Electric school buses are coming....can RV's be far behind ?

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Gordon Dewald

Much of the technological "advancements" shrouded in the green cloak are simply a marketing ploy to replace current products. Not only are they more costly but IMO the green benefit/cost analysis is done selectively to show the desired result rather than on the cost of whole of life.

I have seen documentaries where they were trying to document the actual and real cost of a small car to build, drive, and dispose of. Not hype, but real costs.

My memory is pretty clear on this. They considered the materials needed to build the car, the actual cost of driving it 100,000 miles, and the cost of recycling or disposing of the car. They included things like consumables, (tires, batteries, fuel) and other costs like emissions, heavy metal batteries and their waste, and other factors. As I recall they did not consider the ease or infrastructure of refueling. (so that factors like electric and LNG could be equally measured, even if not yet ready). They did consider that the vehicle had to be available now for purchase.

The documentary I recall specifically I believe was from England, and they tried hard to put a final number on the cost. Purchase price was part, but not whole factor.

They concluded that from purchase to retirement, from initial build to complete retirement of all the parts, the most efficient thing to buy and drive was a small diesel car, like a VW golf. It was cheaper to own, and cheaper to build and destroy when the time came. Cheaper than hybrid, cheaper than electric and everything else.

There are so many hidden costs, and government interference in free markets, that it is often hard to estimate real costs for the consumer and the society...

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by pasdad1

No...not according to the company. They will use solar power to make hydrogen from water by electrolysis.

https://nikolamotor.com

Attachment 151506

I work for one of the major solar power inverter manufacturers. I am pretty familiar with the real costs and benefits of solar power.

The theory may be good, but using solar power to make hydrogen from water is most likely one of the most expensive ways to do it. One way that might be marginally more expensive would be to hire people to ride bicycle powered generators, and pay them a good union wage to do it. That might be a marginally more expensive source of electricity to make the hydrogen.

[vincee]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Mercedes invented hybrid technology in 1913 for I believe commercial use! One hundred and three years later where has it got us, and that's with many dollars from the taxpayers spent by the Federal Gov't to push hybrid vehicles at us. One poster comments that he gets 30 miles a gallon on his 10 year old hybrid (Prius?) and all the money he saved on gas. Big deal, a VW with the turbo diesel gets 49 MPG and there isn't thousands of taxpayer dollars supporting them. No one is afraid of advancing technologies that will make our life and planet better. But the general public is caught between the money fight populated by big government on one side, see Solandra in California, $500M in taxpayer money on a solar company that then goes bankrupt, and big fossil fuel companies such as Exxon Mobil. Heck, the 1963 Corvette got 23 MPG because they were fuel injected. How long did it take for this proven technology to become the norm in auto production, another 50 years give or take?

[KSagal]

I'm with vincee on this one. Back in the late 70, early 80s, I had a homebuilt kit (from plans) for a 100 mpg carburetor. I built it for less than $100 in parts (a lot of money to me at the time) and I never got 100mpg in my 8 cylinder 318 mopar engine at the time. But I did get over 60 mpg. It only lasted for a few months, and fell apart. But that was my own build.

The technology surely existed that mopar or any other car manufacturer could have built what I built, only much much better.

The reason we have vehicles that do what they do and get the efficiency they get is that is what big money people want them to get.

Our recently retired President said on his campaign trail that he wanted $4.50 per gallon fuel because it would force us to not drive so much. He got it for a short time. That was not technology driven but politically driven.

If there is a will, then the technology will eventually emerge and be available to do many of the things discussed in this thread. For the most part, it will not emerge till there is enough pressure from the people, and eventually, the government and corporations will have to cooperate. But as long as we let people tell us, instead of us telling them, then we will get what others want us to have.

I believe that we will eventually get what we want. I work to make that happen and I am not alone. A good example, is that our current President, did not tell us he wanted $4.50 gas to force us to drive less. One small step in the right direction on this one topic.

[pasdad1]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I work for one of the major solar power inverter manufacturers. I am pretty familiar with the real costs and benefits of solar power.

The theory may be good, but using solar power to make hydrogen from water is most likely one of the most expensive ways to do it. One way that might be marginally more expensive would be to hire people to ride bicycle powered generators, and pay them a good union wage to do it. That might be a marginally more expensive source of electricity to make the hydrogen.

Maybe you are not familiar with this breakthrough which makes electrolysis much more efficient than before.

http://www.suttonfruit.com/pics/urea_electrolysis.pdf

True, nuclear or hydroelectric power might be cheaper, however solar allows the plants to be built anywhere the sun shines, and once the infrastructure cost is recouped, the sunshine is free forever.

[DGBPokes]

I read somewhere that if 1/2 of the population had electric cars ( no including RV's). Most neighborhood electrical grids would fail. The high voltage demand to recharge them will far exceed most neighborhood electrical systems.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by pasdad1

Maybe you are not familiar with this breakthrough which makes electrolysis much more efficient than before.

http://www.suttonfruit.com/pics/urea_electrolysis.pdf

True, nuclear or hydroelectric power might be cheaper, however solar allows the plants to be built anywhere the sun shines, and once the infrastructure cost is recouped, the sunshine is free forever.

You are right. I may not be familiar with modern processes for electrolysis.

I am in the solar power industry however. I do know how much a kilowatt of power costs to produce via solar, compared to that same kilowatt of power from other sources, including diesel generators and coal fired plants to hydro and other sources. That is what I was talking about.

I do not care to trash my own industry on this forum, but I am afraid I do not agree about the statement about the sunshine being free. Sunshine is free, but the electricity from that sunshine is not cost free. I will be happy to explain it to you. For the time being, it is the same as saying that once you pay off the loan on your new car, you get to drive for free. There are many more layers involved.

Of course, it is quite possible that you are more familiar with the solar power industry than I. In that case, I look forward to my furthering education, where I will have to unlearn, and re-learn many things I believe to be true at this time.

[TechWriter]

Originally Posted by DGBPokes

I read somewhere that if 1/2 of the population had electric cars ( no including RV's). Most neighborhood electrical grids would fail. The high voltage demand to recharge them will far exceed most neighborhood electrical systems.

Depends on what charging system is used.

[TechWriter]

Originally Posted by Gordon Dewald

Much of the technological "advancements" shrouded in the green cloak are simply a marketing ploy to replace current products. Not only are they more costly but IMO the green benefit/cost analysis is done selectively to show the desired result rather than on the cost of whole of life.

Got some examples of your claim?

[TLGPE]

Interesting topic. I wonder why no one has mentioned the fuel cell. If we are speculating on the hydrogen fuel possibilities, we would be short sighted to ignore using fuel cells to power our electric vehicles.

They too are expensive, but are very reliable, and very efficient. The only byproducts are pure water and a little waste heat. The aerospace industry has been using them for decades.

The biggest problem with hydrogen is still storage. We know how to produce (extract) it, but storage and transportation are big problems. Real storage requires cryogenic conditions, and there is still always some loss.

No doubt we will see some real changes, and our kids will be like we were; we didn't understand our parents and they won't understand the changes we talk about.

It's late, and my philosophy bug is working overtime.

Tom

[pasdad1]

Originally Posted by TLGPE

Interesting topic. I wonder why no one has mentioned the fuel cell. If we are speculating on the hydrogen fuel possibilities, we would be short sighted to ignore using fuel cells to power our electric vehicles.

Read post #84. There is a link to a company that is making a fuel cell powered semi-tractor. 1000 mile range.

[nothermark]

Originally Posted by TechWriter

Depends on what charging system is used.

More bafflegab in a way. The problem is the age old distribution issue. It's the same reason some of us gave early on over why campgrounds will have a problem.

It's the same old basic physics. Figure out how many watt hours a square foot of solar panel will produce. It's a known quantity and there are tables for various latitudes. That sets how many feet of solar panels it would take to run whatever you want to under perfect conditions. Figure out where those panels will go for you and your neighbors.

Those are absolute numbers for the pie in the sky miracles will happen folks. The only way to get any better is to heat up the sun.

The rest of us double or triple that number to cover the conversion losses. Technology breakthroughs shave at that multiplier. It used to be 4 or 5.

People who look at secondary effects look at the effect of shading all that ground and the cost of producing all those panels. Then there is the issue of storing the power because most folks want to drive during the day and charge at night....

The point is that there are limits to the size of the pie in the sky. Better technology approaches those limits, it does not change them. A better carburetor would have been easy in 1980 because of the manufacturing technology of the day. Improvements in manufacturing technology led to more efficient fuel delivery but that was largely offset by changes made to reduce emissions. Computer controls that instantly tune the combustion cycle got back some of that but not all of it. If we took the fuel delivery and engine controls of today and put them on a stock hot engine from 1956 we would probably double the fuel economy. Put that engine in one of today's cars and you would have a very hot street machine but it would not pass the smog test. Remember when 300 cubic inches was a small block not a big block?

[pasdad1]

Originally Posted by nothermark

More bafflegab in a way. The problem is the age old distribution issue. It's the same reason some of us gave early on over why campgrounds will have a problem.

It's the same old basic physics. Figure out how many watt hours a square foot of solar panel will produce. It's a known quantity and there are tables for various latitudes. That sets how many feet of solar panels it would take to run whatever you want to under perfect conditions. Figure out where those panels will go for you and your neighbors.

Those are absolute numbers for the pie in the sky miracles will happen folks. The only way to get any better is to heat up the sun.

The rest of us double or triple that number to cover the conversion losses. Technology breakthroughs shave at that multiplier. It used to be 4 or 5.

The article cited doesn't talk about solar at all....not sure how your comments relate to what was originally quoted.


It is very common for houses now to have little controls wired into the air-conditioning, water heater, pool pump, etc which gives the utility remote control of those devices. If the grid is stressed, they can turn off devices in homes in the affected area for a short time, (usually 30 minutes or less) and then re-enable them when the peak has passed. The article says it's very easy for electric car chargers to have the same thing.

[pasdad1]

The other good thing that happens when milłions of electric cars are plugged into the grid, is the ability of electric cars to act as power storage, and be able to give that power back to the grid for short periods of time....acting as a "buffer". Utilities now have to have small local generators at sub-stations they can fire up to handle peak demands. I live within a 1/4 mile of one of these. It is a large generator contained in a railway car at a power sub-station. On very hot or cold days, I hear that generator fire up for a few hours at a time.

When the utilities can send a power-line signal to have certain electric cars start back-feeding the grid with power, the owners of the cars will get a discount on their electric bill for participating in the program, and the entire grid will become more stable and fault tolerant.