After Hurricane Ian hit Florida in 2022, it took less than 3 weeks to rebuild a destroyed causeway to an island with ~6000 residents. That would have been impossible without energy-dense fuels.
This article had similar input. There was also quite a bit said about fires from batteries exposed to salt water. This wasn't just EVs, it was Ebikes, and computer battery backups go up in flames.
It would be an interesting mathematical exercise to answer the question, what would be needed to accomplish this project with only electrified vehicles. The only constraint would be that it must be done in the same amount of time (15 days). The analysis should compare the following:
(a) the number of vehicles and types of equipment needed, (b) the fuel resources required (no. gallons of diesel or gasoline, versus the kilowatt-hours expended); (c) the number of construction personnel needed; (d) spatial requirements for mobilization and material laydown; (e) project cost, totaled and separate by labor hours, equipment overhead, and mobilization, and finally (f) pounds of CO2 emitted by total project, that is, pounds emitted through tailpipe exhaust, and pounds emitted through recharge of electric batteries using locally sourced energy mixes (Florida uses nuclear, gas, oil and renewable. Cost and emissions associated with providing portable recharge stations of sufficient capacity needed for construction vehicles should be included in the analysis.
The analysis should be conducted using the best available construction technology and current estimates of specifications. If electrified equipment is not available, such as cranes, barges, etc., the analysis should note the use of ICE technology for those uses, and account for their use in the summarization of results. Other than cost and emissions of electricity needed for battery recharge, emissions associated with material manufacture and delivery to site boundary shall be disregarded.
It would be a project, for sure. But I believe that actually comparing such things is the best way to provide evidence that helps resolve, or at least shed more light, on the electrification argument. Thomas Sowell said "there are no solutions. There are only trade-offs."
Thomas Sowell is one of the very best. In my opinion, he should be required reading in college.
That would be a fascinating project. The challenge with that is finding actual equipment that could actually pull it off since virtually all construction equipment is diesel or other fuels and there isn’t anywhere - to my knowledge- in the world a fleet of electric equipment necessary. And for good reason, fuel density and refueling infrastructure.
But I’ll have to think on it and see what could be done. It would be a very interesting project.
I did this calculation for electrifying the Cat 798 Mine Haulage trucks and I would estimate a battery electric equivalent of 4 Tesla Semi-Truck drives would replace the Cat diesel-electric drive. That would be 4100hp drive vs the Cat @ 3100hp. I would bet avg fuel consumption is < 4 Semi-trucks due to the amount of intermittent usage of the big trucks, waiting to be loaded, waiting to unload and maintenance. Heavy usage climbing out of the pit, low energy travel to the mill crushing plant and back to the pit, and wasted energy going back down into the pit, they use dynamic braking and dump all that energy into a load resister, whereas the BEV Truck would recover braking energy back into the battery, much more significant if the Truck is loading on a mountainside mine. Then the potential energy gain by loading at altitude could supply the entire energy supply of the whole round trip!! No energy or charging needed!
At ~ 4 X 5MT for the battery, which is a structural battery, or 20MT, is not a significant mass for a 205MT truck chassis, 623MT loaded. So you could expect at least 8hrs operation on a battery charge I would bet. So I would estimate upwards of $250k/yr on fuel/brakes/maintenance savings. Not sure how much that truck costs but probably ~$3-5M each. So fuel cost savings would be very significant. Maintenance savings on top of that. Due to the higher torque, acceleration & both uphill and downhill speeds of the BEV truck that could easily make up for 30m charging time every 8hrs.
And I suspect an analysis for BEV Excavators would be even more favorable.
To supply power in a remote site, it is easy to tow a diesel generator to the site. After all SpaceX runs their main site at Boca Chica Texas on diesel generators. That's not ideal but if it is a rare application it is entirely doable.
Ideally you would always keep some diesel & hybrid vehicles for remote applications, or areas with no charging infrastructure.
Everyone always talks as though we have this big decision to make right now, ban all diesel heavy transport and force everyone to switch to BEV or else continue with 100% diesel ICE vehicles. I would hope that NEVER happens. That would be crazy.
Rationally what you would do is start replacing diesel in the most profitable locations which are shorter routes in high volume areas. Then more in medium (i.e. < 800miles) well traveled routes between large cities. And, of course, a hybrid vehicle is going often be the optimal compromise.
Here's a company that is doing a roaring business converting diesel trucks to diesel electric hybrids. Starting with logging trucks, and their latest is a big diesel snowplow/dump truck. They really work better:
I see a real potential for hybrid equipment to significantly drive down fuel costs. in fact, that’s basically what a diesel locomotive is, and probably we’ll see more advances in efficiency.
And you bring up a point: yes mining operations can sometimes electrify their feet and it can make sense particularly in an underground mine.
But mines are semi-permanent infrastructure projects that might last decades. You don’t need mine trucks with a lot of energy storage if you have an existing on site power plant fueled by coal, diesel, or natural gas.
None of that applies though when you need a flexible fleet of equipment to rapidly deploy to a place that has zero operational power infrastructure, such as a disaster area.
It all boils down to fuel density and the ability to rapidly refuel.
A lot of mines, esp larger mines are grid connected. They would use BEV heavy equipment for cost savings. Mostly fuel. But also maintenance, low brake wear, etc. Although for a diesel mine, I suspect you would still overall use less diesel fuel with a BEV truck than with an ICE truck.
The diesel locomotive and the diesel-electric Mine haulage truck aren't good examples of hybrids. The biggest energy gain of the HEV is that acceleration & hill climbing energy can be pulled out of the battery, allowing for a much smaller ICEngine, and deceleration & downhill braking energy can be returned to the battery. Even all electric pantograph trains can't do much of that because the lines can't handle the high currents required. You need a battery for that.
Definitely, Edison motors are all in on hybrids. Added advantage for diesel equipment is you don't have to run your big engine or rev that engine for hydraulic power. You can easily add a nice quite electric hydraulic pump. Workers love that on converted Oil Field Service Rigs because they are quiet operation and they don't have to shout all the time.
So I’ll actually agree with pretty much everything in this comment and yes, hybrids do bring generally speaking more fuel efficiency. The point I was making with diesel electric trains is that it’s a hybrid technology that we readily use, however to your point, the next step is finding ways to make trucking more efficient. And yes, trains can use battery power to move around a rail yard under no/ low loads without directly drawing on the diesel power.
You don't seem to be aware that Tesla has invested $7B in a new semi-Truck factory and has orders for all of its supply. The factory won't be able to keep up with demand. That's not due to subsidies or ESG. That's because they make the truck company money. I know with personal vehicles, people choose for a variety of reason, but for +$200k semi-truck a trucking company buys them for one reason and one reason only, the economics. And a Tesla semi will save them >$60k/yr mostly in energy costs, while hauling the same loads just as fast or even faster than a diesel truck.
Now I'm as pro-fossil as anyone here, but that is not for religious reasons. My belief is if a fossil vehicle does the best job for the best cost than do that. If the BEV or HEV will do it better and or cheaper than do that.
With rapidly increasing demand for fossil in the Developing countries, and the displacement of gasoline with EVs, HEVs and biofuels, we have to prepare for serious supply issues for heavy distillates. Which are REALLY needed for aircraft fuel and many remote trucking or power generation applications. We are squandering a precious resource needlessly.
The Tesla semi is being manufactured in batch mode, until their giant $7B factory in Nevada is complete. They have over a hundred units on the road with themselves & Pepsi.
They regularly move loads with their Trucks from Fremont to San Diego, even fully loaded with >80,000lbs, they can do it on one charge, with 4% left after 500 miles with a 4136ft climb past Grapevine. See:
How the Tesla Semi “Broke the Laws of Physics” The Limiting Factor:
Sure you can have a Tesla truck if you spend ~2x the cost of a regular diesel.
And yes, ESG mandates in places like California do ‘nudge’ electric trucks adoption. Plus the massive tax subsidies to battery manufacturing found in the Inflation Reduction Act.
We’ve used electric vehicles for ages and they can be wonderful if you have an easy to use source of power. For example, train locomotives. Most locomotives use electric motors powered by an on-board diesel generator.
Why? Fuel density. The ease of storage, shipping, and refueling.
A major reason the media misquotes the operating costs of electric trucks is they compare the retail price of diesel to the wholesale price of electricity. This create a false comparison that downplays the costs of operating electric trucks.
Costs include the actual price of delivered electricity. If you opt to charge your truck at your own shop, you need to add in the costs of the charger, the cost of electricity, plus the significant down time needed which means lost revenue and fewer miles to cover the purchase price of the truck.
If you try to use fast public charging, then the cost of charging that truck isn’t much cheaper than diesel. Assuming you can find a public charger that’s available.
This isn’t to suggest that there will never be a role for battery electric equipment. But they are significantly more logistically challenging and dependent on a grid. Plus they are more expensive to purchase, heavily subsidized/ mandated, and aren’t realistically much cheaper to operate.
Actually diesel locomotives would be a good application to replace with Battery power. The longest railway on Earth is in Russia and it is all electric. They went with the inefficient and tedious method of using pantographs & overhead lines, but they did it because of the high cost savings of going electric. And batteries at that time were too inferior.
The Tesla semi proves that using pantographs is no longer sensible. You can swap out a battery pack every 500miles, in fact you could just put a container sized battery pack on a flatbed like a Tesla Megapack. An automated overhead crane could swap out the battery in about 2min.
Truck companies ain't using public charging and I don't know of any subsidies they are getting to go electric. Truck companies will be using industrial charging stations which will get the lowest industrial electricity rates. And those rates the Tesla semi will result in cost savings of $60k/yr under typical usage. And that's why Truck companies want them.
And that will likely improve with rising oil prices, especially diesel which will be in short supply. Electricity rates, unfortunately rising also where they use idiotic solar & wind power artificially pushing up costs, so that factor is debatable.
So I will fully agree that trying to integrate large amounts of wind and solar do make the grid less efficient and more expensive, generally speaking but there are exceptions.
I’m really surprised by the statement that long distance railroads would be a good place for batteries. I’d suggest the exact opposite when you do the math on the sheer cost and amount of batteries necessary.
You mentioned Tesla 500 mile ranges. Diesel semis can have 2 or 3 x the range. Range is where batteries significantly under performance, especially since batteries are still highly expensive compared to diesel.
Have you penciled in the math necessary to get a long distance train? Remember you’re talking performance in cold weather, having your operate a real charges ( 80% charges) and not hypothetical 100% charges, and the enormous costs of multiple battery packs that you can swap out? Batteries are the least efficient in those types of settings.
That's why as I said, rationally the first usage of BEV buses, semi-trucks, rail or shipping would be shorter range routes. And then medium range. Long or remote routes are definitely going to remain fuel powered, ideally hybrid diesel-electric, that's diesel-battery-electric. It will take a long time, like 40yrs to change over so its not like there is no time for optimization.
BEV rail could definitely be a serious energy cost savings over diesel electric. After all that's why many countries use pantographs on their rail. Either way the key question is availability of grid connections along the route. But it would be far simpler to provide a grid connection every 500miles or so for a battery swap station than supply continuous grid connection along the entire route, like pantographs need. Without the regen energy savings. And terrible maintenance costs for overhead lines.
So let’s be clear, Californias switch to electric trucks is a political mandated move, not because electric trucks perform better. California attempted to ban the registration of new diesel trucks by Jan 1 of this year, but has rolled that deadline back, last I checked.
California?!? Imagine they used to say California set the standard for the rest of the US. Even idiot or corrupt Republican governors actually followed in California's footsteps. Now I can't see how any rational government or politician doesn't say: "Oops, California's doing that, it's got to be a bad idea. I ain't doing that."
I'm vehemently against mandates. I'm a free market guy. And I mean FREE MARKET - no chicanery allowed.
Which brings up what slimeballs North American manufacturers are. They got their little club of entrenched companies. No newbies need apply, won't even sell them parts. They're forced to buy from China, which has no problem selling parts and is entirely open, not secretive, like NA manufacturers:
Challenges of Building an Electric Log Truck: The Hunt for North American Axles, Edison Motors:
Such a good description of the benefits of energy density and the need for fuels of that nature to ensure society can function effectively.
Thank you!
This article had similar input. There was also quite a bit said about fires from batteries exposed to salt water. This wasn't just EVs, it was Ebikes, and computer battery backups go up in flames.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2024/10/16/we_clearly_must_continue_to_support_fossil_fuels_1065623.html
Excellent points and a very good link. Thank you!
Outstanding post, gentlemen. Thank you.
It would be an interesting mathematical exercise to answer the question, what would be needed to accomplish this project with only electrified vehicles. The only constraint would be that it must be done in the same amount of time (15 days). The analysis should compare the following:
(a) the number of vehicles and types of equipment needed, (b) the fuel resources required (no. gallons of diesel or gasoline, versus the kilowatt-hours expended); (c) the number of construction personnel needed; (d) spatial requirements for mobilization and material laydown; (e) project cost, totaled and separate by labor hours, equipment overhead, and mobilization, and finally (f) pounds of CO2 emitted by total project, that is, pounds emitted through tailpipe exhaust, and pounds emitted through recharge of electric batteries using locally sourced energy mixes (Florida uses nuclear, gas, oil and renewable. Cost and emissions associated with providing portable recharge stations of sufficient capacity needed for construction vehicles should be included in the analysis.
The analysis should be conducted using the best available construction technology and current estimates of specifications. If electrified equipment is not available, such as cranes, barges, etc., the analysis should note the use of ICE technology for those uses, and account for their use in the summarization of results. Other than cost and emissions of electricity needed for battery recharge, emissions associated with material manufacture and delivery to site boundary shall be disregarded.
It would be a project, for sure. But I believe that actually comparing such things is the best way to provide evidence that helps resolve, or at least shed more light, on the electrification argument. Thomas Sowell said "there are no solutions. There are only trade-offs."
Any takers?
Thomas Sowell is one of the very best. In my opinion, he should be required reading in college.
That would be a fascinating project. The challenge with that is finding actual equipment that could actually pull it off since virtually all construction equipment is diesel or other fuels and there isn’t anywhere - to my knowledge- in the world a fleet of electric equipment necessary. And for good reason, fuel density and refueling infrastructure.
But I’ll have to think on it and see what could be done. It would be a very interesting project.
I did this calculation for electrifying the Cat 798 Mine Haulage trucks and I would estimate a battery electric equivalent of 4 Tesla Semi-Truck drives would replace the Cat diesel-electric drive. That would be 4100hp drive vs the Cat @ 3100hp. I would bet avg fuel consumption is < 4 Semi-trucks due to the amount of intermittent usage of the big trucks, waiting to be loaded, waiting to unload and maintenance. Heavy usage climbing out of the pit, low energy travel to the mill crushing plant and back to the pit, and wasted energy going back down into the pit, they use dynamic braking and dump all that energy into a load resister, whereas the BEV Truck would recover braking energy back into the battery, much more significant if the Truck is loading on a mountainside mine. Then the potential energy gain by loading at altitude could supply the entire energy supply of the whole round trip!! No energy or charging needed!
At ~ 4 X 5MT for the battery, which is a structural battery, or 20MT, is not a significant mass for a 205MT truck chassis, 623MT loaded. So you could expect at least 8hrs operation on a battery charge I would bet. So I would estimate upwards of $250k/yr on fuel/brakes/maintenance savings. Not sure how much that truck costs but probably ~$3-5M each. So fuel cost savings would be very significant. Maintenance savings on top of that. Due to the higher torque, acceleration & both uphill and downhill speeds of the BEV truck that could easily make up for 30m charging time every 8hrs.
And I suspect an analysis for BEV Excavators would be even more favorable.
To supply power in a remote site, it is easy to tow a diesel generator to the site. After all SpaceX runs their main site at Boca Chica Texas on diesel generators. That's not ideal but if it is a rare application it is entirely doable.
Ideally you would always keep some diesel & hybrid vehicles for remote applications, or areas with no charging infrastructure.
Everyone always talks as though we have this big decision to make right now, ban all diesel heavy transport and force everyone to switch to BEV or else continue with 100% diesel ICE vehicles. I would hope that NEVER happens. That would be crazy.
Rationally what you would do is start replacing diesel in the most profitable locations which are shorter routes in high volume areas. Then more in medium (i.e. < 800miles) well traveled routes between large cities. And, of course, a hybrid vehicle is going often be the optimal compromise.
Here's a company that is doing a roaring business converting diesel trucks to diesel electric hybrids. Starting with logging trucks, and their latest is a big diesel snowplow/dump truck. They really work better:
https://www.youtube.com/@EdisonMotors/videos
So a couple points:
I see a real potential for hybrid equipment to significantly drive down fuel costs. in fact, that’s basically what a diesel locomotive is, and probably we’ll see more advances in efficiency.
And you bring up a point: yes mining operations can sometimes electrify their feet and it can make sense particularly in an underground mine.
But mines are semi-permanent infrastructure projects that might last decades. You don’t need mine trucks with a lot of energy storage if you have an existing on site power plant fueled by coal, diesel, or natural gas.
None of that applies though when you need a flexible fleet of equipment to rapidly deploy to a place that has zero operational power infrastructure, such as a disaster area.
It all boils down to fuel density and the ability to rapidly refuel.
A lot of mines, esp larger mines are grid connected. They would use BEV heavy equipment for cost savings. Mostly fuel. But also maintenance, low brake wear, etc. Although for a diesel mine, I suspect you would still overall use less diesel fuel with a BEV truck than with an ICE truck.
The diesel locomotive and the diesel-electric Mine haulage truck aren't good examples of hybrids. The biggest energy gain of the HEV is that acceleration & hill climbing energy can be pulled out of the battery, allowing for a much smaller ICEngine, and deceleration & downhill braking energy can be returned to the battery. Even all electric pantograph trains can't do much of that because the lines can't handle the high currents required. You need a battery for that.
Definitely, Edison motors are all in on hybrids. Added advantage for diesel equipment is you don't have to run your big engine or rev that engine for hydraulic power. You can easily add a nice quite electric hydraulic pump. Workers love that on converted Oil Field Service Rigs because they are quiet operation and they don't have to shout all the time.
So I’ll actually agree with pretty much everything in this comment and yes, hybrids do bring generally speaking more fuel efficiency. The point I was making with diesel electric trains is that it’s a hybrid technology that we readily use, however to your point, the next step is finding ways to make trucking more efficient. And yes, trains can use battery power to move around a rail yard under no/ low loads without directly drawing on the diesel power.
You don't seem to be aware that Tesla has invested $7B in a new semi-Truck factory and has orders for all of its supply. The factory won't be able to keep up with demand. That's not due to subsidies or ESG. That's because they make the truck company money. I know with personal vehicles, people choose for a variety of reason, but for +$200k semi-truck a trucking company buys them for one reason and one reason only, the economics. And a Tesla semi will save them >$60k/yr mostly in energy costs, while hauling the same loads just as fast or even faster than a diesel truck.
Now I'm as pro-fossil as anyone here, but that is not for religious reasons. My belief is if a fossil vehicle does the best job for the best cost than do that. If the BEV or HEV will do it better and or cheaper than do that.
With rapidly increasing demand for fossil in the Developing countries, and the displacement of gasoline with EVs, HEVs and biofuels, we have to prepare for serious supply issues for heavy distillates. Which are REALLY needed for aircraft fuel and many remote trucking or power generation applications. We are squandering a precious resource needlessly.
The Tesla semi is being manufactured in batch mode, until their giant $7B factory in Nevada is complete. They have over a hundred units on the road with themselves & Pepsi.
They regularly move loads with their Trucks from Fremont to San Diego, even fully loaded with >80,000lbs, they can do it on one charge, with 4% left after 500 miles with a 4136ft climb past Grapevine. See:
How the Tesla Semi “Broke the Laws of Physics” The Limiting Factor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtGQ6KC3t1c at 19secs
And the NACFE trials confirmed these facts, the Tesla semi can do the same daily loads as a diesel truck. But with much lower energy costs.
Sure you can have a Tesla truck if you spend ~2x the cost of a regular diesel.
And yes, ESG mandates in places like California do ‘nudge’ electric trucks adoption. Plus the massive tax subsidies to battery manufacturing found in the Inflation Reduction Act.
We’ve used electric vehicles for ages and they can be wonderful if you have an easy to use source of power. For example, train locomotives. Most locomotives use electric motors powered by an on-board diesel generator.
Why? Fuel density. The ease of storage, shipping, and refueling.
A major reason the media misquotes the operating costs of electric trucks is they compare the retail price of diesel to the wholesale price of electricity. This create a false comparison that downplays the costs of operating electric trucks.
Costs include the actual price of delivered electricity. If you opt to charge your truck at your own shop, you need to add in the costs of the charger, the cost of electricity, plus the significant down time needed which means lost revenue and fewer miles to cover the purchase price of the truck.
If you try to use fast public charging, then the cost of charging that truck isn’t much cheaper than diesel. Assuming you can find a public charger that’s available.
This isn’t to suggest that there will never be a role for battery electric equipment. But they are significantly more logistically challenging and dependent on a grid. Plus they are more expensive to purchase, heavily subsidized/ mandated, and aren’t realistically much cheaper to operate.
Actually diesel locomotives would be a good application to replace with Battery power. The longest railway on Earth is in Russia and it is all electric. They went with the inefficient and tedious method of using pantographs & overhead lines, but they did it because of the high cost savings of going electric. And batteries at that time were too inferior.
The Tesla semi proves that using pantographs is no longer sensible. You can swap out a battery pack every 500miles, in fact you could just put a container sized battery pack on a flatbed like a Tesla Megapack. An automated overhead crane could swap out the battery in about 2min.
Truck companies ain't using public charging and I don't know of any subsidies they are getting to go electric. Truck companies will be using industrial charging stations which will get the lowest industrial electricity rates. And those rates the Tesla semi will result in cost savings of $60k/yr under typical usage. And that's why Truck companies want them.
And that will likely improve with rising oil prices, especially diesel which will be in short supply. Electricity rates, unfortunately rising also where they use idiotic solar & wind power artificially pushing up costs, so that factor is debatable.
So I will fully agree that trying to integrate large amounts of wind and solar do make the grid less efficient and more expensive, generally speaking but there are exceptions.
I’m really surprised by the statement that long distance railroads would be a good place for batteries. I’d suggest the exact opposite when you do the math on the sheer cost and amount of batteries necessary.
You mentioned Tesla 500 mile ranges. Diesel semis can have 2 or 3 x the range. Range is where batteries significantly under performance, especially since batteries are still highly expensive compared to diesel.
Have you penciled in the math necessary to get a long distance train? Remember you’re talking performance in cold weather, having your operate a real charges ( 80% charges) and not hypothetical 100% charges, and the enormous costs of multiple battery packs that you can swap out? Batteries are the least efficient in those types of settings.
That's why as I said, rationally the first usage of BEV buses, semi-trucks, rail or shipping would be shorter range routes. And then medium range. Long or remote routes are definitely going to remain fuel powered, ideally hybrid diesel-electric, that's diesel-battery-electric. It will take a long time, like 40yrs to change over so its not like there is no time for optimization.
BEV rail could definitely be a serious energy cost savings over diesel electric. After all that's why many countries use pantographs on their rail. Either way the key question is availability of grid connections along the route. But it would be far simpler to provide a grid connection every 500miles or so for a battery swap station than supply continuous grid connection along the entire route, like pantographs need. Without the regen energy savings. And terrible maintenance costs for overhead lines.
So let’s be clear, Californias switch to electric trucks is a political mandated move, not because electric trucks perform better. California attempted to ban the registration of new diesel trucks by Jan 1 of this year, but has rolled that deadline back, last I checked.
https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/california-seeks-biden-administration-approval-for-controversial-diesel-truck-ban
While this is EVs in general, here’s a big reason companies are building battery facilities: government subsidies.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/federal-incentives-ev-battery-production-report/643370/
https://www.energy-storage.news/us-finalises-45x-advanced-manufacturing-tax-credit-for-batteries-solar/#:~:text=For%20the%20energy%20storage%20system,kWh%20for%20battery%20module%20manufacturing.
California?!? Imagine they used to say California set the standard for the rest of the US. Even idiot or corrupt Republican governors actually followed in California's footsteps. Now I can't see how any rational government or politician doesn't say: "Oops, California's doing that, it's got to be a bad idea. I ain't doing that."
I'm vehemently against mandates. I'm a free market guy. And I mean FREE MARKET - no chicanery allowed.
Which brings up what slimeballs North American manufacturers are. They got their little club of entrenched companies. No newbies need apply, won't even sell them parts. They're forced to buy from China, which has no problem selling parts and is entirely open, not secretive, like NA manufacturers:
Challenges of Building an Electric Log Truck: The Hunt for North American Axles, Edison Motors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhi04e3ZrgU
China works together to manufacture. It’s one of the reasons why they’re beating us, Edison Motors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm6rmur9VmE
China is producing a lot of Electric Trucks, not due to mandates, they're just profitable:
We visited a semi manufacturing plant in China, Edison Motors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlJato7lvs0