Rivian Electric Truck takes on the Ike Gauntlet

[FishOnOne]

What a poor showing for the Rivian electric truck on the Ike Gauntlet test. The truck towing 8,100 lbs consumed 81% of battery capacity traveling 70 miles.

From this test it's clear that electric trucks are along ways from being used for tow vehicles including the charging stations that are not layed out to support charging a truck with a trailer in tow and this truck is not compatible with the Tesla charging stations is another big flaw.

Not sure how to quantify this test but I would consider calling it an epic fail.

Link

[FishOnOne]

BCSnob wrote:
Will battery technology improve without new applications (and market value) requiring improvements?

In the last 30 years there's been plenty of market opportunity for battery mfg's and the battery mfg's have been under pressure to improve their technology and reduce costs.

[BCSnob]

Will battery technology improve without new applications (and market value) requiring improvements?

[FishOnOne]

BCSnob wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

BCSnob wrote:
That hybrid has the same lithium batteries as an EV. EVs have lower emissions than hybrids (see wheel to wheel emissions tool).

I am amazed by the extent of the “can’t do” attitudes in Americans posting here. Good thing engineers, chemist, and manufacturers still have a “can do” attitude.

I'm an electrical engineer with Mfg/Eng experience with years of Lean manufacturing experience. Worked with a chemist for many years to develop marine seismic sensors. Also worked with a team for designing an ocean bottom data acquisition node that used panasonic lithium ion batteries.

Because of my background I'm very critical of this particular vehicle and simply calling a spade a spade.

As a research chemist in industry I know that initial offerings of a new product are improved over time and demand from the buying public. Take for example the initial models from kia and hyundai. Also note that new sources of lithium (besides open pit mining) are being developed due to the increasing demand and prices. If no one ever goes through the process of manufacturing a new product because it’s a “spade” it never gets improved.

When I started working in the late 80's up to current, battery technology has always been the gating item for land seismic data aquisition systems and we have always been forced to go with cable type systems that includes wires for DC power. Yes battery technology has improved, but it still has a long ways IMO.

[BCSnob]

Hybrids get you reductions vs ICEs but not as much as with EVs. The extent of the reductions with hybrids depends upon how much the ICE is used in the hybrid.

Wheel to wheel emissions tool compares ice, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and EV emissions.

Allowing both, hybrids and evs, to be developed and manufactured (as opposed to pushing back at their development at every opportunity) is the path forward to reducing emissions. Both will have their uses (where it makes sense) and ices will continue where it makes sense. As improvements are made in the performance and charging infrastructure, where evs makes sense will expand. We’ll never learn what is possible if no one tries.

[FishOnOne]

BCSnob wrote:
A 50% reduction is better than doing nothing.

Wouldn't hybrids get your there?

[RoyJ]

EVs are not JUST about saving the planet, it's saving the planet while not willing to give up our high performance luxury (i.e. having our cake and eat it).

If we truly JUST want to save the planet - drive 3rd world country 50cc scooters, 3 cyl subcompacts. In Asia they have 350cc motorcycle powered tricycle trucks with 3 ton payload.

But if governments forced that on us it'll be political career suicide. Thus the push for 500 - 1000 hp EVs to "save the planet". Volvo estimated 100k miles breakeven vs similar powered (high hp) IC SUV, this is cradle to grave, including mining for batteries. If we compared to a Toyota Yaris the break-even point may never come.

[Durb]

I enjoyed the video, 25 minutes of range anxiety. I was feeling range anxiety just watching it. They were lucky there wasn't a long line of trucks with trailers also waiting to charge in the Walmart parking lot.

Could be the Rivian uses 4 motors for propulsion and 2 for regenerative braking; sufficient to ****** the truck. Might explain the low regeneration numbers. Other than towing range, it appears the Rivian is a very capable vehicle. TFL glossed over the computer's range confusion at the end, no trip meter, and the cruise control fail; teething pains for a new vehicle.

I wish they would have included charge time to bring it up to 100% at the conclusion of the test.

I see I got asterisks for using a perfectly valid word for slowing down.

[JRscooby]

dodge guy wrote:

JRscooby wrote:


I was not around then, but when Hank started to sell his Model T, there was a lot of the country where range was a issue.
The "We can't do it" people should pull there head out from between their cheeks, compare what the climate is doing to what scientist, (I know that the thought of scientist be correct hurts the right) told us would happen for the last 40 years.
If we don't change the way we move around, we will need to change the fact we move around. There might be something better than E-cars. If you know what it is, bring it out.

Back then all it was was building more gas stations.
Now they need to build an entire new power grid!

Gas stations. And pump stations at rail head to transfer fuel from rail car to truck to haul it to the new gas stations. And all weather roads so the trucks could get to the new gas stations. And much of the road improvement allowed improvement in cars. Using Texas as example, the development of a improved grid will help most of society.

Yes science is good, but reality is even better,

In most of the developed world, science is the study of reality. Science paid for by tobacco companies says smoking is good.
Science paid for by drug companies says no harm from opioids.
Science paid for by coal and oil says no harm from burning fossil fuel.
The rest of the world questions these statements, or at least looked at other sources for answers.

just look at what happened to Texas. And now the NE with power outages. Some gas stations have backup power to offset that.

OMG! TEXAS LOST POWER! OMG! NORTH EAST LOST POWER! People in those areas, like everywhere else, need power to live a normal modern life.
Do you think it would be better to go back to 1920s lifestyle and energy demands, or reinforce the grid?
IIRC, we learned not to long ago, without the internet stations can't sell or buy gas.

And BTW, how do you think the majority of electricity is generated? Not from unicorns running on a treadmill.

Pick any other industry, look at the development in last 40 years.
In 1979 solar panels where installed on the White House. We will never know how much FF money was involved in removing them 2 years later. Also, because they where removed, we will never know how much that example could of helped acceptance of solar panels. (IMHO, if Carter had been re-elected, the market demand would of had panels on the roof of every building built in last 25 years.)

Fact is you can store gasoline or diesel for months with no problem, kind of hard to store electricity unless you are fully off grid with enough solar and batteries to get you through a normal day.

I don't think we will totally get away from oil based fuel for a long time. I'm sure they are not ready for most RV towing. But RV towing is a real small percentage of the miles the country drives. A friend has a fleet of SUVs sends out crews every day most of the year hauling 2-4 big mowers and other lawn equipment on trailers, then back to shop every night. He is looking at putting solar on roof, a battery bank in shop to store the power to charge the equipment over night. Not much of a reach to also charge the vehicles.

[BCSnob]

What about the MIT study makes you trust it more that the study from Argonne National Labs?

Is this the mit study you’re referring to, the one funded by and in collaboration with Ford?
https://news.mit.edu/2019/lightweight-vehicle-electric-emissions-0826

[lbrjet]

BCSnob wrote:

lbrjet wrote:

BCSnob wrote:
ICE emissions/mile are 100% fossil fuel, by your summation above EV emissions/mile are ~80% fossil fuel. That sounds like a reduction in emissions per mile.

Here is some more reading. Start with this news article then go read the original research.

Analysis: When do electric vehicles become cleaner than gasoline cars?

It takes a typical electric vehicle about one year in operation to achieve "carbon parity" with a gasoline vehicle. Although the production of EVs and batteries generates more CO2 before the first wheel turns, the total carbon "footprint" of gas cars quickly overtakes that of EVs after 15,000 miles of driving. If the EV draws electricity from a coal-fired grid, however, the catchup period stretches to more than five years. If the grid is powered by carbon-free hydroelectricity, the catchup period is about six months.

The question you should be asking is if the cradle to grave emissions per mile of an ice is more or less than the cradle to grave emissions per mile for the generation of the charge by a with the current mix of electrical generation.

Second question, which ice puts fuel (and emissions) back in the tank while breaking and coasting down hill?

"... with a 54 kilowatt-hour (kWh) battery and a cathode made of nickel, cobalt and aluminum, among other variables."

Don't know much about Tesla batteries but don't they have Lithium in them?

Did you notice that the “among other variables” was a link and at the linked page it lists the variables plugged into the GREET model? These included:

EV battery type: Lithium-ion
EV battery size: 54 kilowatt-hours (kWh)
EV battery cathode material: nickel-cobalt-aluminium (NCA)

Thanks.

I have read other studies that I trust more, like MIT, where the payback is longer. The DOE is going to put out the best case scenario and probably ignore a bunch of stuff, like the inflation rate does. I went to college in Normal, and have two kids that live there and hope that Rivian does well. At least they have an actual truck on the road instead of hype.

[BCSnob]

There are ways to store energy and then convert it into electricity. An example is using fossil fuel. It’s not about eliminating all fossil fuel use for electrical generation (or transportation), it’s about reducing its use and it’s emissions. A 50% reduction is better than doing nothing. The towing test of the Rivian shows what this embodiment of the EV technology is capable now (not good enough to replace most tow vehicles) and what the manufacturers need to work on. As EVs become more popular the demand for charging stations will increase, and just like franchise owners of fuel stations have seen an opportunity to fill a demand, they or others will see the demand for charging stations and will fill that demand.

The ongoing R&D to increase the range of the batteries will continue because of the demand for this. The ongoing R&D to increase the rate of charging will continue (stations in Europe capable of 15min to full charge).

When the government force to adoption of emission controls on ICEs in the 70s, how many of those vehicles would you have called spades? Have the vehicles improved since then? Would you prefer we had non emission controlled exhausts on all the vehicles on the road now? Owning a 66 Mustang and experiencing its exhaust I can say I wouldn’t.

[BCSnob]

FishOnOne wrote:

BCSnob wrote:
That hybrid has the same lithium batteries as an EV. EVs have lower emissions than hybrids (see wheel to wheel emissions tool).

I am amazed by the extent of the “can’t do” attitudes in Americans posting here. Good thing engineers, chemist, and manufacturers still have a “can do” attitude.

I'm an electrical engineer with Mfg/Eng experience with years of Lean manufacturing experience. Worked with a chemist for many years to develop marine seismic sensors. Also worked with a team for designing an ocean bottom data acquisition node that used panasonic lithium ion batteries.

Because of my background I'm very critical of this particular vehicle and simply calling a spade a spade.

As a research chemist in industry I know that initial offerings of a new product are improved over time and demand from the buying public. Take for example the initial models from kia and hyundai. Also note that new sources of lithium (besides open pit mining) are being developed due to the increasing demand and prices. If no one ever goes through the process of manufacturing a new product because it’s a “spade” it never gets improved.

[dodge_guy]

JRscooby wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

As for the second question,, according to this test, the regeneration wasn't all that much.

At any rate, we would need charging stations at the bottom and the top of major climbs... And we would need a LOT of them since it takes so long to charge them... Talk about a traffic jam? That would be the mother of them all

I was not around then, but when Hank started to sell his Model T, there was a lot of the country where range was a issue.
The "We can't do it" people should pull there head out from between their cheeks, compare what the climate is doing to what scientist, (I know that the thought of scientist be correct hurts the right) told us would happen for the last 40 years.
If we don't change the way we move around, we will need to change the fact we move around. There might be something better than E-cars. If you know what it is, bring it out.

Back then all it was was building more gas stations.
Now they need to build an entire new power grid! Yes science is good, but reality is even better, just look at what happened to Texas. And now the NE with power outages. Some gas stations have backup power to offset that. And BTW, how do you think the majority of electricity is generated? Not from unicorns running on a treadmill.
Fact is you can store gasoline or diesel for months with no problem, kind of hard to store electricity unless you are fully off grid with enough solar and batteries to get you through a normal day.

[JRscooby]

Huntindog wrote:

As for the second question,, according to this test, the regeneration wasn't all that much.

At any rate, we would need charging stations at the bottom and the top of major climbs... And we would need a LOT of them since it takes so long to charge them... Talk about a traffic jam? That would be the mother of them all

I was not around then, but when Hank started to sell his Model T, there was a lot of the country where range was a issue.
The "We can't do it" people should pull there head out from between their cheeks, compare what the climate is doing to what scientist, (I know that the thought of scientist be correct hurts the right) told us would happen for the last 40 years.
If we don't change the way we move around, we will need to change the fact we move around. There might be something better than E-cars. If you know what it is, bring it out.

[Huntindog]

BCSnob wrote:
ICE emissions/mile are 100% fossil fuel, by your summation above EV emissions/mile are ~80% fossil fuel. That sounds like a reduction in emissions per mile.

Here is some more reading. Start with this news article then go read the original research.

Analysis: When do electric vehicles become cleaner than gasoline cars?

It takes a typical electric vehicle about one year in operation to achieve "carbon parity" with a gasoline vehicle. Although the production of EVs and batteries generates more CO2 before the first wheel turns, the total carbon "footprint" of gas cars quickly overtakes that of EVs after 15,000 miles of driving. If the EV draws electricity from a coal-fired grid, however, the catchup period stretches to more than five years. If the grid is powered by carbon-free hydroelectricity, the catchup period is about six months.

The question you should be asking is if the cradle to grave emissions per mile of an ice is more or less than the cradle to grave emissions per mile for the generation of the charge by a with the current mix of electrical generation.

Second question, which ice puts fuel (and emissions) back in the tank while breaking and coasting down hill?

As for the second question,, according to this test, the regeneration wasn't all that much.

At any rate, we would need charging stations at the bottom and the top of major climbs... And we would need a LOT of them since it takes so long to charge them... Talk about a traffic jam? That would be the mother of them all