
Tesla Semis Are Cheaper Than Rail Enough of the Time to Reshape Ground Freight - rbanffy
https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/16/tesla-semis-are-cheaper-than-rail-enough-of-the-time-to-reshape-ground-freight/
======
nealabq
The article touches on many factors that influence the cost of freight traffic
by road and by rail, but it doesn't mention diesel taxes that help pay for
road maintenance. Presumably electric trucks will eventually also have to pay
some kind of similar toll or tax for the use of the roads.

~~~
upofadown
... and fuel/user taxes tend to only pay for something like 50% of the road
cost. The rest ends up being a government subsidy for road shipping which
might be reexamined if electric trucks ever become a big thing.

------
fred_is_fred
I find the argument about the Tesla windshield being a cost savings
fascinating. Truck transport companies operate on thin margins in a commodity
market - if there was something to be squeezed out in efficiency or cost
savings by using stronger glass - wouldn't it have already been done?

------
urnicus
Train capacity is also sharply reduced during a downturn by stowing cars to
keep prices elevated. Having an alternate option (an option with capital
overhead that makes it more difficult to park during a downturn) will
hopefully force more competition during those times.

------
jdlshore
A large part of the article’s argument is based on convoys of self-driving
trucks where only the first truck is actively driven. The others don’t have
drivers or can be sleeping.

So you can mentally add “...when self-driving technology pans out and laws
change” to the title.

------
floatingatoll
I'm disappointed not to see any consideration of "tons of freight" replacement
intervals for roads versus rails.

------
AdamJacobMuller
> In China, high-speed rail is all electric with externally supplied
> electricity. This isn’t hard, it’s just not the freight rail standard yet.
> The engines are all diesel electric hybrids as it is, so displacing the
> diesel part is relatively straightforward.

This is hilarious.

~~~
salawat
I concur.

The American Transcontinental railway system had it's foundations laid in a
time where full electrical generation and distribution were not by any means
solved problems.

Furthermore, the safety issues that would come with trying to use any of the
previous rail infrastructure, (which one would be mad _not_ to given how much
of it there is) would make things nigh impossible to make work safely given
the fact there is quite literally nothing separating people from the tracks.
Which is not something would worthwhile to have to implement everywhere given
that would consume far more energy to establish than it would save in
operation for a very long time.

Also, China's "high speed" rail formula is great for moving people around, but
definitely _not_ a regime you want to have to design around for freight.
Freight is generally far more massive/dense than the same volume of people.
Acceleration of that load to/from excessively high speeds is an engineering
nightmare. Not impossible, but definitely expensive.

That's just the points I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure someone
in the industry would have more insight than I.

~~~
tomatotomato37
I can't imagine upgrading the US freight rail system with basic catenary
technology to be that expensive. You don't really need all the fancy
tensioning technology and stuff for a train that goes above 50mph maybe once a
month; an offset electric pole would be enough. It's not that much more a
safety issue than the 50 year old wooden electric poles we already have
running mains voltage all over the country. Also in contrast to passenger
services the US frieght system actually has a lot of money being thrown around
so it'll be able to afford it.

That being said I still think this article is a bit of a shill piece.
Reinforced glass windshields aren't going to affect shit, especially when they
are already mounted 6 feet off the ground and thus out of range of most kicked
up road debris.

