per truck stop or terminal!

Who's going to pay to build all that out and with what will they do so?

It won't be Elon Musk.

I don't believe Musk can deliver this thing at all, nor do I believe he can deliver the Roadster either as the double-size battery pack required to do so (against today's Model S and X) won't fit in the chassis.  So that problem exists too, and it's not an easy one to solve.

Finally, when it comes to the truck there are some other interesting issues related to efficiency.  See, this thing is supposed to be able to couple to any existing trailer.  Ok, fine, but existing trailers are flat-backed and thus have fairly nasty aerodynamics.  You've seen the "trailer tail" things on some of them, I'm sure -- a flip-out contraption that cuts -- somewhat -- the aerodynamic drag generated by the turbulence at the rear of the vehicle. I'm not at all confident the sort of highway range Musk is talking about can be achieved without material improvement in the aerodynamics at the rear and bottom of the vehicle, which means "no standard trailers for you sir!"

That leads to a very large problem; you see flat-back trailers are that way so they can be backed into a loading dock and both loaded and unloaded.  It also makes intermodal (container) shipping possible since a container can be dropped onto a skeleton trailer that locks into the corners of the rectangular container box.  How do you do that if you apply real and effective aerodynamics to the rear and bottom/sides of the trailer?  You don't.  While there are answers to this problem they likely involve a complete renovation of how loading docks are designed and work today, never mind container ships, and that design is literally everywhere from the corner grocery store to the large manufacturing center.  Good luck with shoving that change down every receiving and shipping dock in the nation's budget, never mind the expected gross increase in size such changes would require (e.g. for "side loading" or similar.)  Oh, and since there are length limits on combination vehicles (tractor/trailers, etc) as well you either get to forfeit quite a bit of usable cargo volume or the laws have to be changed to accommodate the materially-longer aerodynamic section of said trailer!

All of the foregoing assumes you believe 800kw of battery is enough.  I'm not so sure.  The math doesn't pencil today on that and I don't see how Tesla can overcome the deficit under any plausible scenario.  Today's diesel truck gets ~8.5mpg, roughly, fully loaded @ 80,000lbs gross (maximum 50-state legal limit.)  Diesel contains ~136,000 btu/gal, so if we take 500 miles (maximum range of said EV truck) we would need ~60 gallons of fuel containing ~8.2 million BTUs if that was a conventional diesel-powered tractor. A modern diesel (with all of its computer controls and transmission) can achieve very close to 40% thermal efficiency in steady-state on-road operation (assuming ~5% gearbox and parasitic loss), which means 3.264 million BTUs have come out the business (driveshaft) end of the engine and transmission when it finishes burning that 60 gallons of fuel.

Musk's 800kw battery only has 2.7 million BTUs of energy in it.  That's 18% short, roughly, but in fact it's worse than that because neither his motors or the PWM controllers for them are lossless, and remember, we've accounted for the diesel's engine and transmission/accessory inefficiency.  If we assume Tesla's electric motors are 90% efficient (possible but unlikely; 85% is more-likely but I'll give him the other 5) and the controller is also 90% efficient (possible) the stacked loss there is 19% so now he only delivers 648kw over that same period of time to the driveshaft(s).

In other words he's not short 18% on energy content he's short a whopping 32%!

I call smiley immediately on him being able to improve the total loss budget by 32% ex engine and transmission -- which basically means through aerodynamics since his truck still needs to roll on tires and the trailers are identical -- so he can't get much if anything on rolling resistance.  That leaves aero and to obtain that sort of gain even on the freeway, say much less in combined-cycle use, would be enormous.

Oh, and the batteries?  They come off the useful load of the truck as well, so on a dollars per pound-mile moved for cargo the electric truck has a further deficiency to overcome.  In short his claimed range and parity level for power is a big stretch right up front!

In the end what we have here is Musk promising to deliver what he can't today, and he's counting on two things to bail him out:

  • Wall Street will continue to give him money on the come in the hope that the technology in batteries advances fast enough for him to be able to actually build the packs and fit them in the vehicles, along with solving the heat dissipation problem during charging that would otherwise cause the vehicle to catch on fire and be destroyed.  Given the relatively short timeline he has set for himself I rate the odds of this happening as perhaps one in a thousand since none of this can be done today.

    AND (not or)

  • The Government will force you to pay for his charging systems by having a gun shoved up your nose and the money extracted from you both for the additional generating capacity necessary and infrastructure upgrades to get that generating and power-delivery capacity to the truck stops and terminals effectively none of which currently have anywhere near that sort of capacity available to them.   Oh by the way many of these terminals are a long way away from existing generating capacity and high-voltage transmission equipment so the build-out cost will be even worse -- by a lot -- than it first appears.  As a conservative guess this is likely to put a 15-30% increase on your home electric bill should any material percentage of the OTR fleet convert.  There are roughly 1.9 million heavy and tractor-trailer drivers employed today; consider what would happen if 500,000 trucks were to attempt to convert to electric drive each of which would require a 2 Megawatt charge for 30 minutes every six operating hours.  There is no possible way to support any material percentage of the current OTR trucks converting to electric power on the existing grid and this build-out will not be paid for by Tesla or the trucking companies if it is attempted -- it will be paid for by you.

Theft as a business model is a crime.  Promising that which you can only deliver via speculative advances in technology and by stealing a large part of your operating cost from others who do not use it ought to land your ass in prison and reduce your company to a smoldering pile of ash.

Then again Hastings did exactly that to America with Netflix and Net Neutrality and Amazon's Bezos does it daily with cross-subsidizing product sales with AWS, including to the Federal Government (which means he steals from every taxpayer to do so), so why shouldn't Musk rob everyone of tens of thousands of dollars in his plan to "build" these trucks right up front, since you didn't lynch Hastings or Bezos when they did it and in fact rewarded both with billions.

This shit has to stop, the firms doing it must be destroyed and their executives imprisoned.

Go to responses (registration required to post)

Comments on America's Scam, Part 65023
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 2  First12Last
Maynard 5k posts, incept 2007-11-27
2017-11-25 16:44:55

The whole thing is insane. I was driving out to the beach in WA couple months ago and there is a new 10-20 car charging station in Aberdeen Wa. There is probably ONE Tesla in the area. Its a logging town...Who paid for that!
The grid can't handle what he describes and Physics is a bitch.
Supertruckertom 7k posts, incept 2010-11-07
2017-11-25 16:45:28

So far today averaging 8.6 mpg with a light load heading South on I-65 running from Indianapolis to Nashville then to Atlanta.
Took 10 minutes to pump 75 gallons of fuel, top off the oil and washer fluid. Hooked my trailer and did all of my paperwork and a final bathroom break in another 20 minutes.

Port of Long Beach, where California Air Resources Board has mandatory CNG powered trucks, is about the only market I can see him being able to get any sales. That would likely be because of a future government mandate.

2 Megawatt diesel generators are huge.
Circular logic will have most of the recharging stations generating the electricity on the premises rather than bringing it in.
A hybrid drive train is a better solution in air quality critical areas.

CNG is even better.

Preparing to go Hunting.
Tsherry 11k posts, incept 2008-12-09
2017-11-25 16:45:32

Seems a few people think along this line.

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it. - The Hunt for Red October
Vernonb 2k posts, incept 2009-06-03
2017-11-25 17:24:49


As a side note how safe are these batteries in a crash? That's a huge amount of electric capacity to be hauled around on a freight transport vehicle. I've seen too many 18 wheelers flipped over or wrapped over guard rails in the winter along the I-80 corridor. Emergency sirens go off at least 2 times a night.

We are equipped with equipment and supplies to handle fuel spills and potential fires/environmental release from current trucks in accidents. What are the implications to control the scene, however, if one of these freight trucks with such huge batteries catch fire?

"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Tickerguy 190k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2017-11-25 17:24:59

If it wrecks and the batteries short it's going to suck -- badly.

It is basically impossible to put an electrically-fed fire out unless you can cut off the energy. In the case of a battery fire until the energy in the battery is expended, forget about it -- it's going to burn.

Lithium cells are especially nasty in this regard because the heat from one of them burning will cause the separator (which is basically a plastic) in nearby cells to melt, which shorts THEM. This is a cascade-failure that will run until the entire pack is consumed, and since the pack is inherently buried in the vehicle you can forget about being able to draw enough heat away from it (e.g. with a firehose) to actually put it out.

Oh, don't get all excited over graphene batteries. Yes, IF they can make them work and IF they can manufacture them they promise materially higher energy density (good) and extremely-low (nearly zero) internal resistance, which means their charge acceptance rate is nearly infinite.

HOWEVER, this also means that IF one shorts internally it will not heat up -- it will electrically explode, since the available amperage will be very close to infinite. In other words the energy will all be released at once, which tends to result in what is sometimes called "rapid unplanned disassembly."

The difference between "kill" and "murder" is that murder, as a subset of kill, is undeserved by the deceased.

Maynard 5k posts, incept 2007-11-27
2017-11-25 18:05:32

Yeah, ask Boeing how well tracking down their failure went. Lets just say containment is the strategy.
James56287 705 posts, incept 2008-07-28
2017-11-25 22:29:47

This handy chart from the EIA shows that liquid hydrocarbons, in almost every form, are orders of magnitude more energy dense and lighter in weight. Battery technology is going to need to come a very long way in order to be comparable from that perspective.
Gianmarko 245 posts, incept 2013-03-11
2017-11-26 08:41:00

check one of latest videos from Thunderf00t, he makes a very good debunk of the battery promises. try to ignore the BS about global warming, the rest is very good.

bottom line is, the "miracle battery" has been already invented and it is the li-ion cell. i dont believe these cells can be improved by 7% per annum as some claim. and the "improvement" often only consists of more cell surface in the same space (less insulation, less safe, more weight) or a cell so slightly larger as it happened in AA rechargeables that mysteriously do no longer fit battery compartments.

regarding the multi MW recharging stations, of course they can be built, and what will happen is that when you have more than one truck recharging, the power will have to be shared and recharging times will increase

still i wouldnt want to be nowhere near a MWh battery being recharged at 2C.
one MWh is equivalent to one metric ton of TNT, which i assume will make a hell of a firework.


imagine that. using diesel generators to recharge electric trucks. it doesnt get much dumber than that
but then again, in the era or the BS, even this becomes not only possible, but mandated by law.

Bodhi 5k posts, incept 2008-02-23
2017-11-26 08:41:19

To put some perspective on this that means that one such truck charging will place approximately the same load on the grid as 1,400 houses. One truck.

What happens when 20 of them show up at the truck stop? You know they do that today -- they fill their diesel tanks and they're on their way, although they typically only fill said tanks half as often as these batteries will require charging.

So it won't be 20 of them it will be 40 since their range-before-refueling is about half of common OTR trucks now. Now we're talking about the load of roughly 57,000 additional houses that will be instantly presented to the grid and which the grid must be able to support -- per truck stop or terminal!

Just like Netflix, Amazon and other content providers expect others to bear the cost of building out the Internet infrastructure to support their business models, Elon Musk expects others to bear the cost of building out the electrical grid to support his "clean" cars and trucks. Socializing costs and privatizing profits, although in Tesla's case it's just mitigating losses.

Be so subtle that you are invisible.
Be so mysterious that you are intangible.
Then you will control your rivals' fate.
~Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Jayhawk 54 posts, incept 2010-08-20
2017-11-26 10:56:16

Actually, it's bad, but not quite as bad as your numbers reflect. Batteries are rated in kilowatt-hours (kWh) which is a measure of energy, rather than kW which is a measure of the rate at which they can deliver power. But doing the calculation based on energy still makes Tesla a moron.

Today's freighter gets an average of 6.3 miles per gallon of diesel, which contains 40.74 kWh of energy. So to provide 90% of 400 miles would require the equivalent of 133.3 gallons of diesel, or 5432 kWh. Multiply by 90% and then by two to get the charging rate, since we are doing it in half an hour, and we get a charging rate of 9777.6 kW plus waste.

That's not undoable, since at 400 volts it would only be 24 amperes, but it's pretty sizeable. On the other hand, if those are 12v batterys... Yikes, that would be 815 amps, which is not something I would want to be messing around with at a truck stop.

In the old diesel boats we routinely dealt with 400V at up to 3000A, but that was carried by solid copper bars that had a cross section of 3" x 6". Can you imagine the size of the cable that you would be plugging into the truck that is carrying 815A? Or even 410A if they were using 24V batteries.

Your post also points the feeble economy for electric. At 40.74 kWh/gal and $.07/kWh, electric energy works out to $2.85 per gallon equivalent for diesel. Gasoline would be higher, since its energy content is significantly lower than diesel. Plus, of course, where can you get electrity for $.07/kWh?

If you live in San Diego, electricity is costing you a bit over $.30/kWh while gasoline,at $3.25/gal, is costing you slightly under $.09/kWh.

Payup 2 posts, incept 2017-11-26
2017-11-26 10:56:49

Karl, long time lurker, love your work, first-time poster.

Musk's and Wall Street's "sucker born every minute" behavior aside, I would appreciate your thoughts and the blog communities feedback on a company named Brilliant Light Power as it may relate to the subject of mobile power generation for truck-sized transport.

I stumbled across them a few years ago via the Solari forum, I think. At first, I thought it was rubbish, but the progression of the technology has me taking a second look. It is well beyond concept, into prototypes. For those of you into physics, make sure your coffee is topped off before digging into the companys web site and company update (links below). Im just now digging into the various validation reports from other scientists.

In a nutshell, the energy release of H2O to Hydrino and oxygen is 100 times that of an equivalent, amount of high-octane gasoline and independent of the grid. Could it be mobilized to drive the electric wheels of an 80,000 lb semi?

Company Update:

Eleua 21k posts, incept 2007-07-05
2017-11-26 10:56:54

Question for the forum:

Name one economic problem of the past 25 years that isn't related to "cost shifting."

Cost shifting problems I can think of off the top of my head:

Housing bubble/banking
Medical billing
Airline economics (big routes and jets subsidize small routes and small jets)
Illegal immigration (costs to produce are shifted to taxpayer via welfare)

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-They wanted camps; I want ropes.
Quik49 13k posts, incept 2007-12-11
2017-11-26 13:12:44

Of course it will work....You forgot the part where 7/8 of the trailer IS the battery...they all have solar panels for a continuous stream of lecticity...then of course there's the convoy that is connected with wireless power to share the load back to the end trailer with a 399 mile's all good...Elon knows wtf he's doing...just ask him.

2 + 2 =5
Eleua 21k posts, incept 2007-07-05
2017-11-26 13:12:53

I keep hearing of how hydrocarbon direct powered cars (gasoline and diesel) are going to go bye-bye because of coal, nuclear, hydroelectric powered cars (electrical cars), and we are all going to have charging stations at our homes and businesses.


I've always poo-pooed this idea because the sheer electrical build-out to accommodate all of this is staggering, to say nothing of what the distortions in the energy market are going to be when those joules of energy we presently get from liquid hydrocarbons have to be put into the electrical grid. Hydroelectric (what powers a good chunk of the homes in my region) is already at 100%.

Nuclear? smiley Good luck getting the politicians, leftists, and other green-tards to approve that.

Coal? Same thing.

Oh, I and wind. smiley

It simply cannot happen. We are not going to shelve petrochemical energy to drive electric cars, and I don't care if they are all connected and driverless.


We don't have the energy resources.
We don't have the political will to use them.
We can't retrofit the entire grid, even if we did have the energy production.

Oh, and about the "smart, driverless cars..."

I'll never forget this. I landed at DCA one afternoon and there was a power outage in the terminal. I tried to pay cash for a slice of pizza, and the grommet-head, Millenial couldn't make change, because she couldn't count backwards from 100. Additionally, not a single toilet worked in the entire terminal, because they need electricity to work. There was shit overflowing in EVERY hopper in the DCA terminal.

In the airport of the capitol city of the "most advanced nation on earth," we can't make change or take a dump if the grid does go down.

How in the flying-fornication are we going to be able to drive in that scenario?


We couldn't do the Apollo program today. In 1967? Yes, but not today. We are not getting smarter. We are just getting more clever in telling ourselves we are.

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-They wanted camps; I want ropes.
Tickerguy 190k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2017-11-26 11:24:07

Actually, it's bad, but not quite as bad as your numbers reflect. Batteries are rated in kilowatt-hours (kWh) which is a measure of energy, rather than kW which is a measure of the rate at which they can deliver power. But doing the calculation based on energy still makes Tesla a moron.

That was what I was accounting for.

There are allegedly eight 100kwH batteries in that truck cab.

Therefore if you wish to charge them you need 800kwH + losses. Losses are pretty easy; it's about 80-85% efficiency to charge a Li-chemistry battery during the bulk phase (which is up to ~80% charge state) then it starts to drop off in efficiency. The electronics loss is pretty simple too -- 90% is excellent (and I will assume "excellent".) Losses are multiplicative (so the total loss is 85% * 90%, so ~76.5% efficient.)

This means to get 800kwH into the battery you must put in 800kwH/.765, or 1,045kwH (just over 1 Megawatt-hour.)

Now the problem is that you want to do it in 30 minutes, which is 1/2 hour. So you must multiply the power delivery rate by TWO.

Thus you must deliver 2 Megawatts to the vehicle for 30 minutes, which is 1 Megawatt/hour. 800kwH of that will get stored, and ~200kwH will be dissipated by the pack and electronics as heat, and since we're doing it in 1/2 hour the pack and electronics have to be able to sink the heat at a nearly 500kwH rate without catching on fire. If the battery was just in use at high rate (to move the truck) then it is already carrying some amount of heat in its thermal mass over ambient to begin with. Exactly how you manage to dissipate heat at a 500kwH rate to the atmosphere during this operation without setting things on fire is an interesting engineering problem all on its own. Note that if you are forced to rate-limit the charge due to heating then there is no way you'll achieve that 30 minute charge cycle.

May I point out that if you actually take a Model S and try to drive it on a REAL track (not a 1/4 mile dragstrip) you'll find out all about this because when you start drawing energy out of that pack at the sort of rate the systems in the vehicle will limit the withdrawal rate from the battery so you don't turn the car into a flaming torch. At that point my little puny Mazda 6 spanks you.

I will assume they intend to run 480VDC for the charging to keep conductor sizes reasonable. That is still a delivery rate of over 4,000 Amps! If there are eight charging sockets we're still talking about 500 Amps (!!) each.

For your next exercise figure out the (stranded, please!) conductor size required to carry that at an acceptable heating rate and voltage drop and then determine how you're going to maneuver those pigtails (all 8 of them) to charge said truck. You need 600V insulation, a protective ground jacket over the outside casing (to detect incipient cable failure before someone gets turned into a cooked hot dog if the insulation is compromised) and a 90C insulating rating. When you get all this figured out you will realize that you DO intend to have mechanical assistance for those cables, plugs and the mating/unmating operation. Oh, and do the engineering right on the connectors too; 500 Amps will rock your world if the connection goes high-resistance on you or (God forbid) arcs, and it's utterly necessary that you make very sure they're NEVER separated or mated hot under any circumstances (because if you do you're replacing both ends as the arcing will destroy them instantly never mind splatter damage from it, especially with DC where there's no zero-crossing quench.)

Yeah, this is all going to work out just fine... NOT!

The difference between "kill" and "murder" is that murder, as a subset of kill, is undeserved by the deceased.

Mangymutt 1k posts, incept 2015-05-03
2017-11-26 13:11:00

Question aimed at SuperTruck, but by no means limited to him: What happens to the 500 mile range when going up hills or twisty turny roads, especially in inclement weather?

Distribution of electrical power is done through power lines, most of these lines are held in place by towers, either wood, steel and in some cases concrete with costs close to $1,000,000.... YES... million dollars a mile.

There is never a straight line from generation to out put, the lines need to be built, state, federal, county and in some cases tribal authorities get involved with tons of rules and regulations. EPA says it needs a study, guess what? Cross a navigable river, you now have to answer questions for the Coast Guard.

Put the line over someones private property, you need to pay for easement to access the tower and line and the lose of land usage.

Find human artifacts, more down time.

Possibly obstruct someones or worse a communities view, now everything is put on hold again.

Not to mention up keep and maintenance on lines, what if someone decides to plant trees or dump garbage under the line?

Sure you can put the line underground, but the costs for that are astronomical.

Substations will need to be built and or upgraded as well as the privately owned (Substation to your house) infrastructure.

Even if Idiot Elon had all the paperwork in hand to start a 20 mile project, he would be looking at at least 5 years and 20 million dollars to MAYBE get it done.

Up here in the Pacific North West along the Columbia River they have put in 1000's of wind turbines, they make a humming and rumbling noise when in use (Which is not all the time) the noise disturbs the natural flow of the wild life, birds nest on them and even sometimes fly into them, when they get to turning and producing electricity the hydro dams need to be scaled back, sure you could put a lot of electricity through the lines but if no one is going to use it you are producing for nothing.

There is a pretty good system in place that regulates the flow of electricity and they can create more of it or less of it, but it takes time and resources to do that, what happens if 6 of these Idiot Elon trucks pull into a single power source at once?

Small scale use of electric cars, like commuter or run around town cars sure, but if you are on a cross country haul with a big rig and you are half way through a 700 mile stretch and you have hills to clime with no power source for over 200 miles, guess what happens.

Elon is an Idiot

"It's just a shot" - Gates
Vernonb 2k posts, incept 2009-06-03
2017-11-26 13:12:08

It is now obvious all that have been praising Musk have not thought this issue through. I am sure there are many voices simply on his payroll.

Just reading the safety and charging concerns it is obvious such vessels would be unsafe as well cost inefficient and the only way to run such a program is to steal by force or deception.

Where is Nader when there is a real issue? It's obvious these trucks are a fraud and even if it were true they'd be "unsafe at any speed" including zero in the charging bay.

Just another toaster on wheels on the nation's highways.

Makes me wonder if some of that infrastructure support Trump had mentioned was to support Musk directly.

"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Tsherry 11k posts, incept 2008-12-09
2017-11-26 13:12:15

>>Yeah, this is all going to work out just fine... NOT!>>

Maybe Musk has invented Mister Fusion.

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it. - The Hunt for Red October
Thorvold 268 posts, incept 2013-09-12
2017-11-26 13:12:24

Volkswagen is supposed to build a network of electric vehicle charging stations across California as part of the settlement of the diesel emissions scandal. As pointed out by Eleua, cost shifting is already part of the plan and seems to be likely going forward given Tesla's and our government's track records. Unfortunately for Tesla, cost shifting has yet to overcome the laws of physics.
Little_eddie 2k posts, incept 2009-04-30
2017-11-26 13:12:29

Isn't it nice having friends that love doing math.

Thank you

The trend changed around 1709 and the world economy has been growing since, the trend has now changed again and we are now living in a shrinking world economy. Little_eddie, 2021
Vitaeus 73 posts, incept 2010-10-05
2017-11-26 16:01:18

Heh, been mulling over this discussion. One person mentioned old fashioned Diesel Submarines. The comparison that comes to my mind is treating each long haul truck, like the charging/shore power requirements of our current nuclear submarine fleet , only a couple of orders of magnitude larger and done at hundreds of truck stops instead of a literal handful of dedicated naval bases. Good luck with that.
Goforbroke 9k posts, incept 2007-11-30
2017-11-26 16:22:25

Elon is an Idiot

No he isn't.

He's an opportunist/snake oil salesman more than willing to take advantage of everyone else's idiocy and/or greed.

Immoral, unethical, yes.

But an idiot, no.

It is death which gives meaning to life.

Tickerguy 190k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2017-11-26 16:23:28

Updated -- it's even worse than I first thought.

Tesla's Semi is short roughly 32% on an equivalent energy basis, assuming the pack in the truck is 800kw. There's not a snowball's chance in HELL he can get that back from pure aerodynamics. NO FUCKING WAY, especially not while being compatible with existing trailers.

The difference between "kill" and "murder" is that murder, as a subset of kill, is undeserved by the deceased.
Goforbroke 9k posts, incept 2007-11-30
2017-11-26 18:13:12

Outside of the box ... what if his long-term goal is not trucks, but trains? (This may just very well be the dumbest question ever asked here.)

It is death which gives meaning to life.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 2  First12Last