Connect with us

News

Tesla Semi, all-electric trucks get scathing criticism from auto tech expert

Published

on

The Tesla Semi might be receiving a lot of interest from companies and the electric vehicle community as a whole, but an automotive technology expert from Germany is not that impressed. In a statement, Chair of Automotive Engineering at the Technical University of Munich Markus Lienkamp criticized all-electric trucks like the Tesla Semi, stating that such vehicles are pretty much pointless in the economic and ecological sense.

“The battery for a Tesla Semi must have a capacity of about 1000 kWh, per 100 kilometers about 130 kilowatt-hours. This is technically not easily feasible and it’s also pointless both economically and ecologically,” he said.

Lienkamp’s scathing criticism comes on the heels of a study from Transport and Environment, a consortium of European environmental organizations that conducted a study comparing the energy consumption and environmental costs of conventional diesel trucks and their all-electric counterparts. Two diesel trucks were used for the study: one with an average consumption of 33 liters per 100 kilometers (around 7 mpg) and a more aerodynamic truck with a consumption of 22 liters per 100 km (10.69 mpg).

The results of Transport and Environment’s study found that diesel trucks consume between 2.2-3.3 kilowatt-hours per kilometer, far above the consumption of an average electric truck, which requires 1.44 kWh per km. Electric vehicles that are designed from the ground up for maximum efficiency such as the Tesla Semi require just 1.15 kWh per km. The study’s authors concluded that overall, using all-electric trucks reduces energy consumption by a factor of 1.5-2.9.

Advertisement

All-electric trucks surpass diesel trucks in terms of efficiency as well. The study revealed that a diesel truck engine has an efficiency of 20-45% on long-haul routes and a measly 10% in city traffic. In comparison, electric trucks have a 90% efficiency for long routes and 75% in urban traffic. Lienkamp is not convinced, arguing that the source of the electricity used by vehicles like the Tesla Semi affects efficiency.

“The efficiency of the electricity mix used for the truck battery is important. If the energy comes from a gas-fired power plant, for example, the overall efficiency quickly drops back to 40%. If, on the other hand, 80% to 90% of the electricity comes from renewable sources, as planned in the EU for 2040, long-distance trucks would be attractive from an ecological point of view,” he said.

Tesla Semi hauling Tesla Model 3 and X. | Credit: Tesla

The authors of the study maintained that electric trucks are cheaper to repair and maintain simply because they have fewer moving parts. Even brakes will rarely need replacing, thanks to systems like regenerative braking. While these are compelling advantages, Lienkamp stated that “for distances of 500 kilometers and beyond, battery-powered trucks simply won’t make any economic sense until 2030,” adding “with electric vehicles, the cost of trying to reduce CO2 levels is simply too high.”

It should be noted that the Tesla Semi, at least in its upcoming iteration, is not designed to enter the long-haul market that is dominated by trucks that can go over 1,000 miles in one full tank. Rather, the Tesla Semi is designed to compete in short-range routes that range from 300-500 miles. From this perspective, it becomes difficult to argue against the Tesla Semi.

The Tesla Semi is a Class 8 truck, and with its four Model 3-derived electric motors, the all-electric long-hauler is capable of sprinting from 0-60 mph in just 5 seconds without a trailer. With a full load, the Semi can reach highway speeds in 20 seconds, far quicker than conventional diesel trucks. The Tesla Semi is currently undergoing real-world tests, in preparation for its production, which is expected to start either this year or sometime in 2020.

Advertisement

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history

AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon just joined forces for one reason: Starlink is winning.

Published

on

By

Starlink D2D direct to device vs Verizon, AT&T (Concept render by Grok)

America’s three largest wireless carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, announced on On May 14, 2026 that they had agreed in principle to form a joint venture aimed at pooling their spectrum resources to expand satellite-based direct-to-device (D2D) connectivity across the United States in what can be seen as a direct response to SpaceX’s Starlink initiative. D2D, in plain terms, is technology that lets a standard smartphone connect directly to a satellite in orbit, the same way it connects to a cell tower, with no extra hardware required.

The alliance is widely seen as a means to slow Starlink’s rapid expansion in the satellite internet and mobile markets. SpaceX’s Starlink Mobile service launched commercially in July 2025 through a partnership with T-Mobile, starting with messaging before expanding to broadband data. SpaceX secured access to valuable wireless spectrum through its $17 billion deal with EchoStar, paving the way for significantly faster satellite-to-phone speeds.

The FCC just said ‘No’ to SpaceX for now

SpaceX was not shy about its reaction. SpaceX president and COO Gwynne Shotwell responded on X: “Weeeelllll, I guess Starlink Mobile is doing something right! It’s David and Goliath (X3) all over again — I’m bettin’ on David.” SpaceX’s VP of Satellite Policy David Goldman went further, flagging potential antitrust concerns and asking whether the DOJ would even allow three dominant competitors to coordinate in a market where a new rival is actively entering.


Financial analysts at LightShed Partners were blunt, saying the announcement showed the three carriers are “nervous,” and pointed to the timing: “You announce an agreement in principle when the point is the announcement, not the deal. The timing, weeks ahead of the SpaceX roadshow, was the point.”

As Teslarati reported, SpaceX’s next generation Starlink V2 satellites will deliver up to 100 times the data density of the current system, with custom silicon and phased array antennas enabling around 20 times the throughput of the first generation. The carriers’ JV, which has no definitive agreement, no financial structure, and no deployment timeline yet, will need to move quickly to matter.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX is targeting a Nasdaq listing as early as June 12, aiming for what would be the largest IPO in history. With Starlink now serving over 9 million subscribers across 155 countries, holding 59 carrier partnerships globally, and now powering Air Force One, the carriers’ joint venture announcement landed at exactly the wrong time to look like anything other than a defensive move.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Model Y prices just went up for the first time in two years

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Asia | X

Tesla just raised Model Y prices for the first time in two years, with the largest increase being $1,000.

The move signals shifting dynamics in the competitive electric vehicle market as the company continues to work on balancing demand, profitability, and accessibility.

The new pricing affects premium trims while leaving entry-level options unchanged. The Model Y Premium Rear-Wheel Drive (RWD) now starts at $45,990, a $1,000 increase.

The Model Y Premium All-Wheel Drive (AWD)—previously referred to in the post as simply “Model Y AWD”—rises to $49,990, also up $1,000. The top-tier Model Y Performance sees a more modest $500 bump, bringing its starting price to $57,990.

Base models remain untouched to preserve affordability. The entry-level Model Y RWD holds steady at $39,990, and the base Model Y AWD stays at $41,990. This selective approach keeps the crossover accessible for budget-conscious buyers while extracting more revenue from higher-margin configurations.

After years of aggressive price cuts to stimulate volume amid slowing EV adoption and rising competition from rivals like BYD, Ford, and GM, Tesla appears confident in underlying demand. Recent lineup refreshes for the 2026 Model Y, including refreshed styling and efficiency gains, have helped maintain its status as America’s best-selling EV.

By protecting base prices, Tesla avoids alienating price-sensitive customers while improving margins on the more popular variants.

Tesla Model Y ownership review after six months: What I love and what I don’t

For consumers, the changes are relatively modest—under 3% on affected trims—and still position the Model Y competitively against gas-powered SUVs in the same class. Federal tax credits and potential state incentives may further offset costs for eligible buyers.

This marks a subtle but notable shift from the deep discounting era that defined much of 2024 and 2025. As the EV market matures into 2026, Tesla’s pricing strategy will be closely watched for clues about production ramps, new variants like the rumored longer-wheelbase Model Y, and broader profitability goals.

In short, today’s adjustment reflects a company that remains dominant yet pragmatic—willing to test higher pricing where demand supports it. It is unlikely to deter consumers from choosing other options.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk explains why he cannot be fired from SpaceX

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

Elon Musk cannot be fired from SpaceX, and there’s a reason for that.

In a blunt post on X on Friday, Elon Musk confirmed plans to structurally shield his leadership at SpaceX, ensuring he cannot be fired while tying a potential trillion-dollar compensation package to the company’s long-term goal of establishing a self-sustaining colony on Mars.

The revelation stems from a Financial Times report detailing SpaceX’s intention to restructure its governance and compensation framework. The moves are designed to protect Musk’s control and align his incentives with the company’s founding mission rather than short-term financial pressures. Musk’s reply left no ambiguity:

“Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!”

He added that success in this “absurdly difficult goal” would generate value “many orders of magnitude more than the economy of Earth,” though he cautioned that the journey will not be smooth. “Don’t expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” Musk wrote.

The strategy reflects Musk’s deep concerns about how public-market expectations could derail SpaceX’s core objective. Founded in 2002, SpaceX has repeatedly stated its purpose is to reduce the cost of space travel and ultimately make humanity a multiplanetary species.

Unlike Tesla, which went public in 2010 and has faced repeated battles over Musk’s compensation and board influence, SpaceX remains privately held. Musk has long resisted taking the rocket company public precisely to avoid the quarterly earnings treadmill that forces most CEOs to prioritize short-term stock performance over ambitious, high-risk projects.

By embedding protections against his removal and linking any outsized pay package to verifiable milestones—such as a functioning Mars colony—SpaceX aims to insulate its leadership from activist investors or board members who might demand faster profits or safer bets.

SpaceX Board has set a Mars bonus for Elon Musk

Musk has referenced past experiences, including his ouster from OpenAI and shareholder lawsuits at Tesla, as cautionary tales. In those cases, he argued, external pressures risked diluting the original vision.

Critics may view the arrangement as excessive, especially given Musk’s already substantial voting power and wealth. Supporters, however, argue it is a necessary safeguard for a company pursuing goals measured in decades rather than quarters. Achieving a Mars colony would require sustained investment in Starship development, orbital refueling, life-support systems, and in-situ resource utilization—technologies that may deliver no immediate financial return.

Musk’s post underscores a broader philosophical point: true breakthrough innovation often demands tolerance for volatility and a willingness to ignore conventional business wisdom. As SpaceX prepares for increasingly ambitious Starship test flights and eventual crewed missions, the new governance structure signals that the company’s North Star remains unchanged—humanity’s expansion beyond Earth.

Whether the trillion-dollar package materializes depends on execution, but Musk’s message is clear: SpaceX exists to reach the stars, not to chase the next earnings beat. For investors or employees who share that vision, the protections are not a perk—they are a prerequisite for success.

Continue Reading