EV motorhomes- getting more possible?

[move on]

Seriously, I can think of no energy project that is more catastrophic to the environment than a hydroelectric dam.

[move on]

Originally Posted by jharrell

I can't seems to find where you getting that number from, seems similar if based on total system flow as shown here: https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data...lectricity.php However that lumps nuclear and renewable losses in which don't make sense when you examining green house gas emissions. Nuclear power plants are heat engines like a oil burning plant, but they have no green house gas emissions, but if you still look at their conversion efficiency it will be similar to any other heat engine.

Again no it is not 15% loss from charging the batteries, not sure where you are getting this from.



F1 cars get 50% thermal efficiency by using hybrid drive trains, and since F1 tracks require a lot of braking and accelerating the hybrid drive train really shines. This is similar to a a city commuter car or bus.

When talking about long haul highway driving like RV's hybrid advantages disappear and you are left with pure ICE mechanical combustion or pure EV battery power. This will be last place EV's displace Diesel as city driving is a no brainier currently for EV's while sustained long distance does not benefit from regenerative braking or idle losses however battery energy density is steadily progressing and cost are coming down, this will happen and will be very nice to have an RV with a multi-megawatthour battery however I am happy with my small diesel today. I would love to have an EV toad however, the PHEV Wrangler is probably the closest that can be had today.

The point is that of all the energy that is put into the electric grid, only 35% is useful to do work. The rest is lost as heat. We have ICE engines that can do better than that, and they're getting better all the time. EVs waste more energy than these ICEs when you account for the generation and distribution losses. It's bad technology if you're trying to conserve energy, wasteful AND expensive.

Re: the F-1 engine. It's the engine itself that achieves 51% thermal efficiency. Regenerative braking has nothing to do with it. The efficiency was achieved with the use of an exhaust driven turbo generator, the MGU-H (motor generator unit-heat) that captured the exhaust energy and used it to charge a battery that would drive the turbocharger's rotor. Then the significant excess energy went to supplement the engine's output. It sounds good but the MGU-H was later abandoned, I think to keep Mercedes from dominating the sport. It seems the other competitors could not keep up with the technology. I'm not sure if or when the MGU-H will become available for street use.

[dbircky]

Originally Posted by kdauto

Maybe not ALL, but we do attain 60%. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-an...%20(Figure%202).



Keep in mind Canada is a huge country, much bigger footprint than the USA yet with a small percentage of the population.



Yes, we DO sell a lot of our clean hydro power to you guys south of our border. No, we don't buy diesel with the profits from that, that would be irresponsible. I find funding cleaner energy or renewables is a wise thing to fund with this money.

Thank you for the data source. I wasn’t aware that Canadian electric was 60% produced by dams. I did see where over 76% of the energy used in Canada is fossil fuel based (no coal shown, I think you only have about 10 of those plants left not converted to NG yet). Which is almost exactly the same as the percentage here in The States. (78% with coal).
Canada doesn’t need to import oil, but it sure does. In 2018, imports of oil represented 46% of Canada’s refinery inputs, and imports of refined gasoline amounted to 7,900,000,000 liters.

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-an...ine/index.html

Actually the responsible thing to do would be to stop all oil production. That’s just creating the pollution elsewhere. The most irresponsible thing Canada could do is stop exporting Tim Horton’s.

[kdauto]

Originally Posted by dbircky

Thank you for the data source. I wasn’t aware that Canadian electric was 60% produced by dams. I did see where over 76% of the energy used in Canada is fossil fuel based (no coal shown, I think you only have about 10 of those plants left not converted to NG yet). Which is almost exactly the same as the percentage here in The States. (78% with coal).
Canada doesn’t need to import oil, but it sure does. In 2018, imports of oil represented 46% of Canada’s refinery inputs, and imports of refined gasoline amounted to 7,900,000,000 liters.

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-an...ine/index.html

Actually the responsible thing to do would be to stop all oil production. That’s just creating the pollution elsewhere. The most irresponsible thing Canada could do is stop exporting Tim Horton’s.

I haven't had time to check all those stats. Of course, Canada needs a lot of energy just for heating. There's also a whole lot going for fuel for mining in more or less uninhabited locations. A lot of those mines are for coountries outside Canada, lots of U.S. mines there too.

I agree about Tim Hortons. They are really overrated, not my fave, and the coffee typically sucks.

Lots of oil imports to Quebec and possibly Nova Scotia of course, access by sea is the main thing. Refineries along the St Lawrence Seaway make that feasible. This will probably diminish as electrical product demand increases, including EVs.

[radar]

Canada also has large new hydro projects coming on line over the next decade and more planned. Much will be exported.

Alberta is phasing out it’s last coal plant by 2023, 7 years sooner than planned.

Natural gas and wind production are growing fast.

[kdauto]

Originally Posted by move on

The point is that of all the energy that is put into the electric grid, only 35% is useful to do work. The rest is lost as heat. We have ICE engines that can do better than that, and they're getting better all the time. EVs waste more energy than these ICEs when you account for the generation and distribution losses. It's bad technology if you're trying to conserve energy, wasteful AND expensive.

Re: the F-1 engine. It's the engine itself that achieves 51% thermal efficiency. Regenerative braking has nothing to do with it. The efficiency was achieved with the use of an exhaust driven turbo generator, the MGU-H (motor generator unit-heat) that captured the exhaust energy and used it to charge a battery that would drive the turbocharger's rotor. Then the significant excess energy went to supplement the engine's output. It sounds good but the MGU-H was later abandoned, I think to keep Mercedes from dominating the sport. It seems the other competitors could not keep up with the technology. I'm not sure if or when the MGU-H will become available for street use.

You keep posting these ridiculous numbers but never have anything to substantiate them. AFAIK the Mercedes F1 engine you're talking about attains 50% + efficiency by using both engine and the hybrid part. They aren't really dissociable as the turbo drives an electric generator. All info points to a combined efficiency.

As such, hybrids are disappearing as pure EVs are coming to market. There's just way too much crap on a hybrid compared to a BEV. I seriously doubt we'll ever see big RVs with hybrid powertrains, EVs will advance rapidly.

Your power grid waste percentages make no sense. You like to make it appear that you're wasting energy with everything you plug in, as if it takes 100kW of energy to barely make 1kw at the plug, it's ridiculous. Seems you guys south of our border need serious power grid upgrades then, our efficiency is way above that with clean, yes clean hydro power.

[propchef]

Originally Posted by move on

Seriously, I can think of no energy project that is more catastrophic to the environment than a hydroelectric dam.

That's why CA doesn't classify most hydro plants as clean and renewable sources. Drought is a major factor.

[move on]

Originally Posted by propchef

That's why CA doesn't classify most hydro plants as clean and renewable sources. Drought is a major factor.

And then there's BC Hydro's Site C. They are billing it as a clean energy project buy if you ask the people who live in the area it's a catastrophe. And it's only a lousy 1100 MW. I think this might be one of the last large hydroelectric projects in the Western World.

Third world, no problem. A good dictator has no problem displacing a million or so people and rerouting rivers.

[Unplanned Tourist]

Originally Posted by move on

And then there's BC Hydro's Site C. They are billing it as a clean energy project buy if you ask the people who live in the area it's a catastrophe. And it's only a lousy 1100 MW. I think this might be one of the last large hydroelectric projects in the Western World.

Third world, no problem. A good dictator has no problem displacing a million or so people and rerouting rivers.

Site C power will most likely be sold to the USA. It makes sense due to the closeness of the 2 other hydro dams. Transmission lines are already in place, the land being flooded is good soil, but being that far North, it doesn't produce good crops every year. It's always sad to see land flooded. I just don't understand why they couldn't have diverted the river to the site of the dam and then put in an underground penstock and turbines.

By the way, here's a chart I just came across showing where the electricity in the US came from in the first 6 months of this year.

[RoadTrip2084]

A couple of exciting developments in the EV vehicle space recently that could lead to more pure EV RVs in the future.

US-built Mercedes e-Sprinter 2.0 coming soon with 300 mile range:

https://electrek.co/2022/11/30/elect...iciency-tests/


First Tesla Semi deliveries to customers (500 mile range). Could see some amazing future custom Super-C rigs based on this platform.

https://electrek.co/2022/12/03/tesla...rhome-renders/

[Cooperhawk]

Originally Posted by rcnuts

OK this may stir the pot a little. but hold on. They install holding tanks for natural gas and a small generator that charges those monster battery's a vehicle that size would need. They claim with generator on the vehicles range extends to around 1000 miles! (With a MH the generator would probably be propane fired)

Well, look, you simply cannot create energy. You can just harvest it and use it. A small genset simply could not do what they claim. It would have to be very large to do that. Probably on the range of a railroad locomotive, but smaller of course.

[Gordon Dewald]

Originally Posted by RoadTrip2084

A couple of exciting developments in the EV vehicle space recently that could lead to more pure EV RVs in the future.

US-built Mercedes e-Sprinter 2.0 coming soon with 300 mile range:

https://electrek.co/2022/11/30/elect...iciency-tests/


First Tesla Semi deliveries to customers (500 mile range). Could see some amazing future custom Super-C rigs based on this platform.

https://electrek.co/2022/12/03/tesla...rhome-renders/

Are these EPA estimates?

Spoke briefly with a Tesla owner yesterday. He was seriously less than impressed with his range. -35 C seemed to have a big effect.

[TandW]

RE the E-Sprinter revue. Lack of payload really stands out. Like we should all be ready, willing, and able to afford the costs of toting heavy batteries around, while foregoing carrying capacity in both weight and dimension.

[radar]

Originally Posted by Gordon Dewald

Are these EPA estimates?

Spoke briefly with a Tesla owner yesterday. He was seriously less than impressed with his range. -35 C seemed to have a big effect.

We are hanging around minus 28 celcius again. For us range seems to be about 30 percent off from normal. It involves an extra 15 minute supercharge for us when we go to Vancouver which is a 470 kilometre road trip. Our grand Cherokee lost about half that in the winter although we still stopped at the same travel centre in Merritt so it really hasn’t changed our travel times much. The model Y is considerably better in the snow though. Overall the model y is a much more convenient, comfortable and sure footed vehicle in the winter for us. But to each his own of course. The Y is definitely a better tow vehicle than the grand Cherokee was. Not even close in that regard.