Imagine towing a gooseneck with this!

[Atimm693]

Well, ok then..

I fixed it, haha.

 

[50/50Farms]

At the end of the day, you have to ask if the "some day" for EVs is worth the complete overhaul. For me? No, it isn't. There is a point where we invent ourselves into oblivion, where our creative minds and efforts are channeled into avenues that do not actually enhance our lives or solve pertinent problems, and where we eventually drift into an economic and political system that needs not be named.

 

[Travlr]

Diesel is 64 times more energy dense than the best lithium battery, it takes a 64 pounds of batteries to go the same distance as 1 pound of diesel.

Is that (1) true... and (2) a legitimate comparison?

Without scrambling for exact figures that could vary depending on source, pretty sure there are trucks that will run two hundred miles on battery and at 20 mpg that would be 28 and a half gallons of fuel. So the battery would have to weigh a little over 1800 pounds. I guess that (1) might be reasonable.

But once a gallon of fuel is burnt it's gone. The battery is still able to be used many times. Not sure I understand how that distance per gallon of diesel relates to (2) a battery that gets recharged and continues in use. The way I'm thinking the pounds of battery/diesel would have to be compared over the life of the battery/total miles/weight of both traveled.

 

[Atimm693]

Is that (1) true... and (2) a legitimate comparison?

Without scrambling for exact figures that could vary depending on source, pretty sure there are trucks that will run two hundred miles on battery and at 20 mpg that would be 28 and a half gallons of fuel. So the battery would have to weigh a little over 1800 pounds. I guess that (1) might be reasonable.

But once a gallon of fuel is burnt it's gone. The battery is still able to be used many times. Not sure I understand how that distance per gallon of diesel relates to (2) a battery that gets recharged and continues in use. The way I'm thinking the pounds of battery/diesel would have to be compared over the life of the battery/total miles/weight of both traveled.

It's a measure of energy capacity, meaning the amount of energy a battery can provide going from 100% charge to zero. 1 gallon of diesel has the same amount of thermal energy as a 450lb battery that's fully charged using the figures above. Seems hard to believe but there is a lot of energy in fossil fuels, combustion engines just suck at converting it.

Electric motors are far more efficient at converting that energy into motion than a combustion engine, (20% vs 75%+), so that needs to be factored in as well, but when you are talking about big rigs with 100+ gallon tanks, it would take a huge battery to match that capacity. Even accounting for an electric motor that is 3x more efficient, you would need a battery weighing in somewhere around 15,000lbs to equal that 100 gallon fuel tank. So you start to see why a Tesla car battery weighs 1200lbs, it's the biggest hurdle to creating an EV with range that comes close to ICE vehicles.

 

[Nesikep]

The biggest problem with electric is the lack of energy density in a battery. Diesel is 64 times more energy dense than the best lithium battery, it takes a 64 pounds of batteries to go the same distance as 1 pound of diesel. Even when the inefficiency of a combustion engine is factored in, there's still a huge gap.

From what I've seen in test results of the F150 Lightning, range while towing is dismal.

Locomotives use a diesel electric power plant mostly because to avoid the added power losses and complexity of getting power to all of those drive wheels mechanically. Big rigs are equally efficient just as they are, there is not much to be gained by adding a generator and motors in place of gears and shafts.

I'm talking about a hybrid, not a direct diesel-electric.. I agree that a plain diesel electric on a truck would be pointless. you'd have to be able to regeneratively brake to make it work and gain efficiency.

Adding bigger/more batteries to trucks takes away from their payload capacities, and is diminishing returns on efficiency since you'll have to be lugging all that battery up and down the hills

 

[50/50Farms]

>batteries are better than fossil fuels because they can be recharged

Yeah. With fossil fuels. There isn't enough solar, wind, hydro, and no nuclear nationwide. It's merely a problem transfer.

 

[Caustic Burno]

>batteries are better than fossil fuels because they can be recharged

Yeah. With fossil fuels. There isn't enough solar, wind, hydro, and no nuclear nationwide. It's merely a problem transfer.

There are no fossil fuels.
It's abiogenic in origin, if not get NASA to explain how all those dinosaurs got on Titan.
Titan Saturns moon contains more oil than all of earth by NASA's own admittance.

 

[Travlr]

There are no fossil fuels.
It's abiogenic in origin, if not get NASA to explain how all those dinosaurs got on Titan.
Titan Saturns moon contains more oil than all of earth by NASA's own admittance.

Where did you hear that??? Do you believe it?

 

[Caustic Burno]

Where did you hear that??? Do you believe it?

NASA - Titan's Surface Organics Surpass Oil Reserves on Earth

You believe dinosaur deposits are 10K to 20 K feet deep.
Most in my industry didn't.

 

[Travlr]

NASA - Titan's Surface Organics Surpass Oil Reserves on Earth

You believe dinosaur deposits are 10K to 20 K feet deep.
Most in my industry didn't.

I just skimmed it, but "hydrocarbons" and "a factory for organic chemicals" doesn't mean dinosaur or any other form of "fossil fuels"... emphasis on the "fossil".

 

[Caustic Burno]

I just skimmed it, but "hydrocarbons" and "a factory for organic chemicals" doesn't mean dinosaur or any other form of "fossil fuels"... emphasis on the "fossil".

How did all those fossils get 20 thousand feet deep? You can't have it both ways , the universe is not covered in dinosaurs.
It is full of organic carbon and hydrogen.
The point is so is earth!
Abiogenic origins of hydrocarbons is nothing new in the industry. You have just never heard it. Your own government is telling you two different narratives.

 

[Nick Wagner]

How did all those fossils get 20 thousand feet deep? You can't have it both ways , the universe is not covered in dinosaurs.
It is full of organic carbon and hydrogen.
The point is so is earth!
Abiogenic origins of hydrocarbons is nothing new in the industry. You have just never heard it. Your own government is telling you two different narratives.

Thanks CB, I've spent the last two hours reading about Abiogenic oil. I'd never heard of it before, but it sure makes sense.

 

[50/50Farms]

There are no fossil fuels.
It's abiogenic in origin, if not get NASA to explain how all those dinosaurs got on Titan.
Titan Saturns moon contains more oil than all of earth by NASA's own admittance.

NASA - Titan's Surface Organics Surpass Oil Reserves on Earth

You believe dinosaur deposits are 10K to 20 K feet deep.
Most in my industry didn't.

Thanks for the read, I'd never heard of this. I'll probably still use the term as a colloquialism since most people wouldn't know what I mean otherwise.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Thanks for the read, I'd never heard of this. I'll probably still use the term as a colloquialism since most people wouldn't know what I mean otherwise.

This is one of those issues you can't argue with people on.
Earth is one of the greatest organic factories in the universe. Earth is a carbon factory

How Does Earth's Carbon Cycle Work?

Stanford University’s Katharine Maher explains the mechanisms that heat and cool the planet

www.smithsonianmag.com

Sound a lot like Titan?

 

[50/50Farms]

This is one of those issues you can't argue with people on.
Earth is one of the greatest organic factories in the universe. Earth is a carbon factory

How Does Earth's Carbon Cycle Work?

Stanford University’s Katharine Maher explains the mechanisms that heat and cool the planet

www.smithsonianmag.com

Sound a lot like Titan?

I did know that "fossil fuels" regenerate way quicker than widely thought, but the rest of this I did not know. I can't see how more folks ain't working to have this more widely heard.

 

[Caustic Burno]

We had major discussions in my facility on this in the seventies during the Arab oil embargo. This was when our technology was just really starting to grow in the production world.
Lot of this thought was generated out of Eugene Houdry work in hydrocarbon processing.
Houdry is the father of modern refining, he was the one that discovered you could reshape hydrocarbon molecules. Turn everything in the barrel virtually to gasoline from butane's to gas oil's.

Houdry Process for Catalytic Cracking - National Historic Chemical Landmark - American Chemical Society

American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.

www.acs.org

 

[Ouachita]

I did know that "fossil fuels" regenerate way quicker than widely thought, but the rest of this I did not know. I can't see how more folks ain't working to have this more widely heard.

Folks do attempt, however get ridiculed and/or shutdown, by the same entities that brought us "it was not a lab leak, that's nonsense".
Careers have been destroyed by speaking the truth too loud.

 

[Big Creek]

Impressive numbers? We've been generating similar numbers with petro for a long time. No question that "instant torque" of electric motors is "cool"............ but put those numbers into real world practice, and they fall flat, unless you have a way to continue to deliver the stored energy that you're consuming. That battery, when you CONSUME the energy by heavy demand like that... will NOT deliver that suggested 300+ mile range... you'll be lucky to get 25% of that...

What do you do with a truck typically? You haul loads. How many of the loads that you haul with a gooseneck trailer on your 2500/3500 truck are @14,000# including the trailer? This thing is still in "toy stage"... not even close to in the ballpark for serious truck users/owners.

And here's the biggest kicker of all. What about the cost to consumers to deliver the power required for charging? Right now we're delivering all of our transportation energy requirement via high energy density petro pipelines and tankers. Our electric delivery infrastructure can't even handle our current "normal" electricity demand... NOT INCLUDING all the transportation energy that we're delivering in petro form. So, who's going to be paying for THOSE upgrades... will that come via a "tax" specifically on the users of electricity for transportation? You can be sure it won't... it's going to be coming in the form of a "tax" on every KW that you use for your lights, and your computer, and your TV, and.....

You think that the cost of electricity to run your lights and AC is high now? Just wait till they start plugging more of these things in! Buckle up, because we'll all be paying .50 - .75/KW in a few years, mark my words.

The conversation will be, "We simply CAN'T suggest that the real cost of "going electric" has to be paid for by the electric vehicle users... or no-one would ever begin to consider purchasing one... and we WANT them to convert to electric... to "save the planet"." And once enough of a market share has moved from petro to electric, we will HAVE TO invest in the infrastructure upgrades to keep the economy moving... we won't have any choice at that point.

Let's get real and be honest about this...

That's the whole plan. CONTROL.

 

[Big Creek]

Folks do attempt, however get ridiculed and/or shutdown, by the same entities that brought us "it was not a lab leak, that's nonsense".
Careers have been destroyed by speaking the truth too loud.

Amen

 

[50/50Farms]

Folks do attempt, however get ridiculed and/or shutdown, by the same entities that brought us "it was not a lab leak, that's nonsense".
Careers have been destroyed by speaking the truth too loud.

Folks have been killed for it in some industries.