Tow Vehicles - Toyota Goes Turbo
Printed From: R-pod Owners Forum
Category: Non-pod Discussion Forums
Forum Name: General non-pod discussion
Forum Discription: Non-pod and ex-pod general stuff
URL: http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=14962
Printed Date: 28 Apr 2024 at 3:02pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.64 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Tow Vehicles - Toyota Goes Turbo
Posted By: lostagain
Subject: Tow Vehicles - Toyota Goes Turbo
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2021 at 10:17am
|
Looks like Toyota is going turbo with its new line of hybrid trucks. http://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/19/toyota-unveils-new-2022-tundra-pickup-truck-with-new-hybrid-engine.html - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/19/toyota-unveils-new-2022-tundra-pickup-truck-with-new-hybrid-engine.html This puts more pressure on GM and Fiat/Chrysler to come up with some gasoline fueled turbo boosted engines. ------------- Never leave footprints behind. Fred & Maria Kearney Sonoma 167RB Our Pod 172 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost |
Replies:
Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2021 at 1:41pm
|
That drivetrain have been predicted for the new Tundra for awhile, the old Tundra was getting pretty long in the tooth. It's not a new drivetrain, Toyota has decades of experience with turbos, and the Lexus LS00 has had pretty much the same twin turbo 3.5 V6 since 2017.
It's this line from the article that caught my attention though: Automakers have increasingly started to offer alternative powertrain options ahead of an influx of all-electric pickups in the market in the coming years. The implucatio is that all of these ICE based alternatives are going to seem like antiquated stop gaps is a few short years. Hybrids in passenger cars have been around for about 25 years now, and are now losing ground quickly to EVs. That's ok if you only keep your vehicle a few years but if you plan to keep them for 15-20 years like I do it's not so good. As for Toyota, personally I'm done with them, at least till they prove they have changed direction on EVs. They seem to have spent more efforts in recent years lobbying against improved environmental standards rather than working on solutions. ------------- 1994 Chinook Concourse 1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |
Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2021 at 2:07pm
|
When one drills down deeply into the full environmental cost of any vehicle powered by something other than animal/human power, it usually turns out that it is costlier and more damaging than the promoters have claimed. Even electric vehicles are no panacea. The mining of lithium and other rare earths for the batteries, is far more destructive than Mr. Musk would like us to believe. A good deal of the electricity for charging those lithium batteries comes from power plants using carbon based fuels. The solar panels and wind generators also use raw materials that are not always environmentally friendly. That's not to say we shouldn't urgently explore alternative energy means of propulsion for vehicles, but we need to be honest with ourselves about the harm they can also cause. The law of unintended consequences reigns over us all. As for Toyota's new line of trucks they're way out of my budget, so it's just a curiosity for me. ------------- Never leave footprints behind. Fred & Maria Kearney Sonoma 167RB Our Pod 172 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost |
Posted By: GlueGuy
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2021 at 2:57pm
|
I saw that about the Tundra a week or so ago. Interesting that they are offering it in a hybrid. That combo could be very good for short-trip mileage. The whole lithium thing is going to be interesting as battery technology evolves. We may not be around to see where it eventually goes (or doesn't). Yes, electric vehicles do put strain on the grid, and what environmental impact it has (or doesn't have) depends a lot on where you live. I remember many years ago there was a guy on talk radio claiming that solar power would never " pencil out" and wanted to see solar powerbanned. Yet today, solar power is among the lowest cost power options available. I think when (if?) we ever sort out the storage issue, it might make a real difference. It's interesting to note that there are times during the long days of summer, there are periods when the California power grid runs at negative cost. That's a slightly misleading way to characterize it, but the reality is that the solar input to the California grid is so high, that the state exports the excess power to surrounding states, and they are paying more for the energy than it costs to produce. ------------- bp 2017 R-Pod 179 Hood River 2015 Ford F150 SuperCrew 4WD 3.5L Ecoboost |
Posted By: TheBum
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2021 at 11:09am
In some places, like in France, entire fleets of electric vehicles are being scrapped because it's more expensive to replace the batteries than it is to buy new vehicles. I have high hopes for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles myself, but they rely on elements in the platinum series as catalysts, which are also rare.
------------- Alan 2022 R-Pod 196 "RaptoRPod" 2022 Ram 1500 Lone Star 4x4 Three cats |
Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2021 at 11:14am
|
If you read articles promoted or funded by the fossil fuel industry they will tell you that EVs are not cleaner in locations with high carbon electricity generation. Studies promoted by clean transportation advocates show the opposite. Here for example:
https://www-engadget-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.engadget.com/amp/ev-cleaner-gas-cars-lifespan-study-095041081.html?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16333600432297&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.engadget.com%2Fev-cleaner-gas-cars-lifespan-study-095041081.html - EV Carbon Production So like many other areas do your own research and decide who you trust. Clearly though, the benefit is higher in locations with greener electric grids. The way I look at it, to wean off fossil fuels we need to both clean up the grid and clean up transportation emissions, among other actions, and do those things quickly and in parallel. By arguing that EVs aren't that much better if you are charging them from a dirty grid is basically making an excuse to do nothing until someone else does something first. Either you think it is important to address climate change or you don't. If you don't, buy an ICE. If you do, buy an EV, AND put in solar. Re solar (photovoltaics), I know the cost curve on that very well, as I spent my career working at reducing it. What happens is that any new technology initially costs more than the incumbent technology, and that is used as an argument against adoption, until a tipping point is reached. Until the tipping point occurs the naysayers can readily argue that the new technology is not viable. Then, like magic, the new tech is suddenly everywhere. The tipping point for PV has occurred sooner in some markets than others. In HI now you can't get an interconnect for grid tied solar in most places (unless you also add storage), the tipping point was reached 5 or more years ago. In comparison here in Appalachia solar is still only a fraction of a percent of the energy production. But that will change soon enough, assuming we don't allow the fossil fuel industry to throw up roadblocks Re solar life cycle "greenness", the energy payback time for PV is now roughly about a year, with an expected useful life of 35 years or more, meaning that an investment in solar will produce something like 35x more energy that it took to produce it. If the energy going into production, transportation, and installation is also derived from renewable sources then you can quickly get to near zero CO2 electricity generation. That is one thing the fossil fuel lobby doesn't want you to understand: they want you to assume the input energy into making PV modules or charging EVs is dirty, but as soon as you get a green energy technology to be net positive in energy production/conservation it makes sense to implement it, because it can then begin to displace the dirty input energy, resulting in a virtuous circle. In the case of Toyota, they are the only major auto manufacturer not to embrace an electric future. GM, Ford, VW, Hyundai, Daimler, etc have all done so. Toyota seems to finally be changing, we'll see. The thing that will enable the transition to EVs to occurr faster than the transition to PV (which has taken a full generation till now) is that EVs are superior to ICE vehicles in almost every dimension. That isn't the case with solar, electrons are all the same. But EVs demonstrate better performance, better reliability, lower maintenance, more convenient home replenishment of energy, and are smoother and quieter. They will reach the tipping point on acquisition cost soon. The only dimension where they lag ICEs is range, and that too is rapidly changing. And for the large majority of consumers, (not including the long distance trailer towers on this forum), the current EV ranges are just fine. ------------- 1994 Chinook Concourse 1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |
Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2021 at 4:03pm
|
Yep, we can't believe the petroleum industry's propaganda. But we also have to be skeptical of everyone else's too. I sincerely hope that the "green" energy proponents are being more accurate in their claims, but we must keep in mind that each has its own financial interests to protect and that often occurs through not telling us the whole truth; lies by omission. For example, how much environmental damage is done to Mother Earth [not just carbon emissions] in the mining of lithium? Quite frankly, I don't know, but am concerned that Mr. Musk is not laying all the cards on the table. Storage, as Glue Guy pointed out, is an issue for wind and solar generation. Batteries banks of a hard to imagine magnitude may be required to make a functional power grid using solar and the environmental cost may be much higher than is sustainable. Bottom line, as my very wise father once told me: "There is no such thing as a free lunch."
------------- Never leave footprints behind. Fred & Maria Kearney Sonoma 167RB Our Pod 172 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost |
Posted By: TheBum
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2021 at 4:21pm
|
"The only dimension where they lag ICEs is range" And fueling time, at least with respect to battery powered EVs. ------------- Alan 2022 R-Pod 196 "RaptoRPod" 2022 Ram 1500 Lone Star 4x4 Three cats |
Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2021 at 7:21am
|
Recharge time is solved as far as I'm concerned. The new generation of 800V cars and DC chargers charge at 250+kw. So a Porsche Taycan for example can charge from 5 to 80 percent in under 25 minutes.
It is understandable when comparing a new technology to an old one to single out the areas where the new one is less competitive, but in reality it is not the right metric. Look at charging time for example, from the perspective of a typical EV owner. He or she charges at home over 90% of the time (yep, 90 plus, thats the statistic). If you asked him or her to trade that every day convenience to save 15-20 minutes on the occasional road trip what do you think the response would be? Another example is smartphones. They are after all terrible phones. If you asked someone 20 years ago if he would want to have to hold a big rectangular brick up against his face to talk to someone he'd say forget it, I'll keep my nice little Nokia or Motorola Razor. But perspectives changed and the benefits of the new tech outweigh the negatives, and Nokia and Motorola disappeared I understand the need for storage integrated with renewables very well. Rght now there are only a few electricity markets where renewable penetration is high enough that that is a constraint (HI, CA) so renewable deployment should focus on the other mmarkets, that gets low cost renewables deployed qas quickly and widely as possible . There are multiple solutions for grid storage. Pumped hydro has the largest capacity today. If fact any heavy stuff can be moved up and down in elevation to do the same thing, doesn't have to be water. For example trainloads of concrete on a mountain railway grade will work fine. Also, grid storage via batteries don't have to be lithium based, Lithium gives you high energy density so it's great for vehicles but unnecessary in a stationary grid application where weight and volume are not very significant. Many of those alternative battery technologies use very common and benign materials. Lithium is just first to the table because of heavy investment for use in laptops and smartphones. When you think about environmental damage from extraction operations consider the scales involved. There is a good reason why petroleum extraction, transportation, and refining has so much impact. Consider a typical ICE vehicle. It will require around 25 tons of gasoline over it's lifetime. An equivalent EV will have about a 600 lb battery. So while everything anyone does has an environmental impact the oil sector has the largest because of it's enormous scale. We have an example in Socal just this weekend. You can't do anything without causing some kind of environmental impact. The fossil fuel lobby knows this well, and uses the environmental movement's desire to do no harm against it. But we have to look at what causes the least damage for the most benefit. That's one reason I favor aggressive deployment of nuclear power. Better to have to build and manage some long term radioactive waste storage facilities in remote deserts somewhere than all our coastal cities flooded. ------------- 1994 Chinook Concourse 1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |
Posted By: StephenH
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2021 at 8:18am
|
I think the comparison between gasoline use (25 tons) and a 600 lb battery is not accurate. The generation of energy and the resources for that must be included in the EV calculation. How many tons of coal/oil/natural gas/etc. are needed to charge that battery? I don't argue with your point about impact of events like the pipeline leak in SoCal. That is bad. I would also argue for increased nuclear use. However, instead of more reactors that create ever greater amounts of waste that will take millions of years to become safe, I would rather see reactors that consume more of the fuel and generate much smaller amounts of wastes that will need to be stored. That means that we need to get over the reluctance to build reactors that can burn these wastes. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/destroying-nuclear-waste-to-create-clean-energy-it-can-be-done All that being said, I would not mind an EV for around home use. But for towing and the type of travel we do, an EV is just not feasible until the infrastructure for getting it charged as easily and as fast as filling up a fuel tank is available and affordable. ------------- StephenH Happy is the man that findeth wisdom,... http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=7712 - ouR escaPOD mods Former RPod 179 Current Cherokee Grey Wolf 24 JS |
Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2021 at 9:34am
|
Storage of nuclear waste in the desert? You may want to ask the people affected by the Yucca Mt., NV, nuclear storage site how they feel about it. On the other hand, Norway seems to have come up with a viable nuclear storage solution that may make nuclear reactors more practical. EV's are one possible solution, but the use of hydrogen fuel cell technology may also be a viable alternative. Using solar, wind, and tidal generated electricity, along with nuclear, may provide a viable energy source to produce hydrogen for fuel cells. It effectively is one possible way to store energy that cannot be consistently produced, such as solar. Seems to me the Toyota hybrid truck is an expensive transitional approach to solve a long distance towing issue, shooting for the benefits of an EV with the unlimited range of an ICE. In a few years, however, it'll likely be a white elephant that no one really wants so the resale value may be pretty awful. ------------- Never leave footprints behind. Fred & Maria Kearney Sonoma 167RB Our Pod 172 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost |
Posted By: StephenH
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2021 at 9:42am
|
Ford seems to be betting on a hybrid also. However, in Ford's case, they are touting the use of it as a generator also. That makes it more attractive since I wouldn't need to carry a separate generator. I don't know if Toyota's offering will also have this feature. ------------- StephenH Happy is the man that findeth wisdom,... http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=7712 - ouR escaPOD mods Former RPod 179 Current Cherokee Grey Wolf 24 JS |
Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2021 at 11:12am
|
My point was that materials extraction, processing, and transport causes environmental harm. The two most heavily extracte materials are oil and coal. Of course, because they are consumed immediately, one time use only. If we can reduce those then not only have we reduced CO2 but also the environmental costs of obtaining, processing, and transporting the fuels.
While Li extraction has issues (mostly water use in desert areas), it is a one time environmental impact for a product that will be used for decades. So much less material is needed. As I said earlier, I agree that the benefit of EVs, while there even when charged on dirty grids, is much better when the grid is cleaned up. We need to do both, and get away from assuming the status quo in energy production when considering EVs That status quo is rapidly changing. BTW, the same is true the other direction. EVs will be part of the renewable storage solution once we can get past our confused and complex regulatory system and certify bi directional chargers. They are already being implemented in other countries with a more centralized regulatory approach, but you can't buy one here yet. That is the main thing that is keeping me from buying an EV right now. Which ones will bi directional chargers be available for. As for aggregating nd managing those storage resources on the grid, that is already being done Our friend Elon has a whole division of Tesla doing just that with other storage resources (not the cars yet). Others are doing it too. I agree with you on pursuing Thorium reactors. I'm willing to consider any technology that can be quickly implemented that reduces carbon and breaks the stranglehold on the global economy that big oil and the oil exporting countries has had for a century. But Thorium reactors are a long way from being on line. One reason renewables have been so successful recently is because they are fast to implement. You can go from concept to an operating plant in 6-9 months. Usually the thing that takes the longest is the financing. Sadly with all the roadblocks, nukes take decades to reach completion, if ever. In my opinion, need to stop that, treat this whole energy transition as we did industrial production in WW2 or the Apollo program, and git er done. The Chinese know that very well, that's why they already dominate global production of solar and lithium batteries. Let's stipulate that towing trailers long distances is not a viable use case for EVs today, but let's also recognize that for the majority of motor vehicle use they are fine, and in many cases better. ------------- 1994 Chinook Concourse 1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |
Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2021 at 11:27am
|
Not sure of the details of issues at Yucca mountain, but in the end there will be environmental impacts from anything we do, and inevitably those will impact some people more than others. Ask the poor people who live next to the refineries in Louisiana. We need to try our best to make sure those impacts are equitable but they will never be zero. There are just too many people demanding too high a lifestyle for that to happen. How many people live near Yucca Mountain?
Re hydrogen, it is a terribly inefficient energy storage technology, far worse than batteries. And the vast majority of hydrogen production is from fossil fuels. Hmmm. It's simply not competitive with batteries except perhaps as an aviation fuel because it's got a very high energy density. Toyota was touting it for a long time but seems to have backed off recently. ------------- 1994 Chinook Concourse 1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |
Posted By: TheBum
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2021 at 11:33am
Mitigated maybe, but not solved. I can gas up in 5 minutes. For short haul driving where you don't need to fill up often, it's not a big issue, but when you're driving cross-country and have to make multiple stops for fueling, that extra 20 minutes per fill really adds up. I imagine hydrogen fill-ups would take about the same time as a gasoline fill-up. ------------- Alan 2022 R-Pod 196 "RaptoRPod" 2022 Ram 1500 Lone Star 4x4 Three cats |
Posted By: GlueGuy
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2021 at 11:56am
I'm less optimistic of hydrogen. The biggest issue in my mind is that it takes more fossil fuel to make hydrogen in the first place. I have yet to see a carbon-neutral way to make hydrogen, with the possible exception of using hydrogen as a storage mechanism for solar. ------------- bp 2017 R-Pod 179 Hood River 2015 Ford F150 SuperCrew 4WD 3.5L Ecoboost |
Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2021 at 12:16pm
|
If hydrogen can be obtained using solar and wind, then it may be more viable. The technology needs to be explored. It may not pan out, but I seem to recall people saying the same thing about electric cars many years ago. Who knows what efficiencies will be developed. Clearly, we should not use it if it can only be obtained with the burning of fossil fuels. As for lithium, its mining is very damaging to the environment, especially where it is mostly located. It uses staggering amounts of water where water is very scarce, leaves dangerous chemical behind which contaminate what's left of aquifers needed for local people's food production and domestic use, and contaminates vast tracts of land, especially in Chile, Bolivia and Argentina. It isn't practical to recycle at this point, though eventually that may change. It isn't really practical in large scale energy storage either. Take a look at this discussion about the extractions and use of lithium: http://interestingengineering.com/clean-evs-and-dirty-lithium-mining-business - https://interestingengineering.com/clean-evs-and-dirty-lithium-mining-business I should add regarding water use: Much of S. America has been in a protracted and extreme drought. The water extraction of lithium is really not sustainable. ------------- Never leave footprints behind. Fred & Maria Kearney Sonoma 167RB Our Pod 172 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost |
Posted By: StephenH
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2021 at 1:20pm
|
The issue of generation of hydrogen from non-carbon sources is that one needs quite a bit of electricity to break the bonds and separate oxygen from hydrogen by electrolysis. Then one would be using the hydrogen to generate electricity to power the vehicle. Overall, it seems to be a very inefficient process. Then the energy density of hydrogen is very low. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=9991 - https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=9991 One can compress hydrogen, but only so much as the weight of the pressure vessel increases to contain that pressure. If one liquefies the hydrogen by cooling it to cryogenic temperatures, that would decrease the pressure and increase the density, but then we would need to be driving rolling Dewar flasks to keep it from flashing into vapor. Imagine a crash in one where the insulation of the container is compromised. The hydrogen would vaporize and spread. Then any spark would set it off. It wouldn't be a pretty sight. The same would apply to any fuel that is a vapor at temperatures normally encountered in driving.
------------- StephenH Happy is the man that findeth wisdom,... http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=7712 - ouR escaPOD mods Former RPod 179 Current Cherokee Grey Wolf 24 JS |
Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2021 at 2:11pm
|
Hydrogen has been explored plenty, it's a waste of time. It cannot ever be anywhere near as efficient as batteries. The fossil fuel industry has lobbied for it for years because it's made from their products. It is not more efficient when made using renewables. It's really quite like corn ethanol, a dead end that has been kept alive by special interest groups far too long.
As for lithium mining, none of what you are describing is as bad as the environmental impacts of petroleum production are, not even counting the burning of the stuff. As I said all options have negative impacts, it's a matter of which are worse. The only other option is less vehicles on the road driving less miles, so we can all take public transportation when possible. But that's not likely to happen. For stationary grid storage there are many options that might be and probably are better than Li batteries. Pumped storage for one is very well proven and efficient, but it's difficult to site because you need reservoirs at the top and bottom of a mountain. That raises NIMBY issues yet again. Nothing comes for free. Re energy replenishment time, for me, if I save that 5 minutes at the gas pump 90% of the time by charging at home I'll happily accept 25 minutes the other 10% of the time. If you do the math I've cut my total energy replenishment time in half compared to using gasoline. If I spent 90% of my time on the road travelling long distances that would be different, but again that is an unusual use case. ------------- 1994 Chinook Concourse 1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |
Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2021 at 2:22pm
|
Looks like we're all in agreement: There's no such thing as a free lunch. ------------- Never leave footprints behind. Fred & Maria Kearney Sonoma 167RB Our Pod 172 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost |
Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2021 at 2:49pm
That is in fact the lay version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy (disorder) in a system always increases. The first law is conservation of energy, the third is that the energy in a closed system goes to zero at absolute zero, which can never be reached. So, a physicist has famously expressed those 3 laws as: 1) you can't win, 2) you can't break even, 3) and you can't get out of the game. ------------- 1994 Chinook Concourse 1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |
Posted By: GlueGuy
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2021 at 1:33pm
|
I do think that nuclear energy has not been explored enough. All the early nuclear power plants were monstrous affairs that just made it even more unpalatable. I've see some new designs for smaller neighborhood-size micro-nukes that look like they could solve a lot of problems. The disposal issue is still there, but I think it is solvable as well. ------------- bp 2017 R-Pod 179 Hood River 2015 Ford F150 SuperCrew 4WD 3.5L Ecoboost |
Posted By: TheBum
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2021 at 1:37pm
|
I've always thought that nuclear energy isn't given a fair shake. It's certainly more reliable from a power delivery standpoint than either solar or wind and it's carbon neutral. ------------- Alan 2022 R-Pod 196 "RaptoRPod" 2022 Ram 1500 Lone Star 4x4 Three cats |
Posted By: StephenH
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2021 at 2:36pm
|
People are nervous about nuclear power. Nuclear accidents such as Windscale (Great Britain), Three Mile Island (US), Chernobyl (USSR), and Fukushima Daichi (Japan) have made people leery of nuclear power. However, fusion is still a dream. We need energy and we need it to be clean, safe, and inexpensive. If we learn hte lessons of the past and design new nuclear power stations to be inherently safer and get over the fear, we can have nuclear power as a viable option. ------------- StephenH Happy is the man that findeth wisdom,... http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=7712 - ouR escaPOD mods Former RPod 179 Current Cherokee Grey Wolf 24 JS |
Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2021 at 5:41pm
|
One of the big problems with nuclear power is waste disposal. Everyone seems to want to put the waste in someone else's back yard. It appears that they have come up with a pretty good waste burial system in Norway that should be good for a very, very long time. I don't think it'd work, though, in areas with a lot of active seismic events. Also, with rising sea levels, coastal installations are more problematic.
------------- Never leave footprints behind. Fred & Maria Kearney Sonoma 167RB Our Pod 172 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost |
Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2021 at 8:33am
|
I used to oppose nuclear power for the same reasons raised here. But I changed my mind about 20 years ago. The problem with these discussions is that they are theoretical in nature, theres no sense of urgency.
It's not an either or thing anymore, it's all of the above. We are out of time. Any viable low or no carbon energy source needs to be deployed as soon as possible. All of them have downsides, but none of the downsides are as bad as flooded cities or whole states turning into cinders. Storage is not a restriction on the deployment of renewables today. On a local scale in a few areas yes but nationally and globally not at all. Plenty of electricity markets with low renewable penetration that can handle much more. A kw of solar in say Appalachia reduces carbon emissions by about the same amount as a kw in northern California does. The benefit of doing that is that it's very fast, cheap, and not subject to much in the way of NIMBY issues. Other low or no carbon options, especially nukes, take much longer. We should do them, but not wait for them. We should deploy grid storage too, and utilize vehicle to grid (V2G) technology with EVs for storage as well. Those should be deployed first in those markets that are already saturated with renewables, so that they can continue to add solar and wind. ------------- 1994 Chinook Concourse 1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |
Posted By: PilotPodder
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2021 at 7:34am
|
This has been great discussion to read through - very enlightening as a former Econ prof. I am actually strongly considering the new Tundra Hybrid simply because the mileage should be 20+ mpg when not towing and the large + in Horsepower and Torque (near 600 ft lbs.) when towing should future proof if I decided on a trailer > 5,000 lb. unloaded weight. My 2017 Tundra 5.7L has been stellar in terms of reliability and comfort. Mileage stinks when not towing, which for me has been about 40% of my usage miles. I disagree that this hybrid will become a white elephant. My take is that EV trucks will see too much range declination to make it work for my use case (any many others). Until I see data, I think a 300 mile range on an EV 1/2 ton truck likely will see 50-70% declination with any real payload attached. 100-150 mile range just won't cut it when towing. ~PP ------------- Portage, MI — 2017 RPod 179 - sold / 2017 Toyota Tundra — https://johnmarucci.com/r-pod-video-list/ - My RPod YouTube Videos |
Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2021 at 8:13am
|
I think a better term that white elephant would be niche vehicle. As the manufacturers transition to EV's which all the major ones except Toyota have stated they will do, those will become significantly cheaper than ICE vehicles, as predicted by Wright's law which has been a very good predictor of solar costs for about 40 years and EV battery cost for the 10 years or so they have been in the market.
https://www.mining.com/web/visualizing-the-freefall-in-electric-vehicle-battery-prices/ - EV/Battery learning curve https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/04/28/solar-costs-set-to-continue-falling-according-to-itrpv-roadmap/ - PV learning curve Once they are cheaper then the range differential will disappear (there are already 500 Mike range EVs) and ICE tow vehicles will become a market niche. We'll also get more efficient travel trailers with battery sleds.A large battery capacity in the trailer will enable an all electric camping experience as well as EV range extension. Low drag trailers are achievable too, here is an interesting trailer that is available now, inspired by Tesla owners apparently, just too expensive for the average owner. No reason that shape can't be made available in a mainstream trailer design. I really like the internally mounted heat pump/ air conditioner. Now if they would just get rid of the crappy "flexible" PV modules and cut the price in half (another learning curve) I might get one.., https://youtu.be/uKXQvmmmnqw - Alto A2124 ------------- 1994 Chinook Concourse 1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |
Posted By: PilotPodder
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2021 at 9:16am
|
Makes sense, so a battery sled on the TT would in effect partially fuel the EV TV when towing. Could be interesting if it would overcome the added weight the battery sled adds to the trailer. ------------- Portage, MI — 2017 RPod 179 - sold / 2017 Toyota Tundra — https://johnmarucci.com/r-pod-video-list/ - My RPod YouTube Videos |
Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2021 at 9:27am
|
How much does a "battery sled" weigh? Seems to me, if the 1200 lb. Tesla battery is any indication, the battery weight may present some some design challenges. That's not to say that the challenge cannot be overcome, but as always, what seems an obvious solution at first glance may more complicated than initially believed. Once again, there is no such thing as a free lunch. ------------- Never leave footprints behind. Fred & Maria Kearney Sonoma 167RB Our Pod 172 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost |
Posted By: mjlrpod
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2021 at 3:33pm
|
I just don't get it. There is nothing that will ever compete dollar for dollar, and mile for mile with the combustion engine. Most of the problems caused by c02 are caused by the rest of the world. We are small contributers to the problem. We continuously improve our emissions. I believe EV's are the next giant mistake. But we are blindly lead down this path. I begin my beliefs on power by thinking, How can nature, god, whatever you believe, put SO MUCH oil, and gas on this planet, and intend for it to NOT be used? It makes no sense what's so ever. It would be like people saying "We need to find a replacement for oxygen" (It won't shock when they do). We can make cars even better overnight by converting them to natural gas,. But we choose not to. Instead we want to turn the world upside down to fix things that are not really that bad. The answer is a mix of all of these things, but someone hasn't figured out how to use all these different things, and still keep it expensive enough to keep there billions in profits. ------------- 2017.5 Rp-172 2020 R-pod 195 2015 Frontier sv 4.0L 6cyl I'll be rpodding |
Posted By: lostagain
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2021 at 4:13pm
|
Here are the top 10 CO2 emitters: The following countries are the ten largest emitters of carbon dioxide:
It doesn't look like we're a small player as the second highest in the world, but I could be wrong. As for intentionality in the presence of petroleum in the world, that is getting pretty far into a religious assertion, that may be better left to another forum. Regarding the suggestion that we use natural gas for cars, using any fossil fuels for vehicles, or generating electricity, etc., is the very problem we have. They all emit CO2, which is a documented greenhouse gas, along with methane and others. Natural gas poses a particular problem with global heating because not only does its combustion produce CO2, it also puts significant methane into the atmosphere. To be sure, much of our electricity comes from burning stuff, and that constitutes nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We urgently need non-CO2 emitting energy sources if we are going to reduce greenhouse gases causing global heating. We are in the middle of a move to CT from NV. There is an ongoing drought in the western half of North America [not to mention Central and South America] and it is only a question of time before the area becomes almost uninhabitable for lack of water and heat. Rivers here that normally flow year round are dry for the first time in memory. This drought is exactly what climate scientists said would happen, only worse, and there is no end in sight. Rather than wait for home prices to collapse when our water runs out, we chose to be among the first of climate refugees from the western U.S. There will be many more. ------------- Never leave footprints behind. Fred & Maria Kearney Sonoma 167RB Our Pod 172 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost |
Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2021 at 7:05pm
|
+1 to lostagain. I was in HI this summer and the real estate market there is overheated with ppl from the western mainland states moving to escape the drought and fires. I was a climate change refugee 2 years ago myself to get away from rising sea levels and more extreme tropical storms in coastal NC. So it's a real clear and present danger. The science is clear and has been for decades, folks can ignore it at their risk.
Re who are the worst emitters, you have to look at per Capita emissions. Obviously, more populous countries are going to produce more CO2. And just because we have been using lots more fossil fuels for much longer than most other countries doesn't give us the right to do that indefinitely. You can't very well tell someone in China or India too bad, we were there first so you have to cut your emissions but we don't. And since CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries, the Chinese and Indians could argue that we have stockpiled our share and need to cut our emissions before they do. China has 4x the US population but only produces about twice the CO2 we do, so on a per Capita basis they actually contribute about half what we do to the problem. On a per Capita basis the US is 16th and China is 42nd. Most of the top emitters per Capita are oil producing countries, who are ranking high emitting huge quantities of CO2 producing the oil the rest of the world uses. So it's a global problem. All the finger pointing one way or the other solves nothing. Re nothing competing with ICE vehicles that's simply not true. The cost of EVs is already on a par with non EVs in many cases, and will be cheaper across the board within the next few years as the learning curve drives the cost down. ICE's are very inefficient (around 30%), and that is due to the basic physics of heat engines so can't ever get significantly better. In comparison, EVs are around 80% efficient. They perform better, have lower maintenance and are more reliable. I for one won't miss cams, crankshafts, pistons, rods, valves, ignition systems, fuel systems, multi speed transmissions, turbos and all that complex stuff for a second. EVs don't have any of that. And they're fun to drive to boot. So not only do EVs (even when charged on a "dirty" grid) help us to solve the CO2 emissions problem for transportation (29% of the US total emissions) but they are better vehicles too. Saying there is all that fossil fuel so we should burn it in our vehicles is like saying that all that lead is there so we should use it in our water pipes. We did until we learned better. ------------- 1994 Chinook Concourse 1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |
Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2021 at 8:10pm
It's roughly speaking 100 watt hours per lb for EV Li batteries presently. So let's say you want 100kwh of storage and that is 1000 lbs. That would roughly double the capacity of a large EV with a 100 kwh battery. Lets assume that range would be 300 miles not towing or 330 watt hours per mile. let's say that load is double towing or 660 wh/mi for a 150 mile range without the trailer batteries and back to 300 miles with the additional batteries in the trailer, not counting their weight. Without boring everyone with the math, on low rolling resistance trailer tires the 1000 lbs will add about 1kw to the load at 60 mph. That works out to an additional 17 or so wh/mile or about 2.5% addition load and reduced range. So the new range of the rig would drop to around 292 miles. Executive summary: adding the batteries to the trailer gains range much faster than you lose from the additional weight. Put another way, aerodynamic drag is a much bigger reason towing is so inefficient than weight/rolling resistance is. I think the bigger issue would probably be getting the energy from the trailer battery to the EV while on the road, since directly connecting them on the DC side isn't practical due to safety concerns and lack of voltage and battery chemistry standards. You could do it via an inverter on the trailer (you'd need about a 20kw inverter to keep up with demand) but you can't very well leave a charging gun hanging off the port on the side of the tow vehicle while youre driving.😱 If you're boondocking you could recharge overnight while parked which might work for some folks. ------------- 1994 Chinook Concourse 1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |
Posted By: GlueGuy
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2021 at 1:22pm
|
As EVs become more numerous and popular, I see a wave of innovation coming to make RVs and trailers more aerodynamic. Necessity is the mother of invention, or so I've heard. ------------- bp 2017 R-Pod 179 Hood River 2015 Ford F150 SuperCrew 4WD 3.5L Ecoboost |
Posted By: offgrid
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2021 at 6:23pm
|
+1. It's already started, the Alto 2124 is very aerodynamically clean, apparently driven by Tesla owners wanting increased towing range. Theyve done a good job making use of the tapered front and rear spaces, kinda like v berths on a sailboat, another vehicle that needs to be clean and efficient.
Check out the link I posted. I really like the inboard a/c unit. ------------- 1994 Chinook Concourse 1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |