Nikola Motor Announces 16 Future Hydrogen Stations Covering Over 2,000 Miles

NOV 18 2017 BY MARK KANE 199

Now faced with some serious zero emission competition from Tesla’s 500 mile all-electric Semi arriving in 2019, the Nikola Motor Company has began the installation of its hydrogen station infrastructure for its upcoming fuel cell trucks, set to arrive in 2020.

Two of the initial 16 mega-stations are about to begin construction, the units will initially serve as demonstration stations, and to serve the company’s prototype trucks for testing.

Tesla Semi Competitor

Nikola Two

Nikola Motor states that the network will be the largest in the world.

The first 16 stations will span over 2,000 miles, which is just more than a 100 mile separation on average.

The company admitted that tweaked its plans a little bit, and decided to install smaller stations, but with more of them around the major routes.  When the truck was unveiled a year ago, the company promised 364 refueling stations would ultimately be built, with 50 in service by the time the truck launches in 2020.

The stations will initially be producing 1 ton of hydrogen a day, but future mega-stations once in service able produce 8,000 kg of hydrogen a day, which is enough for 100-160 refuels at an anticipated truck consumption of 50-75 kg a day. On-site production through electrolysis is to be performed using wind, solar and hydro-electricity as much as possible.

“We are excited to announce our partnership with Nikola for a joint endeavor to develop mega-scale hydrogen fueling stations based on our new cluster design…

Our initial two demo stations will provide one ton of hydrogen to Nikola Motor’s prototype trucks and serve as design verification for Nel’s mega-scale concept. This solution will be jointly developed and scaled into the world’s most efficient network of low-cost hydrogen production and fueling sites,” said Jon André Løkke, Chief Executive Officer of Nel.

A statement from Nel ASA gives further details about the station once it moves past the demo stage:

The initial part of the partnership includes building two demo-stations for hydrogen fueling, which will serve the Nikola test fleet that will begin rolling out next year. For the following mega-stations, Nel will incorporate its clustering concept, where eight Nel A-485 electrolysers are integrated into one unit, to achieve lower CapEx levels.

These mega-stations are also able to be upgraded to 32,000 kg as needed, with 4,000 kg of backup storage for redundancy.  Nel ASA says Nikola has “an initial target to build 16 of the mega-scale hydrogen stations between 2019-2021”.

Nikola CEO Trevor Milton said:

“Nikola Motor Company is leading the way for hydrogen in the world. Nikola has issued Nel a purchase order for the first two stations, based on Nel’s alkaline electrolysers and H2Station technology. Our teams have decided to double our initial station number to 16 by reducing the size of the stations and create more hydrogen lanes.”

Scott Perry, Nikola’s chief operating officer said:

“We have thousands of trucks that have been reserved and need to be delivered. The stations are the first step to completing that process. Nel has delivered over 3,500 hydrogen solutions in over 80 countries since 1927. We are confident they can deliver.”

Each station is anticipated to have the following specifications:

  • Nel ASA to provide engineering, electrolysis, and fueling equipment. Nikola will provide the balance of plant, construction, dispensers and other station equipment.
  • Hydrogen stations will initially produce up to eight tons daily, but can also be expanded up to 32 tons per day
  • Each Nikola truck is anticipated to consume around 50-75 kgs per day
  • Each Nikola truck will store between two and three megawatt hours (mWh) of energy.
  • Each station will have around 4,000 kgs of backup storage for redundancy
  • Each station is anticipated to produce hydrogen at 700 bar (10,000 psi) and 350 bar (5,000 psi)
  • Nikola will allow all hydrogen vehicles to fill at their stations

In a recent Tweet, Nikola Motor also responded to the Tesla Semi unveiling by doing some…math. The better-than-expected Tesla truck (500 miles range vs estimate of up to 250 miles) will now certainly compete with the Nikola One/Nikola Two hydrogen fuel cell truck, which probably isn’t great news for Nikola.

Categories: Trucks

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

199 Comments on "Nikola Motor Announces 16 Future Hydrogen Stations Covering Over 2,000 Miles"

newest oldest most voted

The boondoggle continues… I hope no one is around when something explodes.

Does propane scare you too? There is a tank outside that holds 250 gallons. Hydrogen is safer than propane.

No, hydrogen is not safer than propane. Hydrogen is the smallest element, and is corrosive. It leaks easily, and is extremely combustible. No rubles for you.

You are certainly correct, hydrogen is very corrosive to Musk cult narrative. It must be forbidden for that reason!

Ah, it’s morning in Russia at the troll farm.

Notice how eager fool cell fans like zzzzzzzzz are to deny science. They deny economic reality, too!

Hydrogen is colorless, odorless, tasteless, non-toxic, and non-poisonous. It’s also non-corrosive, but it can embrittle some metals.

Can’t tell which is ‘safer’ from this link but H2 production/storage pressures of 5,000 to 10,000 psi don’t sound intrinsically safe.

Okay, reality check: Hydrogen has a low energy content by volume, so it’s actually less dangerous than gasoline, despite the sensationalized story of the Hindenberg disaster.

And so what? Hydrogen is nearly the worst possible type of fuel, because it’s so hard to handle and so profligately wasteful of energy.

There’s no need to exaggerate the danger of hydrogen fuel to underscore how bad it is to use hydrogen for an everyday transportation fuel. Hydrogen already has several severe disadvantages, and you’ll note how the “hydrogen economy” fanboys here have to lie, and lie a lot, about the science and the economics to support their false arguments.

Let’s leave the lies to them, and stop exaggerating the danger of using hydrogen for a fuel.

I think what you mean is that it will embrittle MOST metals. Hydrogen storage tanks are made out of expensive alloys that resist embrittlement. The key word is resist.

H2 is NOT corrosive, it is small. TONS of hydrogen is used at refineries all around the world. It is not the H2 that causes problems it is the stacks and poor maintenance.

Hydrogen is highly reactive, and pressurized H2 embrittles metals if kept in contact for long periods of time. That has nothing to do with maintenance, good or bad; it’s just one of several properties of H2 that make it a very bad fuel.

When describing the embrittling effects of H2 on metals, it may be more accurate in terms of formal scientific discussion to use the term “corroding” rather than “corrosive”. However, discussions here are not limited to formal scientific debate, and by at least one of the common definitions of “corrosive”, compressed hydrogen gas is indeed corrosive.

It is not corrosive. Making metal brittle is NOT corrosion.

The point is hydrogen requires special storage tanks, made of expensive alloys that have to be replaced periodically because they eventually succumb to embrittlement, and will fail(explode).

Battery packs that have huge loads and supercharged every day for years need to be replaced. That is $100,000 every three years which makes the $10,000 for tank replacement seem inexpensive.

Actually, Tesla’s batteries take 2000 cycles to degrade to 80% capacity.
2000 cycles * 500 miles = 1 million miles.
So that is 1 million miles before the battery should be replaced.
If a semi driver drives 500 miles per day for 5 days a week and 50 weeks a year, thats 125,000 miles per year. If the battery will last for 1 million miles before reaching 80% capacity, that works out to 8 years, not 3 years like you say.
Now of course, you don’t *need* to replace the battery one it gets to 80%, you could keep using it as long as you like, you would just then have less range, which means charging more often, which puts more cycles on the battery so it degrades faster.
Also, the price of batteries will fall faster once mass production of the semi batteries takes place which will drop the price of eventual replacement. And since lithium batteries can and will(it would be stupid not to) be recycled it is possible that Tesla will drop the price of a new pack in exchange for the semi owner giving up the old one to be recycled.

Do some research. Hydrogen is safer than propane. Anyone that knows anything about both will tell you that. Perhaps you fancy yourself some kind of expert?

Hey Hydrognenesis,

The fact that propane is stored at 177 psi vs hydrogen at between 5,000 psi and 10,000 psi makes me much more afraid of the hydrogen because if a propane tank leaks and catches fire it spits out a nice 10 foot flame. If a hydrogen leaks and catches fire it cuts you in half right before it blows the S#$% out of everything around it.

No, look at films of cars. A hydrogen leak goes straight up a gasoline leak goes everywhere.

Hey look, now that SJC has broken cover as a Big Oil/fool cell shill we noiw have a brand new username of Hydrogenesis suddenly appearing to echo him and long-time fool cell shill and serial anti-Tesla troll zzzzz who is off his meds now that Tesla is bringing it to thei last hope in trucking.

Stop with the insults or be reported.

It’s amazing how shills for Big Oil and Tesla haters seem to feel like they are entitled to take over InsideEVs comments, and drive away any useful, fact-based discussion in favor of their Big Lies and FUD.

Report us? Oh, please do! I can’t imagine anything that would get you banned faster by the moderators here.

OK, the email will go out right now.

SJC yes you are absolutely correct on that point. While I’m not enthusiastic about Hydrogen vehicles at all, I welcome your (and others) presence here to discuss the issue, and perhaps list why in your opinion Hydrogen vehicles make sense. Two points: 1). There certainly is enough Hydrogen manufactured world wide – I looked it up and almost couldn’t believe that the energy value of all the Hydrogen produced World Wide, as a byproduct, or interim product which eventually becomes something else like Ammonia is actually about 10% of all the ELECTRICITY produced in the world. I still remain skeptical of that percentage, but I’ll grant that a LOT of H2 is made daily. 2). The fact that I only drive plug in electrics does not change the fact that serious people are planning for hydrogen vehicles. While I feel this is wrong-headed, just as other wrong-headed technologies have been proliferated with gov’t assistance and encouragement, this does not mean that there won’t be plenty of Hydrogen vehicles whether I personally think its a good idea or not. You should be allowed to maturely discuss your allegiance to H2 vehicles – calmly discussing its pros and cons. As what would… Read more »

It will just use a different alias. Trolls often have dozens of aliases, with multiple IP addresses. You really can’t ban them, just call them out when you recognize their formulaic tactics.

They will contact your ISP from your IP.

Russian trolls often employ multiple handles. Some of which may even be automated.

No mention of how much it’ll cost per kg or per mile of H?

The first million miles of fuel are free. Past that, solar should provide a marginal cost which is fairly low.

How efficient is electrolysis, compared to charging a battery?

Great question!

23% end to end efficiency for compressed H2.
76% end to end efficiency BEV charging case (w/o transmission losses).

We need fusion power or some other “too cheap to meter” energy source for H2 to make sense.

“How efficient is electrolysis, compared to charging a battery?”

The problem isn’t just the inefficiency of electrolysis; the problem is the number of steps required to generate the hydrogen, compress it, store it, transport it, store it again, re-compress it, and finally to dispense it into a “fool cell” vehicle.

There is a loss of efficiency at every step. That’s why the Laws of Thermodynamics (and basic economics) dictate that hydrogen will never, ever be a commercially viable fuel… contrary to what science deniers like Four Electrics stubbornly claim.

You may note that the only people commenting to InsideEVs who are still claiming the “hydrogen economy” can work, are also serial Tesla bashers. Coincidence? I think not!

Correct. The point is even if the ONLY problem with hydrogen were the efficiency of electrolysis vs battery charging, hydrogen for transportation purposes is stupid.

Reforming natural gas is 70% with a 10% compression cost. Electrolysis is about the same but has electricity production costs. Most of the grid is 40% with transmission losses and conversion losses, battery round trip losses can be 10-15%.

Thanks for the nonsensical fake figure vomit. Real helpful.

Refute those statements, you can only insult.

What a collection of lies and half-truths.

Here’s the reality: The well-to-wheel energy efficiency of using hydrogen for fuel is only about 20-25%.

“Economically, the wasteful hydrogen process translates to electricity from hydrogen and fuel cells costing at least four times as much as electricity from the grid.”

Full article: “Why a hydrogen economy doesn’t make sense”

“In the end, about 80% of the original energy generated in order to produce the hydrogen is lost, for an EROI [Energy Return On Investment] of 0.25. Since it doesn’t pay to have an energy regime with an EROI of less than one, hydrogen cars seems a permanent improbability.”

Full article: “The Hydrogen Economy: Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Are No Panacea”

“solar should provide a marginal cost which is fairly low.”

Is that why H currently cost $16/kg?

Assuming semi gets 10 mi/kg (probably less), 1M miles will need 100k kg at $16/kg. That’s $1.6M just for “free” subsidized H for each semi.

8000 “orders” mean $12.8 billion! Yeah, that’s gonna work out real well for a start up.

It takes only TWO therms of natural gas to make ONE killogram of hydrogen. A therm of natural gas sells for 50 cents each wholesale.

And, that is the real plan. Big Oil companies can see oil going away as a fuel source so they are stating to transition to Natural Gas derived H2 as their replacement fuel source to keep their revenues flowing (after all, they have politicians to bribe, er donate and trolls to pay.

The Oil companies don’t control natural gas.

Ok, now the shill for fool cells and Big Oil is blatantly lying.

The TOP SIX natural gas producers are…guess what?


I guess representing the facts is not your forte is it SJC??

SJC said:

“A therm of natural gas sells for 50 cents each wholesale.”

Thanks for confirming that you’re just shilling for Big Oil & Gas.

To Nikola Motor, I know you see Tesla is your competitor. They are not, your competitor is all the dirty diesel burning truck manufactures. Nikola + Tesla can cover more areas. Go get them!!

Ummm, no. I recently visited H station, and it was $16/kg. Diesel is $2.75/gal. H stands out alone as the highest cost option unless Nikola found a way to cut the price by 90%.

They have, Nikola calls it;

“Free hydrogen for 1 million miles” 🙂

Yup. Just like Toyota with the Mirai, Nikola has to offer free fuel to get anyone to consider buying their wildly impractical vehicle.

And how long can any company continue to subsidize 100% of the cost of fuel for the vehicles they sell? Toyota can do that indefinitely, so long as “fool cell” cars are such a very tiny portion of their sales.

Nikola? Not so much!

Free for the user to consume.

Not free for the Nikola to produce.

How much are they charing for the Semi?

$1M plus?

Yep, no cost quoted for the truck.

They said: 5k to 7k a month.

Not sure how that stacks up.

Hydrogen sells for $10 per killogram at the Shell station in L.A. most of that price goes to pay back the equipment.

That’s a subsidized price, and would not be supported for long if they actually sold much volume.

An unsubsizied price is $15-16 per kilo.

Fuel Cells are so stupid. Hydrogen is derived from fossil fuels. Hydrogen from electrolysis is incredibly inefficient, dangerous, and complicated. Nikola one is a complete fail.

I see it causes great aggravation to Musk culties 😉

I fell your pain, 4000 kg H2 energy storage for 1.8 million dollars – just $13.6/kWh (1800000/(4000*33)). And it can and will be easily expanded for much lower cost per kWh if needed today, no need to invent some vaporware breakthrough technologies.

Now look how silly and wasteful look attempts of your Dear Leader to reproduce the same using $100-$200/kWh Li-Ion from yesterday ….

You’ve earned 20 rubles for your post. Keep up the great work, comrade!

If you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ’em with B.S. …right, zzzzzzzzzz?

No part of that made any sense. It is, as they say, “Not even wrong”.

Funny! The story ends with this quote: “(Teslas truck numbers. Not Nikola’s)”, then they try to do their take on what the Specs for the Tesla Battery would be! Likley using some existing Battery References, not knowing even which Chemistry is involved! Something any commenter here might do! Nice!

The upside of Nikola Motor Company doing the Nikola One is that it will serve as a great proof-of-concept showcase of why hydrogen is not the solution for commercial trucking. Toyota has already done that for consumer cars with the Mirai.

^^ this.

Wow, this announcement seems a bit rushed. I wonder if they are realizing that “production begins in 2019” is two years away and they need to get out of their prototype phase sooner. I also wonder why analysts of Tesla can name various grocery and retail chains and a logistic company have made day-one reservations, as well as reservation counts, while Nikola Motors has not. Either no analysts are watching, or the customers aren’t advertising Nikola Motors reservations as a step for their business in fleet modernization. Then there’s the possibility that the reservations are not as widespread as reported. Not like we’ve ever seen that one, right?

Nikola took in more than 8,000 reservations for the Nikola One — so many that the company put official ordering on hold.

After the Tesla reveal it will be interesting to know how many of those 8000 reservations jump ship to Tesla.

None, the Tesla semi does not have 1000 mile range like the Nikola One.

The Nikola One does not exist. It is vaporware. It goes no miles, ever.

Serian anti-Tesla troll and FUDSTER and shill for fool cells 4E is shaking off his shock at Tesla’s stunning double debut of its E-Semi and Supercar Roadster!

I can’t help but notice that Nikola One is CLAIMING it has 8000 reservations but it won’t say who they are from?

In other words, after Tesla blows up the sustainable trucking world, Nikola One and all the fool cell proponents (i.e, Big Oil companies ad their shills) rush out this announcement with nothing to back it up!

As predicted all along, all this fool cell nonsense was only meant as a diversionary/stalling tactic all along. similar to the Trumpster’s frantic “investigate Hillary” every time more evidence comes out of his Russian collusion and acting as a money launderer through his real estate (the real story behind the story btw).

Now I say if the Big Oil backers of Nikola One want to really start to spend money on H2 infrastructure then so be it. The deeper they go into it the faster the fossil fuel industry will eventually BK based on stranded assets and that would be a very good thing for our society and planet.


“I can’t help but notice that Nikola One is CLAIMING it has 8000 reservations but it won’t say who they are from?”

Yeah, I think everybody who is paying attention noticed that. Of course, the fool cell fanboys posting here will pretend that doesn’t matter.

Well, since this was posted by a “fool cell” fanboy, we know it’s a lie. The only question is what lie.

The article does not say U.S. Xpress is an investor, it says they “anticipate” investing if Nikola can actually produce a cost-competitive prototype, which of course it can’t, because… science. Not to mention economics.

So goes the narrative, sure. So, who reserved their Nikola One? Why don’t we know that? I’m not questioning the claim at this point, just wondering why there is so little information, that’s it. I’d love to know where.

“The first 16 stations will span over 2,000 miles”

There are 47,000 miles of interstates in the US. So 4.2%.

Trucking routes are not uniformly spread across the country. These trucks can also cross the country with just two fill ups. The H2 tanks on the Nikola hold 2-3 MWh of energy (think 30 Model S batteries equivalent)

Just because they can reach these stations doesn’t mean it is in anyway convenient to do so for their route when there are only a couple dozen stations of 16 like this article says across the entire country.

So what happens after they’ve driven a 500 mile round trip route for 2 days and are down to 200 miles of range left of its 1200 mile theoretical range?

Are they going to spend almost a whole day driving 200 miles or 400 miles round trip to the nearest hydrogen station so they can top off for the next 2 days?

That’s ridiculous. They have to have enough stations along all common routes between cities and ports and airports. 16 isn’t enough and neither is 24.

Perhaps I wasn’t being clear. Trucking routes are not point to point. A vast majority of US trade is with NAFTA and Asian countries and domestic food supply is predominantly originating from Midwest and a couple of regions in CA. The supply chains are usually more like trees than a point to point network. You might have thousands of leaf nodes represented by supermarkets and stores but the stations might only need to be at key nodes on the trunks of the major trucking corridors. In fact, just 4 interstates in the US might’ve adequate to serve the entire US trucking’s Charging needs. It’s just math!

I would like to see your math that 16-24 fueling stations would service the entire trucking industry in the US.

Why are there more than 16-24 truck stops in the US if they aren’t needed. It’s just math!

They are not serving the WHOLE trucking industry.

Or any of it.

The stations will go in according to the volume customers requirements and routes.
“Nikola will allow all hydrogen vehicles to fill at their stations”

Haha…generous to let the other handful vehicles fill up too, assuming they will get the truck into production and actually build any stations.

If you have nothing good to say, don’t say anything.

Then this comment thread would be empty, since there is nothing positive to be said about fool cell vehicles powered by compressed hydrogen.

At least, nothing that’s both true and positive.

No comments from some people would be a VERY good event.

Yes, no comments from Big Oil shills and lying Tesla haters would be very welcome here.

More evidence that Big Oil is behind this diversion/stalling tactic.

From what I could find H-stations currently being constructed already not cheap at $2-3 million a pop have an output of 150-200kg/day but Nikola is fantasizing about 1000-8000kg/day. Hmm…

If it’s practical at all to build such high capacity stations it’s no doubt not going to be cheap.

The more you look at the economics and impracticality of using compressed hydrogen as an everyday transportation fuel, the worse it looks.

Nikola was originally touting a semi tractor powered by a natural gas turbine. That is at least a practical fuel. I find it completely inexplicable that they switched to a fuel as wholly impractical as compressed hydrogen.

I think its obvious that they switched because certain fossil fuel billionaires who wish to remain hidden are now funding/directing this diversion/delay tactic.

Not everything is a conspiracy. Fossil fuel people would like natural gas, Exxon and Chevron both have positions.

So why are you contradicting yourself from your earlier post SJC?

“The Oil companies don’t control natural gas.”

SJC, November 19, 2017 at 4:01 pm

After awhile it gets really hard keeping all your lies straight, doesn’t it SJC?

“O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!” — Walter Scott

>Chris O

Higher capacity bus H2 stations is nothing new. There is no reason why it can’t be scaled up as much as you want.

Unsubstantiated and considering your reputation no doubt nonsense.

Stop with the personal insults, hydrogen is created by the TON every day at refineries.

Part of the troll tactic is to fill the conversation with total nonsense and fake figures. It is a simple muddy the waters tactic.

zzzzzzzzzz said:

“Higher capacity bus H2 stations is nothing new. There is no reason why it can’t be scaled up as much as you want.”

Then why hasn’t it been scaled up over the past several years? If those touting the “hydrogen economy” were right, it certainly would have been!

Economy of scale doesn’t work on something this grossly inefficient; it just means you throw money away even faster!

“ut future mega-stations once in service able produce 8,000 kg of hydrogen a day, which is enough for 100-160 refuels..On-site production through electrolysis is to be performed using wind, solar and hydro-electricity as much as possible.”

And analysts poo-poo Tesla’s plan to do the same on site for their Superchargers as being to unrealistic.

You would need at least twice as much solar and wind on site to produce the hydrogen for the same number of miles as the Tesla semi.

Yes, the level of wishful thinking on display here is simply appalling. Not nearly as bad as it was with Faraday Future, but still appalling.

Don’t let facts get in the way of good oil industry propaganda. Never mention that batteries make more sense than hydrogen in every way.

philip d:
“And analysts poo-poo Tesla’s plan to do the same on site for their Superchargers as being to unrealistic.”

You don’t need to be “analyst”, it is 5th grade arithmetic. Li Ion batteries are 10-100-1000 times more expensive than hydrogen storage. So Tesla doesn’t store anything significant. Look at their Nevada factory roof and count PV panels and battery packs to store energy – it looked so nice in computer renderings for arithmetic impaired fanboys. Nothing like this in real life, just discounted fossil fuel energy contract from Nevada electric grid 🙁

“You would need at least twice as much solar and wind on site to produce the hydrogen for the same number of miles as the Tesla semi.”

It is not twice, more like 20-40% difference. Who cares, intermittent non-grid electricity is very cheap now, 2-4 cents per kWh and going down. And this comparison is if you would put PV panels on Tesla semi roof and power it directly under artificial sun shining 24/8 in Teslarium world. Doesn’t work on Earth where you need store energy first.

Great job, comrade. Youre off to a great start this morning!

Stop the insults.

“It is not twice, more like 20-40% difference.:

Well, I agree that BEVs are not merely twice as efficient as fool cell vehicles… it’s actually a lot better than that.

“The entire process of electrolysis, transportation, pumping and fuel-cell conversion would leave only about 20 to 25 percent of the original zero-carbon electricity to drive the motor. In a plug-in hybrid, the process of electricity transmission, charging an onboard battery and discharging the battery would leave 75 to 80 percent of the original electricity to drive the motor. Thus, a plug-in should be able to travel three to four times farther on a kilowatt-hour of renewable electricity than a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle could.

(emphasis added)

Full article: “Tesla Trumps Toyota: Why Hydrogen Cars Can’t Compete With Pure Electric Cars”

“Two of the initial 16 mega-stations are about to begin construction…”

Anybody wanna bet on how many of these will actually get built?

I’ll be surprised if it’s more than two, and I will not be surprised if those first two are never finished.

Your optimism is SO uplifting. /s

You’re an oil industry troll. Sorry bud, you lost. Game over. Find a new job.

No insults, read the rules.

It seems that a fully electric semi truck like Tesla’s provides better options for fueling because it can be charged at base most of the time from cheap solar generated electricity. Trucking companies will really see the benefit of solar!! Best to start installing now so payback is all the sooner!!

I wonder what average percentage of the yearly miles traveled with a Tesla semi will be from charging at Mega chargers. With Tesla cars it’s only ~5%.
That will be interesting to see.

I appreciate your enthusiasm but a MWh or electricity per ‘fillup’ is a LOT more than a trucking company owned solar array is capable of producing onsite in a reasonable amount of time. Imagine 10 trucks that need to be charged up to go out on a day’s haul. Then they get back and need to be charged up again for the next day’s haul (assuming they don’t have night shifts). Sorry but you are still grid connected for a reason.

I’m guessing the megachargers will employ considerable battery storage capacity. At the very least this will allow utilizing grid based electricity during off peak hours, storing it when it is cheapest.

Marshall, I’m not saying off grid solar, I’m saying solar (which is almost always grid tied).

Trucking companies will have all night (or all day) to charge trucks at say 100 kW speeds. I don’t see that as too big of an issue to prevent it from happening.

Yes Scott, the electrical utilities will be glad to sell large amounts of power to these trucking companies and they will happily upgrade their production/procurement and distribution to do so.

The key for these trucking companies is for predictable usage patterns and software driven smart grid type solutions so that they are balancing the power between cheap grid power (usually off peak) and onsite power from installing as much solar as they can fit and buffering everything with batteries.

Tesla will provide these solutions and as that market grows so will other companies and even the utilities.

Exactly. As much Solar as possible on the buildings, batteries for storage etc, and management software for using it to charge the trucks.

Let’s talk about Tesla Megachargers instead. For 1,500 kw charging power, you only need to series the four battery packs to bring the charging voltage up to 1,600 volts. Then the amperage is 937.5 amps to achieve the power.

From section 8 in the EPA filing for the Model 3, the battery “is capable of delivering in excess of 1000 amperes”. So if the battery can deliver >1000 amps, then it can also charge at 937.5 amps.

I don’t know if this is how the Tesla semi achieves megacharging, but the numbers show it is possible to do it this way.

It is possible, but if they don’t put the mega chargers at the back of Walmart stores then it will take an hour to charge. Time is money in freight hauling.

But… at truck stops you often see gobs of trucks too. That means that truckers stop at truck stops a lot and spend some time there too.

I don’t think we see many Wal*Mart trucks sitting for long periods at truck stops. They’ve got places to go.

Of course some of the truckers at truck stops are eating a meal or doing other things (some truck stops even have showers and barber shops), but my guess is that most of the trucks you see sitting for awhile at a truck stop belong to independent truckers who are just waiting around in between gigs.

There will be no truckers in ten years. Trucking will be autonomous.

I’m fairly confident that charging will take place for the most part at base, and then at truck stops. The destinations that trucks go to are unlikely to have charging infrastructure.

Also, trucks will be busy most of the time going to and unloading at destinations, but that will mostly only be true when the distance is regional you might say. If the distance is inter state, then there’ll definitely be stopping en route at truck stops.

Walmart owns the warehouses and the stores. I think you will find making such absolute statement means you could be wrong.

I don’t think that would be considered an absolute statement, but a statement of likelihood and high possibly, all things considered. It will be quite interesting to see how charging infrastructure for semi trucks develops.

While the Nikola truck can store “between two and three megawatt hours (mWh) of energy”, because it uses a fuel cell to develop the electricity it doesn’t have the same efficiency of a battery storage system. If the hydrogen generation, compression, and fuel cell chain is 30% efficient, then that 3 mWh becomes 900 kilowatt-hours of energy to the electric motors. (Efficiency data from “The 21st Century Electric Car” by Eberhard and Tarpenning)

So every filling station is going to be an expensive hydrogen generation facility. If they make the filling stations simple hydrogen storage facilities and generate the hydrogen in a large industrial scale facility, then you have to subtract the energy cost of distribution from the efficiency number.

In short, this isn’t going to be cheaper than a full battery electric semi, like the ones Tesla, Daimler and Volvo are developing.

Yeah, a direct comparison of the energy contained in hydrogen fuel is misleading. Fuel cells themselves are only ~50% efficient, so the fool cell vehicles are throwing away half of the energy in the fuel onboard. Contrariwise, EV powertrains are perhaps 85-90% efficient in using energy stored in battery packs.

Fool cell fanboys love to use misleading figures, because the Truth does not serve their purpose!

The electricity to charge a Tesla starts out at 40% at the power plant, then transmission, conversion and storage losses make the Tesla LESS than 30% efficient.

Try 70% efficient for the Tesla compared to 23% efficient for the fool cell.

More blatant lies by a blatant troll.

Here is the proof;

50 kg hydrogen or 20 tons of batteries. At least we know which truck will support more payload.

Is that you Wayne Tracker?

The load a semi trailer can carry is more often limited by volume than weight.

If that was not true, then Wal*Mart would not be buying Tesla Semi Trucks.

Yes, sure, weight doesn’t matter in trucking 😉 Pu-pu fanboyism at its best 😉 I wonder why we have all these weight stations and highway patrols catching trucks who miss them?

You would better talk about Musk passenger transporting ICBMs displacing airlines any time soon, another great idea by your Dear Leader :/

And no, Walmart doesn’t buy any trucks from Tesla. They will test anything and everything, tradition started by Sam Walton. Including these trucks as announced. No they never pay a penny until they are sure it meets their needs, and pay very little afterwards. Ask any Walmart supplier.

Sorry, comrade, your grammar is giving you away. You earn no rubles for this post.


Did you run out of meds again?

Scott is being rude, he may be reported.

What a coincidence, the shills for Big Oil are working together, NOT.

Guys, the people who publish this site are about to get an email about all the insults. Clean it up or get banned.

Oh no, not an email. Anything but that.

I just sent the email to the publishers, let’s see what happens.

“Yes, sure, weight doesn’t matter in trucking ? ”

Good job there of twisting what I said so far that it’s not true. But then, you’ve had a lot of practice at that, haven’t you Mr. FUDster?

Here’s a reality check for you, Mr. Fool Cell fanboy:

…while 80,000 pounds is the load limit for Class 8 trucks, well over 90% of the tractor-trailers weigh in at less than 73,000 pounds.

Notice that some troll out there neglects to mention the REAL criteria for fleet managers:

TCO is where the H2 sham falls apart (unless Big Oil wants to subsidize it or they can get the Trumpsters to make the public pay for it).

I suspect only the first few ‘Profile’ Hydrogen stations will be electrolyzers. Its just too expensive to do it that way.

If they plan on making plenty of large scale dispenseries, the Hydrogen will come from other methods, most likely piped in.

Its true that you dont need as much hydrogen in these ultramodern trucks, but $16/kg is still too pricey for any trucking company to constantly pay.

At some point in time, price of the fuel will matter.

The goal is to continue to use fossil fuels to produce hydrogen. That is why we continue to see the hydrogen nonsense all over the internet.

Terrorist countries like Russia, and Saudi Arabia, need our support, or their economies will collapse.

Oil companies are into OIL, they are losing money on their natural gas investments. The U.S. uses 300 BILLION therms of natural gas per year, one billion more for H2 will not make them much richer.

The vast majority of Russia’s economy is based on oil and gas sales. With mass adoption of EV’s Russia will transition from a terrorist/mafia state, into a completely failed state.

SJC continued to shill for Big Oil:

“Oil companies are into OIL, they are losing money on their natural gas investments.”

Then why are Chevron and Shell Hydrogen among the full members funding the California Fuel Cell Partnership?

Hint: It ain’t because they lose money selling natural gas to convert to hydrogen!

So, just as with everything else you’ve posted here, it’s not true.

Of course they are not planning $16/kg. $16 is low volume delivery to pilot low capacity car stations.

They are planning to sell it at $3.50/kg dispensed to everybody. For typical 50 kWh/kg high capacity electrolizer, it means 7 cents/kWh electricity is needed, minus electrolizer CapEx and OpEx. It means big scale and a lot of funds to invest and I don’t know if they will manage to execute it, but technically and financially it may be possible.

Please break down how you are getting $3.50/kg 700 bar H2 from 7 cent/kwh electricity.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the electrolyzer operates at >700 bar, and the only pressurization expense is the incoming water which must be presurized to this point (around 850 bar to allow reasonable dispensing times).

Youre talking to a Russian troll. It’s morning there, and they usually show up around this time with their propaganda favorable to the Kremlin. Russia is big oil. The oligarchs are going to turn on Putin if he can’t raise oil prices, end sanctions, and slow adoption of EV’s.

Bill Howland:
“Please break down how you are getting $3.50/kg 700 bar H2 from 7 cent/kwh electricity.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the electrolyzer operates at >700 bar, and the only pressurization expense is the incoming water which must be presurized to this point (around 850 bar to allow reasonable dispensing times).”

As noted I’m not doing full Opex and CapEx calculation. Just maximum electricity rate, that needs to be lower in practice. NEL A-range electrolyzer specs are here:
3.8 – 4.4 kWh/Nm³. Nm³ (volume at normal pressure) is 0.083 kg. So you have 3.8/.083 – 4.4/.083 => 46 – 53 kWh/kg.

If you want more detailed CapEx/OpEx, check study here:
Though Nikola eventually may be planning larger scale than 6,000 kg H2/day in this study.

Thank you zzzzzzz for providing the link to the 120 page white paper… I’ll peruse it carefully.

As I say, I’m not a fan, but I’m not above trying to learn something, nor averse to see your and others’ point of view.

Ok I brushed up a little on the costs of these things. Supposedly, only 4% of the expense is used by the pressurizer, but still, supposedly, the cost of making hydrogen this way is still 3 to 10 times that of other methods, and since so many tons of hydrogen is made for things like ammonia, etc, apparently only 4% of hydrogen used in industry is made this way and 96% (the vast majority of it) is made by steam reformation since it is so much cheaper to do. But point taken that hydrogen for sale eventually won’t be $16/kg. Since current pressurization/refrigeration dispenseries use around $3.50/kg, and allowing capex for the hydrogen piping and the station itself, I could believe the price will eventually be around $8/kg (so lets say HALF of its current price). Ok, granted, looks like Hydrogen will be roughly the same price as $4/gallon gasoline when it is taken into account that a fuel cell car could conceivably require half the fuel of a gasoline powered one. Personally, I’m very upset that the Repubs ‘Tax CUT’ is going to greatly increase my taxes. Now, I suppose all my extra money taken out of my HIDE… Read more »

Coorstek just developed a ceramic membrane to separate H2 from methane and combined it with a solidstate electrochemical hydrogen compresser that yields low cost H2 with low CO2 emissions. They claim it’ll be lower cost to fuel than a ICE or BEV (using grid electricity) and also have lower well-to-wheels CO2 emissions than an ICE or BEV. This system can be installed at point-of-sale hydrogen stations and homes combined with a water heater.

Another new username fool cell shill and troll AnonyMouse.

Wow, you know that Tesla really hit a pressure point here on Big Oil, the trolls are coming out of the woodwork now!

The moderators here can see the IP addresses of these accounts. I’m guessing there are more than a few IP’s posting here from Eastern Europe. In Moldovia one of the only jobs for young people is working at Russian troll farms.

Some posters on here are not interested in facts, they get in the way of their beliefs.

I’ll be the first to admit I’ll be BOWLED-OVER by that combined Reformer/Pressurizer (of course it must be OVER 700 bar), with the waste heat going to a water heater preheating tank. ESPECIALLY if the SIZE of the equipment is no larger than at typical EV wallbox. At current Natural Gas prices (CH4) in most of the USA, this would be the low cost Leader, assuming you had need for the ‘excess’ hot water, or didn’t drive much. If the ‘size’ of the equipment is this compelling, then I must admit I was mistaken. But, the real answer of course, is, how much will the equipment sell for, how long lived will it be, how ROBUST will it be seeing as there is a slight contamination of the CH4 in residential natural gas lines, and whether the resultant H2 can be made to 99.999% (the required automotive purity), and how much routine maintenance is required by (I’d assume) skilled technicians? The other thing (where I admit to being even more mistaken), is that hundreds of very smart minds are trying to improve the efficiency of these things, such as photcatylsts that take solar energy and directly make H2, bypassing the… Read more »

“They are planning to sell it at $3.50/kg dispensed to everybody. For typical 50 kWh/kg high capacity electrolizer…”

😀 😀 😀

Oh yeah, Mr. Fool Cell fanboy, do explain to us how using electricity to generate H2, as only the first step in multiple inefficient, energy losing steps in the supply chain for hydrogen fuel, will be more cost-effective than using that same electricity to directly charge batteries, with no additional steps in the supply chain needed.

And you’re actually claiming that they can sell it at a profit for only $3.50/kg? No doubt it’s made by unicorns out of rainbows!

😆 😆 😆

I can see one advantage with the Nikola. Storage is the real issue with renewable energy. Us renewable minded people always hear that ‘the wind does not always blow’ and ‘the sun does not always shine’ so renewables can never work. With Hydrogen, the conversion from solar/wind into hydrogen is inefficient (perhaps as little as a third of a battery powered EV), but cost of solar power is coming down all the time. So if we assume that solar in future is going to be almost free, then the conversion losses do not matter quite so much. Then what is the real competition between Tesla and Nikola? Surely it is the Tesla Powerpack backing up the Megachargers vs the 4 tons that each hydrogen station has in backup tanks for ‘when the sun does not shine’. 4 tons is approx. 60 Nikola tanks, each 1000 miles (quoted between 800-1200 miles). That is 60,000 miles stored. If we assume each Tesla semi uses 1.2 MWh batteries for that 500 mile range, then you would need 144 MWh storage for that same semi range. If powerpacks cost around $400/Kwh (source Wikipedia), then the cost of the same storage with Powerpacks is currently… Read more »

“So unless my maths is wrong, hydrogen is not such a bad a way to store excess renewable energy.”

It’s not your math that is wrong, it’s your premises.

Sure, generating hydrogen might currently be the least bad way to store excess electricity on a large scale; it’s about 50% efficient in stationary storage use, so you’re only throwing half of it away.

But the supply chain for getting that hydrogen into a fool cell vehicle’s fuel tank is much, much less efficient, because of the great number of inefficient steps it takes between generation and actually being dispensed into a fool cell vehicle’s tank, and because compressed H2 is such a very impractical fuel.

It’s those great number of energy-wasting steps (and the Laws of Thermodynamics, and basic economics) which cause H2 fuel to cost about twice as much per mile as diesel.

Hmm – following your logic you could build a hydrogen (or more likely methane) power to gas plant to extract the excess energy during the day. Then use that to power the grid (and the Tesla semi) at night at an overall loss around 50-60%.

Or you could go through the hydrogen compression/storage loop like Nikola does. Overall loss around 70%.

Plus, with the Tesla, the loss during the day (direct from solar panels) is around 10% but with Nikola, you lose that 70% day and night.

So yes, you have convinced me.

You forget the loss manufacturing batteries that is reflected in battery cost. This is the elephant in the room that is conveniently ignored in all these cherry picked efficiency calculations by EV advocates.

Yeah, sure Ivan. No rubles for you.

I can’t see how such a one off cost is relevant. Fuel cells also need manufacturing.
And at the end of the day, most materials can be recycled these days, including batteries. Why do you think your local supermarket has a box where you can deposit used batteries? So they can recyle them and they don’t end up in landfill. Car batteries are too valuable not to recycle.

tt would be better if you came up with your own efficiency calculations here

zzzz can’t do that, he is a cut and paste troll working off a script provided by his paymasters.

Russian trolls also use automation. You will see this time to time when a troll respond in a fashion that does not fit with the conversation. Their bots scan forums for keywords, and they then post a preprogrammed response based on those keywords, with talking points favorable to the Kremlin. A single person(troll), can handle many different bot accounts.

“You forget the loss manufacturing batteries that is reflected in battery cost. This is the elephant in the room…”

Your lies are tired and repetitive.

You only have to pay for batteries once, when the vehicle is new. For hydrogen, you have to pay for all that energy loss — which drives the price of the fuel up, and up, and up — every time you fill the tank.

And if there was an elephant in the room regarding the much higher efficiency and much lower running costs of BEV powertrains, it would be hidden behind the huge herd of elephants your Big Oil shilling ignores!

It makes more sense to store in batteries.

WHAT? No mention of ‘rubles’ or ‘comrade’?

If you spout Kremlin talking points, you are either a troll, or a useful idiot.

If you think Russia doesn’t engage in disinformation on forums such as this, I have a bridge to sell you.

SCOTT: You are the cringiest moonbat here! Pu-pu and Get Real are jealous of your tru leadership in this mental asylum 😉

If they can not debate they insult.

And I just exposed you twice for 2 different blatant lies troll.

Its a debate alright and you are losing, big time.

People from America don’t talk like that. You need to refine your trolling if you want to earn the big rubles.

Gosh yes, everyone can see all the jealousy displayed among those exposing your lies and your shilling.

Hmmm… Nel A-485 electrolyzer… 3.8-4.4 kWh per Nm^3 of H2, which means about 45 to 53 kWh to make 1 kg of hydrogen. Looks like 1.011 kg = 1 MPGe.

Nikola Motors claims 13-15 MPGe. At best, it’s 3 kWh per mile, at worst that’s 4.1 kWh per mile.

Tesla claims less than 2 kWh per mile.

“Tesla claims less than 2 kWh per mile.”

And it is complete BS in real life, like usual from Tesla CEO. It may go below 2 in special conditions, like going downhill and downwind, platooning, low speed traffic. But realistic kWh/mile is well researched in DOE Supertruck program, including currently illegal mods like no side mirrors – not so much is left to invent.

Nikola stated that 2.5-3.1 kWh/mile is needed to move freight at 65-70 mph on flat surface. 3-4 in regular driving with hills. Yes obviously their trucks have minimized drag as well.

So you would have some 200 miles and extra 15,000 lb on Earth from this “500 miles in Musk universe” fantasy battery truck.

“And it is complete BS in real life, like usual from Tesla CEO.”

😀 😀 😀

If you really believed that was true, Mr. Big Oil shill, then you wouldn’t have to resort to telling lies to support your arguments!

Yeah, the idea of long-distance freight truck shipping at <2 kWh per mile has you genuinely frightened, doesn't it? Just tons of money to be lost by Big Oil starting in the near future!

@ $15 a kilogram H2 is the big oils best Vision of the future 5x the current price of diesel I’m surprised people aren’t jumping @ moving to H2. Plus al 5he coats of maintaining a 10k psi system. H2 it’s a joke. Yes I’ve done the math H2 doesn’t pencil out.

If H2 cost $15 per killogram you could not buy gasoline for $3 per gallon. Refineries use TONS of hydrogen to crack hydrocarbons.

Gasoline and diesel, unlike compressed hydrogen gas, are practical fuels. Once refined, they don’t have to be compressed, they can be easily transported thru standard pipes and stored in ordinary, inexpensive mild steel tanks, they are liquid at room temperature and standard atmospheric pressure, and they can be dispensed with very simple, cheap pumps.

None of these things is true for H2 fuel, which is why it’s so horribly expensive, and would still be too expensive even if it could be generated for free!

P.S. — Gasoline and diesel don’t embrittle metals, either. Fool cell cars’ fuel tanks literally have an expiration date; gasmobile car’s fuel tanks don’t!

A real useful comparison would be to see how many MWh of solar energy you need just to fill one H2 truck versus the battery semi. After all isn’t sustainability part of the equation? Yes I know trucking companies only care about money, but just out of personal curiosity.

Most of the electricity is generated using fossil fuels at about 40% efficiency minus transmission, conversion and battery storage losses. This makes the Tesla about 30% at best.

And here is the proof that SJC is lying;

What is funny is the 30% he tries to lie about and put on Tesla or any BEV for that matter (its actually 70% efficient) is still better then the 23% efficiency of the fool cells he is paid to shill for.

“Most of the electricity is generated using fossil fuels at about 40% efficiency minus transmission, conversion and battery storage losses. This makes the Tesla about 30% at best.”

Well, let’s look at some real figures, instead of your fake ones.

Back in 2006, Popular Mechanics published its “Fuel of the Future” article. For a coast to coast trip, they rated a Fuel Cell car as follows:

73 GGE (Gallons of Gas Equivalent)



They rated a BEV as follows:

16.4 GGE



Figures based on more recent vehicles will not be more favorable to the fool cell car! Altho both BEVs and FCEVs have increased in energy efficiency, the gap between them has only widened.

Producing renewable green hydrogen is a huge challenge. Currently the hydrogen producers fail to deliver renewable hydrogen to applications like steel making, ammonia and urea production, cost-effectively, so these applications are currently using like 95% hydrogen made by SMRing NG. And these are applications which don’t not need any additional country-wide high pressure vehicle filling infrastructure, they have their own large scale cheap hydrogen storage (cheap as volume and mass), no weight or volume constraints (like in a FCEV car), there is no replacement for hydrogen in these applications (steel making, ammonia, urea), unlike the transportation in general, where there are plenty of alternatives.

Hydrogen & steel are not good companions, neither in steelmaking nor steel construction-

H is generally harmful to steel, but it can be tolerated in many instances and by most of the steels. High strength steels and those used under severe service conditions are more sensitive to H.
H has influence on three forms of environmentally assisted cracking (EAC) namely(i) H embrittlement, (ii) stress corrosion cracking, and (iii) corrosion fatigue.

AFAIK, H2 in steel production is still an experimental process, from this very recent article-

This is completely wrong. Hydrogen is used in sheer quantities in the steel making process.

The companies which are involved in delivering renewable hydrogen to a steel making production are Voestalpine, Siemens, VERBUND.

Actually this was the first reaction of Nikola Motors on the Tesla Semi:

The tweets were deleted shortly after.

That’s great. The stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

I think the piece of the puzzle Nikola is missing here is the weight of the pack.

There is something going on here with the release of the semi specs and then the release of the 200 kWh Roadster specs that would lend one to believe that Tesla/Panasonic is on the cusp of some new cell chemistry/packaging that will greatly reduce the weight and even volume per kWh.

The pack is going to be 1500 kWh, and about 15000 lbs. The rest of the cab will be under 10000 lbs. Not terribly hard to do when you don’t have items like 16 gear transmissions to factor in. Currently, semi builders don’t build semi tractors with weight concerns in mind. There is plenty of low hanging fruit weight wise Tesla likely eliminated to make the semi as light as possible to factor in battery weight.

The tweets were deleted shortly after.


Yeah, I’ll bet they were, when they realized they just outed their own tech as being only slightly better than half as energy efficient as Tesla’s!

Go Tesla!

The good part about H2 Fuel Cell stories on insideev’s is that it exposes all the fuel cell shills for what they really are.

Anybody who remembers ABG, remembers it was the fuel cell shills who drove the anti-GM “government motors” propaganda campaign. Who promoted the BS about it costing GM $100K to build each Volt.

Sadly, as history repeats itself, and the fuel cell trolls repeat their same tactics with Tesla, some people who really do care about EV’s sadly allow themselves to get sucked into the same type of mindless attacks.

We will come back in a few years then replay the comments about “shills” when transportation is using hydrogen.

Let’s not wait a few years. Let’s replay all the comments from a few years ago, when fool cell fanboys assured us there would be hundreds of H2 fueling stations open to the public in California by this year, or even earlier.

We can point and laugh!

Nix as usual nails it.

The H2/ Big Oil shills/trolls are going crazy now.

Tesla semi has put a huge hole in their business plan and they now see it melting away as is happening with H2 cars now that BEV/PHEV cars are becoming very competitive and much more widely available.

All the “concern” trolls like SJC have now broken cover as the shills they have always been to join with the outright paid shills/trolls like zzzz.

I was thinking that zzzz was a Toyota fool cell or Big Oil employee but I think Scott’s assertion that he is a paid troll by possibly the Russians makes a lot of sense now.

Get Real and Scott don’t really debate based on facts, they insult and the readers can see that.

You must mean the 2 lies I just busted you on SJC with EVIDENCE!

You are not just a troll, you are a horribly ineffective troll.

Makes me wonder if you are the same person they hire to try and sell the Republican tax cut?

Check out the website hamilton68. They describe well how the Russians work with their troll farms.

It’s pretty terrifying. Russia has been incredibly successful with their trolling/bots. Currently, our government is not doing much to fight back. Russia really has infiltrated every imaginable corner of the interwebs. It would be nice if we could simply disconnect Russia and Russia’s satellite states from the internet entirely.

When you look at the per mile cost, you can see why the trucking industry isn’t jumping on hydrogen en masse, even if it does refuel as quickly as diesel. Cars will be no different: DIESEL: $0.31 per mile @ 8.0mpg with $2.50/gal diesel (latest Cummings X15 diesel motor at over 50% efficiency) Includes $0.07 per mile for road tax $0.38 per mile @ 6.5mpg with $2.50/gal diesel (that will likely go up in price over time). Includes $0.08 per mile for road tax $0.73 per mile @ 6.5mpg with $4.73/gal diesel (using $1.25 USD per liter in Europe equals $4.73 per US gallon… this is where Tesla may have the greatest advantage… until the governments get wise and slap road taxes on electricity) The above prices include road tax. ELECTRIC: $0.14 per mile @ 0.50mile/kWh (2kWh per mile)with $0.07/kWh electricity (Tesla’s stated efficiency and energy cost). To equal diesel costs with road tax, add $0.07 per mile $0.20 per mile @ 0.35mile/kWh (3kWh per mile) with $0.07/kWh electricity (Tesla “guaranteed” energy cost at the Megacharger of $0.07/kWh, or maybe the wholesale cost of electricity, or the retail cost in the Pacific Northwest without no demand fees). To equal diesel… Read more »

Thanks for the breakdown.

Yeah, good stuff Tony! Thanks for taking the time to do all that!