Canadian start-up Edison Motors may not seem like much at first glance — consisting of fewer than two dozen people in a large tent — but their idea of bringing series hybrid technology to semi-trucks may just have wheels. The concept and Edison Motors’ progress is explained in a recent video by The Drive on Youtube, starting off with the point that diesel-electric technology is an obvious fit for large trucks like this. After all, it works for trains.
In a series hybrid, there are two motors: a diesel generator and an electric motor (diesel-electric). This was first used in ships in the 1900s and would see increasing use in railway locomotives starting in the early 20th century. In the case of Edison Motors’ current prototype design there is a 9.0 liter Scania diesel engine which is used solely as a generator at a fixed RPM. This is a smaller engine than the ~15 liter engine in a conventional configuration and also doesn’t need a gearbox.
Compared to a battery-electric semi-truck, like the Tesla Semi, it weighs far less. And unlike a hydrogen-fuel cell semi-truck it actually exists and doesn’t require new technologies to be invented. Instead a relatively small battery is kept charged by the diesel generator and power fed back into the battery from regenerative braking. This increases efficiency in many ways, especially in start-stop traffic, while not suffering a weight penalty from a heavy battery pack and being able to use existing service stations, and jerry cans of diesel.
In addition to full semi-trucks Edison Motors also works on conversion kits for existing semi-trucks, pick-up trucks and more. Considering how much of the North American rolling stock on its rail systems is diesel-electric, it’s more amazing that it would have taken so long for the same shift to series hybrid on its road. Even locomotives occasionally used direct-drive diesel, but the benefits of diesel-electric hybrids quickly made that approach obsolete.
I don’t know why but hybrid trucks were a big thing in the EU about 10 years ago, but it looks like the manufacturers stopped producing them. The Volvo FE Hybrid for example was a great truck, but they aren’t for sale anymore. There are now full electric versions for shorter distances but the long distance trucks are still all diesel. Scania also stopped producing hybrid trucks. I know local emission laws can be a bit troublesome, especially when there are so many countries in such a small area with different laws and regulations. Even within countries it can be a problem. Different cities can have different rules and hybrid diesels are often just regulated the same way as regular diesels, even if they can drive a short distance using full electric. It seems like the best vehicle to make hybrid. The title of the video is a bit bad though but the truck looks great.
Manufacturers respond to regulations, not reason. And the regulations are not based on reason, they are mostly capricious labyrinthine things written up by people without any real domain knowledge who could only hold down a job as a career bureaucrat
That’s because the benefits of a hybrid drivetrain mostly vanish in long distance driving where the engine can operate at optimum speeds and loads for the vast majority of the time without starting and stopping very often, while the downsides like the extra cost and the multiple failure points of a more complicated system, and the lower efficiency of a generator-motor setup start to dominate the calculation.
Trains use diesel-electric systems because the mechanical gearbox of a diesel locomotive is a very complicated thing and gets more complicated or impossible to build when you’re trying to drive multiple wheels in multiple cars at the same time. Trucks operating on the motorways aren’t that complicated, so they don’t really gain anything from a series-hybrid configuration.
I see a lot of hybrid buses here in Tallinn (Estonia) made by Volvo. On the other note, my Nissan XTrail e-4orce SUV is using exactly the same concept I can drive in city (stop and go) with petrol consumtion as low as 5 liters/100km and countryside depending on speed is similar.
I’ve been following these guys a while, mostly through DeBoss Garage, who are making a light-duty hybrid truck conversion kit based on Edison’s same technology. I really appreciate Edison’s no-nonsense way of tackling problems that should have been solved years ago using existing technology. Full EV technology is the ‘sexy’ way to solve transportation problems these days, and I think at this point it’s all fluff (marketing, politics, lobbying…). Burning hydrocarbons are just so much more energy dense than using a battery full time. It’s a real shame that a plug-in hybrid truck isn’t available for those of us that need them and only have a 40 minute round-trip commute.
… and doesn’t cost upwards of 100K plus, and/or loaded down with all the luxury features that add complexity and cost to the vehicle.
:: points finger of death at the Hummer EV, Rivian, and the F150 Lightning ::
But then, I’ve ranted about my perfect EV before, so I’ll shut up. :)
Was hoping that this would have occurred throughout the transportation sector. I have 2 gasoline hybrid cars. They’re great. But I always wondered when the series hybrid would make an appearance on all vehicles. Great application for a hybrid or a PHEV. As battery technology advances full electric may be attainable, but we got a long way to go and should do everything we can to become cleaner and more efficient.
Hope they’re successful. Wonder if they’ll consider going public. I’d invest.
They’ve had some investor rounds, but I think its limited in the US at this time
They already exist as a few models cars – e.g. BMW i3 and Nissan ‘e-drive’ cars such as the Note. Not sure why it hasn’t spread further.
Nissan did it because it was cheaper to implement and less mechanically complicated than a traditional hybrid setup. It is less efficient than a traditional active hybrid where the engine can directly drive the wheels at highway speed. Fine in the city though. The i3 was more of an EV with a range extender than a series hybrid though. Especially since you could get it as a pure EV with the same battery.
That’s how the Chevy Volt worked, no?
Was hoping that this would have occurred throughout the transportation sector. I have 2 gasoline hybrid cars. They’re great. But I always wondered when the series hybrid would make an appearance on all vehicles. Great application for a hybrid or a PHEV. As battery technology advances full electric may be attainable, but we got a long way to go and should do everything we can to become cleaner and more efficient.
Hope they’re successful. Wonder if they’ll consider going public. I’d invest.
Anything is better than Tesla.
It’s really funny how quickly people will turn on the largest electric car manufacturer who basically single-handedly revived the electric car because of ideology. I thought the climate was important?
Why are people turning on BYD?
What did they do?
Is it just anti-china hatred driving this?
In 2024, BYD produced more electric vehicles than Tesla for the first time. BYD made 1,777,965 vehicles, while Tesla produced 1,773,443.
There is this place called “not the US”. They actually also buy cars.
Nissan was the biggest seller for years.
Tesla led for only about 2 years, because they were the cheapest new EV on the market, and had a production surplus, so you could get one.
BYD makes multiple kinds of cars that we want to buy: cars, pickups, suvs, ev, phev. They have high technical credibility.
Tesla makes a single type of somewhat impractical novelty car that would not be the first choice of a most people, given a price and availabilty competitor.
Now Tesla is also starting to get negative catchet and a reputation for repair problems, parts gouging, shady business practices, outright fraud, deaths.
But offering what people actually want is the biggy. Tesla’s product appeals to a smallish novelty segment – and novelty is not a lasting quality.
I had never heard of BYD before — perhaps they don’t sell in my market? Choice is a great thing when it actually exists.
@asheets: BYD vehicles seem to be everywhere on Australian roads at the moment. According to Amnesty International they recently scored the lowest ranking on Human Rights over their battery materials mining.
It hasn’t been that quck, its taken years for Musk to wear down the good-will that their car was granted for making a production electric car. ‘Largest electric manufacturer’ hasn’t to date been much of a bar to get over since close to no corporations were producing them. It was all small producers. Now the actual largest car manufacturers are coming online with better specced, higher quality, and cheaper models while also having the production capacity to overtake Tesla.
Shown in the numbers by Tesla sales being down 30% while EV sales in general are up %15 year on year.
The climate is important. But das leader is working hard to destroy the environment and institutions put in place to regulate environmental damage. While his one environmental positive product is largely focused at the luxury market reducing its penetration, and has been totally overtaken by other options that do less harm overall.
Good reply
I think that the Cybertruk it’s a blunder because it’s totally impractical. An Electric Ford Transit van base model costs £45000+VAT, and a plumber or a carpenter is going to buy that. For around £40000 you can get either a base Tesla Model 3 or a base Ford Explorer EV, and other manufacturers are selling EV with similar prices.
The problem with Ford and other carmaker is that they don’t make a small car like the Fiesta: actually they stopped making the petrol Fiesta in 2023.
They make a miniscule SUV, think a Fiesta stretched upwards. To save materials it stops at rhe back wheel with nothing hanging over, it looks completely ridiculous.
If we forget Nissan, which started selling EVs in 2009 and sold more units than any Tesla globally until Tesla finally overtook it in 2018.
And Tesla could only do that because of the massive $10B influx of cash from investors. Who are getting (even more) rich now offloading their stock to everyman mom & pop retail investors who will be left holding the bag.
The same thing is going to happen with Starlink, but even worse because of the ongoing constellation maintenance expense ($100M per week by some estimates).
Also, Nissan was the first company to put lithium batteries in EVs, and they did so in 1996.
Tesla wasn’t even first in coming up with the idea of using consumer grade standard cells to reduce cost, because Nissan and Sony did it over a decade earlier.
The only thing that Tesla did and how they were successful was to collect investor money on future promises and then burn the money away for more than a decade until the researchers in the field managed to improve the lithium-ion cells’ energy density and lower the manufacturing cost enough to be profitable. That work was done by Panasonic, LG, and others, not Tesla who simply bought the technology off the shelf.
Climate IS important, but having Elon Musk ravage the backend of our government is not something that I will forgive in the name of pushing battery electric vehicles.
It’s just amazing to see how quickly he’s burned through the public approval he had just a few years ago.
Had or hadn’t. Not everyone bought the hype – a lot of people saw through the whole charade and warned you about Musk years ago.
Funny that stripping the Fed. Govt down to what is legally allowed in the 10th Amendment is construed as a bad thing.
Producing a minimal amount of premium sedans surely saved the environment
Yes, it actually DID, because it was the kick in the ass that the rest of the industry needed.
Not really.
In 2023,
GM turned out ~6.2M cars
Hyundai group dropped 7.3M
VW Group moved 9.3M.
Toyota pushed over 11.5M
Tesla only managed to produce ~1.9M in 2023.
Their total company LIFETIME production doesnt even meet Hyundais 2023 figure.
Tesla wasnt the motivator. Theyre barely a blip. Theyre not a serious contender in the AutoSpace. Theyre a virtue signaling luxury brand whose CEO is rapidly diminishing their overinflated prestige and valuation.
Lead acid and NIHM batteries werent good enough in the 90s and lithium ion batteries were too expensive.
Increased global lithium production reducing battery price, coupled with increased environmental regulations and political pressure to reduce gasoline and diesel consumption played a much greater role in motivating Big Auto than some billionaires limited line of rich boy toys.
GM actually scaled BACK its EV production goals due to a lack of demand. Range anxiety and price (of batteries) are still holding back the market.
“unlike a hydrogen-fuel cell semi-truck it actually exists and doesn’t require new technologies to be invented.”
There are currently 48 Hyundai XCIENT Fuel Cell trucks in operation, deployed across logistics, distribution, and retail fleet operators; these trucks have collectively driven over 10 million kilometers
As of Q3 last year Nikola had delievered 235 of their hydrogen fuel cell semis to customers.
They actually exist. What new technologies need to be invented?
Technology is not the choke point for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The slow proliferation of fueling stations is all that stands in this technologies way.
Technology ‘existing’ in this context also means the technology to produce the things at scale and the infrastructure to widely support them. Those don’t exist in the context of hydrogen-fuel cell technology. We can make small numbers of a lot of things that aren’t practical to solve problems at the scale we need them.
the statement was “require new technologies to be invented.” not infrastructure to support. This is false, Fuel cell technology works. The only thing slowing its adoption and scaling is the demand which has been limited by a lack of fuel delivery infrastructure.
PEM fuel cells running on compressed or liquid hydrogen is what “works” right now, but the energy density of hydrogen is very poor and you can’t run much power for very long between re-fueling. The safety aspect is also a bit… not there really. If you start scaling up the hydrogen delivery infrastructure and the number of hydrogen cars beyond a few enthusiast adopters, you’re going to get a lot of explosions and fires. Fuel cell cars are nice toys and technology demos, but not ready for productive use.
The technology that needs to be invented is: 1) how to burn other stuff than pure hydrogen to get more hydrogen to fit in the fuel tank in a safer form, 2) what is that stuff and how are you going to distribute it, 3) how to make it all cheap and durable.
SOFCs are a candidate for making hydrogen fuel cell cars basically universal by being able to burn just about any liquid or gaseous fuel that contains hydrogen, but the cost and durability are not there yet. The technology to make hydrogen economically out of something other than natural gas is also pretty much not present. You can run expensive electrolysers with subsidized electricity to make it happen, but that’s just hiding the cost of it – it’s not commercially viable business yet.
Yeah technology is probably not the right word here. I’d say it’s even worse though; hydrogen fuel cells require some new economy to be invented.
A hydrogen car is only appealing if there are hydrogen stations blanketing the country. But building tens of thousands of hydrogen fuel stations is only appealing if there are millions of hydrogen cars already on the road. Chicken and egg.
Battery cars avoid this catch 22 since they can be refilled anywhere there is electrical service. My 2013 electric car was fueled by a 120v outlet in my garage for many years.
Hybrid cars avoid the catch 22 since they can be refilled at existing fuel stations.
You can also build hydrogen stations with electrolysis. All you need is water and electricity. The issue is that now you are losing half the efficiency of a battery electric vehicle. The only real upside is energy density. Even then though, solid state batteries will most likely solve this in a few years. Far too few to build out hydrogen infrastructure first.
The real efficiency of a battery EV isn’t actually that great. That’s because a lithium battery costs a lot of energy to make: equivalent to 200-400 full cycles of the battery, while the total energy throughput over the lifespan of the battery/car is on the order of 500-1000 cycles. We’re talking about Energy Stored over Energy Invested (ESOEI) which depends on the fundamental technology and how you use the technology. The embedded energy cost to build the battery is around a quarter to a half of the energy you end up using to drive the car anyways.
In other words, if you have a long range EV that’s driven relatively little over the years, the true energy efficiency may not be much better or even worse than a gasoline ICE vehicle. To get the efficiency, you need to put cycles through the battery, which means you either have a tiny battery or you drive way more than the average person – like a million miles more.
That’s also a major reason why electric cars failed in the 90’s. The ESOEI of lead-acid and NiMH batteries is so bad that their real efficiency was far worse than that of gasoline powered vehicles. They wouldn’t have solved anything.
It’s kind of hard to compete with existing technology until a hybrid company can compete in the open market. After all, Volvo Group alone delivered 245,000 class 8 trucks in 2023. Until someone can deliver large numbers of trucks to the largest fleets IMHO they probably won’t be anything more than an interesting idea.
I’ve never understood why trucks are as aerodynamic as a brick. Considering the mileage covered, every single aero mod would be hugely beneficial.
I think Edison is aimed more at logging trucks and other heavy haul trucks that dont benefit much from aerodynamics
The Edison Motors trucks are meant for logging up in Canada, not long distance, not high speed. Truly just high torque and weight capacity, hence why the tesla semi is more sleek and aerodynamic
There’s not much you can do to a vehicle that size anyhow, without attaching some crazy Concorde type nose to it. You can round the front a little bit, but it’s still going to be about as aerodynamic as a barn door.
For a while I remember seeing panels on the back of trailers that could be unfolded to make the rear more teardrop shaped, then folded back up when it was time to back into a loading dock. Haven’t seen any in a long time, though.
I mean, do a google image search for “18 wheeler” and note that most of them are actually pretty aerodynamic considering the design constraints. The constraints I can think of are that the payload is containerized (a standardized rectangular box) so it has to have a specific hight and width. And the there is an engine that requires a lot of airflow cooling, and a driver who requires visibility. So you make a wedge shape with some vertical surfaces for windows and air intake. Even the Tesla Semi looks the same, minus the air intake.
There are some companies that make caps or fins that go on the rear of the truck to reduce tailwind vortices. But the impact is marginal and they take effort to operate.
The truly brick-shaped trucks are things like dump trucks that are not made for highway travel so aerodynamics are unnecessary.
Because of EU-wide regulations specifying maximum vehicle size, and truck manufacturers optimizing their vehicles for the highest possible amount of goods transported within given dimmensions. Efficiency comes second.
You could make a very aerodynamic truck, but what’s the point if can only haul like 5 tons of cargo? Or you could make a very aerodynamic truck that’s able to haul 40 tons of cargo, but on every single ride you’d have to obtain permission for special transport (like they do nowdays with trucks carrying military tanks or large excavators) and hire a pilot.
Over the year we found a good enough compromise between wasting some fuel on air resistance and being able to haul useful load within existing road infrastructure.
No, it is because shipping containers are standardized boxes and there are overall length restrictions on truck with road design also being affected by those length restrictions.
Regulations puts an upper limit on how long you can make a truck. Which is why you see so many flat nose trucks in Europe. Those cab-over engine trucks couldn’t be any more like a brick.
Dog nose trucks are slightly more aerodynamic, and there are some pretty wild designs around that that reduce the cab space dramatically but provide better aerodynamics. For long haul drivers that live out of their cab, those tiny cabs aren’t practical either.
Better aerodynamics of the box trailer is probably the least effort for the most benefit. And it doesn’t depend on the truck. It slightly reduces the volume of the trailer, but in many cases it’s the weight limit that is hit first.
Transport efficiency doesn’t happen on rubber wheels. While on the road every % gained has a huge advertisement echo, the real savings are done on iron wheels and rails. There is an order of magnitude between them in energy consumption, think about it.
If the added complexity significantly reduces the mean time to failure then it is simply not worth it.
This sounds like a good idea, but the article doesn’t mention: have they made measurable efficiency gains over traditional traction? Do they have a goal in mind?
Here it is, from their website FAQ:
“Fuel savings largely depends on the application the truck is used for. Over the road trucking shows the least amount of fuel savings 5-10%. Logging and city vocational operations show the largest fuel savings at 70-100% fuel reduction. Basically the more starting and stopping done the better the savings, the harder you work the truck and the steeper your terrain the better your fuel savings. These trucks are engineered to work as hard as possible and due their best performance when used that way.”
Makes sense that a regenerative braking system would do worst in a long-haul application
Not just that but effectively having infinite gears with instant shifts. The engine can always run at optimum speed with no lugging.
Well, not always. Once the battery is full, you have to throttle down to the actual load of the motor, or start/stop the engine repeatedly and grind the battery to bits.
It has to have some long range advantages considering Audi RS Q e-tron series Hybrid took Dakar win in 2024.
I don’t think that a fuel savings of 100% has ever been achieved.
electric dump trucks sometimes run greater than 100% fuel savings. Their regenerative braking coming down the mountain to the processing plant fully loaded can produce so much energy they sometimes not only dump their load, but also dump a portion of their battery charge before heading back up to the mine.
I’m surprised no one mentioned the Mazda rotary-electric hybrids.
While it is not the same, the ideas overlap: rotary internal combustion engines aren’t simple to use with a “normal” drive train, so what they did try was to hook it up to a small generator, the engine would then spin up to “optimal” range and drive the generator – this can be then used to charge/power an electric vehicle drive-train.
I’m not sure what Mazda is doing with that (if at all) nowadays, but the nice thing is that it allows for a normally fully electric vehicle with quick “charging”/fueling in case you don’t have access to charger infrastructure or don’t have the time to wait for the batteries to charge up.
I’m not sure what is not simple about use with a normal drive train – that’s what they were developed for in the first place. The biggest advantage of Wankel rotaries is a very high power to volume and power to weight ratios, which I would think would make them close to ideal for hybrid vehicles, which have a bunch of high-volume components.
Pyramid scheme.
The biggest problem with electric trucks is weight. The weight of the battery systems reduces the cargo carrying capacity of the truck and containers are loaded with an eye to the weight limits of diesel semi trucks. If your truck was electric you would most likely be overweight with a fully laden container. Secondly recharge times are an issue because many truck in the US operate with team drivers and are moving almost 24/7. Route planning would have to take into account large charging stations availability. Lastly if you try to avoid the charging issue by going hybrid, you now have the weight and complexity of the diesel power package in addition to the battery/motor combination weight.
The most energy efficient way to make use of this technology already exists. You transport by rail to the nearest terminal and then truck the cargo the rest of the way to the destination.
Rail is a trillion dollar solution and is outside of the ability of most startups and non-government funded change. While it is a great solution the USA is way behind and it would take decades to get any motion.
If you haven’t already check out https://www.edisonmotors.ca/ You are correct that a full electric conversion is not possible without swappable batteries (and all of the issues that presents) there are paths forward which are in motion.
Why has no one mentioned the RAM Ramcharger? For a light truck with the driving character of electric (instant torque, quiet operation) and for a contractor you can use AC power from the battery and on board inverter to run your jobsite needs. The proven V6 engine can be run at the highest efficiency possible then shut down. In the city you can plug it into the grid for full charge when you leave home base and in the country or mountains you can fill the gas tank and still get better mpg than a regular full size truck. What is not to like?
For OTR it would have the same benefits: more efficient and clean burning with a much smaller and lighter diesel engine, but more torque and horsepower from the electric drivetrain. You could have a smaller /lighter fuel tank and still have all day range for long haul routes. Additional benefits are regenerative braking for a fully loaded truck would be safer and far quieter than an exhaust brake. For the driver, you could have almost unlimited AC/DC and HVAC available when parked either for a rest break or at a customer and large truck serviced facilities are now required to account for and limit the environmental impact of the diesel trucks on site.
For refrigerated carriers, you could have a power connection from the truck’s hybrid system to the trailer refrigeration unit and only need to maintain one diesel for the two units, and with an all electric reefer, you can put a plug in system in place and have zero emissions when parked on your yard or at a warehouse. If the power is connected both direction, you could have solar panels on the entire roof of the trailer for considerable additional power input. You could have your parked units always charged up, and with bidirectional connections to your building the panels could be reducing your grid draw.
Bottom line is that I have always wondered why series diesel electric is not the default setup for commercial vehicles.
Edison is seeing a lot of interest from construction companies. Think Cement mixer trucks. Due to noise ordinance construction trucks cannot normally start early in the morning or enter some residential neighborhoods.
With the hybrid they can run on battery early, or make deliveries in residential without being a nuisance.
A Honda Insight or Chevy Volt is looking pretty good to me right now. Although the Honda trick is a second area of high volumetric efficiency at 1,100 RPM, which only works if you cruise at that RPM, some like to go faster, which bumps them out of that zone.
Hybrid also opens the door to engines not normally well-suited to automotive use, like Propane, Wankel (I believe there is a pancake generator developed that could occupy a spare tire well), or maybe even turbine.
They’re designed to replace logging trucks, and the technology makes tons of sense there, too. Drive up a hill unloaded using battery, and regen down the hill loaded. Basically only using the generator to get to and from the site.
The noise aspect in residential areas is one I don’t think I’ve seen come up in Edison’s videos. I’ve been following their progress for a few years now and love what they’re doing.
Very pro labor, too, which is what made Ford a giant a hundred years ago.