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.

[Grit_dog]

We really need a LIKE button for some of the recent level headedness. @map40 and others

[map40]

Lantley wrote:
Articles and propaganda are created by both sides. As consumers it's hard to decipher the truth. At the end of the day it's not about technology but about who will control/maintain the profits of the energy industry.

Exactly. The only thing I normally try to do is to avoid the "sides". I don't care about the politics, I just care about my needs and my pocket. For me, 2 EVs work great, one for my son and one for me. My wife has a Cherokkee Trailhawk (that we toad) and my other son a Minivan that was a gift from when I left Chrysler (A 2008 with 145K miles with lifetime bumper to bumper warranty)
EVs are not for everybody, each person needs to check their own case. Generalizations live "They are all bad" or "They are going to take over the entire industry" are not possible. I know they won't be going away, but they will stop ghrowing at a certain point...

[JRscooby]

propchef wrote:

time2roll wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
A few days ago the Wall Street Journal had an article about what it presently takes for renewables to supply power 24/7.
Apparently it has been done on a small scale in several locations. The common theme was that it takes 3 times the capacity of a conventional power plant AND an incredible amount of batteries to achieve the level of reliability we are used to. They flat out concluded that it cannot be done with todays technology.. It would take too much real estate and cost way too much.
So we are going headlong down a road that presently has a bad ending.
Will a better way be developed?..... Maybe and maybe not. One thing is certain. Companies will only continue down this road if makes financial sense. Presently Governments are providing enough incentives to make it so. But even they cannot afford to do this at the level it will take to be green. One thing is certain. Buisinesses will not shoulder the cost alone, as long as they know it is not the ultimate solution. As they would be loath to pay for all the stranded costs of a failed experiment IF a better way forward is found.

I assume there is an agenda or bias within the reporting.

Post the article at length so we can have real comments.

It wasn't a factual, in-depth article, it was on the "Opinions" page.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/electric-vehicle-ev-power-grid-electricity-shortage-11652302212

BYW, this article is subscription/password based, but it's someone's opinion, same as anyone posting here.

And something to consider when judging how valid the opinion published in WSJ is that WSJ is owned by the same people that started a network with "News" in the name that according to the auto-biography of a co-founder. Profit is more important than truth, and Tell them something to make them mad, and who to be mad at, they will never change channels

[propchef]

time2roll wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
A few days ago the Wall Street Journal had an article about what it presently takes for renewables to supply power 24/7.
Apparently it has been done on a small scale in several locations. The common theme was that it takes 3 times the capacity of a conventional power plant AND an incredible amount of batteries to achieve the level of reliability we are used to. They flat out concluded that it cannot be done with todays technology.. It would take too much real estate and cost way too much.
So we are going headlong down a road that presently has a bad ending.
Will a better way be developed?..... Maybe and maybe not. One thing is certain. Companies will only continue down this road if makes financial sense. Presently Governments are providing enough incentives to make it so. But even they cannot afford to do this at the level it will take to be green. One thing is certain. Buisinesses will not shoulder the cost alone, as long as they know it is not the ultimate solution. As they would be loath to pay for all the stranded costs of a failed experiment IF a better way forward is found.

I assume there is an agenda or bias within the reporting.

Post the article at length so we can have real comments.

It wasn't a factual, in-depth article, it was on the "Opinions" page.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/electric-vehicle-ev-power-grid-electricity-shortage-11652302212

BYW, this article is subscription/password based, but it's someone's opinion, same as anyone posting here.

[way2roll]

A few things without the continual dragging quoted posts along.

The responses to charging and the power grid; The only responses talk about timing it to load share on the grid. But doesn't that epitomize one of the problems with EV's - power on an already taxed grid? If we are already at the infancy telling folks to charge off hours so we don't over burden the system, what happens when millions more are brought home? If the infrastructure isn't there how will the issue of more EV's pulling on an already taxed power grid be addressed if not for more taxes and higher rates? This is more of the EV cart/horse, or ready, shoot, aim approach which is so common in politically pushed agendas. Get votes and figure it out later.

As far as not making it political, the entire EV movement is political to start with. EV's have been around before ICE's and yet never made it in a free market system. The reason - they aren't better. They became part of the green movement and facts were beaten into submission and the entire narrative was on tailpipe emissions. Political platforms were totally built around this. We made one man the richest man on the planet with billions of taxpayer dollars and began "mandates" for future EV's by certain dates to states and auto manufacturers. This was forced on us as a political agenda. The irony is EV's aren't better, or more green, or less foreign dependent, or eco friendly, or humanitarian kind, there is tremendous hazardous waste and mining all of which contribute to the same problems they were proposed to help solve. EV's have become the future because politicians are making it so - with our money. They would never make it on their own, as evidenced by the past 100 years.

I am not anti EV. What I am is against peeing down my back and telling me it's raining while reaching in my pocket so a niche market can buy fun cars. You want to buy an EV, knock yourself out. But why is this going to be forced on everyone else? Even if I don't buy an EV, I've already been forced to pay to build them and I am certain I will be forced to pay to charge them. This is not free market, it's socialism and doesn't solve a single problem EV's were originally proposed to solve.

More irony - I'm liberal.

I get it, oil has/had subsidies too.

The real solution would be to build a product that is actually superior, performs better and does it with less environmental and humanitarian impact. I could get on board with that. EV's are nothing more than another set of the same problems. If you're going to replace one product with another, it should be better.

[JRscooby]

We should be able to agree about somethings. As RVers we want good roads, and as consumers we need good roads to get products we want/need. And the only practical way to have good roads is public funding. And because of the shape the roads are in, with millions of dollars of unfunded repairs needed, the current fuel tax method is not sufficient. And with more vehicles using alternative sources of power, the situation will get worse.
Now one major assumption I make, would be willing to change if somebody could show it invalid. That is a 5000 lb vehicle driven 1000 miles on highways will do a given amount of damage to the roadway. The road doesn't know or care if that vehicle uses 100 gal of diesel, 50 gal of diesel, 65 gal of gasoline, 30 gal of gas, or a cord of hardwood in a steam boiler. I think most of use would have a hard time explaining to a first grader why they should pay different amounts for the same road.
IMHO, the most fair way would be a per mile tax, with some increase that goes up with the weight of vehicle. But that leaves some major questions. How much per mile would be needed to replace the fuel tax to repair the roads? I don't know, but I'm sure it must be higher than the average fuel tax paid. (Remember we aren't now paying enough to have good roads)
Then how do we know how many miles each vehicle drives. Monitor in real time would be a real invasion of privacy. Self reporting by itself would not work. Self reporting, with a certainty that cheating would be caught, sever punishment when caught? Like check mileage on vehicle at every plate renew, no renew and fine if miles not reported. This would not eliminate the issue of people that live near a state line, live/register car in one state, do a lot of driving in another. (Like fill your tanks in the state that has the low fuel tax/pump price) But much of highway funding is at Federal level, so not take much adjustment to correct.

[Lantley]

Articles and propaganda are created by both sides. As consumers it's hard to decipher the truth. At the end of the day it's not about technology but about who will control/maintain the profits of the energy industry.

[map40]

Grit dog wrote:
map40, your last statement was very well put. And agree, same goes for both sides of the coin. If both could be objective and not push agendas many things would be more successful and better accepted.

Thanks. But I don't have a side. The car that I drove the most was my 2000 Lincoln Town Car Cartier L. I sold it because I had one to many cars and it had 530K miles, but otherwise I would have kept driving it (It still lokked brand new and ran perfect).
I don't care what I drive, I care about what it costs me and how it does the job. I don't bash the people with EVs or with Monster trucks that deleted their emmision control systems. And if somebody want to install Solar because it makes sense to them, I will even help!

[map40]

Huntindog wrote:

time2roll wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
A few days ago the Wall Street Journal had an article about what it presently takes for renewables to supply power 24/7.
Apparently it has been done on a small scale in several locations. The common theme was that it takes 3 times the capacity of a conventional power plant AND an incredible amount of batteries to achieve the level of reliability we are used to. They flat out concluded that it cannot be done with todays technology.. It would take too much real estate and cost way too much.
So we are going headlong down a road that presently has a bad ending.
Will a better way be developed?..... Maybe and maybe not. One thing is certain. Companies will only continue down this road if makes financial sense. Presently Governments are providing enough incentives to make it so. But even they cannot afford to do this at the level it will take to be green. One thing is certain. Buisinesses will not shoulder the cost alone, as long as they know it is not the ultimate solution. As they would be loath to pay for all the stranded costs of a failed experiment IF a better way forward is found.

I assume there is an agenda or bias within the reporting.

Post the article at length so we can have real comments.

I threw that paper out. I subscribe so they pile up fast. And that doesn't make DW happy.
I am sure it can be found... I will say that the WSJ is the only paoer I read, as it is quality journalism. I do not belive that they have an agenda. This article gave specifics on what countries and companies were involved in these cases.

At any rate it makes sense to me. Just from what I had to do to my RV to get some solar power,,,I do not see how that could possibly be scaled up to replace the power generation we have now. Even if we carpeted the country with panels... Which is not feasable for several reasons

Agree. Last install we did: 5th wheel, 2 15BTU ACs, 2800Whatts of Solar (14 panels). The only way to run on Solar would be to change the AC to a mini-split that it is more efficient, but in the meantime, you will always depend on a generator or grid power.

[map40]

Huntindog wrote:

map40 wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
A few days ago the Wall Street Journal had an article about what it presently takes for renewables to supply power 24/7.
Apparently it has been done on a small scale in several locations. The common theme was that it takes 3 times the capacity of a conventional power plant AND an incredible amount of batteries to achieve the level of reliability we are used to. They flat out concluded that it cannot be done with todays technology.. It would take too much real estate and cost way too much.
So we are going headlong down a road that presently has a bad ending.
Will a better way be developed?..... Maybe and maybe not. One thing is certain. Companies will only continue down this road if makes financial sense. Presently Governments are providing enough incentives to make it so. But even they cannot afford to do this at the level it will take to be green. One thing is certain. Buisinesses will not shoulder the cost alone, as long as they know it is not the ultimate solution. As they would be loath to pay for all the stranded costs of a failed experiment IF a better way forward is found.

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).

The automakers are being forced into it by the govt. with a carrot and stick aproach. The head of Toyota has pubilicly stated that the present path cannot succeed. He also said that many others in the biz say the same thing privately.

I installed solar on my RV. I think it is cool to be able to run a lot of my RV off of it. But seeing what it took for just my RV... I just cannot see how it can scale up to replace the power generation we now enjoy... Especially with the way we waste power.
Think about this: There are many companies with warehouses full of computers running nonstop.... To make imaginary money!
It is so bad that Musk stopped taking bit coin because of the amount of electricity being consumed to produce it!

I spent 15 years in the automotive industry. I was there when that stupid idea of implementing the Diesel Particle Filter was negotiated, when GM and Chrysler went bankrupt, when the UAW had to buy Chrysler and suddenly became what they spent a lifetime fighting and I was there when Marchionne scammed $3B from GM and when he and the UAW signed off Chrysler to Fiat. I learned one thing, nobody forces the automakers to do anything.
I agree that the current path can't succed if you believe that this is the final point, I was there when the EV revolution started and the numbers did not make sense either.
But that is the point. EVs are just one step in the evolution of the industry. I won't take over but it won't die either.
But it is a necesary step. ICEs are not efficient for certain scenarions. City traffic, conmutting, stop and go and similar all are perfect applications for a more efficient platform, and EVs are 3 times better in those situations. There is no debate or argument, it is what the data says.
Solar is a different problem all toghether. I have installed 10 different solar/battery systems with the biggest battery banks and inverters I have seen in an RV (All for friends, 3Kw of solar, 30Kw battery banks, 10Kw Split-phase inverters) and in all cases Solar was just a fraction of the needed power. But is there, and is convenient for some people. Not for me. I only have 4 pannels in my roof so my batteries are charged and my residential fridge runs, but I charge my batteries with a portable generator, that costs me a 10th of the diesel generator that I had and if it brakes down I can replace for $200 and not worry about repairing.
At the end, we can't stop the EVs because they are cheaper to own than ICEs for some applications. While that remains true, they will continue to grow.
Now, trucks? I don't see it that easy. The heavier the application, the more difficult that becomes.

[Huntindog]

map40 wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
A few days ago the Wall Street Journal had an article about what it presently takes for renewables to supply power 24/7.
Apparently it has been done on a small scale in several locations. The common theme was that it takes 3 times the capacity of a conventional power plant AND an incredible amount of batteries to achieve the level of reliability we are used to. They flat out concluded that it cannot be done with todays technology.. It would take too much real estate and cost way too much.
So we are going headlong down a road that presently has a bad ending.
Will a better way be developed?..... Maybe and maybe not. One thing is certain. Companies will only continue down this road if makes financial sense. Presently Governments are providing enough incentives to make it so. But even they cannot afford to do this at the level it will take to be green. One thing is certain. Buisinesses will not shoulder the cost alone, as long as they know it is not the ultimate solution. As they would be loath to pay for all the stranded costs of a failed experiment IF a better way forward is found.

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).

The automakers are being forced into it by the govt. with a carrot and stick aproach. The head of Toyota has pubilicly stated that the present path cannot succeed. He also said that many others in the biz say the same thing privately.

I installed solar on my RV. I think it is cool to be able to run a lot of my RV off of it. But seeing what it took for just my RV... I just cannot see how it can scale up to replace the power generation we now enjoy... Especially with the way we waste power.
Think about this: There are many companies with warehouses full of computers running nonstop.... To make imaginary money!
It is so bad that Musk stopped taking bit coin because of the amount of electricity being consumed to produce it!

[Huntindog]

time2roll wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
A few days ago the Wall Street Journal had an article about what it presently takes for renewables to supply power 24/7.
Apparently it has been done on a small scale in several locations. The common theme was that it takes 3 times the capacity of a conventional power plant AND an incredible amount of batteries to achieve the level of reliability we are used to. They flat out concluded that it cannot be done with todays technology.. It would take too much real estate and cost way too much.
So we are going headlong down a road that presently has a bad ending.
Will a better way be developed?..... Maybe and maybe not. One thing is certain. Companies will only continue down this road if makes financial sense. Presently Governments are providing enough incentives to make it so. But even they cannot afford to do this at the level it will take to be green. One thing is certain. Buisinesses will not shoulder the cost alone, as long as they know it is not the ultimate solution. As they would be loath to pay for all the stranded costs of a failed experiment IF a better way forward is found.

I assume there is an agenda or bias within the reporting.

Post the article at length so we can have real comments.

I threw that paper out. I subscribe so they pile up fast. And that doesn't make DW happy.
I am sure it can be found... I will say that the WSJ is the only paoer I read, as it is quality journalism. I do not belive that they have an agenda. This article gave specifics on what countries and companies were involved in these cases.

At any rate it makes sense to me. Just from what I had to do to my RV to get some solar power,,,I do not see how that could possibly be scaled up to replace the power generation we have now. Even if we carpeted the country with panels... Which is not feasable for several reasons

[Grit_dog]

map40, your last statement was very well put. And agree, same goes for both sides of the coin. If both could be objective and not push agendas many things would be more successful and better accepted.

[time2roll]

Huntindog wrote:
A few days ago the Wall Street Journal had an article about what it presently takes for renewables to supply power 24/7.
Apparently it has been done on a small scale in several locations. The common theme was that it takes 3 times the capacity of a conventional power plant AND an incredible amount of batteries to achieve the level of reliability we are used to. They flat out concluded that it cannot be done with todays technology.. It would take too much real estate and cost way too much.
So we are going headlong down a road that presently has a bad ending.
Will a better way be developed?..... Maybe and maybe not. One thing is certain. Companies will only continue down this road if makes financial sense. Presently Governments are providing enough incentives to make it so. But even they cannot afford to do this at the level it will take to be green. One thing is certain. Buisinesses will not shoulder the cost alone, as long as they know it is not the ultimate solution. As they would be loath to pay for all the stranded costs of a failed experiment IF a better way forward is found.

I assume there is an agenda or bias within the reporting.

Post the article at length so we can have real comments.

[map40]

Huntindog wrote:
A few days ago the Wall Street Journal had an article about what it presently takes for renewables to supply power 24/7.
Apparently it has been done on a small scale in several locations. The common theme was that it takes 3 times the capacity of a conventional power plant AND an incredible amount of batteries to achieve the level of reliability we are used to. They flat out concluded that it cannot be done with todays technology.. It would take too much real estate and cost way too much.
So we are going headlong down a road that presently has a bad ending.
Will a better way be developed?..... Maybe and maybe not. One thing is certain. Companies will only continue down this road if makes financial sense. Presently Governments are providing enough incentives to make it so. But even they cannot afford to do this at the level it will take to be green. One thing is certain. Buisinesses will not shoulder the cost alone, as long as they know it is not the ultimate solution. As they would be loath to pay for all the stranded costs of a failed experiment IF a better way forward is found.

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).