Electric Trucks

B-man wrote:

A couple panels on the roof of your house won’t cut it for charging an EV.

It takes between 8-10 panels to run an ev on solar. Something like 16’x12’.

biggill wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>B-man wrote:</div>
A couple panels on the roof of your house won’t cut it for charging an EV.

It takes between 8-10 panels to run an ev on solar. Something like 16’x12’.

Where are these panels? Minnesota on the perfect August day?

Then why aren’t EV cars covered in solar panels?

A 16′ car 7′ wide would supply about half it’s own energy (according to your recommendation)

Solar panels need to be pointed in the right direction (south) at the correct angle (depending on latitude) to optimize production.

Some high efficiency models do have solar panels. They only generate 10-15% of the needed power with the panels.

You can’t cover the entire top surface with a solar panel so you don’t get 1/2 like your suggesting. Cost vs benefit isn’t even close to justifiable.

Ben K. wrote:

Solar panels need to be pointed in the right direction (south) at the correct angle (depending on latitude) to optimize production.

And need lots of sun….

And good angles…..

And can’t be covered in snow….

Something that Minnesota doesn’t provide. Christ, I think we had about 4 days of sunshine in October….:(

Yet we are covering our state in solar panels, productive farm land nonetheless, when we should be covering the useless SW deserts instead (which would provide far more yield per panel).

Capturing solar power in Minnesota is like growing corn in a desert.

Sure it can be done, but it’s done MUCH more efficiently elsewhere.

If showed my kids this map and asked where to put solar panels, even they could tell me the right answer.

Attachments:

1. 

   Screenshot_20191108-093702.png
   

B-man wrote:

It can be done, but it’s done much more efficiently elsewhere.

Too efficiently apparently. Places like CA are paying other state’s to take the energy off their hands. That’s absurd. We need to invest in a modern infrastructure.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketplace.org/2016/06/09/excess-solar-power-ca-pay-arizona-take-it/amp/

Then there’s this….. Apparently California is the biggest importer of dirty electricity.

No State Imports More Electricity Than California

They’re also the most wasteful with water as well. They have agricultural land in places where it doesn’t belong. Then they want to take water from Lake Superior to supplement citing water shortage.

CA is a mess. Always has been, always will be.

Putting solar panels in the desert is great but really only benefits people living in the desert. It takes too much electricity to move electricity to get it all the way up here from the desert.

onestout wrote:

Putting solar panels in the desert is great but really only benefits people living in the desert. It takes too much electricity to move electricity to get it all the way up here from the desert.

How much transmission loss would there be?

Would the net gain be higher than our production up here?

Deuces wrote:

One day I’ll learn to Photoshop.

The world simply isn’t ready for that day…

When the world is ready for EV’s we’ll be ready for you to photoshop. According to some on this thread neither will apparently ever happen.

Now, did anyone see my abacus? I have some math problems to solve. Oh, there it is. I couldn’t see it because the light from whale oil lamp isn’t that strong.

B-man wrote:

Would the net gain be higher than our production up here?

I would think anything supplemental would be beneficial.

Seems our focus is on figuring out which is best. The answer isn’t much different than what it is today. Solar, hydro, nuclear, wind, coal will all be a part of the equation for many decades to come. I’m guessing we only need to supplement for increased demand and progress toward more renewable energy.

Actual photo of BG’s dream. Give it a slap, it’ll settle down in no time. Or just tuck it up, it’ll hide easy.

Attachments:

1. 

   EC468381-8213-482A-8B55-0026F2B991C4.png
   

GM Lordstown OH Plant sold to Electric Pickup Mfg

404 ERROR wrote:

Actual photo of BG’s dream. Give it a slap, it’ll settle down in no time. Or just tuck it up, it’ll hide easy.

Best part is that it will provide 1 days with of charge in less than 3 days!

The one thing you guys didn’t think of is if we go to daylight savings time year round we would gain a whole hour of charging.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Very interesting and it is clearly in the future. I’m thinking there’s a little #fake news in there. 300,000 lbs towing capacity and 5 minute charging.

What does a heater in -20 do to the battery life?

I just watched a video from Ford, they are testing the Electrics at the Swisher Test Facility in the Michigan U.P.

Deep Snow, Ice, Temp’s to -40f and designing them to meet these challenges.

That said, I have a 2017 Ford CMAX Hybrid (Prius looking car). Above 30f I average 45mpg, but as like last winter when the temp dove below 0f to -20f my mileage dropped to mid 20mpg.

Acceleration is awesome, No super fast, but under 10 seconds 0-60, no jerking for shifting as all-electric drive train, gas motor just runs a generator to provide additional power and Heat.

biggill wrote:

Seems our focus is on figuring out which is best. The answer isn’t much different than what it is today. Solar, hydro, nuclear, wind, coal will all be a part of the equation for many decades to come. I’m guessing we only need to supplement for increased demand and progress toward more renewable energy.

It seems some are always arguing that which is already known–solar and wind alone are unlikely to ever fully replace fossil fuels. And they don’t HAVE to.

Every percentage increase in renewables means the fossil fuels which we can’t fully replace will last that much longer. The fact that they are cleaner and better for the environment just adds to the benefit IMO. We are also that much more independent of being chained to other countries because they hold the energy we need.

When it comes to electric pickup trucks, I think it’s funny that guys always have to present the edge case as if it were the average.

Yeah, it’ll never work for you 1000 mile round trip to the Canadian arctic every year. Bummer. That kind of need represents .00003% of the miles put on pickup trucks every year.

What about the average user? If we’re being honest, the half-ton, 4 door pickup is now the new minivan/commuter wagon. I would think about 90% of these current buyers that are just schlepping around the burbs could replace their pickups with electric models tomorrow and never see any downside because the drive 50 miles a day, never tow anything, and rarely, if ever drive more than a couple of hundred miles on any 1 trip.

Grouse

One more comment, where are we going to get all of the Electricity to charge all these electric vehicles with Government mandates to achieve the so called “CLEAN & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY”.

In the next 20 years XCEL Energy will shut down the power plants:
Kings in Bayport
Prairie Island in Red Wing
Sherco at Big Lake and Monticello
among others.

Sure they are going Big into Solar and Wind but those are not going to sustain and provide all of our needs.

But, but, but grouse, where are we going to get the lithium? What about the infrastructure? WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?

Most people that own EVs don’t ever have to visit a charging station. For my wife and her 45 mile commute to work, that would be really sweet. In the meantime we could keep the gas truck until the ev truck market exists for us boat and ice castle pullers. It’s not that far away.

TheFamousGrouse wrote:

Every percentage increase in renewables means the fossil fuels which we can’t fully replace will last that much longer. The fact that they are cleaner and better for the environment just adds to the benefit IMO. We are also that much more independent of being chained to other countries because they hold the energy we need.

Amen

TheFamousGrouse wrote:

What about the average user? If we’re being honest, the half-ton, 4 door pickup is now the new minivan/commuter wagon. I would think about 90% of these current buyers that are just schlepping around the burbs could replace their pickups with electric models tomorrow and never see any downside because the drive 50 miles a day, never tow anything, and rarely, if ever drive more than a couple of hundred miles on any 1 trip.

Nail on the head

And let’s be honest…. most of us drive pick up trucks because chicks dig it

Grouse, I think the vast majority of people would agree with you about conserving fossil fuels.

I too love the idea of renewable/unlimited resources, but if we’re putting the money and effort forward let’s make it as efficient and productive as possible.

We don’t put windmill farms in areas without wind.

Why the hell are we putting “solar gardens” in areas with little sun??????

B-man wrote:

I too love the idea of renewable/unlimited resources, but if we’re putting the money and effort forward let’s make it as efficient and productive as possible.

What defines “as efficient and productive as possible” is always changing, though. The incandescent light bulb was as efficient and productive as possible. Until along came the LED…

I don’t understand people who seem to have the attitude that it is better to do nothing at all until some self-evident panacea of technology comes along and then we’ll somehow all know that that “is it” and now it’s time for everyone to jump on boad. Should we all have sat in the dark or lit our houses with candles because the incandescent light bulb was clearly NOT what turned out to be the magic solution?

Everybody now seems to think change arrives all at once and that when it does, the “winner” is obvious. It never HAS worked like this and never will.

IN 50 years everyone will just assume that just like our ancestors ditched the horse and buggy for the car, so too did we experience an obvious point where the electric vehicle “had arrived”. And again it won’t have ever been like that, but like we assume that, so to will people 50 or so years down the line.

Grouse

B-man wrote:

Why the hell are we putting “solar gardens” in areas with little sun??????

Because there is a net benefit?

Here it is. In my opinion it highlights everything that’s wrong with the electric truck concept. Although, the gap to close is closer than we think. We have to remember, there still is no electric truck available today. The earliest I believe is 2021 with possibly the Rivian or the F150. I have doubts whether the Tesla is going to look exactly like has been unveiled.

Again, this guy puts some really excellent videos out there if you’re into this kind of stuff.

lindyrig79 wrote:

And let’s be honest…. most of us drive pick up trucks because chicks dig it

Finally! I didn’t think anyone would say it!

If our Government wouldn’t be subsidising the “green” power, we couldn’t afford it now.

I’ll go with the LED change over and as someone said, if it make sense there’s no need to make a law for the change (like they did with the fluorescents).

Brian Klawitter wrote:

I’ll go with the LED change over and as someone said, if it make sense there’s no need to make a law for the change (like they did with the fluorescents).

I don’t disagree that mandates aren’t necessary. If it’s going to be economically beneficial, let it run its course.

The problem with this is you have virtually the largest industry in the world at stake here. The oil industry. You can bet there is plenty of pushback to prevent a changeover to electric.

If you watched the last video I posted, you’d see that EVs already make sense from a from an energy consumption standpoint, the only issue right now is the density of energy storage for larger vehicles.

You can bet the oil industry leaders are going to look to level the playing field every way they can.

One dying industry is going to leave a huge hole in our economy. It needs to be back filled by an equal amount of economic development in electricity.

I’m assuming that I’ll be dead or unable to drive any longer by the time it all becomes real so I don’t have a dog in the fight. I’m just posting to feel included.

On the car side, I’d love a 0 to 60 in less than 3 seconds car!!!!

All these saving the planet movements. Anyone stop to wonder. Why the biggest advocates and founders of these theories ? Drive in around in the big SUV’s gas guzzlers that they lecture the rest of us about.

In fact a lot of them on their own have a bigger” carbon footprint”
than some villages.

Sorry I am old enough 72 , to remember the 100’s of dire predictions made in the late 70’s. Not a one has ever come true. Any one ever listen to football betting advisor who is wrong 100% of the time ?

I retired out of a coal fired power plant. It came on line around 1952 and was shut down 2010. It delivered 230 megawatts of power at base load both units. It occupied maybe 70 acres to provide this.

Each wind power turbine delivers 1 megawatt of power. Which means 230 wind turbines need to be constructed to equal that 1950’s technology.Over the years of operations clean air technology was added to make our impact about as much as a campfire.

Further studies show that some of these super batteries. Have chemicals in them that are even more harmful than coal.

Knowing quite a bit about electricity I sincerely doubt it will be a common vehicle’s source of power. Batteries and capacitors are the only way we have to store electrical energy. To store large amounts physical size has to increase in proportion. As size increases so does weight. Electricity is easy to make but hard to store.

When I see a 737 or a C5A rumble down the runway for take off. Under electrical power then I would be convinced.