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

[vagabondpilot]

I've given some thought to this problem. I have an old G20 that was given to me. When the motor blows I'm going to give some serious thought to converting it to electric. Either get used tesla motors or an electric forklift motor and tie it into the current drive train. Simple ESC on the accelerator and a robust battery bank. I'm still debating on pulling a "solar trailer" which would give better charge rate and could be filled with portable panels. This is all just in my brain right now but it's all very possible. If a dumb redneck like me can learn enough to implement something like this then I can only imagine that companies will sell drop in unites if we ever reach the point of losing our gasoline infrastructure.

 

[rruff]

I'm still debating on pulling a "solar trailer" which would give better charge rate and could be filled with portable panels.

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.

"The team arrived on Friday morning in Adelaide after a journey of 3,022 kilometers (1,878 miles), the final 250 of which was covered with 5 people aboard and at an average speed of 70 kilometers per hour (43.5 mph). The whole journey was completed with an average of 3.4 persons per kilometer, using 48 kWh and gained a maximum score of 20 out of 20 for practicality on Saturday."

That's 39 miles per KW-hr. A Rivian pickup only goes 0.48 miles per KW-hr, using 81x the energy.

I'm not suggesting you make something that light and aero, but... if you built a rig that used say 5x the energy of the solar car, and you carry batteries to give you a 100 mile range, that would be 12.8 KW-hr of batteries, which would weigh about 250 lbs and cost ~$2,000 if they are LiFePO4. To replenish that much energy you'd need about 3.2 KW of panels per day, so if you are parked for a week 450W of panels could replenish what you lost on average. Hopefully then you could recharge in town.

Note that if you build something as big as a Rivian, these numbers are 16x as large and it really isn't practical to carry the solar with you.

 

[thegoodtom1]

...What we do know is that the transportation sector is responsible for over 55 percent of NOx total emissions inventory in the U.S., less than 10 percent of VOCs emissions in the U.S. and less than 10 percent of particulate matter emissions in the U.S. -- auto.howstuffworks.com/air-pollution-from-cars

...When hydrocarbons and NOx combine in sunlight, they produce ozone. High in the atmosphere, a layer of ozone protects us from the sun's ultraviolet rays. -- auto.howstuffworks.com/air-pollution-from-cars

So according to their estimate, the ozone layer should be getting thicker from vehicle emissions. Perhaps there are other polluters making money on their emissions and convincing you (the consumer) that you're the one causing the problem. Do heavy equipment, government vehicles, or ocean vessels get regular smog checks to operate? What about manufacturing plants. Why does the average Joe have to take up the slack? It just seems like another way to make us pay while they get away.

 

[thegoodtom1]

Btw, according to the national air quality index, currently the worst U.S. pollution index is just west of Moab, Utah. So many vehicles driving around there? https://www.airnow.gov/national-maps/

 

[rruff]

Btw, according to the national air quality index, currently the worst U.S. pollution index is just west of Moab, Utah. So many vehicles driving around there? https://www.airnow.gov/national-maps/

Cool map! That's centered over Grand Junction. Probably ozone trapping inversion which happens sometimes in winter. If it's windy there could be particulates as well.

The worst is actually at the very southern border of CA... looks like Tijuana pollution?

 

[RonDean]

...What we do know is that the transportation sector is responsible for over 55 percent of NOx total emissions inventory in the U.S., less than 10 percent of VOCs emissions in the U.S. and less than 10 percent of particulate matter emissions in the U.S. -- auto.howstuffworks.com/air-pollution-from-cars

...When hydrocarbons and NOx combine in sunlight, they produce ozone. High in the atmosphere, a layer of ozone protects us from the sun's ultraviolet rays. -- auto.howstuffworks.com/air-pollution-from-cars

So according to their estimate, the ozone layer should be getting thicker from vehicle emissions. Perhaps there are other polluters making money on their emissions and convincing you (the consumer) that you're the one causing the problem. Do heavy equipment, government vehicles, or ocean vessels get regular smog checks to operate? What about manufacturing plants. Why does the average Joe have to take up the slack? It just seems like another way to make us pay while they get away.

You are right, auto emissions are hardly the only problem and not even the biggest problem we face. However, they are significant and worth dealing with.

For me, I am just tired of supporting an industry that has been proven to be hiding all the damage they do. Not just with road transportation. Burning fossil fuel for whatever reason creates pollutants that add to global warming and reduce our personal health and that of our children going forward. I care about them too and hope they will get to enjoy clean, low maintenance, electric transportation. Maybe even an ERV.

 

[thegoodtom1]

You are right, auto emissions are hardly the only problem and not even the biggest problem we face. However, they are significant and worth dealing with.

For me, I am just tired of supporting an industry that has been proven to be hiding all the damage they do. Not just with road transportation. Burning fossil fuel for whatever reason creates pollutants that add to global warming and reduce our personal health and that of our children going forward. I care about them too and hope they will get to enjoy clean, low maintenance, electric transportation. Maybe even an ERV.

They may be closer than we think. Several companies have attempted to electrify the commercial vehicle market and we are making strives in the storage industry as well. I like choice. I abhor mandates that tell me I must, especially when the technology hasn't been made efficient enough yet.

 

[UptownSport]

What car did Mrs. Henry Ford drive?
(NOT a trick question)


Mrs. Henry Ford drove a Detroit Electric. Women and doctors (and by my observation 'The wealthy') drove electrics from the early 1900's into the 1930's. They didn't need to be crank started, important when making many house calls (doctor) or when finely dressed.

The point is there isn't anything new here, there's always been massive numbers of electric vehicles in warehouses, mines and factories. The major difference is the market (and abject necessity) decided on gasoline/diesel (ICE) powered cars and largely discarded electrics and cars such as the Stanley Steamer. There's no law against having a steamer, where you can just burn garbage to make the car go, yet ...

A similar trend occurs today in Europe, where people 'ditched' their new electrics to return to ICE powered cars.

Today it is the government, not the market (necessity) deciding.
In short, it's not going to happen. You can't legislate immense infrastructure advances, that's just another of the utopian schemes that always spectacularly failed.
The 'madness of crowds' story of Hawaii decommissioning their coal power plant, only to be forced, and I'm not joking, to use DIESEL GENERATORS will lead to the equally absurd scenario of us having an ICE generator in our trunk with a Jerry can of gas/diesel.

There's no way for millions (billions?) to conveniently charge cars. You can't 'miracle' that otherwise and justification for doing so is highly, highly dubious, as many have pointed out.

If we look at the balance sheet of destroying vs creating, governments are extremely good at the former, and very poor at the latter.
We could go back millennia.

 

[rruff]

Today it is the government, not the market (necessity) deciding.
In short, it's not going to happen. You can't legislate immense infrastructure advances, that's just another of the utopian schemes that always spectacularly failed.
There's no way for millions (billions?) to conveniently charge cars. You can't 'miracle' that otherwise and justification for doing so is highly, highly dubious, as many have pointed out.

Lots of naivete in your post. Sometimes the market is very efficient... and sometimes it very much is not. Every developed country in the world has a both a pronounced free and competitive market as well as strong government intervention and regulation. It's the only system that works well (relatively). It is unfortunately very messy in all cases.

One thing the government does is set policies that promote certain kinds of behaviors and discourage others. If our fossil fuel energy was benign, then it would make sense to give these industries "free reign" until a cheaper alternative naturally supplanted them. But that isn't the case.

I don't know why you think charging cars is a problem. It's actually the opposite of a problem, since electric cars have much more storage than they typically use, so they can readily solve the issues of variable renewable sources. Just need to have electric prices that are variable by time of day and inputs vs outputs.

 

[thegoodtom1]

Lots of naivete in your post. Sometimes the market is very efficient... and sometimes it very much is not. Every developed country in the world has a both a pronounced free and competitive market as well as strong government intervention and regulation. It's the only system that works well (relatively). It is unfortunately very messy in all cases.

One thing the government does is set policies that promote certain kinds of behaviors and discourage others. If our fossil fuel energy was benign, then it would make sense to give these industries "free reign" until a cheaper alternative naturally supplanted them. But that isn't the case.

I don't know why you think charging cars is a problem. It's actually the opposite of a problem, since electric cars have much more storage than they typically use, so they can readily solve the issues of variable renewable sources. Just need to have electric prices that are variable by time of day and inputs vs outputs.

Variable prices? Oh, I see, you want a new privatized energy market. Good luck with that.

 

[rruff]

Variable prices? Oh, I see, you want a new privatized energy market. Good luck with that.

Why would it need to be privatized?

 

[Calaverasgrande]

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.

"The team arrived on Friday morning in Adelaide after a journey of 3,022 kilometers (1,878 miles), the final 250 of which was covered with 5 people aboard and at an average speed of 70 kilometers per hour (43.5 mph). The whole journey was completed with an average of 3.4 persons per kilometer, using 48 kWh and gained a maximum score of 20 out of 20 for practicality on Saturday."

That's 39 miles per KW-hr. A Rivian pickup only goes 0.48 miles per KW-hr, using 81x the energy.

I'm not suggesting you make something that light and aero, but... if you built a rig that used say 5x the energy of the solar car, and you carry batteries to give you a 100 mile range, that would be 12.8 KW-hr of batteries, which would weigh about 250 lbs and cost ~$2,000 if they are LiFePO4. To replenish that much energy you'd need about 3.2 KW of panels per day, so if you are parked for a week 450W of panels could replenish what you lost on average. Hopefully then you could recharge in town.

Note that if you build something as big as a Rivian, these numbers are 16x as large and it really isn't practical to carry the solar with you.

If you think about it, a lot of the reason oour vehicles weigh so much is their engines.
Internal combustion engines weigh hundreds of pounds.
So they not only need a frame that supports them, but the entire vehicle needs to remain balanced.
Electric motors are much less weight. Batteries bring that back up again. But they can be distributed around the vehicle. So not so much worry about balance.
Imagine a van built like a bicyle, with much ligher wheels and chassis. Just enough space for sleeping area and a backpack worth of items maybe.
Downside is how to make something so efficient and lightweight that can survive a collision with any old gas guzzler.

 

[rruff]

Downside is how to make something so efficient and lightweight that can survive a collision with any old gas guzzler.

In a head-on with a large vehicle the tiny car is effectively not just running into a brick wall, but a brick wall traveling towards it at high speed! The only way to make urban roads safe for them is to repurpose lanes and infrastructure specifically for small vehicles... and maybe confine larger ones to right lanes and right turns. I've been advocating this for 30 years... it was viable back then, and even more so now. Tiny electric cars that weigh <1,000 lbs would be perfect for urban areas. This is one of the more promising designs I've seen:

Gas vehicle motors are actually pretty light. I just looked up the weights of a couple engines offered for the 2012 Ford F150. The 5.0L V8 is 435 lbs and the 3.7L V6 is 335 lbs. This a truck that weighs ~5500 lbs, so the engine is well under 10% of the weight.

I very much agree that starting with a s super light (bicycle like more than tank like!) vehicle is the way to go. With electrics the batteries are the things that get really heavy as you try to increase range, and the heavier and larger the vehicle is the more you need. If you want a very light van you'll probably need to custom make it, since US regulations would never allow something that light to be manufactured. If it was a 3 wheeler it would be considered a motorcycle, so maybe that would work...

An electric version of something like this, maybe?

 

[WayOutWest]

The long-suppressed inventions of Nikola Tesla are coming, coming....and they will change everything.

 

[thegoodtom1]

Why would it need to be privatized?

Varied prices would have people buying and selling power privately (instead of a government entity). It would be traded like stocks.

 

[rruff]

Varied prices would have people buying and selling power privately (instead of a government entity). It would be traded like stocks.

Why would you assume that? The public utility would set the price according to time of day and demand. The algorithm they use would be public knowledge. Private individuals would then be encouraged to sell electricity when the price was high, and store it when the price was low.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Why would they be charged at night rather than during the day when the sun is out? Most people will be able to charge at work during the day or wherever they are parked.

The solution is simple... the price of electricity (in both directions) will vary depending on how much is generated and the time of day. Someone with a 300 mi range who typically uses 20 mi at a stretch will have a lot of excess capacity they can sell when demand is high.

A couple of problems with that:

My former employer has 34,000 employees at their main campus. If 1/2 of them drive (low estimate), that's 17,000 chargers and a lot of tearing up of parking lots and infrastructure improvements. Much more efficient to charge at night at home where the infrastructure is in place.

You need to have your vehicle for emergencies, not just for average daily driving. One never knows when you will need your vehicle for an e.r. run, evacuation or get stuck in a traffic jam for hours.

 

[Jon Donahue]

My bet is that we will have electric cars in the cities and built-up areas, and hybrid cars, vans, and trucks in our more open spaces... in 10 years, that will be the mix. All-gasoline and all-diesel will go away. I look at the Prius car as the future... they are dependable and very fuel-efficient. The eco arguments will slowly shift from too much carbon in the air, to what do we do with the totally toxic dead lithium batteries. And numerous horror stories about self-driving cars going nuts, and all-electrics catching fire, etc. Same old wine in a new bottle!

 

[rruff]

A couple of problems with that

If it's cost effective to put in charging (and it definitely will be with 20,000 cars in the lot!), then they'll put them in. The cost is trivial really.

If you want to keep a reserve then you easily can. But most people's cars will have a far greater capacity than what they typically need.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

Te

A couple of problems with that:

My former employer has 34,000 employees at their main campus. If 1/2 of them drive (low estimate), that's 17,000 chargers and a lot of tearing up of parking lots and infrastructure improvements. Much more efficient to charge at night at home where the infrastructure is in place.

You need to have your vehicle for emergencies, not just for average daily driving. One never knows when you will need your vehicle for an e.r. run, evacuation or get stuck in a traffic jam for hours.

thats where tax incentives come in.
I'm not sure about E vehicle chargers, but I know when I lived in California there were tax incentives for employers to help out with the cost of transit passes. It was taken out pre tax for the employee, and if the employer did matching on the cost they got a write off and some other bonus. When I was a manager at free weekly I pushed real hard for it.

I'm sure for E-chargers there would be some kind of rotation, as well as prioritizing people who drive the farthest, or need to visit client sites multiple times per week. Also, for such large employers, it's rare that everyone is at work at the same time isn't it?
Usually they have day and evening shifts, weekends etc. It's really not that hard. We did all switch as a country from gas and oil powered indoor lighting to electric lights about 100 years ago. Same for the switch to cars from horses.
Things change, people make money, people lose money. Such it has ever been.