The Wall Street Journal recently published an incisive analysis regarding the economic and operational challenges of adopting electric trucks in the logistics sector. The report, based on a study by Ryder Systems, casts doubt on the prevailing enthusiasm for zero-emission vehicles in the freight industry and presents a detailed critique of the assumptions underpinning this shift.
Evaluating the Economic Feasibility
Electric trucks, especially the heavier models, present a substantial economic challenge compared to traditional diesel vehicles. Robert Sanchez, CEO of Ryder, highlights a significant disparity in the cost-effectiveness of these vehicles: “The economics just don’t work for most companies”. This statement reflects the broader industry reluctance to invest in electric trucks, which, despite their potential environmental benefits, fail to offer a viable economic case under current conditions.
The WSJ article points out that even with the promise of cleaner operations, the actual numbers tell a different story:
“As trucks get heavier the difference in operating costs between battery-electric vehicles and diesel trucks grows more pronounced,”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-are-balking-at-the-high-costs-of-running-electric-trucks-fed0ce6e?st=p91nhgi60eufetg&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Detailed Cost Analysis
The article provides a state-specific analysis, revealing how transitioning to electric trucks could significantly increase operational costs. For instance, converting a fleet in California to electric would raise annual operating costs by 56%, amounting to an additional $3.4 million. Such figures pose serious concerns about the impact on a company’s bottom line and the broader economic effects, such as potential contributions to inflation and heightened transportation costs:
“Converting a typical mixed fleet of 25 commercial vehicles, including about 10 heavy-duty trucks, from diesel to battery power in California would raise a fleet’s annual operating costs 56%, or $3.4 million a year. The same transition in Georgia would raise annual operating costs 67%, or $3.7 million.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-are-balking-at-the-high-costs-of-running-electric-trucks-fed0ce6e?st=p91nhgi60eufetg&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
The Reality of Long-term Savings and Operational Efficiency
The supposed long-term savings from lower fuel and maintenance costs are frequently cited by proponents of electric trucks. Yet, the WSJ report questions these claims, noting the lack of sufficient operational history to validate the durability and cost-efficiency of electric trucks over time. Additional operational hurdles exacerbate these concerns:
“Battery-electric trucks cost about three times as much to purchase as a diesel rig… Truckers say battery-electric truck operations are too difficult to set up and too expensive and inefficient to run,”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-are-balking-at-the-high-costs-of-running-electric-trucks-fed0ce6e?st=p91nhgi60eufetg&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Regulatory Pressures Versus Industry Backlash
Amid these economic challenges, regulatory pressures are increasing. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for example, has introduced mandates for greater sales of battery-electric trucks. Similarly, California’s aggressive regulations aim to fast-track the adoption of zero-emissions vehicles. However, these governmental directives meet resistance from within the trucking industry, where many argue the financial burden is too great:
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently released a rule effectively mandating that manufacturers sell more battery-electric trucks by the end of the decade,”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-are-balking-at-the-high-costs-of-running-electric-trucks-fed0ce6e?st=p91nhgi60eufetg&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Highlighting the tension between regulatory ambitions and practical economic capacities.
Conclusion
The Wall Street Journal’s coverage of the high costs associated with electric trucks in the logistics sector brings critical scrutiny to the practical and economic viability of the transition being shoved onto industry by the current administration. It challenges the assumption that environmental benefits automatically justify significant investments in new technologies, urging a reevaluation of whether the push for “sustainability”, whatever that might be, may be outpacing the reality of current technological and economic conditions. As the industry confronts these challenges, it becomes clear that any transition must be grounded in a realistic appraisal of costs, benefits, and scalable feasibility.
HT/moriarty
Once again government doing things they know nothing about. The EPA has outlived its purpose. It should be defunded and start shutting down tomorrow. All rules and regulations initiated by the EPA for the last ten years should be withdrawn. We will look at earlier regulations and get rid of any regulation created to fight global warming first and others later.
I believe all agencies should come with an expiration date. Make the EPA justify its existence every 10 years. Make administrators go on record about accomplishments, or lack of success.
Maybe that plus zero-based budgeting would help reduce the bureaucracy.
Indeed, MSG. In its early years, EPA made great strides in requiring utilities to reduce emissions. But in recent years, those same tools have been used to reduce ever smaller increments that have no impact on human health. And now they are being used as weapons to shut down power plants that are needed to keep the grid operating.
The only metric necessary for the EPA to prosper would be the number of new regulations they manage to force upon the public. It would have nothing to do with usefulness, reasonableness, costs, or anything else of value.
The US Constitution does not call for an EPA
Why in hell does this nuisance agency continue to exist?
When you have a state mandated Gross Vehicular Weight limit on inter/intrastate trucking, and you than mandate they must also carry 10,000 – 14,000+ lbs of Fuel Tank weight (Batteries), this removes 10,000-14,000 lbs of goods which can be carried per load.
Further, if you then demand that ALL loads traveling through the state of CA must be borne by BEV Trucks then all trailers traveling into CA from out of state or originate in CA and go out of state must be packed lighter at the start to allow for 14,000 lbs worth of BEV fuel tanks these Trucks will have. This will make almost All goods transported to or through CA more costly as less can be transported per load … Especially since many western states are served by Long Beach Harbor as International Shipping Port for incoming and outgoing goods
It won’t just effect the Gross Vehicular Weight it will change the Gross Combined Weigh.
They aren’t likely to increase the axle loadings, but might increase GVM or GCM by going to tri-axle trailers or allowing B-doubles.
Otherwise, payload would have to be reduced.
Using the front trailer in a B-double purely for batteries could certainly vastly reduce “recharging” time for the combination, but would require a lot of battery trailers overall.
Another option might be to have a small battery bank in the prime mover for manoeuvring in the yard, and tow a dog trailer with the batteries. That would involve quite a long cable run, though.
Years ago when team driving this now retired trucker pulled loads out of the Port of LA at Long Beach bound for locations in the Eastern US, including Philadelphia/Chester PA, and Miami, FL. So this insanity effects the price of products sold all over the US.
Just think of the shortages and cost increases when those stupid electric trucks are stranded on the highways with discharged batteries while their perishable cargo spoils. Pure idiocy.
I hadn’t even thought of the refrigeration units. They’ll require hefty batteries, too. More down time for recharging those batteries. And like you say – if they give out, food loads will perish.
I have to think local delivery vans and small trucks that return to a base every night might be sensible. But anyone even remotely in the know about trucking is aware the weight of the batteries at present make it fool hardy at best with long haul.
“return to a base every night”
Old milk floats did just that
True, the bulk of the weight was in batteries. The ‘cargo’ were just a couple of hundred milk bottles.
But it worked for a long time – until the advent of the supermarket…
Actually, milk floats died out towards the end of the 50s. My father used to drive one, but by the 60s, milk floats had vanished.
Depends on where, Bob. I was born in 1960 – and was in kindergarten before I was given the important job of bringing in the milk crate in the morning. (If I remember right, that lasted for a couple of years, too.)
Well, I lived in Manchester (UK). By the time I’d moved to W Yorks (1961), the milk float was a piece of history. I suppose, there may have been some corner of good ole Blighty, that still had them.
As for your morning milk crate, I’m guessing it was the school bottle of milk scheme. Did you also get a biscuit? We used to back in the early 50s, of course everyone wanted the biscuit with the jam in. 😀
Also, were you subjected to the obligatory spoon of cod liver oil? 😆
I was . In the years after the War when sweets and sugary snacks were strictly rationed” cod liver oil and malt ” was delicious and a treat.
For the green fraternity money is no problem – they can tap the little people for it
I gather these trucks won’t function in the ”selected” US states where idiots reign and the EPA collective are only provided with a single celled brain.
Will they work with a dash of water?
It dry in this picture.
I didn’t see any multi-trailer setups when I was in the wild west a decade or so back.
Even stranger, the trailers were all dual axle – it looked rather offputting.
B-doubles should work well in much of the western inland US, but a lot of it would be way too hilly for triples or quads.
Too many hills and mountains and on the flat land in the midwest too much wind.
Even then, B-doubles would make a lot of sense.
We did see a lot of freight trains across Arizona carrying 2-high rail freight containers, and trailers with 1-high containers.
There were comparatively less trucks on the road than the Hume Highway between Sydney and Melbourne.
Not many Land Trains in the US. Limit of 2 trailers (one trailer if the cab has a fixed box)
Not everywhere in the US. Here in Nevada we have three trailers running up and down the roads everywhere. Mostly hauling dirt and rock.
This is probably a sad indictment, but I find this sort of stuff quite interesting.
We also found driving across eastern Colorado, Kansas and Oklahoma interesting 🙂
G’Day Ex,
“Mostly hauling dirt and rock.”
And if you’re in a mining area, ammonium nitrate.
We have road weight limits for the US, most trucks have a max GCVW of 80,000 pounds with some exemptions allowing up to 105,000 pounds. In my state triples are legal but rare because of that weight limit, most trucks are hitting max weight with just a tractor trailer combo. Even worse get off the main roads where there’s bridges 50+ years old that have are not upgraded you might be limited to something that doesn’t weigh more than a car. I commonly see bridges limited to 10,000 to 50,000 pounds traveling around rural areas.
Small electric delivery vans would be ideal for inner city use. These would silence and emit no air pollution.
How small?
What about large bulk deliveries eg supermarkets?
Small vans such as those used by the post office and parcel delivery services.
You’d be surprised by the volume of stock turnover of a typical supermarket.
Look at Lidl in Europe, they switch in several countries.
Who cares about Europe???
The idea of using “Small vans such as those used by the post office and parcel delivery services.” is patently silly.
That is patently obvious, too.
We were talking about large bulk deliveries for supermarkets, so I pointed out that Lidl in Europe does it. And that you don’t care about the rest of the world advancing is nothing new.
Advancing how?
Do tell. It is all minimarts, you know.
They are normal sized supermarkets supplied by normal sized trucks.
An articulated lorry is much larger than a postal delivery van
Ana an artic is what it takes.
Great that you finally understood what we are talking about. Electric articulated lorries for full sized supermarkets. Welcome to the 21st century.
What?
It’s such a marvelous idea that it only happens in places where governments mandate it.
In the US, According to the Federal Highway Administration, the maximum weight an 18 wheeler (aka Semi, Truck and Trailer) can haul is 80,000 lbs or 40 tons, including the trailer, tractor (vehicle itself) and cargo. This limit is in place to protect roads and bridges. Most semi trucks and trailers have a combined empty weight of between 32,000 and 38,000 lbs so can carry between 42,000 and 48,000 lbs of cargo depending on the type of trailer. If you add 10,000 to 14,000 lbs of batteries into the equation you limit cargo to 28,000 to 38,000 lbs, more than 25% to almost 35% loss in cargo capacity
This will increase the cost of transportation by the same 35% on the lower quantities of cargo at the destination raising the retail prices when sold
Only caveat is to subtract the weight of diesel.
Minuscule compared to battery weight and ever reducing as the truck uses fuel. (Until refueled)
The fuel weight though Depends on the truck…
If it has a single 100 gal tank diesel adds 700# (7 lbs/gal)
If it has 2 tanks then 1,400#
If it has the larger 160 gal tank then 1120#
If it has 2 larger tanks then 2240# (1 ton)
Like I said miniscule compared to the 14,000# (7ton) battery which doesn’t get lighter as the truck uses the electrons
By definition, all government mandates are superior to decisions made by mere humans.
Although used against him rather unfairly by Conservatives Dougla Jay , a Labour minister after the War did write in 1937:
“in the case of nutrition and health, just as in the case of education, the gentleman in Whitehall really does know better what is good for people than the people know themselves”.
Since then ministers of all parties , and above all the Civil Service have regarded the statement as true in all situations and decisions.
“you don’t care about the rest of the world advancing”
Funny, you should say that, it appears it would apply to the green lobby, imposing net-zero on them, depriving them of FFs and consigning them to eternal poverty.
Just because government mandates something, does not prove that it doable, much less a good idea.
Europe is a very small place compared to the US or Canada. From Halifax to Vancouver is 3831 miles, from Paris to Berlin is 356 miles, Give your head a shake.
Could you rephrase that, please?
I’m not sure what you mean.
He’s barking.
Oh yeah.
Would that be up the wrong tree? 😉
Just in time delivery.
Kan Ban!
Could THOSE EVs go all day without a recharge? Maybe the post office but parcel delivery services are hard working outfits- I bet they drive a lot of miles in a day.
Would require many more trucks as
1- each truck can carry less
2- truck would have much downtime each day for charging batteries
I live near a number of large groceries in the city. They get many semi-truck loads of product each day. The small local markets also get some deliveries from semi-trucks, I marvel on how they maneuver through the narrow streets.
Think of the traffic mess if you replace one semi with dozens of minivans. I love that idea (for big Blue cities).
The Dutch company DAF has 16 and 19 tonne versions of its XB electric trucks They have a range of up to 350 km for ‘light applications’ and for more intensive use a 2 battery version can travel 200kms.(This will obviously affect the load that can be carried)
Going to be some time, if ever, before 10 and 12 wheel HGVs on the road in the UK are replaced by EV trucks.
I wonder how long they take to charge, and the charge circuit size?
The vehicles are described as “more than enough for urban transport operators” and can be charged through the regular electric network or by rapid charging from 20% to 80% in 40 – 70 minutes depending on the specification.
Dave:You haven’t been paying attention.
A 140KWh — 280KWh, cannot be charged through a regular network, you’re looking at a three-phase circuit drawing up to c 700A!
It’s going to need a dedicated supply, similar to what a large industrial factory would require. If a haulier has ten vehicles, that’s going to be a 3MW circuit. That’s hardly regular.
Bob,
I short cut their blurb, In full it says
“A special feature of the new DAF XB Electric is the ‘combined charging system’. This allows the truck to be charged through the regular electricity network and is ideal when the truck arrives home at the end of the day. Rapid charging (650V DC, 150KW) from 20% to 80% will only take 40 to 70 minutes depending on the specification.”
Thanks, Dave:
DAF, are ‘sanitizing’ the charging information. Throwing in DC, and 20-80% factors. In my opinion (for what it’s worth) they are trying to obfuscate the detail.
Obviously, the electricity will initially be delivered as 3-phase 415V AC.
Even so, a 60% charge for a 150KWh battery will still require 90KW at a nominal 60 minutes. Drawing a cool 216A! And if the haulier has a fleet of ten vehicles, that’s c2000A.
For me, BEV trucks don’t make sense. And in the puny UK, with just 2M HGVs, that’s still nearly three times our current total output capability 👍🏻
I guess you haven’t seen the news about multiple incidents of electric buses in London burning up.
When one burns up- is all the resulting pollution accounted against the EV world?
No – that’s GREEN pollution, and actually clears forgives some CO2 pollution. (Doesn’t negate it, just forgives it.)
Except for the emissions produced to generate the electricity used to refill their tanks that comes from the grid at 88% FF
If instead they used NG, they’d also be very low polluting.
If they used catalytic converters, they would be no polluting, and in some circumstances actually clean the air.
Except for that molecule that is the basis of all life – CO2.
Cars emit little to no pollution. In many cities, the air coming out can end up being cleaner than the air being sucked in, thanks to the catalytic converter.
Good joke
Thing is, luser moron…. he is absolutely correct. !!
Modern cars put out very little except H2O and C02, neither of which is pollution.
Try not to keep displaying your abject ignorance.
It is so cold in the US that heating is required by building code law in houses and apartments
I think you’re really on to something! Start in big Blue cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, , Portland, Denver, St Louis, Chicago, New York City, etc.) If food delivery results in mass starvation, no one will really care (except for Democrat/Socialists/Communists who really need useful idiots).
It’s brilliant!
Do you really need math to know the stupidity of it? I don’t know what a diesel truck cost but assume $100.000, then an EV truck would cost $300.000. Earning $200k back on fuel and maintance seems unrealistic. Those people should buy a calculator.
In The Netherland 30 towns are banning ICE busses and trucks in 2025. One example: small cooled van for fresh foods has capacity of 1200 kg, an EV van 300 kg because it need a lot of batteries to cool the van. You can see that economical it’s not achieveable. Are we going to transport goods or batteries?
Cities getting car free already makes it difficult to find repairman, they don’t want to come because of car unfriendly policies. Now they also need to have an EV van or truck which can be a problem because of range. Or retailers that need their goods to sell? And it will drive up prices, more inflation. Every new policy should make life cheaper. You can force whatever you want but if people can not afford it, then they can’t afford it. They are writing the manual on how to destroy an economy.
“Are we going to transport goods or batteries?” 🤣
hmmm… that raises an important question- how do they transport new batteries- if not produced in the same factory as the finished EV? In big trucks? On trains?
“Are we going to transport goods or batteries?” That sums up the entire electric vehicle nonsense.
“ That sums up the entire electric vehicle nonsense.”
Unless…. you are a true believer like It’sUsername.
Holland, one of the smallest nations- cutting “carbon pollution” and they think that’s going to save the planet!
Delusional Virtue Signalling politicians.
The Climate Alarmists intend to reduce the population of the hoi polloi dramatically, so there will be no need for such transport. Destroying the economy is not a bug, it’s a feature of their plan.
As Stanley Johnson (Boris’ dad). Was seen on GBNews, saying, he would be happy, if the population of the UK, was reduced to 15M, better still 10M!
The EPA acts like workable models already exist. Key piece of their fantasy.
“Regulatory Pressures Versus Industry Backlash”
It almost seems like not many people are fighting back. I think they’re restraining themselves for various reasons but the pressure really is building up and will at some point explode. I think many revolutions were like that- nobody saw them coming- as the ruling elite said “let them eat cake” not realizing their heads would roll.
I believe George Orwell summed this up rather nicely…
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” – George Orwell
A battery for a heavy-duty electric truck can weigh up to 16,000 pounds, which is 16 times more than the Tesla battery!!!! A single truck battery requires 8,000,000 pounds of earth to be dug up. That’s astounding – digging up 8 million pounds of earth for each truck battery!
There is enough lithium in a truck EV battery, to make 64,000 cell phones!
And Ronald, to produce 1 tonne of Lithium, requires 2200 tonnes of fresh water. That snippet, actually came from a company, producing lithium.
How can one massively increase the weight of a vehicle and expect maintenance costs to go down. People are already upset that they have to replace their tires much more often.
Apparently since engines have so many moving parts, they must be breaking down on very regular basis. The mere fact that they have no data to support such a belief will not stop them from repeating it at every opportunity.
Much like their belief that CO2 is going to end life on this planet.
various studies have found maintenance costs for BEV vehicles to be about 80% greater than for similar ICE vehicles.
You aren’t actually increasing the weight of the vehicle where trucks are concerned. The payload is going way down, though, so cost per ton carried will approximately double.
Given that p=mv, most any collision with one of these behemoths would be fatal.
What’s the impact of operating in cold weather especially in the mountains?
The bloom is coming off the rose associated with EVs in general. For consumers, they’re grossly overpriced, have questionable cruising ranges, far lower reliability ratings than ICE types, and low resale values. Electric buses have earned somewhat of a reputation of being prone to fires, and now the increased weight of electric semi-trailer units make them appear nowhere near as feasible to operate as their gas/diesel counterparts. So it’s becoming evident that EVs of all the various types are being relegated to a niche market, while ICEs seem likely to dominate. So we’re seeing a repeat of the supposed transition away from fossil fuels; i.e., it hasn’t happened and is a long way from actually happening, if at all.
What environmental benefits?
Amid these economic challenges, regulatory pressures are increasing. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for example, has introduced mandates for greater sales of battery-electric trucks. Similarly, California’s aggressive regulations aim to fast-track the adoption of zero-emissions vehicles. However, these governmental directives meet resistance from within the trucking industry, where many argue the financial burden is too great: The EPA Does not have the legal right to impose legislation because only the House of Representatives and the Senate have that. We are talking here about an executive body without legislative power. This is a major problem in America where states are currently litigating against Biden. The problem is that there are always companies that would initially like to use the subsidies that California gives, among others, while there are thousands of homeless people walking around and tens of thousands of Californians leaving the state.
Just a thought.
In the UK, there are about 30 million cars, and about 2 million HGVs.
So here’s the issue, DAF have produced a couple of trucks, the largest HGV is a 280KWh, which would be a typical articulated vehicle (semi in the US). Dave Andrews, says they can be charged in 40–70 minutes (probably from manufacturer’s spec).
Simple maths, 2M x 280KWh vehicles would require 560 GWs.
That is about 10 times the gross UK installed capacity. I leave it to you guys to comment. 😊
fast charging soon leads to useless batteries
annual operating costs by 56%, amounting to an additional $3.4 million
That sounds like someone seriously misplaced a decimal point. $3.4 million is a pittance in California finances.