Free 7 Day Trial RV GPS App RV Trip Planner Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Free 7 Day Trial ×
 


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-10-2019, 09:59 PM   #381
Rivet Master
 
1969 18' Caravel
Greenville , whereEverIroam
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,126
Images: 20
The Beaver is such a great airplane, but how ironic on so many levels:

A classic plane being on the cutting edge of tomorrow's technology,

A float plane, landing on water, powered by electricity.

Operating in parts of Canada, where it's colder and more remote, not as friendly to batteries and recharging.
skyguyscott is offline  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:52 PM   #382
Rivet Master
 
gandttimes's Avatar
 
2014 25' FB International
2007 20' Safari SE
2005 19' Safari
Qualicum Beach , British Columbia
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyguyscott View Post
The Beaver is such a great airplane, but how ironic on so many levels:

A classic plane being on the cutting edge of tomorrow's technology,

A float plane, landing on water, powered by electricity.

Operating in parts of Canada, where it's colder and more remote, not as friendly to batteries and recharging.
The Beaver is actually only being used as the test bed for this new system. They are designing a new aircraft when they get the go ahead to operate.
gandttimes is offline  
Old 12-11-2019, 06:14 AM   #383
Rivet Master
 
2009 34' Panamerica
2005 28' Classic
Still , in the thick of it
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyguyscott View Post

While nuclear-fission energy could indeed be a carbon-clean producer that could balance the grid in high-demand periods, I have come to the conclusion that the human race is not yet ready for it. In the space of one life-time we have already witnessed three major accidents, two of which will remain lethally radioactive for untold generations to come. It would be one thing if an accident merely killed life and destroyed property for several square miles, its another when an accident can render an entire region uninhabitable for centuries, while producing radioactive waste that we still have no way of disposing of and which will remain deadly for millennia hence. Whether by natural disaster, human incompetence, negligence, sabotage, war, mistakes, deliberate attacks, cost-cutting, computer hack, system failure, miscommunication, or some other failing, predictable or not so, the likelihood of an unacceptable incident eventually approaches 100% over time and we couldn't be more hubristic than to think we can tame fission safely and responsibly.

As a wise engineer once wryly told me, those who think they have developed a fool-proof system have never met a sufficiently motivated and determined fool. It's not the technology that's at fault, it's us fallible humans.
Great point and I agree. I just feel if we had gone the Integral fast reactor route rather then the light water type, a lot of the human error, etc would have been taken out of the equation (read not zero, but perhaps had the three nuclear disasters been IFR designs, maybe 2 of the 3 would not have happened).

Bottom line, as to my earlier point, there is just no way to put millions of EVs on the road at a time when fission and nonrenewable are being mothballed. Solar, wind and hydro just can't make up the difference alone, and if you are not on the nuclear train then your only option is non-renewable.

Building a new (safer lightwater or IFR) takes nearly 8-10 years. If we started now, we might just make it in time.....or be like CA with rolling blackouts. In lieu of fusion not being ready, I would vote IFR to make up the difference.

Watch Pandora's Promise. It was a real eye opener for me.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1992193/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
panamerican is offline  
Old 12-11-2019, 07:57 AM   #384
Rivet Master
 
KK4YZ's Avatar
 
2020 28' Flying Cloud
2017 23' Flying Cloud
Hiawassee , Georgia
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by panamerican View Post
Great point and I agree. I just feel if we had gone the Integral fast reactor route rather then the light water type, a lot of the human error, etc would have been taken out of the equation (read not zero, but perhaps had the three nuclear disasters been IFR designs, maybe 2 of the 3 would not have happened).

Bottom line, as to my earlier point, there is just no way to put millions of EVs on the road at a time when fission and nonrenewable are being mothballed. Solar, wind and hydro just can't make up the difference alone, and if you are not on the nuclear train then your only option is non-renewable.

Building a new (safer lightwater or IFR) takes nearly 8-10 years. If we started now, we might just make it in time.....or be like CA with rolling blackouts. In lieu of fusion not being ready, I would vote IFR to make up the difference.

Watch Pandora's Promise. It was a real eye opener for me.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1992193/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
I agree we missed the boat on nuclear.

I worked at Westinghouse Nuclear in the mid 70’s. At that time a pair of Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors (LMFBR) were being actively worked on for implementation in Tennessee. That design relied on a nuclear fuel cycle involving the LMFBR, fuel reprocessing facilities and “regular” fission plants. It had the promise of stretching the existing supply of fuel to an almost incredible extent. The IFR appears to be an improvement on the LMFBR design.

That the program was cancelled when the ‘73 oil embargo was still recent memory was really disappointing.

When you look at two of the nuclear disasters mentioned (Chernobyl and Fukushima), they were the result of gross engineering malpractice, Chernobyl for the reactor design, and Fukushima for the ridiculous site selection as well as the location of the spent fuel pit on the site.

Three Mile Island doesn’t even hold a candle to Chernobyl or Fukushima in terms of impact on the environment, local or otherwise.

Make no mistake. If we’re going to make a timely shift from ICE vehicles to EV, we will need a significant increase in the capacity of the current electrical grid. That will be very hard to do with wind and solar.
KK4YZ is offline  
Old 12-11-2019, 11:31 AM   #385
4 Rivet Member
 
2015 25' FB Flying Cloud
Eugene , Oregon
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 444
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/25...ectrical-grid/
Meeks is offline  
Old 12-11-2019, 01:02 PM   #386
Rivet Master
 
KK4YZ's Avatar
 
2020 28' Flying Cloud
2017 23' Flying Cloud
Hiawassee , Georgia
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeks View Post
I can assure you my concern is not a result of reading any Koch brothers funded document. It is just common sense. More energy will need to flow through the electrical grid if it needs to make up for the loss of all the energy that currently flows through oil pipelines, natural gas distribution and coal distribution infrastructure. That’s a LOT of energy to make up. That doesn’t even address the question of whether the existing grid even has the capacity to produce and distribute this extra energy.

BTW you might want to expand your reading material. Any publication that treats the Koch brothers as boogeymen is not what I would consider completely objective. Just sayin 😀
KK4YZ is offline  
Old 12-11-2019, 01:29 PM   #387
Rivet Master
 
2014 27' FB International
Macon , Georgia
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 571
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by KK4YZ View Post
BTW you might want to expand your reading material. Any publication that treats the Koch brothers as boogeymen is not what I would consider completely objective. Just sayin 😀
Especially since one of them is dead...
Roadtech is offline  
Old 12-11-2019, 02:36 PM   #388
Rivet Master
 
KK4YZ's Avatar
 
2020 28' Flying Cloud
2017 23' Flying Cloud
Hiawassee , Georgia
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by KK4YZ View Post
I can assure you my concern is not a result of reading any Koch brothers funded document. It is just common sense. More energy will need to flow through the electrical grid if it needs to make up for the loss of all the energy that currently flows through oil pipelines, natural gas distribution and coal distribution infrastructure. That’s a LOT of energy to make up. That doesn’t even address the question of whether the existing grid even has the capacity to produce and distribute this extra energy.

BTW you might want to expand your reading material. Any publication that treats the Koch brothers as boogeymen is not what I would consider completely objective. Just sayin 😀
Let me amend the comment to strike the references to coal and natural gas distribution as those wouldn’t get shut down with the death of ICE vehicles. However the point doesn’t change: there’s a LOT of energy that is currently flowing through the oil pipelines that will have to be made up for.
KK4YZ is offline  
Old 12-11-2019, 02:40 PM   #389
2 Rivet Member
 
2019 25' Flying Cloud
Bozeman , Montana
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 55
With regards to grid capacity I believe what people who say there is enough to start with are pointing out is that as the grid supports massive late afternoon loads in the summer when all that AC is going full blast... so the grid can handle many many cars charging at night when those AC demands are not present. Sure the peak could shift higher and will as demand grows, but seemingly there are methods for dealing with that and it shouldn’t grow so fast as to our pace the ability to add more infrastructure.
mtbackpacker is offline  
Old 12-11-2019, 03:22 PM   #390
Master of Universe
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12,357
A lot of posts concentrate on what can't be done. With that attitude we would still be in caves while someone grunts, "we always do it that way".

In 1942, the economy was converted to a wartime one is a matter on months. There were surely many screw ups, but mostly it worked. We could solve these problems if we wanted to.
__________________
Gene

The Airstream is sold; a 2016 Nash 24M replaced it.
Gene is offline  
Old 12-11-2019, 04:36 PM   #391
Rivet Master
 
KK4YZ's Avatar
 
2020 28' Flying Cloud
2017 23' Flying Cloud
Hiawassee , Georgia
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbackpacker View Post
With regards to grid capacity I believe what people who say there is enough to start with are pointing out is that as the grid supports massive late afternoon loads in the summer when all that AC is going full blast... so the grid can handle many many cars charging at night when those AC demands are not present. Sure the peak could shift higher and will as demand grows, but seemingly there are methods for dealing with that and it shouldn’t grow so fast as to our pace the ability to add more infrastructure.
True. But grid capacity at any one instant is only part of the equation. More electrical energy needs to be produced.
KK4YZ is offline  
Old 12-11-2019, 04:40 PM   #392
Rivet Master
 
KK4YZ's Avatar
 
2020 28' Flying Cloud
2017 23' Flying Cloud
Hiawassee , Georgia
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene View Post
A lot of posts concentrate on what can't be done. With that attitude we would still be in caves while someone grunts, "we always do it that way".

In 1942, the economy was converted to a wartime one is a matter on months. There were surely many screw ups, but mostly it worked. We could solve these problems if we wanted to.
You’re confusing the realistic identification of things that need to be addressed with just nay-saying.
KK4YZ is offline  
Old 12-11-2019, 04:59 PM   #393
4 Rivet Member
 
2017 22' Sport
North Bay , California
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 300
Images: 11
Well, I've just caught up on this entire thread. Is there a trophy or some other kind of award?

There is much I'd love to respond to, as someone who has driven Tesla EVs for almost 6 years and has been exclusively EV for almost 4 years. The thread has a lot of misinformation and fear of the unknown, which isn't unusual. But I'll just keep it brief:
  • Towing with an EV today isn't as convenient as towing with an ICE. There's no getting around that. It takes a little more effort. But it's absolutely possible to go almost anywhere in the US, and we're in the infancy stages of the tech.
  • Hydrogen FCEVs are mostly a dead end. They have the allure of familiarity, but using electricity for electrolysis to make hydrogen, using electricity to compress and transport that hydrogen, then using that to create electricity in the car to THEN charge the onboard batteries to provide propulsion is a bizarre way to have an efficient vehicle. It's a great way to continue the existing model of holding someone hostage to a specific fuel that you may have the chance to control, though.
  • EVs have a significantly lower carbon footprint than ICE, and most are "in the black" on it within 2 years. And an EV you buy today will get cleaner over time. An ICE you buy today will not. That's the comparison that was being made upthread, and it's not inaccurate.
  • Climate change is real, and anyone who disagrees is quite unlikely to have reproduced any of the papers on it. If you seriously don't understand it, I suggest downloading some work and reproducing that work yourself. It's an excellent opportunity to get a better grasp of why GHG emissions matter.

I was eagerly anticipating the Cybertruck to replace our ~4 year old Model X for towing our AS. Then I saw it. It's not for me, at least not right now, probably for the same reason I mention above - fear of the unknown/fear of the new. I'm not used to it. Instead, I'll probably upgrade our Model X in the spring to the longest range version and continue to use that to tow. Tesla charger density is so high now that I really don't need a much longer range than that. And since our TV is used 95% for daily driving, it'll be nice to have something that doesn't prepare me for the zombie apocalypse.
ohmman is offline  
Old 12-11-2019, 06:52 PM   #394
Rivet Master
 
2014 20' Flying Cloud
Sag Harbor , New York
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 17,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmman View Post
Well, I've just caught up on this entire thread.
. . .
. . . Instead, I'll probably upgrade our Model X in the spring to the longest range version and continue to use that to tow.
. . .
Thanks again for your thread about towing with the Model X:

http://www.airforums.com/forums/f463...-x-160951.html

That thread is a good read about one person's experience, with plenty of detailed every-day experiences IMO.

Thanks again,

Peter
OTRA15 is offline  
Old 12-11-2019, 07:10 PM   #395
Rivet Master
 
2007 27' International CCD FB
San Diego , California
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,769
Few key recent learnings on the cybertruck front:

1) 500+ range. What does that actually mean? At least one recent piece of evidence suggests that may even mean 600+.

https://insideevs.com/news/387299/te...nge-620-miles/

2) While sad Porsche sits and whines about wanting a retest for their technology tour de force Taycan, scoring a *ahem* 201 mile range. (BTW, I'm a huge Porsche fan owning a 911 Turbo).

https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/11/th...-of-201-miles/

3) Ford is being bullied by a lowly Model X P100D. A lifted, built, and burly 4x4 F150 that is. Can't help but think Tesla purposely did a 4x2 F150 test and Ford and the internet has taken the bait.

https://twitter.com/ray4tesla/status...s-ford-f150%2F

4) Hydrogen infrastructure? Even long haul hydrogen has no hope with EV technology and infrastructure progressing at the rate it is. Hydrogen "fueling" will be no faster than direct charging with electrons with future proposed 1.6MW chargers. Translates to something like 400 miles of range in 30 minutes Why bother installing a new fangled hydrogen fueling station when it would be likely cheaper and more straightforward to upgrade and install EV charging stations. Hydrogen may very well be slower and more cumbersome.
pteck is offline  
Old 12-11-2019, 08:39 PM   #396
Moderator
 
DKB_SATX's Avatar

 
2017 26' Flying Cloud
Alamo Heights , Texas
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,127
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by pteck View Post
~~
3) Ford is being bullied by a lowly Model X P100D. A lifted, built, and burly 4x4 F150 that is. Can't help but think Tesla purposely did a 4x2 F150 test and Ford and the internet has taken the bait.

https://twitter.com/ray4tesla/status...s-ford-f150%2F

~~
Yeah, I think what you meant to say was "Tesla fanboys try to troll Ford and succeed in fooling lots of people who don't think it though and/or just want the Tesla to win."

Silly "test." A P100D is going to have stickier tires and the impression I got was that the F150 driver was in on it. Zero useful content... no word on whether the truck's diff was locked, if it was in 4L, etc. and being a 4WD truck it probably had AT tires. It's Teslarati clickbait. Call back when they do it in the dirt or with summer tires on the truck.
__________________
— David

Zero Gravitas — 2017 Flying Cloud 26U | WBCCI# 15566

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. — Sir Winston Churchill
DKB_SATX is offline  
Old 12-12-2019, 03:06 AM   #397
Rivet Master
 
2012 19' International
Southeastern MI , Michigan
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by KK4YZ View Post
Let me amend the comment to strike the references to coal and natural gas distribution as those wouldn’t get shut down with the death of ICE vehicles. However the point doesn’t change: there’s a LOT of energy that is currently flowing through the oil pipelines that will have to be made up for.
That’s fine. We need the jobs and maybe the 1950s grid is due for updating anyway.
Countryboy59 is offline  
Old 12-12-2019, 10:04 AM   #398
Rivet Master
 
gypsydad's Avatar

 
2017 28' Flying Cloud
2014 25' FB Flying Cloud
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Georgetown (winter)Thayne (summer) , Texas & Wyoming
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbackpacker View Post
With regards to grid capacity I believe what people who say there is enough to start with are pointing out is that as the grid supports massive late afternoon loads in the summer when all that AC is going full blast... so the grid can handle many many cars charging at night when those AC demands are not present. Sure the peak could shift higher and will as demand grows, but seemingly there are methods for dealing with that and it shouldn’t grow so fast as to our pace the ability to add more infrastructure.
And then there is the California folks to contend with...lots of demand, poor infrastructure grid to distribute. Include the fires caused by the currant distribution grid, and you want more demand with more EV's? Think solar cars in the offing?
__________________
Empty Nesters; Gypsies on the road!
2017 28' Twin Flying Cloud
2017 F250 King Ranch, 4X4, 6.7L, Blue-Ox WDH
Summer-Star Valley Ranch RV Resort (Thayne, WY); Winter-Sun City (Georgetown,TX)
gypsydad is offline  
Old 12-12-2019, 10:12 AM   #399
4 Rivet Member
 
2017 22' Sport
North Bay , California
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 300
Images: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by gypsydad View Post
And then there is the California folks to contend with...lots of demand, poor infrastructure grid to distribute. Include the fires caused by the currant distribution grid, and you want more demand with more EV's? Think solar cars in the offing?
FWIW, we are in an area that was shut off during the Public Safety Power Shutoffs. I have 10kW solar on the roof and Tesla house batteries - the house stayed up, we used our oven and electric dryer, etc. as if we were on grid. The batteries had to carry us overnight, and in the morning they topped up. Once they were full (by noon or so), I dumped the rest of our solar into our cars. We had "full tanks" every day.

EVs are solar cars if you have solar available.
ohmman is offline  
Old 12-12-2019, 11:59 AM   #400
4 Rivet Member
 
2015 25' FB Flying Cloud
Eugene , Oregon
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by KK4YZ View Post
I can assure you my concern is not a result of reading any Koch brothers funded document. It is just common sense. More energy will need to flow through the electrical grid if it needs to make up for the loss of all the energy that currently flows through oil pipelines, natural gas distribution and coal distribution infrastructure. That’s a LOT of energy to make up. That doesn’t even address the question of whether the existing grid even has the capacity to produce and distribute this extra energy.



BTW you might want to expand your reading material. Any publication that treats the Koch brothers as boogeymen is not what I would consider completely objective. Just sayin

Yeah, I rolled my eyes at the Koch brothers “dig”. However, it might be a more positive approach to give me and other fellow humans the benefit of the doubt that we have read more than one article in our lives .

In my opinion, I don’t believe there is anyone who can write objectively. Technical reports that I read are the closest we humans seem to be able to get to objectivity and even those can be biased. In terms of reading articles, as well as posts on forums, I do my best to absorb what I believe to be educated and reliable information and ignore the rest. As in the article I posted a link to, I chose to roll my eyes at the Koch brothers comment as it was only one sentence in an otherwise mostly informative and brief article.

In terms of the topic at hand, there will need to be upgrades to the electrical grid over time as the transition to more electric vehicles happen. And, I believe, there will be many more electric cars on the roads in, historically, a very brief time.

My wife had (and now our son has it) a 2011 Nissan Leaf that had a realistic range for our driving of about 75 miles. A wonderful car. Now 8 years later she has a 2019 Nissan Leaf with 3 times the range for 225 miles. In most all ways I prefer driving it vs my 2009 Mazda Miata (mainly which I love for the “top-down” driving and manual stick shift). And it is easy to program electric cars to charge in the middle of the night (once every 5-7 days in our case) when power demand is at its lowest.

There are so many advantages to Teslas over other electric cars at this point but two of the largest advantages pertinent to this thread is Tesla’s large number of super-charging stations and the speed at which their vehicle’s batteries can charge. Both are needed as part of the equation when thinking about the possibility of towing a trailer. Seems like mileage range is roughly cut in half when towing. The new Tesla super-chargers can add up to 180 miles of range in 15 minutes of charging which is pretty impressive. Does it match filling up your gas tank for 300+ miles of range in 5 minutes or less. No. But in another 5 years...who knows.

Here’s an article if interested in Tesla’s new super chargers: https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesl...harger-tested/

Anyway, thanks to all for the information. It certainly is an exciting times for transportation and energy. Both of which like to use and depend on for our daily existence!
Meeks is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pickup truck storage unit Born2kayak Airstream Classifieds 0 07-13-2016 12:39 PM
Pickup truck cap or no cap? weber.roger Airstream Lifestyle 28 12-04-2015 06:22 AM
Generator in back of Pickup truck Rawn77 Generators & Solar Power 20 07-22-2010 06:20 AM
What Diesel pickup truck has driven to the North Pole? purman Tow Vehicles 15 11-08-2008 10:45 PM
Need help in selecting a Pickup Truck for a 34 SO DEO Tow Vehicles 53 11-20-2006 11:06 AM


Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Airstream, Inc. or any of its affiliates. Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.