[HN Gopher] Volvo delivers 74-tonne electric truck
___________________________________________________________________
Volvo delivers 74-tonne electric truck
Author : clouddrover
Score : 101 points
Date : 2023-11-17 12:55 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.volvotrucks.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.volvotrucks.com)
| TheJoeMan wrote:
| The technological innovation pace in large capacity batteries and
| motors for EV's is very inspiring. However, everything has
| externalities that seem to be ignored or remembered only after
| the fact. The USA's roads have a score of D <1>. These electric
| trucks are tremendously heavy, and road wear is proportional to
| vehicle weight to the 4th power! <2>. A possible future
| innovation might be reinventing the highway pavement system,
| either materials or methodology of resurfacing.
|
| <1> https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/roads-
| infrastr...
|
| <2> https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-
| heavy-...
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| This vehicle has 10 axles, so it should put less wear on the
| road than a typical truck&trailer with 5 axles with a capacity
| of 45-55 tonnes of cargo. Wear is directly proportional to the
| number of axles.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| But more tires, more tire wear, more micro-plastic pollution
| from the tire wear, etc.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Nope. Twice the number of tires means half the weight per
| tire. Half the weight means 1/16 of the wear per tire.
| Twice the number is 2X, so overall 1/8 the impact.
| mc32 wrote:
| I think we need to look at it as a throughput question. How
| do we transport X tonnage from pt A to pt B? What's more
| efficient? One truck with more axles or two separate
| trucks, with fewer, for example; taking into consideration
| roadwear, tire wear, bridge capacity, etc.
| smolder wrote:
| Fewer vessels for fewer total trips is the more efficient
| option as a rule. See: cargo trains and gigantic
| container ships. Australia has some super long cargo
| trucks they allow called road-trains, I think, which are
| justifiable if you can fit them onto roads.
|
| The thing that needs to be balanced in the case of # of
| axles is the cost of outfitting each truck with
| additional axles and associated suspension/braking
| hardware versus the savings in tire costs due to reduced
| wear on the larger number of tires.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| They aren't really that much more heavy than normal trucks.
| We're talking a couple of percent of the useful payload here.
| They aren't 'tremendously' heavy but just about the same weight
| give or take a couple of percent. A couple of tonnes of battery
| goes a long way. And it's not like big diesel engines, assorted
| plumbing and other systems, and a couple of hundred of gallons
| of fuel weigh nothing.
|
| There's no need for new pavements, or any other solutions for a
| perceived problem that simply does not exist.
| samwillis wrote:
| > reinventing the highway pavement system
|
| A number of years ago there was a demo of a technology where
| they mixed (something like) iron filings in the asphalt. By
| slowly driving over it with a massive electromagnet they could
| heat the asphalt from within, helping to fix any small cracks
| before water ingress could cause a larger problem.
| xethos wrote:
| > The idea is that HCT will contribute to [...] reduced road
| wear [...]. One example is Finland, where it is permitted to
| drive with 76 tonnes of total weight and 34,5m truck
| combinations on most roads. Another is Sweden, where it is
| allowed to drive 74 tonnes...
|
| Apparently it can actually _reduce_ road wear, likely due to
| using fewer trucks (and therefore fewer axles), despite the
| absolutely massive size of the semi featured in TFA.
|
| Considering how close the truck matches the length and weight
| limits of the road networks listed, I strongly suspect it was
| explicitely designed around said limits. Possibly coupled with
| a margin for safety and human inaccuracy at the weigh scale, or
| simply lowest common denominator for limits in a market not
| listed.
| stephenitis wrote:
| I asked ChatGPT to put road wear in perspective for me, is this
| about right? I struggle to grok the 4th power statement when I
| see it.
|
| I feel like I need a visual representation of the road wear to
| really drive this home. Anyone know of such an example?
|
| > The road wear caused by a heavy vehicle, like an electric
| truck weighing 10,000 kg, is approximately 1975 times greater
| than the road wear caused by a light vehicle weighing 1,500 kg.
| This demonstrates the significant impact heavier vehicles have
| on road infrastructure, with the wear increasing exponentially
| with weight.
| abenga wrote:
| Every LLM-unrelated story always has a comment saying "I
| asked GPT this-that-or-the-other and it said x." Why? What do
| these tangents add to the conversations?
| abenga wrote:
| LLM-unrelated stories here always have at least one comment
| saying "I asked GPT this-that-or-the-other and it said x."
| Why? What do these tangents add to the conversations?
| bear141 wrote:
| Probably because people pay for the service and then feel
| the need to justify its expense at any opportunity no
| matter how appropriate.
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| No, road wear is proportional to the weight _on each axle_ to
| the 4th power. More axles (like this tandem-trailer truck) can
| distribute the weight.
|
| Of course that means more wheels needed, so more tires and
| other components. Tire wear also scales with axle weight (among
| other factors).
|
| Total environmental impact depends on more than just the
| weight. The added weight isn't good, but may be offset by the
| other design changes.
| kzrdude wrote:
| And the strength of guard rail needed to keep the vehicle in
| its lane is also proportional to .. the square of the weight
| (kinetic energy) if I could guess?
| beretguy wrote:
| How about electric train or something instead? Something
| electric, but more efficient? Is there something, anyone knows?
| nisa wrote:
| It's already there - https://www.alstom.com/press-releases-
| news/2023/8/alstom-and...
|
| Hydrogen is also already used for trains -
| https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/alstom-coradi...
| konart wrote:
| Seriously? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_multiple_unit
| nottorp wrote:
| Hmm in the long run it's probably more efficient to install
| wires on train tracks. If you meant battery powered trains that
| is.
|
| Guess it would work as a stopgap measure.
| zardo wrote:
| While every other country comes to that conclusion, somehow
| in the US we keep deciding that running wires is too
| expensive and we can save money with hydrogen fuel cells or
| fast charging batteries.
|
| Probably because the cost numbers for systems that have never
| been demonstrated can get away with magical optimism, while
| existing technologies are constrained by historical data.
| FreezingKeeper wrote:
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-67011369
| gambiting wrote:
| Aren't most trains electric anyway? Over here(in Poland) I
| don't think I've ever seen a train that doesn't run on
| electricity.
| Dunedan wrote:
| > The Polish railways network consists of around 18,510
| kilometres (11,500 mi) of track as of 2019, of which 11,998
| km (7,455 mi) is electrified. [1]
|
| As only ~65% of the polish rail network are electrified, I'm
| sure there are still plenty of Diesel powered trains
| operating in Poland.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Poland
| kzrdude wrote:
| Lots of danish trains are still diesel
| hawski wrote:
| This one is diesel even if it is under overhead lines: https:
| //pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:SA132-008_Pozna%C5%84_RB8...
|
| Some more: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_spalinowych_ze
| spo%C5%82%...
|
| This view was common for me some years ago: https://commons.w
| ikimedia.org/wiki/SM42#/media/File:SM42-838...
| kube-system wrote:
| That seems like a silly choice, since most diesel trains
| are diesel-electric... which is a design that can easily be
| modified to run dual-mode.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| https://thedriven.io/2023/04/18/australian-miner-to-trial-wo...
|
| Already exists. 160 tonnes, swappable batteries, converted old
| diesel trucks. Australia has figured it out.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Really touching on the third rail of EV politics here.
| PinguTS wrote:
| There are lots of electric trains without battery and some with
| battery. All of Europe is running lots of electric trains
| without battery.
|
| Here in Germany on some tracks some trains also run on battery.
| As a test case we had such a train for some month to replace a
| diesel train. They just had to return the test train.
| fredgrott wrote:
| hmm, all diesel trains use electric track motors.
| ksherlock wrote:
| Electric subways have been a thing for about 140 years now.
| sulam wrote:
| The truck is not 74 tons, it's capable of moving that weight in
| cargo. Title update would be nice.
| imoverclocked wrote:
| This is how trucks are referred to. A 74 ton truck is not
| expected to weigh 74 tons.
| sulam wrote:
| That's great. Do we expect the typical HN reader to know
| this? While I don't think I'm 100% representative, I looked
| at that title and thought "wow, that's a really big truck! Is
| it used for mining?"
| postalrat wrote:
| What do you think the typical HN reader thinks when they
| hear "1 ton pickup truck"?
| el_benhameen wrote:
| I'm all for keeping the original title, but thanks to
| your comment I'm one of "today's 10,000" to realize what
| that term means. And I grew up around trucks!
| talldatethrow wrote:
| Even better, when they hear commercials for America's
| best selling half ton truck, did they really think it
| weighed 1000 lbs?
| sulam wrote:
| Truthfully I didn't think much about it, but yes I
| assumed that was their weight, in the same way that a
| heavy-weight boxer fights in a particular weight class.
| smolder wrote:
| I expect them mostly to know, and for those that didn't
| know trucks are categorized by payload to learn it from the
| comments, like this.
| croisillon wrote:
| the truck itself weighs only 9 tons, it's the battery that
| weighs 65
| kvetching wrote:
| Diesel is much more energy efficient than batteries.
| csours wrote:
| Sure, and dumping mercury from your gold mine is cheap.
| kube-system wrote:
| Unfortunately, the best way to turn diesel into _motion_ is an
| internal combustion engine, and internal combustion engines
| have very poor efficiency.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Pray tell why do all the largest pieces of equipment on the
| planet use electric drives? This may be direct plugin to the
| grid, or diesel electric.
|
| Moreso, explain hybrid systems like the Edison Topsy that run
| at a fixed rpm and can use battery for things like regenerative
| braking?
|
| If you come to a form and say dumb crap, at least have
| something to attempt to prove your point.
| davideg wrote:
| > The truck runs 12 hours a day, with a stop for charging when
| the driver takes a break
|
| I'm curious how much range it gets before needing a charge, and
| how long it takes to charge during that break. Running 12 hours a
| day doesn't tell us anything about distance covered.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| My question as well. The next sentence says: "In the long term,
| the truck will also run between Gothenburg and the city of
| Boras, 70 km from Gothenburg."
|
| So the implication is that it's not being used for that
| distance yet.
|
| 70km is really not very far. Great if you can take some short
| haul diesels off the road I guess, but that's not even a 1-hr
| drive on most roads.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| That is pretty cool, it has definitely been an interesting
| electric truck week. I especially like Volvo USA's Electric VNR
| series (https://www.volvotrucks.us/trucks/vnr-electric/).
|
| As someone who tries to curate a wider notification network of
| new technologies, I found this 'hole' in my sources on electric
| truck availability/deployment kind of notable. Now I'm going to
| need to find some sort of 'Transport News' type publication that
| summarizes these things monthly or quarterly :-).
| kramerger wrote:
| I believe I speak for everyone here when I say this:
|
| This calls for a new van Damme commercial.
|
| Edit: the old one https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M7FIvfx5J10
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| If someone else does it would it have the same impact? I think
| part of the reason it worked so well is because Van Damme was
| well known for exactly that sort of stunt.
|
| But Van Damme is 63. Even though I'm sure he is fitter, faster,
| and more supple than 99% of the population of any age if he
| could do that again now that would be quite some achievement I
| think. Even with safety lines.
| pjot wrote:
| That is an amazing commercial.
|
| The dynamic steering is too
| btbuildem wrote:
| I wonder how good their regenerative braking is -- that's a lot
| of kinetic energy to both have to stop effectively and to take
| advantage of as, well, energy.
|
| Most diesel trucks use a jake brake / engine brake because the
| wheel brakes would otherwise wear out relatively fast, or even
| overheat and fail on longer downhills.
|
| Seems like in-wheel motors are just about perfect for this
| application, and if they can put a reasonable fraction of that
| energy back into the batteries, even better.
| gumby wrote:
| Pretty dammning for that Tesla / Pepsi report from yesterday:
|
| https://bradmunchen.substack.com/p/scoop-the-tesla-semi-from...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38297765
| kortilla wrote:
| I don't think an article from a blogger with no source really
| carries much weight.
| mdgrech23 wrote:
| This is silly. We need to start viewing gas as a precious
| resource and treating it as such which means creating cities that
| don't take a car to get around in.
| paravz wrote:
| Extra battery in the trailer can make it go so much further. And
| make battery in the trailer replaceable during a "charge" stop
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-17 23:00 UTC)