Coast to coast in an Electric car towing a trailer.

holstein13 wrote:

westernrvparkowner wrote:
Wow, I did a bit of research and some basic math and found out that the 50 AMP charger for a Tesla draws 40 amps at 240 volts (10 kw). Or to put it another way, 80 percent of the maximum available power at a 50 amp pedestal. Furthermore, a complete charge at that rate would take up to 7 hours. NEC allows 7 50 Amp pedestals per 200 amp service loop. 5 Teslas charging on that loop would take 100 percent of the available power for that entire loop, leaving the 7 RVs completely without power.
A complete charge for a Tesla would cost us around $7.00 (10 cents per kwh). It is our experience that a fully electric coach costs us around $5.00 per day in electrical costs, so the Tesla is nearly a 50 percent greater energy hog than a 45 foot Prevost (provided the Tesla only needed one charge that day. It is entirely possible that with it's 250 mile range a person could run it dry in the morning after charging all night and need another full recharge that same day). No way electric cars can share the current electrical grids in RV parks.

I'm really glad you are doing the research but your numbers make no sense at all. If you have 7 50 Amp pedestals and 5 of them have a Tesla charging on them, that leaves you only 2 spots left.

Where would you even plug in the 7 RVs if the pedestals are already taken? What is the likelyhood of you having 5 Teslas charging at maximum draw at the same time? This makes no sense. So the Tesla uses an extra $2.00 in electricity. How much do you charge for one of your sites? How much water does the Tesla use (probably close to zero). How much sewage does it produce (again, close to zero)? If you are completely honest with yourself, you'll see that a Tesla renting one individual spot and taking one outlet only is good business for you and for the environment and for your customers.

Note, I'm not suggesting the Tesla share a spot with the camper. I'm suggesting you rent out the Tesla spot and camper spot separately.

Those Teslas will draw maximum power for 7 to 8 hours, and since most everyone would be charging them overnight, they would be drawing that power at the same time. People with electric cars aren't going to pay for two sites, one for their RV and one for their car, they are going to want to charge their cars at their sites and it is not feasible in parks that have constructed their electrical grids to current NEC specs.
Now if someone wants to rent a site for their electric car and then rent an RV site for their RV, fine. But I would peg the number of electric car owners that are going to pay well over $100.00 a night for two RV sites at just about Zero.

Climate change will likely do in the Salmon south of 55 North anyway.

fj12ryder wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^Okay, now you're just being silly. :)

Not really, if the greenies had their way the dams would be removed. That's a fact.

wilber1 wrote:
I think it depends a lot on where you live, the type of driving you do and climate. I know of a person who had a Model S. Getting it serviced was OK as long as he lived in the Vancouver area but as soon as he moved to Vancouver Island, service was unavailable and when you have a car that needs things like its computers recalibrated by Tesla when you install snow tires, that is a major PITA if you live in a colder climate. This will be a major problem for Tesla if they can't provide service outside of major centres and an advantage that major car makers building electrics will have for some time. He also found there was a noticeable loss of battery life after two years resulting in a loss of range and longer charging times. This was compounded by, unless it was parked in a heated garage, there were additional losses as soon as the temperature dropped a couple of degrees below freezing

There were a lot of things he did like about the car but got rid of it for those reasons.

Personally, if a car can't get me from my place to the Okanagan Valley in the winter without refueling, it isn't for me.

I wonder how many of those folks who camped out to put a deposit down on a car they might get in 2018, are the same ones you see camped outside of APPLE stores to get its latest piece of gear.

We notice a loss in range when the temperature gets colder. Maybe as much as a quarter depending on how much you use the heater or electric seats etc. For us it just doesn't matter. We use ours as a commuter and the range could be half and still suit our needs. We need a reliable 40 to 50 KM. About a third of the range under normal conditions and about half under not so good. Everybody has different needs. Present electric vehicles are not for everybodies needs but certainly work well for many. A truck would be a disaster for me but works well for my brother for example.

^^^^^^^^^^Okay, now you're just being silly. :)

holstein13 wrote:

tplife wrote:
I'm not comfortable driving a car that runs on coal, as typically the power grid that fuels electric vehicles do. Now once that 500-year supply of oil runs out, rest assured, I'll be right in line with everyone else using the "new" technology.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/ev-faq.html#bf-toc-11

No, the power grid that fuels electric vehicles does not run on coal. Only 33% of it does. Here are the facts:

Coal = 33%
Natural gas = 33%
Nuclear = 20%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.6%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.6%
Wind = 4.7%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases = <1%

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

It all depends on your region!

In NW WA the power is derived from Grand Coulee DAM and many other Dams so the majority of power consumed in that area is Hydro and that means you are KILLING Salmon!!!

I think it depends a lot on where you live, the type of driving you do and climate. I know of a person who had a Model S. Getting it serviced was OK as long as he lived in the Vancouver area but as soon as he moved to Vancouver Island, service was unavailable and when you have a car that needs things like its computers recalibrated by Tesla when you install snow tires, that is a major PITA if you live in a colder climate. This will be a major problem for Tesla if they can't provide service outside of major centres and an advantage that major car makers building electrics will have for some time. He also found there was a noticeable loss of battery life after two years resulting in a loss of range and longer charging times. This was compounded by, unless it was parked in a heated garage, there were additional losses as soon as the temperature dropped a couple of degrees below freezing

There were a lot of things he did like about the car but got rid of it for those reasons.

Personally, if a car can't get me from my place to the Okanagan Valley in the winter without refueling, it isn't for me.

I wonder how many of those folks who camped out to put a deposit down on a car they might get in 2018, are the same ones you see camped outside of APPLE stores to get its latest piece of gear.

Gdetrailer wrote:

Homer wrote:
Funny how every one dwells on the negatives, when our mental prowess would be better spent on finding solutions. This is the future.

Sorry, you ARE wrong.

Electric vehicles have been tried many, many times starting in the 1890s.

DO SOME REAL RESEARCH.

I should know.. I OWN a 1901 electric car that is no longer powered by electric.. If it was the "future" it would never have been CONVERTED TO A GASOLINE ENGINE.. That conversion was done in 1907..

I always chuckle at the knuckle heads waving their green energy card.. :B

Do you honestly believe the thousands of people buying a Tesla are doing it solely for the "green energy card"? If so, you just don't get it.

I had enough money to buy a nice car and it was between the Porsh and the Tesla. I chose the Tesla because it was a better car. It accelerates and handles better. It has seating for 7 people. It has tons of storage in it and the latest electronics. The newest ones drive themselves. And the icing on the cake is I don't have to visit the gas station and touch the disgusting pumps ever again while I'm driving it.

This whole debate about clean energy and saving the earth is totally off the mark. Electric cars are the future because they are better cars. Period. If you can afford one but haven't driven one because you refuse to be green or whatever reason, you need to do yourself a favor and take a test drive.

westernrvparkowner wrote:
Wow, I did a bit of research and some basic math and found out that the 50 AMP charger for a Tesla draws 40 amps at 240 volts (10 kw). Or to put it another way, 80 percent of the maximum available power at a 50 amp pedestal. Furthermore, a complete charge at that rate would take up to 7 hours. NEC allows 7 50 Amp pedestals per 200 amp service loop. 5 Teslas charging on that loop would take 100 percent of the available power for that entire loop, leaving the 7 RVs completely without power.
A complete charge for a Tesla would cost us around $7.00 (10 cents per kwh). It is our experience that a fully electric coach costs us around $5.00 per day in electrical costs, so the Tesla is nearly a 50 percent greater energy hog than a 45 foot Prevost (provided the Tesla only needed one charge that day. It is entirely possible that with it's 250 mile range a person could run it dry in the morning after charging all night and need another full recharge that same day). No way electric cars can share the current electrical grids in RV parks.

I'm really glad you are doing the research but your numbers make no sense at all. If you have 7 50 Amp pedestals and 5 of them have a Tesla charging on them, that leaves you only 2 spots left.

Where would you even plug in the 7 RVs if the pedestals are already taken? What is the likelyhood of you having 5 Teslas charging at maximum draw at the same time? This makes no sense. So the Tesla uses an extra $2.00 in electricity. How much do you charge for one of your sites? How much water does the Tesla use (probably close to zero). How much sewage does it produce (again, close to zero)? If you are completely honest with yourself, you'll see that a Tesla renting one individual spot and taking one outlet only is good business for you and for the environment and for your customers.

Note, I'm not suggesting the Tesla share a spot with the camper. I'm suggesting you rent out the Tesla spot and camper spot separately.

tplife wrote:
I'm not comfortable driving a car that runs on coal, as typically the power grid that fuels electric vehicles do. Now once that 500-year supply of oil runs out, rest assured, I'll be right in line with everyone else using the "new" technology.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/ev-faq.html#bf-toc-11

No, the power grid that fuels electric vehicles does not run on coal. Only 33% of it does. Here are the facts:

Coal = 33%
Natural gas = 33%
Nuclear = 20%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.6%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.6%
Wind = 4.7%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases = <1%

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3