Amazing stuff.

  • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s got to be a significant amount of trucking going on that’s within a 100 mile radius, no? You’d have to charge more often than you’d have to refuel, but that seems like a problem worth offsetting to get the potential benefits of electrification.

    • Addv4@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s more medium duty, and yeah, that probably could be converted to electric fairly easily (albeit at a higher cost). I was mostly thinking about longer distance travel, where the main goal is the most amount of uptime and you can’t afford to park and charge for 3-4 hrs every 200 miles. And that is usually the most expensive model, with most getting less milage and/or taking longer to charge.

      spoiler
      • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the answer for longer distances is trains, which can be electrified without needing to carry batteries. Trucks burning fuel should really only be a thing to reach populations that are too small and remote to have a train stop.

        • Addv4@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not disagreeing, but I live in the US and even if that became a focus of the government, it would take a decade or two to actually get most of the rail necessary.