Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×
RV Trip Planning Discussions

Go Back   iRV2 Forums > MOTORHOME FORUMS > Electric RVs and EV Charging
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-19-2021, 07:29 AM   #71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by jharrell View Post
Batteries are heavier than diesel fuel, electric motors are lighter than diesel engines. Batteries can be used as vehicle structure reducing weight used elsewhere, hence the talk of structural batteries from Musk and others. Currently yes BEV weigh more for less range, but YoY wh/kg is going up at a pretty steady pace for lithium batteries. It will be interesting to see the final weight on the Tesla Semi when it finally comes out, if ever, I would imagine they are doing anything they can to shave weight on the rest of the chassis.

As far as CO2 we have solved most other emissions such as CO and NOx but perfect hydrocarbon combustion results in water and CO2. Enough CO2 will raise there earths temperature, this is a fact all you have to do is look at Venus for a worst case hellscape of a runaway CO2 greenhouse effect.

Will we get there, probably not, but we are throwing up much more sequestered ancient carbon than is being returned in the carbon cycle, hence a rise in measured CO2 levels, hopefully there are some feedback systems on the earth to keep it in check (like ocean algae) otherwise the temps will keep going up and bad things will happen. We are gambling with it right now, the earth will survive either way, life will go on, we just might suffer for it or not be here like many other other extinct creatures. I think we have time and obviously I am not too worried driving a gas RV around, but we do need to go electric and then move to some other energy source than hydrocarbons so we can stop throwing so much carbon up in the air.

The more non carbon based energy sources we use the less will be used in the manufacture of batteries and everything else. Solar panels make solar panels along with some silicon and metal, solar panels can make batteries too. the LCA needs to account for moving to renewable energy on the grid supporting the manufacture. Lithium battery recycling will be huge its already shown to be viable to recycle them.

You can cherry pick all the LCA you want here is one showing BEV exceeding normal vehicles. Much of it has to do with where the electricity comes from to run the manufacturing. The more you reduce carbon emissions on the grid the less emitted making the batteries:

Attachment 332643

Attachment 332644
I wouldn't worry too much about CO2. The earth is not like Venus where the atmosphere is 96% CO2. Here 99% of our atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen. CO2 is only 0.04%. It's insignificant and has no effect on global warming.
move on is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 06-19-2021, 07:31 AM   #72
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by jellison76 View Post
There is a new development in battery construction that promises to solve most of the current problems with lithium batteries. The latest in battery development is called a Solid State Battery. The lithium internals - which is prone to heat and possible fire - is replaced with a solid material that is claimed to be significantly lighter, charge faster to a higher level and eliminate current problems with lithium. Goggle "solid state batteries" for a more complete description. bje
Solid state batteries might be good, but they are extremely expensive. I don't see them being used in vehicles anytime soon.
move on is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 07:41 AM   #73
Senior Member
 
2cyber71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,243
Itís in dreamland.
__________________
2020 Winnebago Horizon 42Q
2022 Jeep Wrangler Sahara Unlimited
99 Storm 30H, 04 Southwind 32 VS, 07 Ellipse 40FD
2cyber71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 08:11 AM   #74
Senior Member
 
jharrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Safety Harbor, FL
Posts: 2,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by move on View Post
I wouldn't worry too much about CO2. The earth is not like Venus where the atmosphere is 96% CO2. Here 99% of our atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen. CO2 is only 0.04%. It's insignificant and has no effect on global warming.
That .04% was .03% in 1940. That .04% is a large part of why the planet is 57F average in temp rather than 0F. What makes you believe its insignificant?

Venus is 800F and whatever oceans it may have had boiled off long ago, Venus is hotter than Mercury even though it twice the distance from the sun all due to the greenhouse effect.

All it would take is a few degrees rise in average temp here to make a lot of our farmland unusable, pretty easy to see how that goes bad no need to boil the oceans.

CO2 is the second in contribution to the greenhouse effect with water vapor being number one. The problem is water vapor directly related to temperature. This is a positive feedback loop, a slight increase in CO2 creates a slight increase in temperature which causes an increase in water vapor which creates a larger increase in temperature. Another positive feedback is a slight increase in temp melts the ice caps which being white reflect much of the suns energy, as they melt less is reflected and more is retained feeding back into the system. Yet another is melting permafrost releasing ancient methane which is another greenhouse gas.

We don't know exactly how much CO2 we would need to throw up to cause significant issues or even hit a runaway point, like I said we are gambling. CO2 is the highest it has been measured 800,000 years of ice core data most of it happen after the industrial revolution. I don't like gambling, we have the means to stop throwing carbon up in the air now, we should start taking advantage of it.

Click image for larger version

Name:	CS_global_temp_and_co2_1880-2012_V3.png
Views:	15
Size:	169.6 KB
ID:	332674

Click image for larger version

Name:	CO2_emissions_vs_concentrations_1751-2019_620.gif
Views:	19
Size:	13.3 KB
ID:	332676

Click image for larger version

Name:	2535_203_co2-graph-021116-1280px.jpg
Views:	20
Size:	325.1 KB
ID:	332678
__________________
2022 Thor Palazzo 33.5
2016 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon Toad - Readybrute Elite Towbar
jharrell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 08:27 AM   #75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,603
Here's a graph that's based on actual data from Antarctic ice cores going back 400,000 years. It shows that temperatures are driven by solar (Milankovich) cycles and that CO2 lags temperatures by several hundred years. If you extrapolate it looks like we're headed to another ice age and this will cause CO2 to decrease to dangerously low levels. Below 150 ppm that would cause another extinction event.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Vostok ice core.gif
Views:	20
Size:	15.1 KB
ID:	332677  
move on is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 08:38 AM   #76
Senior Member
 
jharrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Safety Harbor, FL
Posts: 2,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by move on View Post
Here's a graph that's based on actual data from Antarctic ice cores going back 400,000 years. It shows that temperatures are driven by solar (Milankovich) cycles and that CO2 lags temperatures by several hundred years. If you extrapolate it looks like we're headed to another ice age and this will cause CO2 to decrease to dangerously low levels. Below 150 ppm that would cause another extinction event.
The other graph was actual ice core data along with modern measured data from Mauna Loa so we don't have to wait a few thousand years to get an ice core. Your graph shows a peak around 290ppm and yet we are measuring above 400ppm now, whats your explanation?

We are currently in a down solar cycle while temperature is going up, this is part of what worry climate scientist, solar cycles may have been driving the variations before, now they seem to be decoupled:

Click image for larger version

Name:	2167.jpg
Views:	18
Size:	164.9 KB
ID:	332679
__________________
2022 Thor Palazzo 33.5
2016 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon Toad - Readybrute Elite Towbar
jharrell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 09:04 AM   #77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,603
Going to 400 ppm could well be because we are releasing CO2 from burning of fossil fuels. But 400 ppm is still an extremely small amount. I'm more worried about dropping below 150 ppm. During the last ice age CO2 dropped to 170 ppm after temperatures dropped by 10C. The next ice age would probably have brought us below the extinction level. The reason is that mother nature is over-sequestering CO2 through oceanic sedimentation and entrapping the CO2 into carbonate rock, mostly limestone (CaCo3). Note that 99.99%+ of all CO2 that was ever in earth's atmosphere is presently in the form of carbonate rock. Fossil fuels are actually a miniscule portion of all sequestered carbon.

I'm sure we could easily double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The only effect would be that plant life would thrive. If we tripled it god knows the plant life could even become a nuisance, so I'd be a little cautious about CO2 over 1000 ppm. It has been as high as 7000 ppm before but that's unknown territory for the modern world.

The best way to reduce the amount of fossil fuel combustion is to re-think nuclear power. We're not going to do it with windmills driving battery powered semis. There are new reactor designs that are safe with minimal waste disposal concerns.
move on is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 08:19 PM   #78
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 2,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by move on View Post
.......
The best way to reduce the amount of fossil fuel combustion is to re-think nuclear power. We're not going to do it with windmills driving battery powered semis. There are new reactor designs that are safe with minimal waste disposal concerns.
Not to long ago, there were 36 new reactors on the docket with the US NRC. At the time the US was building facilities to import LNG. Existing nukes were a gold mine providing money for building new nukes.

Then the drillers created a surplus and now natural gas is cheap again in the US.

New nuclear plants will get built in the US when they need to be.

The same can be said for BEV.

The question was asked why are some against BEV. The question could be asked why are your for them?

There are good solutions to problems and ineffective ones. If burning fossil fuels was a real problem, 36 nuke plants would be under construction in the US not two.
__________________
Kit & Rita (in memory)
37 foot Ď98 HolidayRambler Endeavor diesel pusher
followingsea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2021, 09:48 PM   #79
Senior Member
 
jharrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Safety Harbor, FL
Posts: 2,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by move on View Post
But 400 ppm is still an extremely small amount. I'm more worried about dropping below 150 ppm.
Going up to 400 is a minuscule amount but going down to 150 is catastrophic? Do you know how that sounds?

Carbonate rocks are part of the carbon cycle, making it is part of what keeps it in check, it goes back into the air through volcanism. Carbonate can only be made so quick in the oceans, and then we are using limestone to make concrete a big CO2 producer.

I hope you are right we can easily double the amount of CO2 and not worry, I would rather not run that experiment, I would like to be so sure about uncharted territory, the safe play would be to reduce carbon emissions if we have the means, which we do.

I agree nuclear should be one the table, but wind and solar is plenty viable, not sure why you think it isn't. A solar array the size of Nevada can supply the entire worlds energy needs with zero carbon emissions. No it doesn't need to be in one spot as in literally Nevada and it doesn't have to be built tomorrow, but we have all the energy we need shining down on us every day, instead we use ancient solar energy stored in hydrocarbons and throw carbon in the air to get it, carbon that took millions of year to capture by plants thrown back up in a century.
__________________
2022 Thor Palazzo 33.5
2016 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon Toad - Readybrute Elite Towbar
jharrell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2021, 05:32 AM   #80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by jharrell View Post
Going up to 400 is a minuscule amount but going down to 150 is catastrophic? Do you know how that sounds?

Carbonate rocks are part of the carbon cycle, making it is part of what keeps it in check, it goes back into the air through volcanism. Carbonate can only be made so quick in the oceans, and then we are using limestone to make concrete a big CO2 producer.

I hope you are right we can easily double the amount of CO2 and not worry, I would rather not run that experiment, I would like to be so sure about uncharted territory, the safe play would be to reduce carbon emissions if we have the means, which we do.

I agree nuclear should be one the table, but wind and solar is plenty viable, not sure why you think it isn't. A solar array the size of Nevada can supply the entire worlds energy needs with zero carbon emissions. No it doesn't need to be in one spot as in literally Nevada and it doesn't have to be built tomorrow, but we have all the energy we need shining down on us every day, instead we use ancient solar energy stored in hydrocarbons and throw carbon in the air to get it, carbon that took millions of year to capture by plants thrown back up in a century.
CO2 is vital for plant life. A minimum of 150 ppm is required to sustain photosynthesis. Plants grow best around 1200 ppm. We know this from observing commercial greenhouse operations where CO2 generators are used to increase CO2 levels to enhance profits. Animals are not so sensitive to CO2. Humans can tolerate 0 to 5000 ppm, but below 150 ppm we would have no food to eat. As to the planet, it's good for at least 7000 ppm. Been there done that.

You are correct that CO2 is naturally returned back into the atmosphere through volcanism. Volcanism results from subduction of tectonic plates. The problem here is, geologically speaking, the earth's tectonic plates are not moving enough because the earth has been cooling over the eons. This is why CO2 levels hit an all time low of 170 ppm during the last ice age. If humans are to survive on the planet it will be necessary to increase CO2 levels so that we don't dip below the 150 ppm threshhold.

Concerning wind power, you need 1000 wind turbines to equal the power output of a nuclear plant, and that's only when the wind is blowing. Windmills are a waste of resources. Besides, there is such a thing as visual pollution. Nobody wants to see these things destroying our scenery. Same for solar panels. They are extremely expensive and don't work when a cloud passes overhead. Some people think we can solve that problem with giant battery banks. They dont look into the environmental impact of battery production. It's a pipe dream. I'll take a nuclear reactor any day.

What does all this have to do with RVing? It means we'll never see electric RVs making it into the mainstream.
move on is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2021, 05:48 AM   #81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by followingsea View Post
Not to long ago, there were 36 new reactors on the docket with the US NRC. At the time the US was building facilities to import LNG. Existing nukes were a gold mine providing money for building new nukes.

Then the drillers created a surplus and now natural gas is cheap again in the US.

New nuclear plants will get built in the US when they need to be.

The same can be said for BEV.

The question was asked why are some against BEV. The question could be asked why are your for them?

There are good solutions to problems and ineffective ones. If burning fossil fuels was a real problem, 36 nuke plants would be under construction in the US not two.
There's some interesting things going on in the nuclear field. Thorium reactors are being developed with greatly enhanced safety and much less waste disposal problems.

I just read that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are building a molten salt reactor in Wyoming. Also very safe. I'd like to see the enthusiasm for nuclear return. Its not like we're going to have any Chernobyl's being built.
move on is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2021, 06:50 AM   #82
Senior Member
 
jharrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Safety Harbor, FL
Posts: 2,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by move on View Post
CO2 is vital for plant life. A minimum of 150 ppm is required to sustain photosynthesis. Plants grow best around 1200 ppm. We know this from observing commercial greenhouse operations where CO2 generators are used to increase CO2 levels to enhance profits. Animals are not so sensitive to CO2. Humans can tolerate 0 to 5000 ppm, but below 150 ppm we would have no food to eat. As to the planet, it's good for at least 7000 ppm. Been there done that.
All plants are not the same, CO2 was 7000ppm before trees evolved, the reason it much lower is due to plants and a large reason why animals are here. Not all plants like higher CO2 levels, domesticated crops like wheat have evolved to current CO2 levels, they may grow faster but have less nutritional content.

We don't exactly know what will happen with higher levels, habits will probably change, deserts become forest, forest become deserts. Where you could grow crops before now you can't other places now can.

Like I said life will go on, but what will we have to deal with as things change. Where I live in FL a bunch goes under water with just a few feet of sea level rise, people will move, it won't be a good time.

As I said we have some time and it looks like electrification is happening either way, the sun is always shining somewhere and the wind is blowing. We can probably figure out safe nuclear if the R&D where put into it. Solar panel prices are dropping just like lithium battery prices, There is a whole lot off rooftop and parking lot space that look just fine with solar on it and at least in the south highest electricity demand coincides with the sun shining due to air conditioning.

Currently sitting at my parents property, they have a 30x30 barn with half the roof in solar, 7kw array, supplies nearly all electric needs of their house, looks great, will pay for itself in 10 years panels will last 30 at least.

Saying electric RV's will never happen is the same hubris the would lead someone to know for sure we can double CO2 levels with no harm to us. It certainly looks like it will happen, I don't know exactly when, 10-20 years seems reasonable if battery improvements continue at the current pace. It would be great to have an RV with a megawatt hour battery, you could boondock with the A/C on for weeks.
__________________
2022 Thor Palazzo 33.5
2016 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon Toad - Readybrute Elite Towbar
jharrell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2021, 08:34 AM   #83
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by jharrell View Post
It would be great to have an RV with a megawatt hour battery, you could boondock with the A/C on for weeks.
You can do that with a diesel engine. 25 gallons of diesel has 1 mwh of energy. That way wouldn't need a giant battery that would take up most of the RV's space.

These EV batteries are environmental catastrophes. Just looking at the nickel supply, a 1 mwh NMC battery pack would need well over a half ton of nickel. Ever been to a nickel mine? Go visit one. It will change your mind. And the fact is that there's not enough nickel available to be building electric RVs and Semis.
move on is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2021, 08:41 AM   #84
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 284
I think current standards allows a driver to operate for 10 hours per day. A team can obviously run longer. What are the charge times involved? What are the operating times on a fully charged truck? How are all of these trucks supposed to be recharged? Especially in remote areas? Ever been to a truck stop at night? To think about the power and facilities needed to recharge 75 trucks in a truckstop is very interesting. The power requirements for an average campground are small in comparison. Who is going to build these capabilities? Tax payers? How is that a reasonable expectation? If oil companies want to sell oil products, they needed to develop the infrastructure required to get it from the ground and into your tank. This is no small task. Why should power companies be any different? If they want to sell power, then let them install charging stations for these electric vehicles. I do not want to pay for it through tax dollars, or other mandates which everyone is forced to pay for. Requiring a developer to install a charging station at an apartment complex makes no more sense than requiring them to install gas pumps. Why should all owners of the complex be required to pay for this cost which is built into the project? Nobody is putting gasoline in the tanks of people who live there and drive gas vehicles? If this technology is such a great idea, then it does not need all of these unfair mandates to build the system. Even if the system was in place, there is no way to practically recharge an electric truck to make it a viable option for the OTR trucking industry.



Forget about the climate change nonsense. The one thing which is certain is that the climate always has, and always will continue to change. It has been much hotter and much colder than it is now. Sea levels have been much higher and much lower than they are now. There is visible evidence of this all around the world. Google "Suffolk Scarp" to learn about just one example. Who are we to make an argument that the speck of time we are experiencing at this point is "normal"? CO2 levels have been much higher than they are now, and this occurred long before man built the first campfire.
SlowJoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



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
Modular Class A. Built on Tesla semi. Interesting read. radar Class A Motorhome Discussions 3 10-05-2020 09:32 AM
Tesla Semi Test Mule caught at supercharger. Video. radar Trailer Towing and Tow Vehicles Discussion 12 12-06-2018 11:40 AM
Tesla to unveil household Battery within months CountryFit Going Green 9 05-10-2015 05:16 PM
Tesla T3212 smarty Toy Haulers Discussion 1 11-27-2014 10:05 AM
EverGreen Unveils Full-Sized Tesla Toy Hauler DriVer RV Industry Press 3 06-07-2014 03:03 PM

» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.