Yes but each truck can only use 1, so it should be 10 x 4 MW. Not 10 x 0.4 MW.
Or maybe 5 x 4 MW IDK.
I looked up what these trucks can handle, and apparently most truck can only handle the 400 kW, so I guess the truck manufacturers aren’t helping themselves much.

served by 10 × 400 kW skid-mounted eLumina DS400 chargers.

That’s anemic considering BYD have normal cars can charge with up to 1.5 MW now. And CATL have batteries with similar capabilities.
For a truck it needs to MW not kW.

A 10 MW project is considerably more complex than a 1 MW project

No it’s not, it’s perfectly linear compared to what we are already doing. And is probably cheaper to install than the battery swap stations, and for sure cheaper to run once installed.
Charging stations with more than 30 400 kW chargers are already common here.
Making the chargers more powerful does not really increase power demand much, because charging is done quicker requiring fewer stations, to handle the same amount of customers. Also these fast chargers can be installed gradually, because not everybody can utilize the high power. But despite of that, we see these stations with 30+ 400 kW chargers, despite very few today can utilize 400 kW, if these were expensive to install, I think there would be a much greater mix of less powerful chargers.

We are transitioning to electricity in general, both regarding heating houses where installation of heat pump systems are currently subsidized, and electric cars that are now 80% of sales here, and finally we have a lot of Data Centers in Denmark because they want green energy that we can supply.

So the electric grid is already being heavily expanded to meet all these demands, although the heavy demand for data centers have caused the waiting time to go up.

I may be wrong, but without mandatory standardization, I don’t think battery swap is where the future is at, as cool as that might be.

Everything you write is as true for 1.5 MW compared to old 150 kW chargers.
First of all if you charge 3 stacks at a time, you can use the same cables but having 3 of them.
Second you can double the output on the same cables by going from 800 volt to 1600.
So in response I’d say that the Truck could even charge at 10 MW with higher voltage batteries, using multiple battery stacks.

Your argument is as naive as if I claimed CATL can’t switch 3 batteries simultaneously, because that would require 3 machines to perform the switch.

Yes but 1.5 MW is for normal passenger cars, as I write regarding Diesel trucks, they have special high pressure fueling, obviously they should have something similar for charging.
If the truck has 3 separate packs, I don’t see why it wouldn’t charge at 4.5 MW or even higher.

Battery swap is kind of cool because a swap is super fast with the newest swap stations.
(Disclaimer not by personal experience, only as seen in reviews.)
But it seems that for it to have any future, there needs to be strict standards bodies for it. Otherwise the logistics will never reach a point to make it feasible at scale.
With chargers getting very fast too, the advantage of swapping is diminishing while the costs are not.
This is the case for normal cars, but I guess it’s not much different for trucks.
BYD has batteries now that can charge at 1.5 MW for a normal passenger car, and CATL too is at least at 1.3 MW last I heard.
The special equipment used for trucks should be able to go way higher, like they pump diesel way faster than normal cars under high pressure.

Swapping is great because the battery can be changed quickly, without the harm of charging quickly.
But without standardization the logistics will be a nightmare, and probably prohibitively expensive.

Yes, but that’s peanuts in comparison, like maybe 10% of the cost of having the panels installed on a roof.

Annoying that the picture in the thumbnail shows as a video, but it cannot be played. Instead it plays another video?

I like the concept, if you can install it yourself it’s a huge saving compared to having a company do it, for us installation of our solar panels by an independent company was €4.600,- which is a pretty steep price IMO, and a significant part of the whole investment of getting solar panels.
But demand is simply so high that they can almost charge what they want. And despite the high price there was over a month waiting time.

Interesting. 👍😎
I live in Denmark in the area with the best farmland in the country. We are also the most southern part of Denmark, so also the best for solar panels.
Despite the fertile land and very high prices on farm land, we are among the areas in Denmark with the most solar panels.
I don’t know if your numbers are accurate, but I know the gist of it is.

We absolutely need to move everything to electric, because electric is more efficient, both for creating mechanical power like in engines, and for heating, and obviously for lighting.
It twice as efficient for mechanical power, meaning that even if you sue the gas an engine would have used, to make electricity instead, and then run the same task on an electric engine, the electric engine saves power compared to the gas engine.
I heating heat-pumps generate 4-5x the heat of the electricity they use. Even when losing 50% of the power turning fossil fuel heat into electricity, you come out with at least twice the utilization with a heat-pump.
Light is of course obvious, even with old incandescent bulbs electricity is about 5-10 times more efficient at creating light, with LED the factor is about a 100x.
Fossil fuels are obsolete, and bio fuels are too. Electricity is the future, and when created from renewable sources, I estimate the difference to be at least 20x advantage to electric over fuel.

he electrify generated by solar panels on it would allow EVs to cover 70x as much distance

Yes I absolutely believe that can be the case, and even if it is a best case scenario for bio-fuels, there can be no doubt about which is the right thing to do. I suppose bio fuels could be optimized to yield biodiesel from the oils, which AFAIK is the highest utilization, but also ethanol from the carbs. But even then it wont come close.
Unfortunately we have 3 months per year where we can’t make much solar power, where we can have days with zero output.
But even under these conditions, solar has helped us here in Denmark to cover 80% of our electricity from renewable sources. With the goal of achieving 100% by 2030. We in our household have almost zero electricity bill 9 months of the year, and the surplus from the good months almost pay for the remaining 3 months. With an electric car, we can charge when electricity is cheapest.
For 2 of my neighbors that drive far for work, the cost is almost exactly a tenth driving an EV over buying gas.

This is not surprising, USA is one of the countries in the world that has the best conditions for solar. Also without using any significant amount of fertile farmland.
Still this number is very low, since there are other considerations, like easy access for maintenance.
The picture shown is just about the absolute ecological ideal, with good bio diversity that facilitates wild life.

Yes with 13, not if it only had 3.5.

I only used hp because most people are more familiar with it.
And for my own electric car hp is also used in more than 9 out of 10 spec spaces to describe the power.
As I mentioned earlier, it has 150 kW equal to 204 hp.

And no you are wrong, it is in no way only applicable to gasoline engine, even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you probably mean ICE, which can be gasoline, Diesel, propane or even hydrogen.

IDK how old you are, but by your logic you sound like you are 8 years old.

Of course I know what an ICE car is, what the fuck makes you think I don’t?
You are the one that constantly get the terms wrong, and claim they mean something they don’t.

Nobody but you said anything about ICE, you are making a straw man argument.
And saying converting from kW to hp has anything to do with torque is as moronic as claiming that km/h and mp/h are measuring different things, when they are obviously not, they are both accurate measurements of speed. In the exact same way kW and hp are both measurements of power. They are merely different scales, and I only made the conversion to make it easier to understand the power in relation to a vehicle.
For instance many EV’s have 150 kW engines, (including mine), But in many car pages they are stated as 204 hp.
150 kW and 204 hp is EXACTLY the same, just like 3.5 kW is exactly the same as 4.7 hp, or almost 5 as I wrote.

As it turns out the article is wrong about the kW only being 3.5 kW, the true number is 13.5 kW, which makes the claimed performance figures way more plausible.

Just because an electric engine can output it’s max performance faster, and doesn’t have to rev up first, doesn’t mean it has more than the stated power. Yes with an ICE car it would be worse in acceleration, but when it is revved up, they would have similar performance. Going 50 km/h which is the top speed of the car, it is obviously revved up to the max.
But for some reason you got upvotes? Sad to see that people are so easy to mislead with nonsense.
As I stated before, the performance claimed for the car is simply impossible with only a 3.5 kW engine, and as it turns out it is 13.5 kW.

So your “why not” question is based on ignorance, and your whole comment is an argument from ignorance.

Turns out it at least has a 13 kW engine, the article is wrong on that point.
Still not a lot, but at least that makes the performance claims much more likely.

Thanks that explains it, with 13 kW it’s much more plausible.
3.5 kW is simply not enough for the claimed performance.
I searched for if something else is 3.5 or 3,5, but that number does not appear at all on the official page.
Weird typo, and also weird that nobody caught it? It simply doesn’t make sense.

Its 3.5-kilowatt electric motor is capable of handling steep terrain

That’s slightly less than 5 hp, less than your average lawnmower!!

The vehicle is designed for urban mobility, with a top speed of 50 kilometers per hour,

No way that thing can drive 6 people uphill at 50 km/h.

I think it has some niche use cases where it can be good, and best of luck to Mexico with this. But I don’t see this as a popular means of transportation unless it is very cheap. The cost is stated at 150k Pesos. which is $ 8700,- USD. That does not sound quite cheap enough. But maybe it can be used for a lot of public service purposes?

And then make it look awesome and futuristic?

Maybe use 2 stands to lift it 2½ meter, and give it a clear marking.
Obviously it’s easier to just have it on the ground, but such stands don’'t cost much. They are used for for instance lights, and can be had for less than 40 € for one that is almost 3 meter high.

But honestly if people do it as carefully as in the picture, has anyone then ever been fined for it?

Goddam that is pure genius, I wonder why nobody ever thought of that earlier? 😋