While this is interesting, the article is fatally flawed: it doesn't cite the costs of electricity to recharge the batteries, nor does it mention the recharge time for those batteries and as a result is attempting to tout unreasonably high cost savings from using electric rigs.

Having worked for a trucking company, here are the yet-unsolved problems associated with electric big rigs:
1) Range. Even short-haul delivery trucks put on a LOT of miles in a day. The current limit of 200-300 miles isn't going to cut it for most delivery routes.
2) Recharge times. A truck that isn't running isn't making you money. That's the benefit to liquid fuel: you can be back on the road in 15 minutes. A recharge takes hours. Proponents cite the mandatory downtime requirements, but those only apply to single drivers - not teams who need to get product moved quickly.
3) Recharging stations. These aren't exactly plentiful for big rigs, meaning that any notion of OTR (over-the-road) can be shot down right now.
4) Battery costs. The Bloomberg author acknowledges that Tesla is attempting to compete in a very low-margin industry. The problem is that to add the battery packs necessary to extend range prices them completely out of that very industry. Oops.

I just don't get how many people are willing to "invest" billions in this company which isn't turning a profit and isn't likely to any time soon.

A better article than the Bloomberg one is here: https://www.wired.com/2017/06/elon-mu...