Are Electric Trucks Practical?

 I just watched a video where the speaker is arguing that the amount of trucking we have in the US will be impossible to achieve if we electrify it all.  This sounded wrong to me, so here are a few numbers.

 There are about 13M trucks over 10,000 lbs in the US, about 3M of them doing long haul.  The vast majority are doing short haul delivery.  Tesla claims it's semi can do 1.7 miles per KWh.  My model S gets about 2.8 miles per KWh and it weighs less than 5000 lbs, so I suspect that 1.7 is optimistic.    Let's guess a full size long haul truck can actually get 1.5 miles per KWh.  Long haul trucks are limited to about 500 miles a day by driver's hours regulations, which works out to about 333 KWh per day.   So to power all 3M of those trucks would take 1 million megawatt hours or 1 terrawatt hour.

That sounds like a big number and it is.  But here's another big number.   In 2022, the US produced about 434 Terrawatt hours of electricity from wind turbines.  That's about 1.2 TWh per day--about 20% more than would be needed to power all those trucks.  Could we add enough additional wind turbines to achieve this?   Yes, definitely.  Present deployment rates have us doubling every 6 or 7 years.

The other 10 million trucks do not consume nearly that much power.  The vast majority of trucks average much less than 100 miles per day, doing deliveries, moving containers around in seaports, moving concrete, moving garbage, etc. The postal service, Amazon and others have been finding that their fleets of electric vehicles are vastly cheaper to operate than fossil fuel counterparts.   I haven't got enough data to make better than a handwave estimate, but it seems unlikely to be more than 1TWh per day.

Bottom line:  While there are definitely some technical issues needing to be solved, none of them are particularly difficult.  The two biggest are adjusting the power grid to make charging available where it is needed, and dealing with the range issues for long haul trucking.   Neither of these requires a breakthrough in order to make near-universal electric trucks practical, just straightforward engineering.

------

 I am of the opinion that most long-haul trucking should be replaced by trains.  Where long haul trucks operate at a fuel efficiency of 10-20 ton/miles per gallon, trains operate at over 400 ton/miles per gallon, have far fewer accidents per ton/mile, and are easily electrified.   Trucks receive huge subsidies as compared to railroads (mainly in the form of taxpayer-provided roads) yet they are about the same cost per ton/mile.  Trains have a few disadvantages relative to trucks.  All are relatively easily fixed:

* Most railroads are full of bottlenecks that cause random time delays.  They used to have fewer--many routes were single-tracked or eliminated when the interstate highways took away a lot of their markets.  Computerized dispatching recovered some of this lost capacity, but not enough to accomodate growing demand.

* A high percentage of industries no longer use railroad sidings, and a lot of them have been torn out.  Thus railroads need to trans-ship a lot of traffic to trucks.  Switching entirely to long-haul trucks eliminated this transfer.  (an entertaining example:  Tesla's Fremont, CA plant is about 30 miles from where I grew up.  It was originally built as factory for GM, and placed along a major rail route.  Supplies are still shipped into the factory by rail, but the cars themselves are never shipped out by train--they are loaded onto trailers and shipped to their destination.  My Tesla Model S was delivered to a service center that is right next to a railroad track and could easily have been shipped by rail, but in fact, it came on a truck.  Because /some/ SCs are not on the rail.

* A high percentage of rail traffic is in what is called a "unit train" where every car is going from and to the same place.  Containers have made it possible to turn mixed trains into unit trains for a big part of their trip--ship from a big terminal on the east coast to a different big terminal on the west coast, and trans-ship or re-classify from there.  Because they can, the railroads have chosen to make the time this takes burdonsome:  typically well over half of the time a shipment takes to arrive is spent waiting in one of these terminals.

Metric vs English System

 I think it's important to understand that the metric system is in some ways superior to the english system of measurement, but in most ways equal.  That the US is stuck on the English system is an accident of history.

During the middle ages and earlier, every region had its own set of measurements, all a little distinct, and in most cases, the units didn't relate well to each other.  France and the rest of Europe pretty much stuck with the old ways--there were at least a dozen distinct units call a foot (pied) in France at the time of the revolution, all a little different from each other and none relating particularly to longer or shorter units.  Britain had this same problem, but in the late 1500s, Parliament decided to rationalize this.  They determined, by statute, that a foot was 12 inches, a yard was 3 feet, a chain was 22 yards, a furlong was 10 chains, a mile was 8 furlongs, an acre was 10 square chains, (or a furlong by a chain), and so forth. This happened to be at the start of the great period of British colonization, and as a consequence, these statute measurements found close to universal acceptance in the largely British American colonies.  They made far greater sense than the mess of the rest of the world.

One of the fads at the time of the revolutions was decimalization.  When Hamilton and others were deciding on a currency for their new country, they embraced the new idea, and went with the decimal dollar.  The english system of money at the time was a mix of sensible and less so:  the pound was 240 pence, split into shillings, but also split into other weird things like a guinea.  240 is divisible by 3, which is not true of decimal systems.

During their revolution, the French decided, finally, to rationalize their system and based it on navigation:  there were exactly 10,000,000 meters between the equator and the north pole on the line that ran through the Louvre, in Paris.  The US president at the time, Jefferson, thought this was a good idea and got the french to send a standard meter and kilogram to Washington.  Unfortunately, the ship was lost at sea and they never got there. Rather than cook up their own, possibly different versions, the Americans stuck with feet, inches and pounds, until another set of standards could be sent from France.  Unfortunately, the French government never got its act together to send another.

At the same time, something really amazing was happening--the industrial revolution.  This started in Britain (Scotland) but soon spread to America.  All of a sudden, standardized parts were all the rage, especially things like Nuts and Bolts, because that made it possible to outsource large parts of your manufacturing process, and suddenly manufacturing was a Big Deal.  The US standard, which has come to be called SAE (society of automotive engineers) measured things in fractional inches and threads per inch, but they did something very special: they established a rating system for the strength of these components.     An American engineer was unlikely to specify a metric (or whitworth) bolt because it was harder to be confident of its strength.

I am an american trained as a scientist--I am perfectly comfortable with either system.  Most of the time it really doesn't matter.  1/4-20 is pretty close to 6mm .8 thread.  as long as I know which I'm using, the difference is unimportant.  There are a few cases where it does matter.  3/4 inches is a standard width for a lot of things, such as the width of electrical and masking tape.  Much of the time it doesn't matter.  But when somebody specifies 20mm, as they often do in Europe. it's a bloody pain to find this in America.  3/4" is 19.1 mm.  Close, but no cigar.   I just needed to get some holddowns for my workbench.  American dogholes are 3/4", european dogholes are 20mm. one will not work in the other.

Bands from Berkeley

I randomly caught a few bars of "Feelin' Blue" from their Willie and the Poor Boys album brought me back...I probably hadn't heard this since I lived in Berkeley in the mid '70s, but it took probably less than a second to recognize it.

Credence Clearwater Revival.  Technically, from El Cerrito, a town just north of Berkeley, but they made most of their records at Fantasy Records, on Parker Street, in Berkeley.  I lived on Parker myself during school year 74-5, although over a mile from the studio.

Country Joe and the Fish.  Joe McDonald's family didn't move to Berkeley until he was an adult, but his mother would be mayor while I lived there and the band would be formed there.   I saw them once, Country Joe without the rest of the band a couple of times.  Of course everybody saw them at Woodstock:  "Give me an F.  Give a U..."

Commander Cody and his Lost Planet Airmen.   Their one big hit, Hot Rod Lincoln, was very out of character for them.   I saw them at Winterland, the Oakland Coleseum, several free shows in various parks.  They always put on a great show.

Joy of Cooking.  A short-lived but terrific band, led by two women.  One of them, Terry Garthwaite, sang in a style strongly resembling Mavis Staples and I was a fan of them before I'd ever heard of the Staples Singers.

Greg Kihn Band.  I first saw Greg Kihn, busking, solo, with his guitar in 1973 on the steps of the Student Union building on the Berkeley campus.  He played there several times, until he came back with a full band.  I wasn't really surprised when he had a hit on MTV in the early 80s.  His band was largely from another Berkeley band, the Earth Quake, which was pretty local.  One of their songs was called AC-DC and it enough resembled a different, later band called AC-DC that at first I thought it was the same band.

The Klezmorim were a Klezmer band that got its start playing in Sproul Plaza, where I saw them several times.  They had some success

Green Day and Counting Crows were both from Berkeley, and didn't get their start until after I'd left.

There are of course a bunch of other bay area bands that frequently played Berkeley.  I saw Jerry Garcia at the Keystone, and the Grateful Dead famously played the Greek Theater on campus several times.  I saw Merle Saunders a couple of times on campus.  Tower of Power didn't come to Berkeley much, but their home base was just south in Oakland.  Santana

Reagan Won in a Landslide?

 No, Reagan didn't win the election of 1980 in a landslide, or even close to it.  But he governed as if he had won the mandate conferred by a landslide.  

There were three main candidates in 1980:

Jimmy Carter, incumbent, got 35.5M votes and 49 electors.

Ronald Reagan got 43.9M votes and 489 electors

John Anderson got 5.7M votes and no electors.

Anderson was a moderate republican, a thing which no longer exists.  In hindsight, it's pretty clear that he ran as a spoiler, stealing votes from Carter.  In addition to the third party candidate, Reagan's team sabotaged the hostage negotiations with Iran, getting them to defer the release of the prisoners until shortly before the inauguration.  Reagan took credit for this, even though it was entirely the work of Carter's team.

Before this sabotage occurred, it looked like Carter had a solid path to re-election, being up by as much as 15 points over Reagan.

Carter won only 6 states: Hawaii, Maryland, Rhode Island, DC, and his home state of Georgia and his running mate's home of Minnesota.    But many of the states that Reagan won were flipped by Anderson's cut:

Reagan won Arkansas bu 5,000 votes.  Anderson got 22000.  6 electors.

Reagan won Connecticut by 135000 votes.  Anderson got 172000.  8 electors.

Reagan won Delaware by 5500 votes, Anderson got 16000.   3 electors.

Reagan won Kentucky by 19000 votes.  Anderson got 31000,  9 electors

Reagan won Maine by 17000 votes.  Anderson got 53000.   2 electors.

Reagan won Massachusetts by 4000 votes.  Anderson got 382,000.   14 electors.   (This is where I was living in 1980)

Reagan won New York by 170,000 votes.  Anderson got 468000.   41 electors

Reagan won North Carolina by 40,000 votes.  Anderson got 53000. 13 electors.

Reagan won Tennesee by 4500 votes.  Anderson got 36,000.  10 electors.

Reagan won Vermont by 12000 votes. Anderson got 32000.   3 electors.

Reagan won Wisconsin by 107000 votes.  Anderson got 160,000.  11 electors.

All together, Anderson took at least 120 electors from Carter.   this was not enough to overturn the election: 369 to 169 electors.  Reagan won.  but where the pundit class tells us it was a landslide, it was actually a fairly near thing.

Reagan proceeded to sabotage the income tax, unions, monopoly regulation, infrastructure construction and much more, and we have still not been able to recover to this day, more than 40 years later.