RAM Unveils Promaster EV

[Gr8ful]

However, I also suspect there is a profit motive as well as a bias behind many anti-EV stories.

I also suspect there is a profit motive, control issues as well as a bias behind many pro-EV stories!

 

[RonDean]

I also suspect there is a profit motive, control issues as well as a bias behind many pro-EV stories!

I would not argue with this. Anyone selling anything has a profit motive and we should check and double check them. Unfortunately, most folks only look to disprove the things they already disagree with and accept unchecked things they prefer would be true. I'll toss myself into that sometimes. But I try not to be that way.

On this subject I am pretty sure burning fossil fuel is a bad thing based on multiple sources that are not trying to sell me anything. I also remember visiting relatives in SoCal as a kid and not being able to see the surrounding mountains. Now the air is much cleaner. It was Gov Regan (if anyone thinks this is just a lib/cons issue) that first approved CARB and after a few years the air cleared up. I have Ca gov links if anyone wants them. I also believe that using lead in our gas to reduce engine knocking was a read BAD idea that the industry tried to cover up. However, lead has been linked to lower IQs, heart and kidney disease, and can be inhaled or ingested, with children particularly susceptible to its poisonous effects. And so on...

EVs are a new technology and will keep improving. I do not doubt that EVs eventually it will overcome its real issues as well as those stories that might be based on profit and bias.

 

[Gr8ful]

I agree the U.S. is much cleaner now than when I was a kid. We'd go to Chicago every now & then. You could be blindfolded & know when we got near Gary,IN. We put scrubbers on coal burning plants & that helped a bunch. But we still export more coal than in 2010 so we add trucking & ship pollution on top of the coal pollution. China & India are building coal fired plants at record paces. Look at the air quality at the China Olympics. How's does this help our planet? Here's a good article on the true cost of EVs. $17 per gal
https://www.thestreet.com/electric-vehicles/electric-vehicle-tesla-adoption-curve-costHere's an article saying 19 container ships pollute the same as all the world's cars but I've read they are working to improve. https://go.enfos.com/blog/2015/06/2...ontainer-ship-can-out-pollute-50-million-cars
The last point is we don't have enough electric in many places now. If we go all electric we only have one choice of provider, so we lose the freedom of choice & price shopping like we have with all the other fuels & most every winter here & other weather elsewhere causes loss of power. They could also ration electricity. Sorry I'm not putting all my eggs in that one basket.

 

[bullfrog !]

Time to put the atom to work!

 

[Gr8ful]

If talking Nuclear I agree. France has proven Nuclear is the way to go, without a single death. 50 people total worldwide have died because of nuke power plants, not all by Nuclear some by electrocution & other ways most at Chernobyl of thyroid cancer but the plant had iodine pills they never gave they people. Below is an article & chart of all power producing deaths per 1000TWh, Solar will suprise you! https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources

 

[RonDean]

I agree the U.S. is much cleaner now than when I was a kid. We'd go to Chicago every now & then. You could be blindfolded & know when we got near Gary,IN. We put scrubbers on coal burning plants & that helped a bunch. But we still export more coal than in 2010 so we add trucking & ship pollution on top of the coal pollution. China & India are building coal fired plants at record paces. Look at the air quality at the China Olympics. How's does this help our planet? Here's a good article on the true cost of EVs. $17 per gal
https://www.thestreet.com/electric-vehicles/electric-vehicle-tesla-adoption-curve-costHere's an article saying 19 container ships pollute the same as all the world's cars but I've read they are working to improve. https://go.enfos.com/blog/2015/06/2...ontainer-ship-can-out-pollute-50-million-cars
The last point is we don't have enough electric in many places now. If we go all electric we only have one choice of provider, so we lose the freedom of choice & price shopping like we have with all the other fuels & most every winter here & other weather elsewhere causes loss of power. They could also ration electricity. Sorry I'm not putting all my eggs in that one basket.

Like I said, I'm not very much $$$ driven. If it means cleaner air, I'm fine with driving a bit less.

China??? Yes, they do pollute and it blows across the ocean toward us. Not good. However, they are also building hydroelectric dams and lead in making solar panels. I don't think they are in denial, just too focused on economic growth. India? Too many people to supply with energy while trying to achieve an advanced lifestyle not to pollute. But I think the global consensus will put pressure on both to get better. Besides, I have never really gone for the "what about them?" argument as an excuse for my/our own behavior.

Do we have enough "clean" electric production? Also, sadly no. But saying we don't need more clean energy won't get us there. If we continue making more clean and renewable energy sources, maybe it will be there as we use more EVs. Gotta start somewhere!
.

 

[rruff]

Thus, the right EV rig could boondock for 5-6 days and then have a 'spa day' at a KOA to 're-fuel'.

This would of course be disallowed quite quickly...

 

[rruff]

The 2025 Ram EV pickup.... I don’t know the MPG equivalent of the generator, but it would hopefully be an easier drive train to maintain.

Definitely not! All the EV parts along with the same engine that's in a Promaster.

 

[rruff]

Here's a good article on the true cost of EVs. $17 per gal
https://www.thestreet.com/electric-vehicles/electric-vehicle-tesla-adoption-curve-cost

How did you determine it's "goodness"? It's complete BS.

 

[user 22017]

If talking Nuclear I agree. France has proven Nuclear is the way to go, without a single death. 50 people total worldwide have died because of nuke power plants, not all by Nuclear some by electrocution & other ways most at Chernobyl of thyroid cancer but the plant had iodine pills they never gave they people. Below is an article & chart of all power producing deaths per 1000TWh, Solar will suprise you! https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources

Nuclear isn't the only option; nor the best, option.

 

[user 22017]

Here's a good article on the true cost of EVs. $17 per gal
https://www.thestreet.com/electric-vehicles/electric-vehicle-tesla-adoption-curve-cost

Re that article, this quote preceded the $17 per gal statement in the same article:

An October report by the Texas Public Policy Foundation found that, after accounting for all of the hidden costs involved in owning an EV, that price becomes much more significant than an internal combustion engine vehicle.

The foundation is a conservative think tank that according to 2012 tax filings was funded predominantly by Exxon Mobil, Chevron and the Koch brothers. The organization, according to the New York Times, has been attempting for years to promote fossil fuels while inciting a pullback in America's transition to renewable energy.

The group has campaigned against green energy, and last year an executive at the organization tweeted: "Today, I’m thankful to live a high-carbon lifestyle and wish the rest of the world could too. Energy poverty = poverty. Decarbonization is dangerous and deadly."

The group's report adds up the costs of government subsidies, charging equipment and the added strain on the electric grid, claiming that the "true cost of fueling an EV would equate to an EV owner paying $17.33 per gallon of gasoline."

 

[Gr8ful]

Nuclear isn't the only option; nor the best, option.

Carla, I value your opinion. In your opinion what is the best option & why? Thanks!

 

[user 22017]

Carla, I value your opinion. In your opinion what is the best option & why? Thanks!

Thanks. And I do yours I'll look tomorrow for examples, but offhand ... we need to stop buying so much crap. And work hours can change. Less hours and work from home.

I'll look tomorrow.

 

[dhuff]

If talking Nuclear I agree. France has proven Nuclear is the way to go, without a single death. 50 people total worldwide have died because of nuke power plants, not all by Nuclear some by electrocution & other ways most at Chernobyl of thyroid cancer but the plant had iodine pills they never gave they people. Below is an article & chart of all power producing deaths per 1000TWh, Solar will suprise you! https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources

As I've pretty much alluded to, I am (as the kids like to say) "Liberal AF." I also agree that nuclear power should definitely be in our toolbox.

My general idea is that:

1. Near term: Replace as much coal powered generation with natural gas as we can (about half the carbon output)
2. Mid term: Spin up modern, safe fission nuclear plants (zero carbon output). This should incl research into Thorium plants as well.
3. Future term: Continue to fund/research fusion power until we've got that working on a commercial scale

 

[user 22017]

Carla, I value your opinion. In your opinion what is the best option & why? Thanks!

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-renewable-energy
I'm especially interested in ocean energy systems. From the UN:

Ocean energy derives from technologies that use the kinetic and thermal energy of seawater - waves or currents for instance - to produce electricity or heat.

Ocean energy systems are still at an early stage of development, with a number of prototype wave and tidal current devices being explored. The theoretical potential for ocean energy easily exceeds present human energy requirements.

We can use all of the technologies mentioned on the UN's website.

Nuclear is too deadly and/or harmful to be putting all our hopes in it. Plus, doesn't it involve extraction resources?

 

[rruff]

Nuclear is too deadly and/or harmful to be putting all our hopes in it. Plus, doesn't it involve extraction resources?

The thing about nuclear is that it has proven to be expensive in the US, else there would be a bigger push for it. The plants self destruct due to radiation more quickly than initially thought. 70 years ago there was a big push to give us the material for nuclear warheads, but that is past. They also slow to respond to load which makes them a poor compliment to wind and solar which are highly variable. NG is good for that.

Still, I think we'd be fine to add some of the the latest and greatest nuclear plant designs to the mix. France still produces over 70% of their electricity with nuclear plants. They have clear environmental benefits and the dangers can be dealt with.

 

[rruff]

We can use all of the technologies mentioned on the UN's website.

Just because something theoretically "works" doesn't mean it's economically viable. We need to know the life cycle cost and the impact of all the factors that go into production.

 

[RonDean]

The thing about nuclear is that it has proven to be expensive in the US, else there would be a bigger push for it. The plants self destruct due to radiation more quickly than initially thought. 70 years ago there was a big push to give us the material for nuclear warheads, but that is past. They also slow to respond to load which makes them a poor compliment to wind and solar which are highly variable. NG is good for that.

Still, I think we'd be fine to add some of the the latest and greatest nuclear plant designs to the mix. France still produces over 70% of their electricity with nuclear plants. They have clear environmental benefits and the dangers can be dealt with.

The biggest problem with nuclear is dealing with the waste. They are working on better fission tech and maybe fusion will someday be an option. And, as rruff pointed out, there is the expense and cost overruns. But it is an option to consider. I would be in favor of more renewable energy sources AND better energy storage solutions. This will all take time and effort. The first step is admitting it's something we (globally) NEED to do.

Nor does transportation, energy production and storage exist in a vacuum. The amount we use is just as important. It's one reason I choose to forgo eating meat. I saw one doc that said in the US we devote HALF of all our fertile land to animal and animal feed production. I think it's about 30% globally. I don't expect everyone to go vegetarian, but any kind of reduction in meat eating would help our climate crisis. If we took that same land and grew plants, we would have more food at a cheaper price and would produce less greenhouse gas. Or just eating local produce in season rather than shipping it around the world would help. Something to think about.

 

[Gr8ful]

Nuclear was hobbled badly by Pres Carter with the start of the NRC.
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/world-largest-nuclear-reactor-aims-070000048.htmlhttps://spectrum.ieee.org/cop28-nuclear

The biggest problem with nuclear is dealing with the waste.

The amount of nuclear waste is roughly equivalent to less than half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool. The waste can be recycled. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel.
The problem is 3 fold IMHO. Americans are afraid of nuclear anything. The NRC makes it 2 to 3 times harder & more time & money to build a power plant. The unions over ran the the cost of the 3 plants I'm familar with built about 45 years ago & the repowering of them. My friend was an electricion on a plant build. He was only allowed to pull 1/4 of the wire he would on other jobs. After a week of doing almost nothing he started tendering for the block layers which caused a shite storm with there union. Another friend with no skill on another plant build got the lowest paying job, on the boat that took the welders out on the lake to install the cooling tubes. His only job was when the boat left the dock a guy thew the rope to him & on return my friend threw the rope back & brought home $1400 a week over 45 years ago. He too got bored so he started helping the oiler on the boat & another shite storm started. I also fly with the guys that do the rod changes every so many years, same thing milk it for every penny! My last point is anyhing for nuclear cost 20x or more than the exact item not marked. Pure Greed! Same in aviation. The exact item for a certified plane cost 2 to 4 times if used on an ultralight. Nuclear can be safe inexpensive clean power as it's come a long way since it started. We have subs on the move all the time with no issues.

 

[tx2sturgis]

BTW, I love how conversations wander all over the place on this forum (really...no sarcasm intended). Start talking about an EV full-sized van, end up discussing how various internal combustion engines work in very cold weather...

It's kinda like sitting around a campfire BS-ing with real people and all

Thanks, that's the way I see it also.

It's a fact of life on these forums that there will usually be thread drift, and sometimes off-topic posts need to be moved or deleted, but as long as the drift is at least related to the topic of the thread (and people are generally civil with each other) I see no benefit in slicing off a large chunk of an existing and active thread, just to keep the topics neatly compartmentalized.

I've noticed that when we (the mods) start surgically removing off-topic posts and placing them in their own new threads, or coaching everyone to get 'back on topic', there is usually a noticeable drop in participation.

Now and then we will get a message from an OP that their thread is way off topic and no longer helpful or relevant, and we sometimes act on those, on a case-by-case basis.

But, unless there are opposing opinions, I believe this thread is covering many bases but still in the same EV and vehicle energy 'ball park' as it were.

And, for what it's worth, I'm learning a lot here!