More Tesla Semi Orders Come In Bringing Total To 55-Plus

Red Tesla Semi exterior front

NOV 23 2017 BY MARK KANE 47

The order list for the Tesla Semi increased by a few more companies that publicly admitted intention to order.

Tesla Semi

So far we’ve heard of 25 reservations by Loblaws and 15 by Walmart, with some reports putting a whopping 40 reservations on J.B. Hunt. A few Ryder orders were reported too.

But now comes word that new reservations came in from JK Moving Services. The company wants 4 Tesla Semis (the day cab version) and is ready to reserve 5 more (the sleeper cabs).

Meijer has placed an order for 4 units too.

Another truck was reserved by Fercam from Italy, despite Tesla not even offering the Semi in Europe yet. Fercam apparently will import the truck using US partner MAO Inc.

One more European reservation comes in from Girteka Logistics.

In total, we have heard Tesla has received some 55 reservations from companies that announced an intention to purchase ,and surely there’s an undisclosed overall number of reservations higher much than that figure.

Tesla Semi orders:

  • J.B. Hunt Transport Services – “multiple” (some report “40”)
  • Loblaws25
  • Wal-Mart15 (5 U.S., 10 Canada)
  • JK Moving Services4 day cabs (committed to purchase 5 sleeper cabs)
  • Meijer4
  • Ryder – uknown
  • Fercam (Europe) – 1
  • Girteka Logistics (Europe) – 1

Total: >55

Source: Girteka Logistics, Washington Business Journal, Trasporto Europa via Electrek

Categories: Tesla, Trucks

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

47 Comments on "More Tesla Semi Orders Come In Bringing Total To 55-Plus"

newest oldest most voted

From my viewpoint, which is just an observer since I’ll never be actually associated with one – The Tesls semi only makes Economic Sense if Tesla Subsidizes much of the Truck, which they might do just to show they can make any kind of vehicle for any kind of use, and consider the ‘cachet’ an intangible benefit to increase the price of their OTHER offerings.

Unsubsidized, the truck doesn’t make any sense at all to me personally, but what we need here is an actual truck driver chimeing in – this particular guy I’m quoting here is far less negative than the real truck driver who came to comment on TMC lately – that person stating that Tesla wouldn’t pass state minimum requirements in most locales.

But anyway, here’s something that has been SORELY missing from these discussions – an actual truck driver who is generally in favor of it:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/21/tesla-semi-trucker-questions/

BH: What subsidy would that be? All the Nov 2017 announcement tells us is that Tesla plans the retail price for Semi battery packs at $75/Kwh by 2020.

This is not a subsidy. It is an economy of scale, bought and paid for by Gigafactory1. You know, Capitalism?

OTOH, Exxon doesn’t need to subsidize the diesel fuel burned by today’s Semis: the US taxpayer does (from $10 billion to $52 billion annually)

I’m not worried about the relative price of the battery packs, since over the lifetime of the truck it should be one of the smaller expenses.

We don’t know what the range degradation will be hauling 80,000 pounds and super charging every day.

Guaranteed 7 cents per kWh seems like a pretty nice subsidy to me!

I do disagree though that even at a rate more inline with what electricity actually costs it could still make financial sense if their pricing doesn’t change. Not the 2 year payback or anything they are touting but a reasonable one.

There are several rate types and prices: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Transportation

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a

I think one of the recent stories was about Mexico having the cheapest solar at <2 cents/kWh. While not every location has environmental conditions that would support that price, you have a heck of a lot of margin to play with. It might even be the most profitable part of their business.

You are deluded if you think Tesla can sell batteries for $75/kWh with a profit in 3 years. That would mean a cell price at around $45/kWh.

Doesn’t matter it doesn’t make sense to you personally. Makes sense to serious companies that only care about their bottom line. They’ve run the numbers, you, not so much.

Ya, ok Rick… They’ve run the numbers on something they haven’t really gotten any numbers for. Gotcha…

You’re missing the fact that Tesla has been working behind the scenes with trucking fleets to determine what they need for the numbers to work for those fleets. We can be pretty sure that at least some of those fleet owners, or their bean-counters, have more specs than Tesla has yet revealed. So yes, those fleet operators almost certainly are basing their cost/benefit analyses on more info than anybody here has — including Bill Howland. Also, Bill is simply wrong. The numbers we have been given by Tesla, if true, certainly indicate that a trucking fleet owner could easily reduce costs by using Tesla Semi Trucks over diesel trucks. The savings in using electricity vs diesel alone would be enough to justify switching, let alone anything else, if Tesla really is going to guarantee 7¢ per kWh. * * * * * The real question in my book is just how realistic the numbers are which Tesla is giving us. We all know that companies tend to be optimistic in their advertising for what their products will do. But trucking fleet bean-counters are not going to be interested in optimistic promises; they’re going to be interested only in real-world costs… Read more »

I’ll leave that to someone who can say why I’m supposedly wrong.

Just another content-less comment from you. I’ve gone into detail elsewhere. You never go into detail for fear of displaying what your ability is.

And you took the rest of your general comments (the only ones you can make) from stuff I’ve previously written – so no, I won’t disagree with my own statements.

Rick: You’re right in the sense that what I think doesn’t matter – although I have run the numbers a little bit, if you’ve read my other comments elsewhere..

As far as PUSHI goes – when he gets specific, its usually some sleight against GM (although he has defamed MUSK in the past also regarding Bricking Roadsters), saying that GM was intentionally lying when saying the first generation VOLT would get 230 MPG.

And then when I quote electrical codes verbatim he claims I wear tin-foil-hats, but like the GM issue, the statements made are either over his head to comprehend (in the codes case), or else he doesn’t understand what is being claimed, or is going Senile. There are no other explanations.

My 2012 Volt that I owned from 9/2016 to 3/1/2017 came with trip odometer ‘B’ not reset for the last 17,000 miles.

The amount of gasoline usage was around 72 gallons during that time, giving a MPG of 236. This has been explained to PUSHI several times but he keeps trying to defame GM for this fact, hence Senility is the likely reason.

Can I try this one?

Yes you used an average of a gallon of gas for every 230 miles you went in a mixed fuel vehicle. Great! But the rating is MPG – which is the miles per gallon (of gasoline). Miles travelled using electricity are not factored into that number unless they somehow came from the gasoline. Otherwise MPG is a rather non sensical number if used in that way.

Telsa Semi – infinity
BMW i3 with range extender – 620? I mean who knows? Oh right … who cares?

Can’t we all just get along? PHEVs make good sense for a lot of people.

As far as specifics, no one here has given anything specific. That article is one person’s opinion without seeing it. Interestingly he wants more mirrors and doesn’t like computer screens. Great, he won’t be part of the problem at some point. I realize he does not drive a truck anymore, but he still probably doesn’t imagine that having a driver is a temporary issue.

David Cary – I disagree with your assesment.

Certain people I have a history here with, and therefore I tend to be a bit short with them, just the same as you deal with different people different ways depending on your previous experience with them.

The 230 MPG photo from a big wall outlet shows this as when plugging in. It was very definitely educational for those of us who want to decrease our gasoline consumption and have solar panels to provide any electricity needed.

My 2012 volt which I owned for 1/2 year I purchased with 17,000 miles on the trip odometer – indicating 236 MPG. So Chevy was totally frank and accurate, and educational to people who were considering purchasing the car.

The advertisement specifically does NOT apply to pushi, since he doesn’t drive, and would never even purchase an EV for a relative.

From the link–
‘When Musk made the case for a 20-percent savings over a diesel truck, he based the numbers on a 100-mile trip – fifty miles out, fifty miles back’-
Did he? Then why has it a 300-600 mile range?

‘Being able to physically watch the trailer – not camera images on screens – can be the difference between making a clean back-up or making an insurance claim.’
So reversing cameras are useless, then? Millions on existing cars… all worthless. Then he mentions leaning out to watch the trailer- how the hell can he see the opposite diagonal corner??
‘Mirrors…’
Easily fitted [or retro-fitted] if preferred. A non- issue.
“Jackknifing is impossible.”- yes, I didn’t see that claim substantiated. The Titanic comes to mind.

Shipping products burning diesel at ~6mpg doesn’t make much economic sense to me.

Either you buy a Tesla Semi,something almost identical, or you will no longer be price competitive.

Supermarets, generic retailers, homebuilders, movers, whatever.

Problem is that someone needs to sell power to the trucking company at 7c. Whoever retails it will need to cover their costs for the land, the chargers, the electrical infrastructure, etc. To be cost effective, the retail price will need to be double that 7c. This would be the case even if the trucking company installed their own chargers because they would still be taking on those costs internally.

Electric trucks make the most economic sense on shorter routes where it is not the cost of the battery or the cost of electricity that is competing against a cheap tank of diesel. That advantage for EVs is currently in delivery trucks, not long distance semis.

2017 Freightliner Cascadia is more like 7-8 mpg in real life. http://www.fuelly.com/truck/freightliner/cascadia/2017 Probably its aero may be improved, but for this aspect it isn’t much difference what drivetrain is in use. $2.2/7.5 = $0.29/mile before fuel/road taxes. Below 2 kWh/mile quoted by Musk is not real life. It is some 60 mph on flat road in ideal imaginary conditions. It will be more like 3-3.5 kWh/mile in real life conditions, at 65-70 mph, with hills and not ideal weather. kWh/mile parameter is already well researched by DOE SuperTruck program, Nikola Motors and others. 3.25kWh*$.07/kWh is $0.23/mile. More realistic 10 cents/kWh rate including charging equipment depreciation and demand charges, and you are at $0.32/mile, more than plain diesel truck available for purchase today, even without much of SuperTruck program improvements in diesel drivetrain. And you are supposed to pay some $100k extra for a huge battery in MWh ballpark, loose something like 10,000-15,000 lb of payload weight because of that, and get your real life range restricted to something like 250 miles, or 125 miles roundtrip, (500 miles in Teslarium land only). Paying extra upfront for fuel savings (even if they would existed in real life) means moving your expense from… Read more »

Modern truck hauling 30k or less in the box is much closer to 8 ……8 1/2 mpg

I’m not against Tesla, but they have not delivered a single semi so kind of hard to swallow it’s gotta be Tesla or equal too mantra for the future , it’s up to Tesla to prove their worth to the commercial truck market , reliability or lack of.

Bunny, are you citing figures from either your own driving or the industry standard?

Or are you — as I suspect — citing an outlier figure of a specialty high-efficiency diesel semi that gets significantly better MPG than the average, but one which is either just a prototype or one which is used for only a niche application?

In my research into an analysis of a theoretical BEV semi tractor, my research indicates modern diesel tractors average ~6.5 MPG. Your figure of 8 to 8.5 MPG seems rather far from what my research indicates.

No one gets that high. It’s all in the 5-7 mpg range. I used to own and operate a fleet and know what I’m talking about.

if the load is under 30k….. 8 to 8.5 mpg is very doable in newest versions available. Have new KW, do it everyday. I used to have a 2005 Volvo that you could bank at 7 same senario. That was ten years ago, was a great mpg for its time. How you drive makes a big difference also. It’s kind of funny as truck stops like Pilot have those silly bonuses if you use over 1,500 gals/ month I never make those anymore with new truck because mileage really is better consistently.

More preorders than the FF91!

Comparisons to Faraday Failure Future are rather pointless. Rather like claiming that shooting fish in a barrel is an accomplishment which qualifies you to be called a sportsman.

35 out of 55 orders are headed to Canada.

If lifetime savings are about 20% in the US, where does that leave Canada?

My understanding is that diesel fuel cost are 40% higher in Canada, electricity costs are lower (except Ontario), GVW allowed is mostly higher than in the US… not to mention the favorable political environment.

Canada’s economic case for E-truck is certainly compelling… I wish someone could provide me numbers.

Looks to me like you’ve already got some pretty relevant numbers there! 🙂

Thanks for explaining why interest seems to be higher from Canadian trucking fleets.

? Now, if only I could find how Musk came up with that 20% electric vs diesel number.

In Montreal, Quebec right now, Diesel is about Cad1,10$ per litre which converts to CAD4,16$ Per gallon or 3,30$US.
Electricity is about 7 cents/kWh (CAD). And it is made from hydro electricity (99%) and wind.
I am sure the Tesla semi is going to be a success, a game changer that will be much more fun to see on the road than a smelling diesel Semi.

Unlike Provinces where few Canadians reside, like for instance, Ontario.

Avec les prix avantageux de l’électricité chez vous au Québec, j’ai l’impression que le trafic transcanadien passera désormais par la 117 et l’Abitibi au lieu de la 17 et Ottawa.

Fuel taxes are much higher in Canada. Just like in Europe, but electricity is cheap in Canada unlike in most of the Europe except Scandinavia. So it is not surprise Walmart wants to test these trucks in Canada. As long as government is willing to subsidize road taxes for these trucks, it should work.
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/fuel-prices/4797

Each of these companies will have to purchase multiple chargers for their business location.

This is a fact.

What are they going to cost.

It would seem to me that like most EVs, the semi would come with a charger.

Now installing it will be a cost that will eat into early savings. But given that wires and circuit breakers last a really long time, that should not be a big deal.

I’m very unimpressed by this! I really really hope there are a lot not companies who have ordered semi trucks or I think there won’t be any tesla semi at all I’m sure.

The truck company Scania (Americans probably haven’t even heard of them) sell 70 000 trucks per year. I think tesla needs preorders of at least a couple of thousands in order to be able to make any profit of this 🙁

Who wants a remake the film Duel this time the trucks the good guy. What would the car be ?

PuPu
This article is over two years old , and states Freightliner production model close to 9 mpg

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN0OB0Y120150527

The $180,000 price tag for the Tesla Semi will get a lot of orders.

Slow start but if Tesla can deliver on the numbers and once Tesla has enough of these megachargers and maintenance infrastructure in place it’s going to be a no-brainer for every transport company. At $180K capital expenditure is similar to diesel if you factor in 50% longer operational life and expenditures for energy and maintenance are going to be way lower. The choice will be between going electric or going out of business.

These numbers of reservations seem a bit low for my happiness…
They seem like they’re willing to buy a few so that they can say “Look we’re being green…” without the commitment of actually going green.

To clarify, if they want to say that they’re “evaluating them for fleet suitability” they’d order a higher number.

I say this because my employer (name withheld) has a sizable fleet of vans used for service personnel to hold their tool and travel to customer’s locations. We purchased one ICE van, converted to BEV, and installed one L2 charger at one (only one) of our depots.

Two years later, the van is sitting, covered bird droppings and dust, feral cats live under it. And the parking space with the charger, is used for storing broken pallets.

That’s what too small an evaluation fleet means to me.

I offered to buy the van, but our fleet manager said we still “needed it”.

55 pre-orders isn’t much. I was expecting a lot more… maybe companies are not ready to commit to something that won’t be delivered for maybe 3 years. or they need to see some more details first.

Considering the speed at which businesses normally order products in this price range, I’m actually surprised that any company has managed to make decisions already to put down money to reserve them.

Usually purchases of this size go out as competitive bids.

There must be a whole lot of individual reservations out there. Here are two from Alberta:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/albertaEV/permalink/1499810456761808/

https://twitter.com/InOrbisCorp/status/932809552801816576

Hmmm… possibilities!

If this truck to become reality, it would be prudent for the Port of Los Angeles to create a fast lane for these semis, where you bypass the long wait to pick up and drop off cargo there as an incentive for them to adopt this technology to drop all that damn pollution that spits out of the port.