EV alternative for light/medium duty trucks

[thomas201]

So much wheel spinning on EVs, what if they are not the right path forward? The biggest problem with renewable power and EVs is storage, the second is storage, and the third is storage. Another path is carbon capture from the atmosphere (using amine scrubbing like nuclear subs and carbon dioxide from natural gas) then splitting hydrogen from water, followed by building whatever hydrocarbon you need.

The US Navy is hard at work on this project, since it avoids storage of large amounts of jet fuel, and the difficult job of resupply of jet fuel at sea to the carriers. After all fire kills ships. The Fords were built with a very large excess electric generation capacity for this reason and many others.

Porsche now has a pilot project running in South America, Porsche syn fuel

This will work wherever you have cheap electricity and water. The products are put right into refinery feeds. No need to rebuild the approximately 1.5 Billion cars in the world. Solves storage, no worry about hydrogen embrittlement, recycles carbon dioxide, we use the existing liquid fuel distribution system. Transparent to the car/truck owner.

[valhalla360]

map40 wrote:
There are a many reports in favor as there are against them. If what the reports against it say is true, why are all automakers going into it? NO AUTOMAKER WOULD GO INTO EVS IF THE REAL CASE WAS THAT BAD. Will it replace ICEs? NO WAY, THE TECHNOLOGY IN ITS CURRENT PATH CAN'T. When we learn to evaluate things objectively with no preconceptions or politics we will understand that EVs are just a variant type of vehicle that thanks to the advance of technology is now getting into the masker after 140 of being invented (remember, EVs are older than ICEs).

If the govt throws enough money or enough penalties at a company, it will distort the market and companies will do silly things...at least for a while. So hard to evaluate without preconceptions or politics when it's a huge driver at the moment and unlikely ever to completely go away.

[valhalla360]

map40 wrote:
Without the complicated mechanics and the short range of a plug in hybrid (not a hybrid). Might sound similar, but it is a world of difference.
Always remember, an ICE is 30% efficient on converting fuel into motion. Parasitic loads, brakes converting kinetic energy into heat, they are all waste. An EV is 95% efficient converting power into motion.
As I said, they are a great alternative for the right use, but they won't replace all ICEs uses. And Trucks are the most difficult use for EV applications.

95% efficient is if you only look at the electricity arriving at the motor. Once you add conversion to and from the battery, transport over the grid, burning coal at the power plant, etc...even with the power used to drill, transport and refine oil, it's no longer the slam dunk in terms of efficiency.

[Reisender]

pianotuna wrote:
Reisender,

Unfortunately Saskatchewan is one of the 3. We are extremely dependant on coal--even though the mine near Estevan is supposed to close in 2024.

"About 81% of electricity in Saskatchewan is produced from fossil fuels

–approximately 40% from natural gas, 41% from coal, and a very small amount of petroleum in remote off-grid communities. The remaining 19% is produced from renewables, primarily hydroelectricity."

Hi Don. Yah. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are the other two.

Natural gas is a pretty good way to produce power though. My guess is Saskatchewan will shift more power generation to natural gas. Less expensive than coal and a lot less long term liabilities.

Stay warm Don.

[time2roll]

Michelle.S wrote:
BUT, what happens to the Grid when the remaining Coal Fired Plants are taken off line??
Remember burning Coal is bad just like gas and Diesel.

I would assume the grid will be prepared before the last is shut down.

[pianotuna]

Reisender,

Unfortunately Saskatchewan is one of the 3. We are extremely dependant on coal--even though the mine near Estevan is supposed to close in 2024.

"About 81% of electricity in Saskatchewan is produced from fossil fuels

–approximately 40% from natural gas, 41% from coal, and a very small amount of petroleum in remote off-grid communities. The remaining 19% is produced from renewables, primarily hydroelectricity."

[Reisender]

Michelle.S wrote:
BUT, what happens to the Grid when the remaining Coal Fired Plants are taken off line??
Remember burning Coal is bad just like gas and Diesel.

Depends on how good the planning was. In the 1980’s Alberta was close to 80 percent coal. They are now closing the last coal plant this month. Now it’s natural gas and wind with some solar and biomass thrown in. By the end of this year Canada will be at about 5 percent coal. Coal was super expensive. There are still 3 provinces that have some coal power. Hydro and wind continue to grow.

[Michelle_S]

BUT, what happens to the Grid when the remaining Coal Fired Plants are taken off line??
Remember burning Coal is bad just like gas and Diesel.

[Reisender]

RoyJ wrote:

Reisender wrote:
The BC hydro website digs into this a bit. Essentially the province doesn’t have a problem with generating capacity. But distribution and grid will adapt in the normal course of maintenance and up keep going forward to adapt to the changing load in neighborhoods etc.

Nailed it. Gen capacity is not (too much of) an issue in BC, especially once Site C comes online. We're at around 2,000 MW remaining capacity at peak usage, simplified math says 330,000 6kW home slow chargers. If charged overnight then virtually unlimited.

But we have a lot of neighborhoods still fed by single phase 12kV lines, and older substations are tapped out. Upgrading the entire province to 25kV will take a long time (took 5 years just to get rid of the last 3 4kV substations).

I fully support a 2-tier rate system with cheaper off-peak hours. However, if that means higher peak hour rates, then non-EV owners won't be happy.

Yah. This is Revelstoke Dam. Maybe 100 kilometres from our house. We like camping in the area. Notice the missing 6th tube. Lots of capacity left. There are a few dams like this in BC. And at least one more dam coming on line in the next few years. BC hydro is not worried about capacity.





But neighbourhood distribution will be an ongoing upgrade over the next 30 to 40 years. We have 47 town houses in our development. All with 100 Kw service. I think there are 5 of us with EV’s (one may be a PHEV). I think we are all using 32 amp 240 volt EVSE’s although I think the PHEV is just a standard 120 volt 12 amp. We also have a second 12 amp 240 volt unit outside from when we had two vehicles. A little slower but still fine for most days.

Anyway, as BC hydro indicates on their website, there is no real upgrade project, but distribution upgrades will be done in the course of normal maintenance.

Cheers.

[RoyJ]

Reisender wrote:
The BC hydro website digs into this a bit. Essentially the province doesn’t have a problem with generating capacity. But distribution and grid will adapt in the normal course of maintenance and up keep going forward to adapt to the changing load in neighborhoods etc.

Nailed it. Gen capacity is not (too much of) an issue in BC, especially once Site C comes online. We're at around 2,000 MW remaining capacity at peak usage, simplified math says 330,000 6kW home slow chargers. If charged overnight then virtually unlimited.

But we have a lot of neighborhoods still fed by single phase 12kV lines, and older substations are tapped out. Upgrading the entire province to 25kV will take a long time (took 5 years just to get rid of the last 3 4kV substations).

I fully support a 2-tier rate system with cheaper off-peak hours. However, if that means higher peak hour rates, then non-EV owners won't be happy.

[BCSnob]

way2roll wrote:
Dude, I've seen your posts and respect you, but this is a pretty thin argument.

look at my post on the Socratic method

Fwiw I would get an EV for my next commuter vehicle if the electrical wiring in our equipment shed gets updated by then. Charging at home at night will be difficult with wiring that does not have a ground wire (only 2 conductors). My reality of living on a farm that was retrofitted for electricity after the farm was already 100 years old.

[propchef]

way2roll wrote:


Straw man argument. How is the logic faulty? So there isn't enough demand with an already over taxed power grid? Tell that to the folks told to charge their cars at night, not at all or experience rolling black outs. Upgrades come when subsidies kick in. Just like EV's.

Not necessarily at night, but during "off-peak" hours. Mornings are included in some areas. The power company makes the same suggestions for running your washing machine or dishwasher.

Any "rolling blackouts" have nothing to do with EVs but with the weather or wildfires.

[shelbyfv]

way2roll wrote:
You don't think utilities will increase once demand goes up from EV's? And that cost amortized to those that don't own EV's? We are talking a huge ramp up in electric infrastructure. I mean, we're already paying musk billions with subsidies. Dude, I've seen your posts and respect you, but this is a pretty thin argument.

This is just inaccurate. As I posted earlier, 6%-8% if EVs are adopted as rapidly as hoped and that's over a period of at least 20 years. Google for yourself if you like. These things just aren't the huge power sucks some folks like to imagine.

[JRscooby]

BCSnob wrote:
My questions are delivered in the spirit of the Socratic method, to get people to think about the ramifications of their arguments. Such as power generation must be built for future EV adoption before EV adoption should be allowed to occur.

If you looked I bet you would find that in large parts of the country early Model T sales where slow because no local gas stations.

[way2roll]

BCSnob wrote:
Do people want utilities to increase generation capacity (passing these capital investment costs onto consumers) based upon the most aggressive predictions of EV adoption (putting the horse before the cart) or continue to build in capacity based upon changes in measured demand?

You don't think utilities will increase once demand goes up from EV's? And that cost amortized to those that don't own EV's? We are talking a huge ramp up in electric infrastructure. I mean, we're already paying musk billions with subsidies. Dude, I've seen your posts and respect you, but this is a pretty thin argument.

[BCSnob]

My questions are delivered in the spirit of the Socratic method, to get people to think about the ramifications of their arguments. Such as power generation must be built for future EV adoption before EV adoption should be allowed to occur.