what's the futur for gasoline van/RV/camper

[tx2sturgis]

Sit back, relax, and sip some Tesla koolaid while you read this article about the I-95 Snowjam from Powerline:



POSTED ON JANUARY 5, 2022 BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES, ENERGY POLICY, ENVIRONMENT

VIRGINIA TRAFFIC JAM PROVIDES REMINDER OF LIMITATIONS OF ELECTRIC CARS​

Scott has already mentioned the 48-mile traffic backup that occurred in Northern Virginia yesterday. Reportedly, cars were stopped on I-95 for more than 24 hours in freezing temperatures.
It must have been awful, but it could have been worse. And, as Charles Lane explains, it would have been much worse if there had been many more electric vehicles (EVs) in the traffic jam.

Lane writes:

Sometime after 3 a.m. Tuesday. . .a long-haul trucker from Canada heard a knock at the door of his cab. It was one of the hundreds of other motorists stuck in subfreezing temperatures with no food or water.
The supplicant was “driving a Tesla,” recounted the trucker, who told the story on Twitter under the handle My World Through A Windshield, “and he’s worried about running out of power in the cold. [It’s] 19°F or -7°C. He’s a nice guy who was worried about his kids. I gave him some water, a spare blanket and [a] thermal/mylar blanket.”

Lane continues:

The not-so-unprecedented event — essentially a repeat of what happened on a wintry night in the D.C. area 11 years ago this month — therefore provides a reality check on the push by government and business to electrify cars and trucks.
It is a scientific fact that batteries of all kinds lose capacity more rapidly in cold weather, and that includes the sophisticated lithium-ion ones used by Teslas and other EVs. Carmakers can, and do, mitigate cold-weather “range anxiety” through various technologies; Tesla is touting a new “heat pump” to extend winter range. Drivers can save battery power by, say, turning off the heat. The issue cannot be eliminated, however, as Tesla acknowledges on its corporate website.
It’s a hassle in ordinary winter situations but potentially much worse than that on a night like Monday.
Any EV driver stuck on I-95 was right to be anxious — not only about a rapidly dying battery but also about recharging it. Cold would make that process much more time-consuming, assuming there was a charging station nearby, and that the electric power system hadn’t gone out (as it did in parts of Virginia on Monday).

To be sure, cold also affects the performance of gas-powered vehicles and many were left stranded in Virginia after they ran out of fuel or their batteries died. But, says Lane:

All else being equal, though, cars and trucks with internal combustion engines (ICE) would have the advantage in coping with a sudden challenge such as the I-95 fiasco. It is much easier to rehabilitate a disabled ICE vehicle. Rescuers can deliver gallons of gas in convenient jugs; gas stations are still far more numerous than EV charging stations; and ICE car batteries can be jump-started in minutes.
Absent some breakthrough in mobile charging technology, out-of-juice EVs in out-of-the-way places will need a tow. If Monday’s nightmare had been an all-electric affair, they might have littered the highway for miles.

But what about frozen Norway, where the EV share of new car sales was 65 percent in 2021 thanks to massive subsidies — ones far larger than those contemplated in the stalled Build Back Better legislation? Norwegians may be susceptible to bribery, but they aren’t stupid. As Lane points out, “internal combustion models still account for 85 percent of vehicles on Norway’s roads, partly because those Norwegians who bought EVs generally did so in addition to an ICE car they already owned.”
Moreover:

[Norway’s] government is planning to scale back EV purchase incentives because of the cost, which reached $3.4 billion in 2021. Even Norway, which has accumulated a $1.4 trillion sovereign wealth fund through fossil fuel exports, can’t afford unlimited green subsidies.

Lane concludes:

The point is that when people invest their money in a vehicle, they expect to be able to count on it even in extraordinary conditions.
Mass adoption of EVs, and the hoped-for cut in greenhouse gas emissions, thus hinges on the availability of EVs that can do everything existing ICE models can, all the time, for the same price and total cost of ownership, with no extra “hassle factor” — in all kinds of weather.
And like that Tesla driver on I-95 in the wee hours of Tuesday morning, we’re not there yet.

End of article.

Yeah. Thanks but no thanks. I'll keep my gas-powered pickup for awhile longer.

 

[rruff]

Just do a search for the auto companies that are announcing all-EV by some specific date. Add in pressure from gov'ts and others and it WILL happen.

Even if they aren't being built, ICE vehicles will be around for a long time. I bet they back off the 100% deal too, since I doubt long hauls will be time efficient in an EV for a good while. The government is pushing hard in that direction, but the economic reality will dominate.

Very small EVs for urban environments have been economically viable for decades. The problem is that infrastructure is designed for huge vehicles making tiny ones unsafe. That should be the 1st place to focus IMO.

 

[rruff]

As Lane points out, “internal combustion models still account for 85 percent of vehicles on Norway’s roads, partly because those Norwegians who bought EVs generally did so in addition to an ICE car they already owned.”

EVs forte should be tiny urban vehicles. Owning one in addition to larger ICE vehicle for hauling loads or long trips makes sense.

Sometime after 3 a.m. Tuesday. . .a long-haul trucker from Canada heard a knock at the door of his cab. It was one of the hundreds of other motorists stuck in subfreezing temperatures with no food or water.
The supplicant was “driving a Tesla,” recounted the trucker, who told the story on Twitter under the handle My World Through A Windshield, “and he’s worried about running out of power in the cold. [It’s] 19°F or -7°C. He’s a nice guy who was worried about his kids. I gave him some water, a spare blanket and [a] thermal/mylar blanket.”

The point is that when people invest their money in a vehicle, they expect to be able to count on it even in extraordinary conditions.
Mass adoption of EVs, and the hoped-for cut in greenhouse gas emissions, thus hinges on the availability of EVs that can do everything existing ICE models can, all the time, for the same price and total cost of ownership, with no extra “hassle factor” — in all kinds of weather.
And like that Tesla driver on I-95 in the wee hours of Tuesday morning, we’re not there yet.

Come one... this is obviously a EV bashing propaganda piece. I wonder how many people in ICE cars are "worried" they might run out of gas when they are stuck in the cold in a traffic jam for hours! What actually happened to that poor Tesla owner?

Also, the "belief" that a vehicle needs to be able to do everything that you might ever need a vehicle to do, is the idea that needs to die. Focus on EVs that are cheap to buy and cheap to run, for urban use.

 

[BinDerSmokDat]

Starting from scratch and going very light weight has a lot of benefits, if you want to do your own solar charging.

For instance, these cars are required to run only on what they harvest from their panels.

Those are not cars, they are basically bicycles with four wheels.
Scratch that because most o fthem have 3 wheels so they are trikes.
I saw one that NJIT built up close and it's a skeletal frame with a motor, controller and steering that's it.
There is no room for anything else.
It's not scalable in the least.
Yes, they can approach speeds of 45mph but it takes a long slow time to reach that.
And when they do these races they do them in VERY sunny parts of the country, preferably flat and with NO TRAFFIC so they don't have to stop.
Some innovations might come from these types of builds and competitions, but a vehicle traveling under it's own solar or even self-charging enough for a return trip commute while parked is a long way from viable at this time.

 

[BinDerSmokDat]

EVs forte should be tiny urban vehicles...Focus on EVs that are cheap to buy and cheap to run, for urban use.

We have them now and urban people aren't buying them. They have no place to charge them. If you live in a brownstone walk-up in Brooklyn or an apartment building where will you charge it? run an extension cord out the window 10 stories?
There just isn't the charging infrastructure in the cities...and it's expensive to rip up roads in urban areas to install such charging.

I'm not anti-EV, but I'm a pragmatist, urban dwellers won't buy a personal vehicle they can't charge. And that's not me saying that, it's the sales numbers saying that.
Most people who buy an EV have another ICE in the household and tend to live in suburban areas with single family homes where they can charge them.

The UK used (and still does in some places) trucks called "milk floats" that were electric and delivered milk, dairy and eggs for decades before electric passenger cars were practical.
They worked because they were quiet for early-morning deliveries, they didn't have to be fast and UK towns are more centralized so you can have a central distribution point to charge at each night.
This is basically Amazon's model for the Rivian and other companies will follow suit.

But we're a long way off from 100% EV sales, let alone 1005 EV's on the road.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

We have had over 200 years to figure out the problems with ICE vehicles. Most of those didn't show up until we had huge numbers of them.
We haven't gotten there with EVs. We haven't got enough EVs on the road to know what the problems are and how difficult they are to solve.

As to 'charge during day/discharge to grid at night':
I don't think it is technical/logistically feasible. 2,032,000 people work in Minneapolis. If half drive (for example) that is 1 million chargers and the added infrastructure to supply them.

P.S. We need some 'bashing propaganda' to counteract the 'rainbow and unicorn' pieces put out by proponents. In saner times it used to be called debate, now we use trigger words to discredit the other without addressing their thesis.

 

[Jaketheone46]

Been looking around online. This is the most promising EV I've seen; called the XBUS. It's light (1200 lbs without batteries), highly configurable (can get it with a big cargo box), relatively cheap (starts at $20k), 120-300 mile range, can go 60 mph, designed (built?) in Germany. They are selling in Europe this year.

This guy has some good comments:

Been looking around online. This is the most promising EV I've seen; called the XBUS. It's light (1200 lbs without batteries), highly configurable (can get it with a big cargo box), relatively cheap (starts at $20k), 120-300 mile range, can go 60 mph, designed (built?) in Germany. They are selling in Europe this year.

This guy has some good comments:

This looks awesome but wow 20HP?? This would actually make my 1990 Toyota 4x4 22RE feel like a power house. lol seriously the 22RE makes approximately 116HP but I swear it feels way less. I guess it’s from the weight of the truck. Back then these trucks were overbuilt. Tough as nails and why it’s still on the road today original motor,trans and everything. Just replaced the original alternator this year and did not even consider anything but the original from Toyota for another 30 plus years of service. You maintain these trucks and keep them from rusting they will run forever.

 

[John in Montreal]

As to 'charge during day/discharge to grid at night':
I don't think it is technical/logistically feasible. 2,032,000 people work in Minneapolis. If half drive (for example) that is 1 million chargers and the added infrastructure to supply them.

Portable chargers capable of 40 amps cost like $300. They plug into a 50 amp outlet and come with adaptors for lower amperage outlets.

Rescuers can deliver gallons of gas in convenient jugs;

Yeah when shtf I'm just gonna sit back and wait for my "rescuer" to roll up with a 5-gallon can of gas. Speaking of unicorns and bullshit.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Portable chargers capable of 40 amps cost like $300. They plug into a 50 amp outlet and come with adaptors for lower amperage outlets.

Cost of chargers is trivial (relatively). Its the cost of wiring all those 50 amp outlets and the 40 megawatts of additional power you somehow got to get into Minneapolis and distribute.

Yeah when shtf I'm just gonna sit back and wait for my "rescuer" to roll up with a 5-gallon can of gas. Speaking of unicorns and bullshit.

So what is your plan if you're out of energy (gas, battery), 5+ miles from the nearest gas station/car charger?
And since we were using the I-95 fiasco as example, your stuck in a traffic jam, a blizzard, and its freezing.

 

[gizmotron]

But do we really need range? There is a wide spectrum of "vehicle dwellers"... some poor, some rich, some minimalist, some extravagant, some nearly stationary, some very nomadic, some who like to park in town, some who like campgrounds, some who live for free on open public land.

I just love this. We will go all electric and everyone will have the same income. It's Star Trek. Those of us that like the Nomadic lifestyle will have all the money to expand our experience and talents. It's all about bettering one's self. And all this due to Ben Franklin, a kite, and a key.

 

[rruff]

If half drive (for example) that is 1 million chargers and the added infrastructure to supply them.

There just isn't the charging infrastructure in the cities...and it's expensive to rip up roads in urban areas to install such charging.

A "charger" doesn't need to be anything but a 110v outlet, with a meter.

Of course they don't have the infrastructure yet. Switching to electric will be a big task for generation and distribution both. But when it's done, transportation will be cheaper, and the impact on the environment a lot less. It's worth the investment. We don't have to wait for some tech miracles before it's viable, we just need to do the work and spend the $$$. Yes, I know the US isn't in the habit of spending money on anything infrastructure related these days, but...

This looks awesome but wow 20HP?? This would actually make my 1990 Toyota 4x4 22RE feel like a power house. lol seriously the 22RE makes approximately 116HP but I swear it feels way less.

It will not be fast! But... it weighs 1400 lb... that's with the smaller battery bank. 20 HP continuous, but 65 HP (?) max, and lots of torque. So it will get off the line pretty good, but you won't go fast up a long climb.

I had '84 and '86 pickups... just got rid of the '86. Good motor, and strong, light, reliable vehicle.

 

[Matlock]

Trains. (not talk'n Lionel)

I saw the newest electric one up and running in Pittsburgh late last year.
They called it a FLXdrive Battery Locomotive. This is not a prototype. They are building to orders. Some models are built to go coast to coast on a single charge while backup charging to "battery cars" is happening while they are being pulled.
They are attempting to build something that will run without a "charging stop" in essence, for the life of the components. The engineering is to stop for engine maintenance at regular intervals and exchange locomotives.
Sorta like they did in the 1920's - 50's I guess.

Point is innovation will push newer/better technology as it always has in current and future designs. I don't and won't have the money to participate but, I shall watch as things develope.

 

[RonDean]

I just love this. We will go all electric and everyone will have the same income. It's Star Trek. Those of us that like the Nomadic lifestyle will have all the money to expand our experience and talents. It's all about bettering one's self. And all this due to Ben Franklin, a kite, and a key.

Good workable EVs are here today. Maybe not for every application (like RVs), but for many. Better EV solutions will be here tomorrow. And even better ones the day after that. Nobody said otherwise. So, I do not think all the "Yah-buts" really constitute debate.

Why do so many dealerships hate EVs? So much so that many will shut down rather than make the change? Because of all the $$$ they make from us servicing ICEs! EVs can be charged at many homes from solar but all ICE owners have to pay the oil companies to keep going. Over time the infrastructure will keep improving for EV owners.

In all the Yah-buts I haven't seen any arguments why it is better to pump out pollution and pay the high price of gas any longer than we absolutely have to. If that is going Star Trek, sign me up.

 

[rruff]

Trains. (not talk'n Lionel)

It does seem odd to me that we kinda got rid of trains for hauling cargo. They are far more efficient than using semis.

 

[tx2sturgis]

We don't have to wait for some tech miracles before it's viable, we just need to do the work and spend the $$$. Yes, I know the US isn't in the habit of spending money on anything infrastructure related these days, but...

Earlier in the thread, I said that most EVs are essentially coal-powered now. So if that is not workable into the future, where will the alternative power come from?

To build out a new 'green' infrastructure, we need a way to harvest wind and solar, maybe hydro. Where will we put all those hundreds and thousands of huge new solar panel megaplants? In whose backyards? Which desert? Which ocean? Whose pleasantly undisturbed pastures?

And windfarms? Who's farms and ranches and city parks and national forests and pristine shorelines shall we over-run with giant, noisy, windturbines? Have you ever stood underneath one? I have.

What about all the trucks, and machinery and equipment used to build these things? And all the personnel and all the roads? Infrastructure is not invisible, and neither is it agreeable to everyone. (hint: the controversial 5G buildout...keystone pipeline etc.)

How about all the power transmission? Millions of new brown poles and gray metal towers and billions of miles of shiny aluminum wire as far as the eye can see, EVERYWHERE. Criss-crossing the continent over farms, homes, and national parks.

It does seem odd to me that we kinda got rid of trains for hauling cargo. They are far more efficient than using semis.

When did we get rid of trains? They still haul about 70% of all freight by volume in the USA. (volume here also means tonnage as well as cubic volume)

Trucks haul about 70% of freight by dollar value.

Door to door delivery by truck is also MUCH faster, compared with rail. And when was the last time you saw a rail dock at your favorite grocery store, restaurant, or gas station? The 'first mile' and the 'last mile' of nearly ALL consumer products need to use trucks to 'get it there.'

Existing trucks and trains can use the infrastructure we already have (roads and tracks) to bring fuel and oil and food and value-added consumer goods. But guess what...trucks and trains CAN'T bring gallons of electricity or carloads of solar power to your neighborhood charging station. It's gonna take a gigantic upgrade and all new buildout of the electrical infrastructure to carry all those zillions of kilowatts to make all those millions of EVs go.

 

[rruff]

Is there any way to cancel or delete a post?

 

[tx2sturgis]

Is there an echo in here?

 

[rruff]

Earlier in the thread, I said that most EVs are essentially coal-powered now. So if that is not workable into the future, where will the alternative power come from?

To build out a new 'green' infrastructure, we need a way to harvest wind and solar, maybe hydro. Where will we put all those hundreds and thousands of huge new solar panel megaplants? In whose backyards? Which desert? Which ocean? Whose pleasantly undisturbed pastures?

And windfarms? Who's farms and ranches and city parks and national forests and pristine shorelines shall we over-run with giant, noisy, windturbines? Have you ever stood underneath one? I have.

What about all the trucks, and machinery and equipment used to build these things? And all the personnel and all the roads? Infrastructure is not invisible, and neither is it agreeable to everyone. (hint: the controversial 5G buildout...keystone pipeline etc.)

How about all the power transmission? Millions of new brown poles and gray metal towers and billions of miles of shiny aluminum wire as far as the eye can see, EVERYWHERE. Criss-crossing the continent over farms, homes, and national parks.



When did we get rid of trains? They still haul about 70% of all freight by volume in the USA. (volume here also means tonnage as well as cubic volume)

Trucks haul about 70% of freight by dollar value.

Door to door delivery by truck is also MUCH faster, compared with rail. And when was the last time you saw a rail dock at your favorite grocery store, restaurant, or gas station? The 'first mile' and the 'last mile' of nearly ALL consumer products need to use trucks to 'get it there.'

Existing trucks and trains can use the infrastructure we already have (roads and tracks) to bring fuel and oil and food and value-added consumer goods. But guess what...trucks and trains CAN'T bring gallons of electricity or carloads of solar power to your neighborhood charging station. It's gonna take a gigantic upgrade and all new buildout of the electrical infrastructure to carry all those zillions of kilowatts to make all those millions of EVs go.

Do you actually think these are valid criticisms? Have you tried answering them yourself? It seems to come down to "it will take work! and resources!" In any thing we do, what matters is technical feasibility, and economic viability. Converting the majority of our transportation to electric, and a good percentage of electric to renewables, meets those criteria. Greatly reducing the energy we consume in personal transportation is also very feasible.

Many people have viable locations for solar right on their roofs. As for the mega-plants, the SW which is the best place for them, also has vast unused expanses of land. The windiest parts of the country are also sparsely populated, but I think solar is now more efficient and the gap will likely widen in the future.

The fact that the miles of railways we have has dropped by 2/3s since 1916 qualifies as "kinda got rid of them" to me.

The problem with hauling freight on roads is that it costs a lot more in energy, and destroys the roads. Certainly for local delivery, roads are necessary, but not for hauling cross-country.

"Shipping via train is more environmentally friendly. Trains burn less fuel per ton mile than trucks. According to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), freight railroads can move one ton of freight an average of 479 miles on a single gallon of fuel. On top of that, using rail transport over road transport can lower greenhouse gas emissions by 75%."

 

[Calaverasgrande]

The winter storm thing was terrible. I can't imagine getting snowed in when driving a passenger car. In my van I'm more than prepared. Heck, I would probably be handing out my throw blankets and making soup for people with my stove.
But be realistic, the EV bashing article admits the last time it happened in that area was a decade ago. Twice in 10 years is hardly a design flaw.
As far as EV mandates. We had an unleaded gas mandate and no CFC mandate in my lifetime. I can probably think of a few more if I google for a minute.

There are what, 3 ICE car companies in America. They are all moving towards EVs.
Major companies in Japan and Europe are moving that way as well.

Yes a portion of the energy we consume is produced by coal. But this argument is like saying plants feel pain to a vegetarian. Is the solution to do nothing out of spite? Switching to EVs at least makes urban air cleaner, and a kilowatt produced by coal is cleaner than a kilowatt produced by a dozen individual gas or diesel engines. A coal plant is able to be fitted with scrubbers and other emissions controls that are not practical on small scale.
Ideally we should be getting away from coal, tar sands and fracking.
If we diverted a portion of the 750 billion dollar defense budget to wind, solar, geothermal and hydro we would be there already.
But I guess it's more important to keep the rest of the world in fear of us.

 

[tx2sturgis]

Converting the majority of our transportation to electric, and a good percentage of electric to renewables, meets those criteria. Greatly reducing the energy we consume in personal transportation is also very feasible.

Many people have viable locations for solar right on their roofs. As for the mega-plants, the SW which is the best place for them, also has vast unused expanses of land. The windiest parts of the country are also sparsely populated, but I think solar is now more efficient and the gap will likely widen in the future.



The problem with hauling freight on roads is that it costs a lot more in energy, and destroys the roads. Certainly for local delivery, roads are necessary, but not for hauling cross-country.

I am not saying mass-scale electrification of our mobile infrastructure and logistics system will never happen. I am saying it WILL NOT happen in the lifetimes of most of the members here who are past let's say, 50, and are wondering if a gas-powered RV or camper van is a valid purchase.

The politicians and lawmakers would have us believe that we should keep them in office because they are promising a 'green future'. BS. Its really about getting re-elected.

As far as solar and wind power in the sticks...YEP! Give that man a cigar! Now...how ya gonna get all that power you are producing out in the boonies transported to the population centers? Oh yeah...those things I mentioned...you know...massive pieces of metal infrastructure to transport the energy to the people who want to keep having lights when they flip a switch. Cuz you sure ain't gonna build a 1000 acre solar farm or mega windfarm in the middle of downtown Manhattan or on Rodeo Drive in Los Angeles.

As far as trains...yeah, efficiency. They got that. What they don't have is speed. It can take 2 weeks to a month (maybe more!) to ship bulk amounts of something by rail across the country.

Good luck with that if the lettuce loaded on a box car in the 105degree heat outside Phoenix, or the boxed beef shoved onto a refer car in Kansas needs to get to a food warehouse in say, Rochester NY in under 5 days.

You do like your meat and veggies, edible? Right?