When to go electric for a tow vehicle

[JJTX]

If you never want to go more than 100 miles from your 220 charger.

[rodsterinfl]

That GM announcement Airforums thread was closed.

As to the topic, consider the Car and Driver article on the Tesla long term review tesla-model-3-charging-costs-per-mile. They discovered that while traveling the cost equated to $9 per gallon and surmised that the vehicle was best left to around town and commutes. Travel charging was about $0.10 a gallon (very similar to standard car fuel cost but with long layovers and super charging was the only viable way to charge if you wanted to get where you were going in a decent time frame.

The hope here is that they get the costs down.

[switz]

I am currently 75. If alive in 2035, I would be 90. I doubt that I would be driving my current 2012 RAM 2500HD Cummins then to tow our 2014 31' Classic that scales 9,200 pounds.

We bought into Ponderosa Shadows, an Airstream only membership summertime RV park in Lakeside, AZ, during the summer in 2014. After the check cleared for the membership, I found there were serious challenges to the infrastructure. The place was around 40 years old and maintenance had not been a priority. The wiring was shorting in places and the 20-30 amp power boxes were not really up to the task with the more modern units.

A major overhaul was started and within 4 years we had two 600 amp mains feeding the 40 lots and the community building. Every space now has 50-30-20 amp boxes, the water inlet for the park has twice the capacity and all the septic tanks were replaced. The membership provided the sweat equity for the wiring and plumbing update.

So this EV discussion is interesting. We used the electrical process of diversity and did not design for every lot to be drawing continuous 50 amps (12k watts per 50 amp outlet). So the thought of 40 EV vehicles plugged in for recharging at the same time just could not be supported. I doubt that we have the mains in the rural area to provide 2,000 amps at one location.

The relatively local coal fired plant on the Indian reservation has been shut down as being uneconomical. There is a relatively small windmill array near the power plant.

The Tesla power map in another post showed a two outlet charger station at a local Lakeside motel. The next nearest ones are in the Phoenix metro area and nearly 150 miles away.

I do not see the electrical power requirement grid being upgraded in the mountains of the SouthWest in my lifetime. So killing off non-EV vehicles would not be feasible if those local economies are to remain viable.

I might be able to continue towing for another ten years, but if not, our Airstream would have to be parked at the park and just be a summer home that is winterized every year. We would still need to get there and back, and my wife has a 2020 Toyota hybrid RAV4 that is capable of 40 mpg. That could be our commuting vehicle.

No one seems to be talking about the major disposal issues for all of these proposed lithium batteries in recent hybrid and total electric vehicles let alone a complete switch to battery power within five years.

So all these EV variants could generate a more toxic enviornment than what we have now.

We really need to have plans in place for disassembly of these batteries and disposing of the toxic components before we jump into battery only vehicles.

[Rocinante]

Thread closed for clean-up because of comments on moderator actions.

Before posting here or elsewhere on Air Forums, please please read the Community Rules one more time, or maybe for the first time. Deviations from those rules, with which all members are expected to comply - especially in threads that tend to be more controversial, will not be allowed. In short, no politics, be nice, and make no comments on moderator actions.

Also, when folks wake up an old thread in an effort to continue stirring the pot and encouraging folks to press on despite the rules - that's noticed.

Thanks.

[Rocinante]

This thread is once again open for business.

[AlbertF]

Originally Posted by skyguyscott

As Kierkegaard might say, as living adults we are condemned to the freedom of making decisions, but often lack clear standards to make responsible judgments.

For instance in the linked article, those advocating for more ethical sourcing of the materials used in battery production also recognize the larger dilemma of continuing to use fossil fuels which have been proven to be an existential threat to a life sustaining climate. Ethical choices are seldom clear-cut. In this current dilemma, if you were in need of a new tow vehicle, would you purchase an EV, assuming it was able to meet your needs, but knowing that it was built with components procured by slave labor — or would you purchase an ICE vehicle knowing that its emissions would continue to contribute to climate change?

Which is the more ethical choice? Sadly, few consumers would even take such ethical concerns into consideration, I’m afraid. But assuming you do, how would you frame the choice before you? How would you justify the choice you make? What would be the ramifications of any consequences resulting from the decision that you make? Are there any unintentional but foreseeable consequences your choice may have? What would the impact be if all adults made the same choice as you? Is there an ethically viable justification for someone making a different ethical choice, or is yours the only ethically valid choice possible?

Thanks for a particularly thoughtful post.

I’m interested in EVs because the good ones like Teslas are great to drive and seem to be very usable and convenient vehicles to live with. The technology is excellent. I can see myself buying one in the future, and towing with it. However, in the interim I have no guilt over burning carbon based fuels because affordable energy has provided incredible benefits over the past 150 years - dramatically increased productivity and wealth, followed by improved health, life expectancy, and in the past 50 years especially, a dramatically cleaner environment. Yes, I meant to say that. We’ve now had environmental protection legislation for over 50 years throughout Canada and the USA, and this has created many benefits, with cleaner water, ground and air. And we’ve been able to afford this because of the wealth that affordable energy has created.

Is avoiding climate change more important than improving health and prosperity for the world’s poor? Or should we focus on adaptation more than prevention? There’s plenty of fodder for thoughtful debate. I agree that we should always consider the unintended consequences of our policy choices.

[DewTheDew]

For those discussing electricity sources in the US, recognizing that they vary greatly from location to location across the US, it is useful to look at the energy flow charts produced by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. For 2019 there were 37 quads of electricity generated (before losses) and 10.2 of that was coal. Plenty of non-CO2 generating sources of energy and those have only increased with time. There is nowhere left in the US where the CO2 generation from the power mix used to fuel an EV exceeds that which comes out of an equivalent ICE engine. https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/...gy_US_2019.png

[rowiebowie]

Originally Posted by AlbertF

Thanks for a particularly thoughtful post.

I’m interested in EVs because the good ones like Teslas are great to drive and seem to be very usable and convenient vehicles to live with. The technology is excellent. I can see myself buying one in the future, and towing with it. However, in the interim I have no guilt over burning carbon based fuels because affordable energy has provided incredible benefits over the past 150 years - dramatically increased productivity and wealth, followed by improved health, life expectancy, and in the past 50 years especially, a dramatically cleaner environment. Yes, I meant to say that. We’ve now had environmental protection legislation for over 50 years throughout Canada and the USA, and this has created many benefits, with cleaner water, ground and air. And we’ve been able to afford this because of the wealth that affordable energy has created.

Is avoiding climate change more important than improving health and prosperity for the world’s poor? Or should we focus on adaptation more than prevention? There’s plenty of fodder for thoughtful debate. I agree that we should always consider the unintended consequences of our policy choices.

You sir, have common sense. It should not be an issue of one or the other, but various types of energy used simultaneously for the overall good of mankind.


A few years ago, I'd have said "never" to electric rv's or tow vehicles. Now, I can see myself in 5-10 years touring the land in a self-driving electric class b as I am free to admire the landscape (no longer having to pay strict attention to driving).

[renderit]

I'll throw my 2 cents into this with an idea I had when helping one of my kids with a school project around 10 years ago.

They are going about this wrong.

I am not a proponent of the WAY they are doing this. If they are fine ruling how and what you need to do to meet "standards" on a regular motor car why are they not inducing the same on electrics?

Motor cars didn't sell well until the SUPPLY of gas was readily available...

Why don't they create a 'standard' battery compartment that allows you to pull into a 'gas station' and the station belt punches the clips on your pack, pulls it down onto a charger and replaces it with a charged unit? You don't "own" the batteries. They are Shell or Exxon or whatever. You pay for the charge.

Pretty simple.

Solves most any distance problem...

Pulling a trailer becomes the same logistical issue as current. Pun intended.

[primepower]

Because you could be replacing your battery pack with one that is older and won't hold the same charge. It is not the same. I would not exchange my newer battery pack with an older one. As I then head home and charge it at home I am stuck with a battery pack that needs replacing soon.

Originally Posted by renderit

I'll throw my 2 cents into this with an idea I had when helping one of my kids with a school project around 10 years ago.

They are going about this wrong.

I am not a proponent of the WAY they are doing this. If they are fine ruling how and what you need to do to meet "standards" on a regular motor car why are they not inducing the same on electrics?

Motor cars didn't sell well until the SUPPLY of gas was readily available...

Why don't they create a 'standard' battery compartment that allows you to pull into a 'gas station' and the station belt punches the clips on your pack, pulls it down onto a charger and replaces it with a charged unit? You don't "own" the batteries. They are Shell or Exxon or whatever. You pay for the charge.

Pretty simple.

Solves most any distance problem...

Pulling a trailer becomes the same logistical issue as current. Pun intended.

[Daquenzer]

I just read an article in the Wall Street Journal that said if we had replaced the gas cars with 130 million EV's it would only reduce emissions by .4%. Makes me wonder.

As to GM going all electric. If they are as successful at that as they were with the VOLT I am not optimistic about their success. My guess they will fall short of their goal substantially.

[Bobbo]

Originally Posted by primepower

Because you could be replacing your battery pack with one that is older and won't hold the same charge. It is not the same. I would not exchange my newer battery pack with an older one. As I then head home and charge it at home I am stuck with a battery pack that needs replacing soon.

Not to mention the sheer quantity of battery packs the station would have to store to be able to service the hundreds of vehicles daily that it would see. Storage space alone would limit this.

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by Daquenzer

I just read an article in the Wall Street Journal that said if we had replaced the gas cars with 130 million EV's it would only reduce emissions by .4%. Makes me wonder.

As to GM going all electric. If they are as successful at that as they were with the VOLT I am not optimistic about their success. My guess they will fall short of their goal substantially.

Kinda puts the lie to the go green movement. (CO2 is plant food and greens the planet more than anything else can). But the goal has never has been about the planet.

[DavidsonOverlander]

Originally Posted by renderit

I'll throw my 2 cents into this with an idea I had when helping one of my kids with a school project around 10 years ago.

They are going about this wrong.

I am not a proponent of the WAY they are doing this. If they are fine ruling how and what you need to do to meet "standards" on a regular motor car why are they not inducing the same on electrics?

Motor cars didn't sell well until the SUPPLY of gas was readily available...

Why don't they create a 'standard' battery compartment that allows you to pull into a 'gas station' and the station belt punches the clips on your pack, pulls it down onto a charger and replaces it with a charged unit? You don't "own" the batteries. They are Shell or Exxon or whatever. You pay for the charge.

Pretty simple.

Solves most any distance problem...

Pulling a trailer becomes the same logistical issue as current. Pun intended.

Originally Posted by primepower

Because you could be replacing your battery pack with one that is older and won't hold the same charge. It is not the same. I would not exchange my newer battery pack with an older one. As I then head home and charge it at home I am stuck with a battery pack that needs replacing soon.

There is a company in China that is doing this.
Is battery-swapping the future of EVs?

I think the biggest downside would be the additional complexity of the charging station. primepower has a good point, but an advantage is that you would never own the battery at all, you're just renting it. You wouldn't want to end up with a battery that wouldn't hold a charge, so you would be relying on the company providing the exchange to make sure they only reused batteries that met a certain standard. I think you'd still need the ability to charge the car from an outlet, and many people who don't drive long distances would never need a battery exchange because they'd be charging at home or work. I'm not an engineer, but to me battery exchange sounds more complex than developing faster battery charging.

[DavidsonOverlander]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

Kinda puts the lie to the go green movement. (CO2 is plant food and greens the planet more than anything else can). But the goal has never has been about the planet.

It's true that some plants grow better under increased levels of CO2, but there are also drawbacks. The increase in growth requires more nutrients from the soil which can be a limiting factor. The resulting plant tissues have lower levels of protein, and some minerals, so the resulting food supply would be of poorer quality. Whatever is eating the plant would need to eat more to get the same nutritional value.
You may remember from botany class that most plants use C3 photosynthesis, and a smaller proportion (including corn) use C4 photosynthesis. Since C4 plants already concentrate CO2 for more efficient photosynthesis they don't benefit significantly from increased atmospheric levels.

Plants are just one consideration in the environment. Burning fossil fuels is also increasing temperatures and causing stress on animal populations. Air pollution stresses our bodies and increases illness and death.

The goal has always been about the planet, and increasing the quality of life of everything that depends on it.

[BayouBiker]

It is a undisputed fact that local, regional and for the entire earth, density of vegetation is greater with higher CO2. The planet is greener with more CO2. Suggesting there are downsides to plant life when taken in whole is unsubstantiated even as the paper you linked admits.

From the historic record, for the entire range of global temperatures (+15 warmer than now -12 colder than now) life on earth as a whole invariably does better the warmer the planet. It also performs much better when CO2 is above 500 ppm compared to below 300 ppm.

I've not seen any evidence higher global temperature stress animals. Regionally, due to adaptations, some do better and some do worse, but overall it is inconclusive except again looking at the historic record which strongly indicates higher temperatures overall are better.

No dispute about contaminates, but CO2 is naturally occurring and necessary for life. It is not pollution.

[primepower]

I have trouble believing it is about the planet or I may be misinformed. If it was really about the planet the Keystone pipeline would not be shut down. It is much more efficient at transporting fuel then by rail or truck which not only increases emissions but stresses our already ageing infrastructure. Shutting down the pipeline doesn't decrease fuel usage, but does increase emissions.

Same for restricting land rights for drilling. The demand for fuel is still there. Therefore we will ship the fuel from overseas using even more emissions.

Same for when we restricted coal plants. We just shipped the coal off to overseas for their usage. I've never seen more coal leave Norfolk. Globally it only made things worse.

I must think if it was really about the planet we would be targeting the demand not the logistics and would think globally, not locally.

[DavidsonOverlander]

It would be great if we could have a thread to discuss electric vehicles without the distraction of debating climate change. It appears that EVs (or hydrogen) are going to replace most ICEs despite a minority of people disbelieving that climate change is a problem. The majority of people in most countries see climate change as a threat, so this change is coming. Give it 10 years of old people dying off and kids reaching voting age and it will gain even more momentum.
I'm unsubscribing from this thread.

[BayouBiker]

The problem is that the driver for electric vehicles is entirely, 100% based on the climate change narrative. The two topics are inseparable. You are correct that eventually a more efficient and productive mode of transportation will eventually replace IC engines despite all the failed predictions of catastrophe coming home to roost. The problem with failed predictions are that even young people eventually wake up to the inevitable truth.

[Daquenzer]

The problem with EV’s is not the concept, rather it is the government mandate and manipulation of the market. The government didn’t DEMAND motor vehicles when they came into existence, and DEMAND that horse drawn carriages must be eliminated. They became available when industrial output made them cheap enough that the average person could buy one. Ford understood this.

I think GM’s pronouncement they will be all EV in 15 years is frankly a bit more political than anything. That means they will have to create a market when there essentially isn’t one. They will have to do with the EV what Ford did with the Model T. 15 years is not a long time.

1. There is no way that the demand for EVs will be there when they cost 50% or more than a gas vehicle.
2. There is no way that the demand for EVs will be there until they have essentially the same range and convenience as a gas vehicle. This may not be true for some parts of the country, but I can’t even imagine it will be there in the midwest and rural areas. Unless people can drive an EV much like they do a gas vehicle I think broad acceptance will be difficult.
3. Then there are the maintenance issues. I researched about getting a Tesla and there are few places that sell them, plus if something goes wrong with one you just can’t order a part and put it in. An entire network of people qualified to work on these vehicles must occur. No small task. My son works as a supervisor at a large Metro Transit station. I asked him about EV buses, and he says they don’t have the range, it takes longer to charge them to get back on the road, and they don’t have the mechanics to work on them because of the danger of repairing vehicles with high voltage. So they are actually moving away from them. They simply aren’t cost effective. And this is in a very liberal progressive city.

As to standardizing the battery as mentioned above. There is an excellent video article in the Wall Street Journal about this. And it weighs the pros and cons. The main problem is there has to be all kinds of changing stations (not cheap). AND the battery that GM uses must be the same that FORD uses. It is a nifty idea, because in watching the video it takes about 5 minutes to switch a fully charged battery. But standardization is very difficult to do with competing companies. But it would solve the long charging issue. About the only way this would happen is by government mandate, and government mandates by definition result in pretty dumb decisions. It would have to be such an overwhelmingly good idea that others would adopt. Not saying it couldn’t happen. We do have standardized batteries already for flashlights, etc. But I can’t use my Lithium Dewalt tool batteries in any other tool. Would be nice, though.