WHAT do yall think about this guys view?
As a 30-something progressive engineer I’m 100% in favor of greater efficiency, but what they're not telling you here is that the very expensive lithium battery packs are just an OPTION that is still in development at Balqon. They’re not coming soon and very few fleets will bother to buy them when they do.
In the meantime, the actual battery packs currently used on these Balqon trucks are super low-tech, inefficient lead acid units weighing 6 tons each---yes 6 tons, as in 12,000lbs--and they are mounted front-mid-ship. As a result, the front tire rolling resistance and wear is a major issue for these electric yard haulers, so much so that they require a custom, heavy-duty power steering system with an auxiliary cooling system. These systems alone consume a great deal of power because the front wheels are extremely difficult to turn when these trucks are stationary or running at low speed--a common occurrence as they maneuver around a dock or truck depot.
Balqon worked with a tire manufacturer and a hydraulic pump manufacturer to address these consequences, but to no avail. The trucks are simply too heavy, and there was no cost incentive. They’re lucky to get just a few hours from each battery pack at full (read most efficient) cargo load capabilities, so instead they run them with smaller loads. But that not even the REAL problem with these trucks.
What Balqon and the truck yards are really doing here is taking advantage of US federal and MI state legislation that gives them grant$ and tax incentive$ for both creating and using "greener" fleet vehicles, especially at truck yards and other cargo facilities. Just like they did in California, Balqon's home, when their trucks were introduced in The Port of Los Angeles--by deferring the actual power production from the former diesel truck engines to the local gas or coal-powered electric plants.
The electric truck manufacturer and suppliers get federal and/or state grant money and tax breaks, the truck yard owner in turn gets tax breaks, and the electric company makes more electricity = more money. It’s a $win, $win, $win for all of them--with no incentive to buy the more expensive yet more efficient Li-ion batteries. $hwinggg!!!
Now, if you actually added the #1) increased carbon footprint of those electric plants charging those inefficient lead-acid truck batteries with the carbon footprint required to: #2) Produce, ship, and recycle those low-tech lead acid batteries; #3) Produce and wear down more tires per year; #4) Charge all of the extra batteries required DAILY, and #5) Make more truck run$ per day, then you would see that these trucks actually cost more to run and produce MORE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS than it would to produce and run a fleet of lighter, more efficient high-tech turbo-diesel or turbo-diesel/electric hybrid trucks.
So it’s really all about GREENER WALLET$, not a greener environment. But why let the engineering facts get in the way of big money making more big money, especially from taxpayers. It’s SO much easier to extract tax dollars from naïve, bleeding heart, pimple-faced tree-huggers with no technical background when they sell it the other way around. $$$,$$$,$$$ (And no, I'm not a Republican! Just an engineer.)
At present, a turbo-diesel or a turbo-diesel/electric hybrid fleet is a FAR more energy and cost efficient solution--both $hort-term and long term, at the work $ite, AND to manufacture from cradle to grave. End of story.
Now, if they did switch to the far more expensive yet lighter, Li-ion (or even newer tech) batteries, AND used nuclear or solar power to charge the batteries, THEN it just might be a wash. Oh wait, the lithium is extracted from Chile, then shipped to China, then processed, then shipped to Japan to make the battery packs, then shipped to…OH, there we go with all those damn facts again!