Tesla Semi Will Transport Cargo Between Fremont And Gigafactory

Tesla Semi


Tesla Semi

Tesla Semi

The Tesla Semi will begin to prove itself by hauling loads between the automaker’s factory in Fremont, California, and the Gigafactory near Reno, Nevada.

The four-hour trek from Fremont to Reno (~260 miles) is a monumental expense for Tesla. It’s also something that’s unavoidable since the two factories work hand-in-hand to build Tesla’s vehicles. This is especially true with regards to the Model 3, and the Gigafactory was discovered to be the site of a bulk of the “bottleneck” issues. Having a reliable and regular form of inexpensive transportation between the two sites is key.

Tesla Semi

Inside The Tesla Semi

Tesla may have planned the electric semi partly for its own benefit. However, once other companies see its successful deployment, it should increase its appeal. Musk has made comments in the past about the pain and expense of moving loads between the two factories, and when batteries are involved, we’re not talking about light loads here. Now, Tesla will be able to do it much more cheaply, and without tailpipe emissions.

Jerome Guillen, Tesla’s VP of Trucks, confirmed that the automaker will be utilizing the semis to move cargo between the two sites. Guillen was speaking about the Tesla Semi at a recent conference in the Netherlands. He shared (via Electrek):

“We will use our own truck to carry cargo in the US between our different facilities. We have an assembly facility in California, the Gigafactory in Nevada, so we will use our trucks to carry things in-between.”

In a perfect world, the electric semi could pull off a round trip on a single charge. We’re pretty sure this won’t be the plan. Charging at the Gigafactory would only be smart. However, the truck can pull a full load 500 miles, so the actual range would depend on many factors, and mostly, the weight of the load.

Tesla has already been testing the semi in the immediate area, and perhaps even on the specific route. Additionally, trucks were tested for platooning and self-driving. At the recent semi-reveal event, figures were shown stating that a three-truck Tesla Semi platoon will undercut diesel costs by nearly half.

Source: Electrek

Categories: Tesla, Trucks

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

122 Comments on "Tesla Semi Will Transport Cargo Between Fremont And Gigafactory"

newest oldest most voted
Not to pick on Tesla, other than as to state the obvious fact that at the moment (or in the near future), they make the LARGEST totally electric cars and trucks (both in largest horsepower, and lowest miles/kwh), but if they are going to use as a selling point that their vehicles produce less ‘GreenHouseGasses’ than other vehicles, they may have a difficult sales job ahead. A recent MIT study found a Tesla S produces a lifetime 226 g/km ‘discharge’ of CO2, compared to say, the Mitsubishi Mirage at 192 g/km. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5068585/Some-electric-cars-worse-polluters-petrol-diesel.html “…And unfortunately for Tesla drivers who would rev their engines in fury and declare the research an anomaly, the MIT finding backs up that of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, which last year declared: ‘Larger electric vehicles can have higher life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than smaller conventional vehicles…” Now me, since I have no problem with CO2, I welcome the Tesla S – although as the article states there are still problems with the mining of Lithium and other materials needed to make all the batteries required. But these studies do tend to make calling EV’s ‘Zero Emission’, at least as far as CO2 is concerned… Read more »

You have read the article in FT regarding the MIT study?
And the statement of the people behind it?
Apperently not, else you would know, that the DM and the FT took the study and turned it’s findings upside down.
The findings of the MIT study clearly find, that BEVs, even the Model S has lower emissions then a comparable ICE.
Just google the FT article, at least they were so fair to print the statement from the MIT.

Oh yes I did. They do admit for a given weight or expense, the EV has SLIGHTLY less GHG emission than an ICE vehicle. The point they were making is that people in general should be driving smaller cars or, not driving at all.

But as for me, I like CO2. Because I’m a ‘Carbon-based organism’ (as they used to say on Star Trek) – CO2 is a building block of Life, making the most delicate orchid flourish, and the fact that the earth has had 3 to 10 times the amount of CO2 in its atmosphere as currently.

Since the Polar Bears survived this period of time, I think I will be able to tolerate the very small relative percentage change, for this relatively minor greenhousegas.

If you’re that worried about GHG, you’d view with much more dread the big gas pipe explosion you had in California, seeing as Methane is 50-200X more efficacious.

Hey Bill since you like CO2 so much why don’t you participate in the gas guzzler challenge where you sit in a gas guzzler with engine running parked inside an enclosed garage for 8 consecutive hours, you will inhale a huge amount of carbon dioxide and you will be happy. Snacks and drinks are allowed but no potty breaks. We can live stream it.. I happen to have a 2 car garage in Central florida let me know when you are ready ggslp71@live.com

Hey Mr. G why don’t you pound salt?

I know it was foolish to attempt a serious discussion in this forum.

The only thing “serious” about the bogus science B.S. funded by Big Oil which you cited, Bill, is just how seriously ignorant you’ve exposed yourself to be on the subject of EV technology.

IF I’m more dumb than someone who truly knows nothing at all, yet pretends he’s a
‘College Professor’, than I must be really dumb.

Notice how no-one actually discusses actual points.

All you do to anyone (in fairness, not to me so much but others mostly), is defame them.

In my view, this could be a nice highbrow website without you, but impossible with you, and others of your Ilk.

Your retreat from reality grows daily, Bill. I have never claimed to be a “College Professor” or anything remotely like that.

As far as the actual facts go, we have posted links to blog posts and letters which not only refute that Big Oil propaganda you referred to, but also point out that both of your “references” are to fake studies or bogus analyses which are completely dishonest. Nothing but fake news.

You don’t have any factual case to make, Bill, and so there is no factual basis for any argument here. The only thing to argue over is whether you actually intend to be a shill parroting EV-hater Big Oil propaganda, or if you’re a “useful idiot” who can’t tell the difference between Big Oil’s lies and reality.

“It will be left for the student as an exercise to determine the way to charge one car after another.”

Sounds like a wanna-be college professor to me.

Anyway, since you constantly defame people, why are you here? This could be a great website without you poluting it.

You can only remain here since other places will throw you out if you defame others – which is all you do since you have no knowledge or content to add.

As far as calling me dumb all the time, it just appears that way to you because the concepts are over your head.

Bill when you belittle electric vehicles in this forum you will receive belittling comments. But I’m very serious about the gas guzzler challenge let’s do it.

What an Idiot… I drive 100% ev’s. Even the editors here aren’t as invested in EV’s as I am.

As for some of the other non-descripts here, they don’t even drive, whether they claim they’re college professors or not.

CO2 is hardly a “building block of life”. Carbon yes, CO2 no. They didn’t scan for CO2-based life forms on Star Trek, you know.

Hey you guys are the ones always calling CO2 -“Carbon”. I think you’d be more correct calling it “Oxygen” since that is what plants expell after they adsorb it.

In honor of zzzzzzz and SLC, I’ll start calling water “Hydrogen” since you guys call Seltzer water ‘Carbon’.

CO2 not a building block of LIFE?

What universe do you come from that CO2 isn’t a MANDATORY ingredient?

CO2 is a necessary part of the cycle of life here on earth; green plants require CO2 just as animals require free oxygen.

But to claim CO2 is a basic building block of life is flat wrong. The acronym CHON spells out the basic building blocks for life, or at least life as we know it: Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen. That’s all you need for simple, primitive life forms. No CO2 needed.

Anaerobic bacteria and fungi get along without CO2 just fine.

Another scientific error of yours, Bill, is claiming that we would all be better off with more CO2 in the atmosphere. Too much atmospheric CO2 has already caused acidification of the oceans, causing a devastating effect on marine life. Acidification is a major contributing cause to the massive world-wide die-offs of coral reefs, and that’s merely the most visible sign of the ecological damage.


Man what idiots. I assume you eat or drink food on occasion. I know, the food comes from Walmart, right?

As far as never claiming to be a college professor, you’ve stated
“It will be left for the student as an exercise to determine how to charge ev’s one right after the other”, as if you knew the answer.

Or, that you know more about Thermodynamics than someone who has received an “A” in a University based engineering school.

It is why I call you a kindergartner – you, who have proven you know nothing at all, and spend your time only defaming people here of proven ability.

Since you expend more than ten times the amount of characters defaming others’ legitimate statements, I can only presume other webblogs throw you out at the first instance of a terms-of-use violation, and like sludge just remain here since you have no where else to go.

CHris said:

“Just google the FT article, at least they were so fair to print the statement from the MIT.”

Hey CHris, thanks for providing the reality check on this latest broadside of EV hater propaganda from Big Oil shills! (No, I don’t mean Bill; I think he is just what Russian propagandists call a “useful idiot”, promoting the EV hater propaganda without realizing it’s complete B.S.)

Unfortunately, all my attempts to read the MIT team’s letter to Financial Times encountered a pay wall. However, I find what appears to be the unedited text of that letter copied in a post at this forum:


You have the duck curve wrong, in California due to the penetration level of solar, charging is now best done during the day, as Peak generation is exceeding load.

If CO2 bothers you, day is better. But the bureaucrats are so screwed up that lowest cost charging is at night (if on TOU plan, which everyone will be migrated eventually). Charging at night is the best in CA, and using the savings to plant trees.

VazzedUp that only would apply if California would adjust their Time-OF-Day schedules to exactly match the peak usage during the day, which currently they do not.

Or penalize solar producers to please ‘use up’ their solar generation when excess generation actually hurts, rather than helps the grid.

Granted, since if it were truly a BIG problem, EV charging would be incentivized in the morning daylight hours, since it would be then too expensive to NOT do it during this time.

But it is a big enough problem that central stations are having to modify their equipment to be more of a cycling operation than a ‘baseload’ operation – and there is a non-trivial expense regarding excessive wear that plants designed for baseload operation are accruing.

MIT answer to a similar article on the FT has been:
“Sir, We are dismayed by how your Big Read article “Green driving’s dirty secret” (November 9) turns the fundamental conclusions of our research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on their head, giving the public a misleading perspective on electric vehicles.”


I hit a pay wall.

See text of letter from MIT team copied here:


This post was mistakenly put as a general reply further down instead of a specific reply to Bill, so here it is again.

Be vary wary of anything you read concerning EVs in the collection of huge pieces of bad toilet paper that is the Daily Mail. It would appear that they are on the Koch brothers payroll as it regards the Koch campaign against EVs. Lookup Robert Llewellyn’s “Daily Mail Electric Car Rant” episode of Fully Charged. The Youtube page has a link to a letter from the folks at MIT who actually did the study as pointed out by Chris above.

Are you a part of the Koch brothers anti-EV misinformation campaign Bill? If not, you should send them an invoice for the work you’re doing or at least apply for a post on their team!

Those who claim or allude EVs are only good for climate change hysteria are the true anti EV. EVs are great, period (well, at least SparkEV at Tesla P100DL are). You don’t need sorry excuses for crappy cars.

As for Koch accusation, that’s typical liberal tactic to call anyone who doesn’t agree with him as racist, sexist, homophobe, Nazi. It’s in your liberal brainwashed delusion.

If anything, look at the science data and see that you’ve been brainwashed by Al Gore into thinking that “you can do something” about climate change. We (humanity) is not going to cut CO2 to anywhere near what’s required when three people can’t even agree on what sandwich shop to visit for lunch.

Congress needs to pass a law stopping corpoations and rich from donating to political parties and packs. When people like Koch Brothers and Adelson can donate hundreds of millions to political parties. The voters are getting politicians that are bought and paided for by corpoations and rich.

It seems that you are not from here in the states. Citizen United vs US government(2010) ruled that corporation were people and they can contruibute as much money they like to any party or person

The corporations are people goes back more than 100 years, Citizens United says money is free speech.

Congress can pass a law nullifying citizens united.

No it cannot.

It sure could.

It wouldn’t be the first time that corpoations couldn’t donate to politicians or political campaigns.Teddy Roosevelt did it in the 1890’s

Sure they can, it does not say corporations are people in the Constitution so it does not require an amendment.

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are “people”, it certainly would take a Constitutional amendment to overturn that.

And if my layman’s understanding of the law is correct, it would also now take a Constitutional amendment to declare that money is not “speech”, due to that possibly even more idiotic recent ruling by the Supreme Court.

Congress passes laws then the courts can rule on them. If those laws violate the Constitution the courts will rule on them if someone challenges.

If corporations were people they would die every hundred years.
“We are Koch”
Resistance is futile.

Did you bother to read the article? If so you are forgiven for your grid ignorance. The California grid mix is dramatically different than the rest of the US. Most of the solar power in the US is installed in CA just as most EVs being purchased in the US are being purchased in CA. Re-run the the numbers and you’ll find that the mirage is the Mirage being cleaner than a CA model S.

Oh, it’s worse than that. According to the letter from the MIT team, the article which cherry-picked the most extreme outliers from both ends of the spectrum of the data in the MIT study, cited a region of the U.S. with 40% more CO2 emissions than the national average for providing grid electricity, to do their fake “comparison” between a Tesla car and the Mirage gasmobile.

Use average numbers for the U.S. grid, and even the big heavy Tesla Model S still beats the so-called “fuel efficient” Mirage for lifetime emissions. For States like California, Oregon, and Washington State — States in which the largest number of EVs are sold, per capita — the comparison is much more favorable to the Tesla car.

Text of the MIT team’s letter copied here:


I think you need to get your facts right. They are not comparing apples to apples. This video explains how they’ve misrepresented MIT’s study:

Wow. This is motivated reasoning in a nut shell.

The world had a shortage of CO2? Who decides that? The Koch brothers? The GOP? Certainly not your children.

You can do something about climate change? Who decide that? Al Jazeera (Al Gore made millions off of them)? The Dumbocrats? Certainly not anyone who’s sane, and continue to buy and discard CO2 at similar levels.

If you look at history, increase in CO2 is correlated with much better quality of life for the children. If you’re so worried about your children, you should be glad more CO2 is produced instead of believing in CO2 hysteria.

Of course, people are susceptible to believing in the high priest of climate change hysteria religion that logic goes out the window.

Don’t confuse a high use of energy with low emissions of carbon dioxide. While they have been correlated historically there is no reason for them to be in the future.

Considering even Obummer administration canceled fusion research, I’m not too hopeful that stable energy source free of CO2 will become dominant any time soon. Sure, lots of talk of solar, etc. but they still pale in comparison to “cheap” sources.

Spark I’m extending you an invitation to gas guzzler challenge interested?

Spark needs Xanax.

If the gas guzzler emits nothing but CO2 and O2 (no HC, NOx, SOx, CO, O3, soot, nothing!) and it performs like SparkEV and as cheap to own/operate, I accept your challenge. But as of now, there’s no car like that, even the fuel cell cars lack in price and performance.

Now I challenge you to find such a car.

What are you babbling about?

Apparently Sparky is off his meds today. 🙄

We can’t do anything about climate change and too much CO2 in the atmosphere? Well, we can’t just snap our fingers and make it all go away today, but we certainly can start working to reverse the trend of putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere. As they say: “Think globally, act locally.”

“I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.” –Helen Keller

>Bill Howland

Who cares about facts and simple arithmetic. It is about religion and virtue signaling. If you can at least pretend it is clean and futuristic, it is good enough for a show.

You may be equally successful trying to use logic and reasoning when discussing his religion with a member of Church of Scientology as with a Musk fan.

LMFAO, Russian paid troll zzzzzz is applauding Breitbart Bill Howland and other brainwashed, Trump voting “conservatives” like SparkEV as they excrete the Russian trolls’ and Koch Heads’ anti-EV/RE and pro-fossil fools talking points!

He could just be a useful idiot, which is much, much worse. Either way, Russia has ruined the internet. It’s just a dirty, crappy place to be now. I wish the rest of the world would ban Russia from the internet. Let them have their own little crappy internet.

Oh, I think it’s safe to conclude that Bill Howland is just a Useful Idiot, and not actually a Big Oil shill like zzzzzzzzz is.

After all, Bill is also a hardcore conspiracy theorist, one who among other things actually believes the “chemtrails” conspiracy theory!

See Bill’s post on that subject here:

And another of Bill’s tinfoil-hat rants about CO2:

My first comment is too sophisticated a comment for this forum. You cannot discuss any subject matter here that has more than a one word answer, or requires a knowledge of recent history. My second comment just mentioned a few facts, then complained about them chopping down the rainforest (basically the earth’s ‘lungs’) for ethanol farming. But I do STAND BY comments I’ve made in the past – while you can offer no defense of your silly drivel. That’s why, for as long as you live, you’re just going to have to keep going further and further back since I finally realized sometime ago that many subjects for discussion are simply off limits here due to the defamatory, silly people here who cannot fathom a view other than their own. I may disagree with SLC’s or zzzzzzzz’s conclusions on occasion – notice how they do not defame or insult ME for my conclusions, just as I do not defame, nor insult them for their fondness for Hydrogen Solutions. As a for instance one difference between their view and mine is that they are worried about CO2, and I am not. I try to probe and find out more information in… Read more »

Bill spark and zzzzzzzz are all invited to gas guzzler challenge but they won’t accept because they are all trolls LOL

I accept your challenge. Now provide the car that emits nothing but CO2 and O2 (no HC, SOx, NOx, soot, nothing but CO2 and O2) where exhaust CO2 concentration is no more than 400 ppm (roughly today’s atmospheric level).

In fact, I’ll make it easier and have you provide car that emits up to 2000 ppm CO2 (5 times today’s level), because that’s roughly the historic CO2 level when the dinosaurs roamed the planet.

Spark you don’t get to pick the car in my gas guzzler challenge I set the conditions you are the guinea pig LOL

“Trump voting “conservatives” like SparkEV”

GetReal, etc. who think I voted for DUMP, you guys prove my point. Any time someone doesn’t agree with you, he’s automatically sexist, racist, homophobe, nazi. Idiots like you got DUMP elected. DUMP is reading the tweets from “useful idiots” like you and just laughing all the way to second term presidency. Keep it up, and even worse a-hole will be elected after DUMP.

Hell, I’m “this close” to actually voting for DUMP next time around just to prove you right.

GETREAL you don’t know what you are talking about.

I would have voted for OBAMA if he could have run for a third term.

Shows how much you know.

The only reason I reluctantly voted for Trump was to make the Clintons go away.

I won’t be voting for Trump next time.


It always cracks me up when H2 fuel cell fanbois like yourself start stammering about other people understanding math!!

What a laugh!

Big Oil shill zzzzzzzzzz approves of Bill Howland citing a fake “study” funded by Big Oil; a study which pretends to “prove” the EV-hater myth that a small, so-called “fuel-efficient” gasmobile has lower lifetime CO2 emissions than a large, heavy BEV.

Try to imagine my utter lack of surprise. No, try harder. 😉

To help your media filter, Bill, I should warn you that anything written about EVs in the Daily Telegraph or Daily Mail should be taken with a grain of salt. _Especially_ anything written in the Daily Mail.

As with essentially all media outlets, they have no qualms about distorting facts to keep the readers buying. Since both newspapers target the right, the distortion includes promoting negative opinions/propaganda about EVs.

Bill’s mind has no filter. That’s the problem; it tends to believe anything it reads, no matter how ridiculous or illogical.

Yeah perhaps my filter is a bit defective. To the point where I gave you the benefit of a doubt in the past…

Other places they don’t allow you to defame people. That is why you hang around here.

…and Bill proves once again that his motivation to post on Tesla stories is to distract from actual discussion. AKA: trolling.

Sadly, it looks like it worked, yet again.

End of discussion: The SuperDope has Spoken!

“…the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, which last year declared: ‘Larger electric vehicles can have higher life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than smaller conventional vehicles…” Wow! When did you become an EV hater, Bill? Seriously, you’re citing that infamous example of bogus science funded by Big Oil, that fake “study” by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), the one which used ludicrous premises (for example, a hypothetical EV using a 1-ton industrial electric motor, and all the copper needed for that motor and its inverter!) and which has been so thoroughly and famously debunked? FAIL!! For those unfamiliar with the NTNU fake science bundle of EV-hater lies packaged as a “study”, here’s what Robert Llewellyn (of “Fully Charged” fame) had to say about that: http://llewblog.squarespace.com/electric-cars/2012/10/11/the-truth-will-out.html * * * * * A truly fair and balanced study comparing BEVs to gasmobiles would compare cars of similar horsepower or kilowatt rating for their motors. For example, if we compare various cars to an EPA/NREL (US DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory) 23 MPG gasmobile reference vehicle, which for that study is rated at 100% emissions, we find: 100 kW “fuel efficient” Hyundai gasoline car: 66% emissions 100 kW EV, using average… Read more »

No problem for me… The more CO2 the better as far as I’m concerned.

The studies I’ve quoted also take into account hazardous mining, and the emissions that take place during those operations. As one scientist mentioned, ‘you’ve not eliminated a source of pollution, you’ve just switched it’.

Lithium and Cobalt are two problematic elements, but I’m still in favor of EV’s because I realize few issues are black or white.

As far as zzzzzzzz, and Slc might say, there are plenty of future technologies that improve the picture for hydrogen – some greatly.

My only serious question with H2 is, is the FUTURE 5 years away or 50?

Bill Howland said:

“No problem for me… The more CO2 the better as far as I’m concerned.”

Well then, you should move to the planet Venus; plenty of CO2 there!

And you appear to be halfway there. Or at least, you’re not living on the same planet as the rest of us! 😉

Well, I think people who are enthralled with Methane power plants should go to Titan to enjoy all the frozen stuff there.

(They must have needed a lot of prehistoric life to generate it, huh?)

Remember to bring your coat.

Only 30 times the amount of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) there as compared to all the crude oil on earth, and btw, they think that there is 225 times as much Liquified Ethane, as crude oil here. Plenty of Propane and Butane also.

That is alot of dead plants.

No? I thought Methane was a fossil fuel?

“I thought Methane was a fossil fuel?”

There’s no point in trying to educate someone as willfully ignorant as you, Bill, but for others interested in the subject:

Methane can be generated as a result of living organism metabolic processes (for example, cow flatus), or it can be generated as a result of inorganic processes, as on gas giants such as Saturn and Jupiter.

I believe it is correct to call much of the methane found here on Earth a “fossil fuel”, yes, altho certainly not all of it. Whether or not methane is a fossil fuel is only a matter of what process generated it, not its constituents or chemical formula.


“… I view the earth as having an actual shortage of CO2 at the moment…”

Are you referring to carbon or carbon dioxide?

If you feel we have a shortage of carbon dioxide, what would you consider to be the “correct amount”?
Also, correct for what outcome?

Are you one of those people who believe that increased amounts have no negative impact on climate?

If plant growth in green houses are any indication, up to 1500 ppm could be beneficial. If going by dinosaur days, 2000 ppm might be fine, though may not be optimal.

But the problem is the rate of change. If we get there in 1 million years, it could (would?) be beneficial. If we get there in 100 years, humans will destroy each other.

Remember, modern problem is not the absolute level of CO2, but the rate of change in CO2 (and temperature). For that, humanity can do nothing when just 2 people can’t agree what time to have dinner; I asked “millions” of girls, none couldn’t agree!

Well then, perhaps my property in the Poconos will some day have an ocean view.

Steven: At the risk of making a simplistic arguement it is true that PLANTS think they have a shortage of it otherwise Greenhouses wouldn’t find it necessary to pipe it in.

Try growing plants in an atmosphere of essentially Zero CO2, and tell me what happens. Then tell me that CO2 isn’t a building block of life.

“the truck can pull a full load 500 miles, so the actual range would depend on many factors”

The truck carries a truckload of Tesla batteries :-))))) No worries


That daily mail article is a good example of Cherry picked results that led to misleading conclusions. They used the dirtiest grid in the us, and so the large luxury Tesla will beat the tiny Econo car almost anywhere else for lifetime emissions. The authors of the MIT study have publically denied the conclusion the financial times and later the daily mail came to. Here is the natural conclusion from the MIT study: http://news.mit.edu/2016/electric-vehicles-make-dent-climate-change-0815

On top of the cherry picked results. I believe The lifetime co2 analysis only looked at the tail pipe emissions of the ice car, which ignore all the co2 that went into extraction, refining, and distribution of the fuel that went into the mirage.

As far as your statement the earth is in deficit of co2 and needs more. Co2 from human activity is causing global warming which leads to droughts and extreme weather events all over the world which threatens global food supplies. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

I wonder… if the semi is hauling powerpacks… could he plug in on them?

Thats a good question.

Not unless there is a full cooling loop for each pack.

As much as I despise the company’s leadership and fanboi base, it would be pretty funny if Tesla was able to actually succeed in rolling out the Semi, and have the shipping companies that transport cars from the railyards to the dealerships use Tesla Semis to deliver cars to the dealerships. Talk about irony.

This is what I always assumed the Tesla Semi was about. Just moving stuff for Tesla up and down the highways with TESLA emblazoned across the side. Basically a huge rolling billboard advertisement for the company. More for PR and image building than any hope of making profit off of selling Semis.

Well DaveH8or, your serial anti-Tesla trolling aside, your pre-conceived anti-Tesla FUD neglects the fact that many trucking companies are committed to trialing the Tesla Semi too.

Sure, why wouldn’t they? Makes those companies look hip, cool and forward thinking. Also you have heard the term “green washing” before right? There’s also the possibility the truck might actually work out. Either way it’s worth the money to them.

BS, these logistics people can do math which might elude you.

The Tesla Semi (or other electric trucks) saves them money (which makes them more money) so they will buy some and use them.

After they have trialed them, they will start replacing their fleets with them and making the necessary upgrades like electrical work for the MegaChargers.

Dav8or said:

“Also you have heard the term ‘green washing’ before right?”

You’re actually trying to insinuate that switching from diesel-powered semi tractors to BEV semi tractors would be “greenwashing”? 😯

Wow! I see Bill Howland isn’t the only person posting EV-hater propaganda here today!

Seriously, why are you here? For whatever reason, the State of Kansas prohibits you from driving an automobile, and you will never ever buy an EV of any kind.

SO why are you here? Why don’t you become the self-appointed big expert on Solar water heaters or something along that line?

You defame anyone who has an alternative point of view, and who has real Sweat-Equity in the ongoing world of EV’s.

You are so far removed from electric cars; thats why are you here? I know, you sat in the back Seat of a Model “S” last year for a few minutes.

Big Deal.

“Talk about irony.”

Let’s not. It’s entirely fitting for Tesla to use electric power for shipping! That’s about as far away from irony as it’s possible to get.

Sometimes I think “irony” is the most misused word in the English language.

Be vary wary of anything you read concerning EVs in the collection of huge pieces of bad toilet paper that is the Daily Mail. It would appear that they are on the Koch brothers payroll as it regards the Koch campaign against EVs. Lookup Robert Llewellyn’s “Daily Mail Electric Car Rant” episode of Fully Charged. The Youtube page has a link to a letter from the folks at MIT who actually did the study as pointed out by Chris above.

Are you a part of the Koch brothers anti-EV misinformation campaign Bill? If not, you should send them an invoice for the work you’re doing or at least apply for a post on their team!

It even gets worse, they bought “Time Inc.” yesterday. This includes the famous Time Magazine, Fortune, People and a few others… there will be a lot of Tesla fud in those papers soon…


That way they can put Trump on every cover, like a cross between Pravda and Oprah magazine.

Islandboy, there’s more than a few problems with your statement:

1). In the first place, I don’t like the spotlight being placed on me, when people don’t use their own name and I don’t know whom I’m talking to, but as they say, whatever.

2). I mentioned the Daily Mail article just to expand the discussion a bit – one part of the article I DEFINITELY agree with is that it is silly to call eV’s ‘zero emission’, since there are some negatives regarding manufacture, and usually operation, but that applies to everything in life. There are few black and white issues.

3). It is disconcerting how mind-controlled most seem to be on this blog.

ACHTUNG!!! No alternate fiews vill be toleratet!!!

This is what I expected Tesla would do when they first started talking about trucks. It makes sense to run a number of prototypes for their own purposes for a year or two in order to figure out what works and what doesn’t.

Rumor has it that they have already made that run in the middle of the night…

The amount of trucks necessary to move 250k battery packs a year between the gigafactory and Fremont is actually pretty minimal. This is only 685 packs a day, and probably 50 or 60 can ride in a 80 short ton GVWR truck. This means you are only using about 12 trucks a day to move all your battery packs.

Maybe another couple trucks for motors. However, this is a perfect way to test your trucks before selling to other customers.

The inputs and outputs of the gigafactory aren’t actually that great. A Walmart shipping center will move far more material. The gigafactory is big, but it doesn’t use that much material.

That is 12 truckloads per day. A single truck can make two round trips per day and each of those trips may be a three truck convoy with only one driver per convoy. If permitted four drivers and six trucks could be able to handle that. Even with a hot spare convoy and pair of drivers that would be an impressive POC. This explains why no RR spur has been extended to GF1.

Not to argue with your math, but Gigafactory One is also supposed to take raw materials in at the “front end” of the production. If many tons of lithium carbonate, steel, and aluminum are being delivered to Gf1, then that shipping would benefit from the lower cost of shipping by rail.

Average Model 3 pack will be ~400 kg (65 kWh * 6 kg/kWh). If they stack bare packs they could get 50 in a trailer pulled by a 300 mile Tesla Semi and about 45 in the 500 miler. I can’t see them stacking bare packs, though, so probably 45 and 40.

They could get more than 50 on a flatbed, with much easier loading/unloading. The aerodynamic cost could be mitigated by aerodynamic containers.

Of course is not much material. We are talking about very expensive hardware, not wheat flour and sugar…

Where did Tesla build the Semi Truck at, seems like if you can build one, it doesn’t seem like it would be that difficult to scale it up.

Rumor has it — repeat, rumor — that they will be building the Tesla Semi Truck at Gigafactory One.

On the one hand that seems to make sense, since the Fremont assembly plant is getting more and more crowded.

OTOH the Fremont plant is where the giant multi-story body panel stamping machines are located, so where are they gonna get those? Stamp them out at Fremont and ship them to Gigafactory One for assembly? Possible, but inefficient and time-wasting.

I still say it makes more sense for Tesla to team with an existing truck maker; let the truck maker make the “gliders” (truck bodies) and let Tesla install the EV powertrains. But darn it, Elon once again failed to call me up and ask for my advice! But I keep hoping… 😉

I say, build it yourself (Tesla), take over the truck makers business. Otherwise, the truck maker will soon find a cheaper supplier and break the deal.

Well said. Buying out an existing truck manufacturer sounds to me like a better plan than trying to build semi truck bodies at the same factory as either passenger cars or battery packs!

I wonder when they will start building the SC network for trucks. It would seem you want something in place when the trucks became available, a few years from now.

How will it evolve? As the car sc network did, mainly CA and the East coast first. Seems likely. Plus specific routes over mountain ranges where electric trucks will perform better than diesel.

The focus is really short haul, so no need for Megachargers at first. Though I’m sure they’ll build a couple of showcase Megachargers just to show they can.

Tesla isn’t aiming for sales to the general public, it’s aiming for sales to fleets. So it only makes sense for the Megachargers to be installed where fleet buyers want them installed, and my guess is Tesla will charge for the installation. I could be wrong, but what’s the point of setting up a Megacharger network like the Supercharger network, when Tesla isn’t even trying to sell to independent truckers? * * * * * Doggydogworld said: “The focus is really short haul, so no need for Megachargers at first.” Well, any Tesla Semi Truck charger is going to need a proprietary Tesla plug, so it only makes sense for the fleets to hire Tesla to install all the chargers. Some of them may be the equivalent of Tesla Destination Chargers, which are lowered powered than Superchargers. OTOH does it really makes sense for a fleet operator to order several Tesla Semi Tractors and have to install a separate charger for each one, to allow each to slow charge overnight? If Tesla Semi Trucks are designed and built for fast charging to be the standard, unlike Tesla’s cars, then wouldn’t it make more sense to install just a single Megacharger… Read more »

I think Tesla is probably already working with companies who have ordered a Semi or are thinking about ordering one to install mega chargers for the routes they plan to use them, and the utilities than can supply renewable electric for the stations.
I guess want I would like to see is existing rest stops on highways permit electric chargers. Semi’s stop there so it would be convenient. Land is usually available near by for renewable energy to be installed

They may need some real data on battery capacity reduction before thousands of units are reserved.

Coming Soon?

Tesla Energy Nevada Salar Farm tied to the Western Interconnection Power Grid (which includes California & Nevada) …


Remote Net Metering


Sunshine powering a Fremont Factory to Sparks Gigifactory Tesla Semi Fleet!

… also powering regional Tesla Superchargers (Models S, X, 3, & R)

If Tesla really wanted to save transportation costs, they would have put the gigafactory next to the Fremont factory. But it was obviously a pretty good deal with Nevada to build it there. Or as we say here: the one who buys the dog, also buys the fleas.

Now we may get some real data on range fade with 80,000 pounds and daily super charging.

The GF is at 4500 feet elevation and the Fremont plant is at sea level. They have to go over Donner summit, but then it is a long, long downhill run. There will be substantial re-gen on the trip to Fremont. Unless the trucks haul materials back up to the GF on the return run, they will be empty on the uphill climb and have a lot of range left upon arrival to the GF.

If they go fully loaded up the entire grade from sea level Sacramento to 7000 foot Donner summit, it will make a huge hit on the pack capacity, though.

The smart move would be to take the cargo from the Reno factory to the rail siding.

Did I miss a meeting or something?

I saw this coming long before the Tesla Semi unveiling and I have a prediction for the future: One of the first hyperloop routes will be used to transport cargo for Tesla.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. There is a rail link between the factories. However, it makes sense for testing.

There’s rail service not far from the gigglefactory and also the toolshed.

The article says:

“The four-hour trek from Fremont to Reno (~260 miles) is a monumental expense for Tesla.”

If it’s so expensive, then why has Tesla not had the railroad spur built to Gigafactory One, which was part of the plan it proposed to the State of Nevada?

There is something going on here which puzzles me.

Remember when Musk said “So there’s literally cars coming in from the mines, like rail cars of raw materials from the mines, and then out come completely finished battery packs and this has actually never been done before, for batteries at least.”? Sort of interesting to see…Also of note is Tesla’s electricity costs since it could be more than $.07/mile…

If Tesla is going to start doing real work with their Semi, it will be interesting to catch glimpses of it recharging at either location to see how they are doing it, plus look at the equipment there.

It goes without saying that there are several ways to do it, its just fun to think about which particular way they will choose.

I wonder how long “right away” is?

Shouldn’t be more than a month or two if they hand assemble each of the first few dozen Semi’s. They’ve made at least one so you’d think the next few would be easier.

DHL just placed order for 10 Tesla Semi:s

Tesla might get 100 orders, Nikola has thousands.