400 mile electric RV

250 miles

https://www.gobrightdrop.com/products/evs

EV’s are engineering marvels, a blast to drive, and come with a lofty tax subsidy (paid for by your next door neighbors), and with a sizable dose of conspicuous ‘self-marketing’ - heck, what’s not to like??…We’ll leave all the practicalities and environmental calc’s for someone who really cares

3 tons

To be fair for those in the solar camp, from same paper....

"Whereas for solar at 5.7We m-2, 22% of Germany’s
land area would need to be devoted to commercial scale
solar to meet total primary energy consumption."

Some have determined that about 1/3 of USA would need to be covered with commercial solar farms to meet USA's current energy consumption needs.

Power density is the riddle to solve.

rlw999 wrote:

Timmo! wrote:
I am sure you believe what you are doing is the best thing for Mother Earth...just as I am.

If the BEV breakeven point (when BEV becomes GREENER than ICE) is around 100k miles...then for us common folks that drive less under 6k miles a year, we would have to drive the BEV 16 years (longer than the its life-cyle).

One size does not fit all.

For cars, there's considerable debate over exactly where that breakeven point is, which also depends on how your power is produced -- as power production shifts to renewables, the breakeven point is reduced:

https://about.bnef.com/blog/the-lifecycle-emissions-of-electric-vehicles/

The lifecycle CO2 emissions of medium segment battery electric cars produced in 2020 and used for 250,000 km would be between 18% and 87% lower than those of equivalent internal combustion engine vehicles in the five countries included in this report. The breakeven point is far sooner in France at 25,000 km, compared to 153,000 km in China. By 2030, all countries will see this emissions breakeven point occur far earlier.

Though I suspect that we're a decade away or more from RV's being available that will ever reach the breakeven point due to the (on average) low annual miles, and large battery packs that would be required.

And when the rubber hits the road, sometimes things just don't work out as promised.

How much land and how many turbines are needed to meet 100% of a country's primary energy consumption?

"If the average US wind power density of 0.90We m-2
was applicable to Germany, then devoting all German
land to wind power would meet about 70% of Germany’s
total primary energy consumption...

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf9cf/data

Power density of the chosen alternative power is the real challenge.

In Germany's case 100% of their land covered with windmills would provide only 70% of their energy need. Where does the other 30% come from?

The bottom line is that lithium battery technology entered the scene well before a cogent plan existed to power up EV’s from what is an already challenged grid, but timed perfectly to advantage green Politicians and their rush to purple unicorns (tax subsidies)…Beyond this, an empirically objective analysis has never been made to establish the claim that EV’s can in anyway cause a net reduction in CO2, thus for the sake of the myopic, ‘feel good’ green agenda, the proverbial cart was placed in front of the horse…But nowadays ‘truth’ doesn’t seem to sell too well…

3 tons

Timmo! wrote:
I am sure you believe what you are doing is the best thing for Mother Earth...just as I am.

If the BEV breakeven point (when BEV becomes GREENER than ICE) is around 100k miles...then for us common folks that drive less under 6k miles a year, we would have to drive the BEV 16 years (longer than the its life-cyle).

One size does not fit all.

For cars, there's considerable debate over exactly where that breakeven point is, which also depends on how your power is produced -- as power production shifts to renewables, the breakeven point is reduced:

https://about.bnef.com/blog/the-lifecycle-emissions-of-electric-vehicles/

The lifecycle CO2 emissions of medium segment battery electric cars produced in 2020 and used for 250,000 km would be between 18% and 87% lower than those of equivalent internal combustion engine vehicles in the five countries included in this report. The breakeven point is far sooner in France at 25,000 km, compared to 153,000 km in China. By 2030, all countries will see this emissions breakeven point occur far earlier.

Though I suspect that we're a decade away or more from RV's being available that will ever reach the breakeven point due to the (on average) low annual miles, and large battery packs that would be required.

I am sure you believe what you are doing is the best thing for Mother Earth...just as I am.

If the BEV breakeven point (when BEV becomes GREENER than ICE) is around 100k miles...then for us common folks that drive less under 6k miles a year, we would have to drive the BEV 16 years (longer than the its life-cyle).

One size does not fit all.

Timmo! wrote:

For many of us, the best GREEN option is to continue driving our fuel efficient ICE vehicle instead of purchasing a brand new BEV.

It's more complicated that if you're looking at the total environmental impact rather that just a person's own personal impact.

If I sell my 5 year old Hybrid car and replace it with a BEV, that Hybrid isn't discarded, someone else will buy it and presumably trade up from their older, less efficient car.

VINDICATED!

For many of us, the best GREEN option is to continue driving our fuel efficient ICE vehicle instead of purchasing a brand new BEV.

Summary: The debate on green vehicles often focuses on fuel efficiency and alternative fuels, with the transition to fuel alternatives commonly being considered better for the environment the faster it is. A new study shows that keeping and using existing fuel-efficient cars a little longer can actually reduce CO? emissions even with gasoline cars. Thus, a gradual transition and policies that encourage a change in consumption patterns are also key for reducing overall emissions.

...The faster you replace a car, the more CO2 it emits. It's no different with electric cars, because when the demand for new cars increases, it shoots up manufacturing emissions," says Shigemi Kagawa, professor of Kyushu University's Faculty of Economics and leader of the study.

...Using economic statistics, Kagawa's group conducted a case study of newly registered and used cars in Japan between 1990 and 2016. The group modeled how replacement behavior of car owners affects their carbon footprint.

...Their modeling shows that, if cars had been kept on the road ten percent longer before being scrapped, the cumulative carbon footprint from cars would have decreased by 30.7 million tonnes, or one percent, during this period.

...This is because the decrease in manufacturing emissions more than offsets additional emissions produced by existing cars.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/09/210924104313.htm

Timmo! wrote:
Yep, in order for BEVs to be GREEN the vehicle must be charged using clean electricity.

Sorry, but the "greenest" thing on your list (hydro) actually doesn't count as a green, renewable, sustainable energy source in WA according to Fuhrer...I mean Governor Inslee's i937. According to Inslee, the physics of evaporation and condensation are not renewable. But it's not political, right?