All Things Environment

[cradleandshoot]

(omitted)

I'm glad your brother likes his Tesla. At no point in this discussion am I advocating against electric vehicles. I am against the auto industry being pressured by the government to manufacture them exclusively. For every person who loves their Tesla there are probably many more car owners that flat out don't like the electric car concept. If electric cars are to be the wave of the future manufactures have a long ways to go to make it a viable alternative to a vast majority of car owners. You think in a tractor trailer they have developed an electric motor that can replace that beloved work horse the Cummins Diesel engine? When I was at Coca Cola they purchased an electric truck that from day one was the biggest piece of chit in the fleet. It had no power. On the open road fully loaded it struggled to reach 55 and could not handle an incline. That very expensive vehicle sat in the back of the lot because none of the drivers would use it. It went away completely, with no fanfare, several years ago. My personal experience with the hybrid service vehicles Coca Cola purchased was no better. They had 3 service vans that spent more time at the dealership trying to chase down all the demons coursing through their engines. They all also went away and they purchased good old Dodge Ram vans with those gosh darn internal combustion engines.

It becomes IMO a matter of preference for the consumer. That preference, in the purchase of buying a very expensive vehicle will be going away. IMO the electric cars should work on improving their problems that are inherent with electric engines. Their integration into the auto industry should occur naturally as the confidence in them grows and they become the choice that consumers want. When the automaker decides that in 30 years that is the only option they will give you, i think they are making a huge mistake. I find it hard to believe that GM wants to do this all of their own volition. If you woke up this morning a Fan and decided that for the sake of peoples health, your only going to make 20 proof hootch. It tastes okay and it takes some getting use to but do you think your customers that want high Octane will buy it? It is probably a very poor analogy on my part, but I would like to think you want to make what your customers ask for and want, not what you think they should be imbibing.

The electric motor is NOT the problem. That technology, given the proper power supply can outstrip the diesel or conventional gas (Otto cycle) engine.

The issue is in the power supply. Until recently, batteries were not capable of storing enough energy in a small enough size to really work. But we are basically at the threshold of that working quite well as long as we are talking about a limited number of miles travel in a day (which covers the vast majority of trips like commuting/errands, etc.). The other issue is the time it takes to charge these batteries. Overnight in a garage at home is easy peasy. A 5-10 minute "fill-up" on a long road trip currently is not. The latest Chevy Bolt has over 250 miles range. Certainly enough for anything but a long road trip. But it costs over $36K (you can get I think $7500 back in tax credits) and takes 10 hours to fully recharge at 220V. So will see limited use as long as the cost is so high.

That is why for long haul trucks you still have a large interest in fuel cells (direct conversion of hydrogen gas into electricity to run the motor). Long haul trucks to be competitive need to be able to run long distances between replenishment cycles, and not spend a long time being replenished.

I am trying to follow you Red, you lose me when it comes to supplying enough power, by that i mean the torque needed to keep a tractor trailer with a full load and perhaps overloaded from getting from point A to point B. Coca Cola had a state of the art electric tractor 10 years ago that was a dog. It look very pretty and had awesome graphics but it had no power. Once loaded with 14 skids of product you might as well have been driving a tricycle up a hill. That was the reason none of the drivers would use it... NO POWER. If you are going to tell me that electric engines are on the cusp of providing enough torque to equal that of a Cummins Diesel, then I am all ears. The Cummins Diesel is THE standard when it comes to power. If you are telling me there are all electric motors on the drawing board that are the equal of that ubiquitous diesel powerhouse, not to be disrespectful but your blowing smoke up my ass. Battery power is great in many applications. I own a very large number of DeWalt 20 volt power tools. If I want to drill a hole in concrete to mount an anchor bolt, I break out my Milwaukee hammer drill with the long cord and all the power i need to drill into concrete that is re-enforced with 1/2 rebar. The very best 20 volt drill can't cut it, it can not drill one 5 inch dep hole, unless you have 6 fresh batteries at the ready. I'm sorry i went on a tangent... long haul trucks need POWER and reliability. I have enough experience driving trucks to understand when you are fully loaded, you need a truck that has serious balls.

[RedFromMI]

(omitted)

I'm glad your brother likes his Tesla. At no point in this discussion am I advocating against electric vehicles. I am against the auto industry being pressured by the government to manufacture them exclusively. For every person who loves their Tesla there are probably many more car owners that flat out don't like the electric car concept. If electric cars are to be the wave of the future manufactures have a long ways to go to make it a viable alternative to a vast majority of car owners. You think in a tractor trailer they have developed an electric motor that can replace that beloved work horse the Cummins Diesel engine? When I was at Coca Cola they purchased an electric truck that from day one was the biggest piece of chit in the fleet. It had no power. On the open road fully loaded it struggled to reach 55 and could not handle an incline. That very expensive vehicle sat in the back of the lot because none of the drivers would use it. It went away completely, with no fanfare, several years ago. My personal experience with the hybrid service vehicles Coca Cola purchased was no better. They had 3 service vans that spent more time at the dealership trying to chase down all the demons coursing through their engines. They all also went away and they purchased good old Dodge Ram vans with those gosh darn internal combustion engines.

It becomes IMO a matter of preference for the consumer. That preference, in the purchase of buying a very expensive vehicle will be going away. IMO the electric cars should work on improving their problems that are inherent with electric engines. Their integration into the auto industry should occur naturally as the confidence in them grows and they become the choice that consumers want. When the automaker decides that in 30 years that is the only option they will give you, i think they are making a huge mistake. I find it hard to believe that GM wants to do this all of their own volition. If you woke up this morning a Fan and decided that for the sake of peoples health, your only going to make 20 proof hootch. It tastes okay and it takes some getting use to but do you think your customers that want high Octane will buy it? It is probably a very poor analogy on my part, but I would like to think you want to make what your customers ask for and want, not what you think they should be imbibing.

The electric motor is NOT the problem. That technology, given the proper power supply can outstrip the diesel or conventional gas (Otto cycle) engine.

The issue is in the power supply. Until recently, batteries were not capable of storing enough energy in a small enough size to really work. But we are basically at the threshold of that working quite well as long as we are talking about a limited number of miles travel in a day (which covers the vast majority of trips like commuting/errands, etc.). The other issue is the time it takes to charge these batteries. Overnight in a garage at home is easy peasy. A 5-10 minute "fill-up" on a long road trip currently is not. The latest Chevy Bolt has over 250 miles range. Certainly enough for anything but a long road trip. But it costs over $36K (you can get I think $7500 back in tax credits) and takes 10 hours to fully recharge at 220V. So will see limited use as long as the cost is so high.

That is why for long haul trucks you still have a large interest in fuel cells (direct conversion of hydrogen gas into electricity to run the motor). Long haul trucks to be competitive need to be able to run long distances between replenishment cycles, and not spend a long time being replenished.

I am trying to follow you Red, you lose me when it comes to supplying enough power, by that i mean the torque needed to keep a tractor trailer with a full load and perhaps overloaded from getting from point A to point B. Coca Cola had a state of the art electric tractor 10 years ago that was a dog. It look very pretty and had awesome graphics but it had no power. Once loaded with 14 skids of product you might as well have been driving a tricycle up a hill. That was the reason none of the drivers would use it... NO POWER. If you are going to tell me that electric engines are on the cusp of providing enough torque to equal that of a Cummins Diesel, then I am all ears. The Cummins Diesel is THE standard when it comes to power. If you are telling me there are all electric motors on the drawing board that are the equal of that ubiquitous diesel powerhouse, not to be disrespectful but your blowing smoke up my ass. Battery power is great in many applications. I own a very large number of DeWalt 20 volt power tools. If I want to drill a hole in concrete to mount an anchor bolt, I break out my Milwaukee hammer drill with the long cord and all the power i need to drill into concrete that is re-enforced with 1/2 rebar. The very best 20 volt drill can't cut it, it can not drill one 5 inch dep hole, unless you have 6 fresh batteries at the ready. I'm sorry i went on a tangent... long haul trucks need POWER and reliability. I have enough experience driving trucks to understand when you are fully loaded, you need a truck that has serious balls.

The limit is NOT the motor. The limit is in how much current the battery can supply at peak. If the peak current is not high enough, not enough torque can be developed.

Look at the electric starter motor in your car. Rather small, right? But it has plenty of torque to spin even a cold engine (assuming the battery can supply enough current) because when you start the car you are dumping a huge amount of current into it. That is why they tell you not to keep cranking and cranking - you can more easily overheat that motor, which is not designed to use the starting current for any sort of long term use. (That was the actual genius in developing the electric start - the notion that you could put way too much current for normal design for a very short period of time without overheating the motor.)

You can do the same with a big truck - and in fact it becomes easier than you think with respect to the electric motor because you can have a motor for any wheel you want when you design it.

But again, the limit is how much current you can force through the circuit, which in a battery powered system is usually limited by the battery. That is why you need that Milwaukee drill to do the tough stuff because the limit of current from the wall is far higher than the limit from the battery.

That is also why GM's partnership with Navistar (International Harvester/IH trucks) is to supply fuel cell packs for generation of electricity from hydrogen directly. Using hydrogen has two advantages - much faster fuel times to "gas" up the storage cylinders, and a very high energy density possible (small enough pack of fuel cells to work). That is not to say that future battery development might get you there, but this is a good intermediate step.

[cradleandshoot]

(omitted)

I'm glad your brother likes his Tesla. At no point in this discussion am I advocating against electric vehicles. I am against the auto industry being pressured by the government to manufacture them exclusively. For every person who loves their Tesla there are probably many more car owners that flat out don't like the electric car concept. If electric cars are to be the wave of the future manufactures have a long ways to go to make it a viable alternative to a vast majority of car owners. You think in a tractor trailer they have developed an electric motor that can replace that beloved work horse the Cummins Diesel engine? When I was at Coca Cola they purchased an electric truck that from day one was the biggest piece of chit in the fleet. It had no power. On the open road fully loaded it struggled to reach 55 and could not handle an incline. That very expensive vehicle sat in the back of the lot because none of the drivers would use it. It went away completely, with no fanfare, several years ago. My personal experience with the hybrid service vehicles Coca Cola purchased was no better. They had 3 service vans that spent more time at the dealership trying to chase down all the demons coursing through their engines. They all also went away and they purchased good old Dodge Ram vans with those gosh darn internal combustion engines.

It becomes IMO a matter of preference for the consumer. That preference, in the purchase of buying a very expensive vehicle will be going away. IMO the electric cars should work on improving their problems that are inherent with electric engines. Their integration into the auto industry should occur naturally as the confidence in them grows and they become the choice that consumers want. When the automaker decides that in 30 years that is the only option they will give you, i think they are making a huge mistake. I find it hard to believe that GM wants to do this all of their own volition. If you woke up this morning a Fan and decided that for the sake of peoples health, your only going to make 20 proof hootch. It tastes okay and it takes some getting use to but do you think your customers that want high Octane will buy it? It is probably a very poor analogy on my part, but I would like to think you want to make what your customers ask for and want, not what you think they should be imbibing.

The electric motor is NOT the problem. That technology, given the proper power supply can outstrip the diesel or conventional gas (Otto cycle) engine.

The issue is in the power supply. Until recently, batteries were not capable of storing enough energy in a small enough size to really work. But we are basically at the threshold of that working quite well as long as we are talking about a limited number of miles travel in a day (which covers the vast majority of trips like commuting/errands, etc.). The other issue is the time it takes to charge these batteries. Overnight in a garage at home is easy peasy. A 5-10 minute "fill-up" on a long road trip currently is not. The latest Chevy Bolt has over 250 miles range. Certainly enough for anything but a long road trip. But it costs over $36K (you can get I think $7500 back in tax credits) and takes 10 hours to fully recharge at 220V. So will see limited use as long as the cost is so high.

That is why for long haul trucks you still have a large interest in fuel cells (direct conversion of hydrogen gas into electricity to run the motor). Long haul trucks to be competitive need to be able to run long distances between replenishment cycles, and not spend a long time being replenished.

I am trying to follow you Red, you lose me when it comes to supplying enough power, by that i mean the torque needed to keep a tractor trailer with a full load and perhaps overloaded from getting from point A to point B. Coca Cola had a state of the art electric tractor 10 years ago that was a dog. It look very pretty and had awesome graphics but it had no power. Once loaded with 14 skids of product you might as well have been driving a tricycle up a hill. That was the reason none of the drivers would use it... NO POWER. If you are going to tell me that electric engines are on the cusp of providing enough torque to equal that of a Cummins Diesel, then I am all ears. The Cummins Diesel is THE standard when it comes to power. If you are telling me there are all electric motors on the drawing board that are the equal of that ubiquitous diesel powerhouse, not to be disrespectful but your blowing smoke up my ass. Battery power is great in many applications. I own a very large number of DeWalt 20 volt power tools. If I want to drill a hole in concrete to mount an anchor bolt, I break out my Milwaukee hammer drill with the long cord and all the power i need to drill into concrete that is re-enforced with 1/2 rebar. The very best 20 volt drill can't cut it, it can not drill one 5 inch dep hole, unless you have 6 fresh batteries at the ready. I'm sorry i went on a tangent... long haul trucks need POWER and reliability. I have enough experience driving trucks to understand when you are fully loaded, you need a truck that has serious balls.

The limit is NOT the motor. The limit is in how much current the battery can supply at peak. If the peak current is not high enough, not enough torque can be developed.

Look at the electric starter motor in your car. Rather small, right? But it has plenty of torque to spin even a cold engine (assuming the battery can supply enough current) because when you start the car you are dumping a huge amount of current into it. That is why they tell you not to keep cranking and cranking - you can more easily overheat that motor, which is not designed to use the starting current for any sort of long term use. (That was the actual genius in developing the electric start - the notion that you could put way too much current for normal design for a very short period of time without overheating the motor.)

You can do the same with a big truck - and in fact it becomes easier than you think with respect to the electric motor because you can have a motor for any wheel you want when you design it.

But again, the limit is how much current you can force through the circuit, which in a battery powered system is usually limited by the battery. That is why you need that Milwaukee drill to do the tough stuff because the limit of current from the wall is far higher than the limit from the battery.

That is also why GM's partnership with Navistar (International Harvester/IH trucks) is to supply fuel cell packs for generation of electricity from hydrogen directly. Using hydrogen has two advantages - much faster fuel times to "gas" up the storage cylinders, and a very high energy density possible (small enough pack of fuel cells to work). That is not to say that future battery development might get you there, but this is a good intermediate step.

Your not following me... Where is the electric motor that can generate the same power and torque as a Cummins Diesel? Our fleet mechanic had many of these " discussions" with the GM people in discussing all of the issues with the 2012 electric powered tractor coca cola purchased. The short answer was that was the compromise their engineers had to deal with. That vehicle was never designed or engineered to be able to handle the task at hand. If you can tell me outside of the battery issue how they have worked out the severe lack of power in the engine, I'm all ears. It will be a long time in the making before any electric motor will have the audacity to be in the same room with a Cummins product and claim to be it's equal. Who in the world is going to pay 100s of thousands of dollars for an environmentally friendly but far inferior truck in every way, shape and form. It will always be about power, I can't emphasize that enough.

[old salt]

Thought so...

Are you expecting a good faith discussion there, a fan?

It's downright silly, much less ahistorical, but then again, it's par for the course from some.

I'm not entirely sure why...there's plenty of room for debate as to what the right policies should be without faithless arguments.

Faithless arguments = butting in, highjacking the discussion, changing the premise, & ignoring time & history.

I see, so participation is "butting in" and "highjacking the conversation"...you are making a faithless argument again, Salty. Of course technological changes made possible various transitions, but that doesn't mean that government decisions to support and subsidize that change did not accelerate that change.

I say "faithless" because you don't acknowledge the reality that government did play a role, and instead attack even the notion that government can appropriately play a role going forward. That's a faithless argument.

Again, there's plenty of room for debate as to what the best policies should be without resorting to faithless arguments.

cradle, I asked the question earlier as to whether anyone is being forced to buy an electric car...you now suggest that the government is forcing manufacturers to make electric cars "exclusively"...really, that's happened??

Sure, the government has set successively more challenging emissions standards which car makers MUST achieve, yet this sort of regulation is actually preferred by the industry as the regulation sets a common playing field for them.

Perhaps I've missed some news, however.

Sheesh. We were discussing a very narrow point. The replacement of the horse with the motor vehicle at the turn of the 20th century.
I did not deny that govt played a role. I maintain that it was reactive in response to a leap in technology.

Govt did not drive that change, it reacted to the developing technology. There were no tax credits for purchasing early autos. There was no forced conversion from the horse to motor vehicle for govt use. It was allowed to evolve based on the improvement of the technology. As motor vehicles came into use, horse trails were used initially, then gradually upgraded into roads. The govt did not force the change, it reacted.

With EV's, the govt is forcing change, before the technology is adequate, betting on a future breakthrough in batteries, with massive subsidies, mandated govt purchases of EV's, & forced reduction of domestic oil production to drive up the price of motor fuel.

afan highjacked & widened a narrow discussion for his standard diversionary govt vs private rant,
You did not bother to read the thread before butting in to pick a nit with me.

afan can't figure out why he can ride a train rather than fly in a densely populated country smaller in size than TX, on a continent whose air traffic control system is so congested with longer flights that traffic is restricted by flow control. He can ride a train or fly in our NE corridor for the same reason.

[MDlaxfan76]

Thought so...

Are you expecting a good faith discussion there, a fan?

It's downright silly, much less ahistorical, but then again, it's par for the course from some.

I'm not entirely sure why...there's plenty of room for debate as to what the right policies should be without faithless arguments.

Faithless arguments = butting in, highjacking the discussion, changing the premise, & ignoring time & history.

I see, so participation is "butting in" and "highjacking the conversation"...you are making a faithless argument again, Salty. Of course technological changes made possible various transitions, but that doesn't mean that government decisions to support and subsidize that change did not accelerate that change.

I say "faithless" because you don't acknowledge the reality that government did play a role, and instead attack even the notion that government can appropriately play a role going forward. That's a faithless argument.

Again, there's plenty of room for debate as to what the best policies should be without resorting to faithless arguments.

cradle, I asked the question earlier as to whether anyone is being forced to buy an electric car...you now suggest that the government is forcing manufacturers to make electric cars "exclusively"...really, that's happened??

Sure, the government has set successively more challenging emissions standards which car makers MUST achieve, yet this sort of regulation is actually preferred by the industry as the regulation sets a common playing field for them.

Perhaps I've missed some news, however.

Sheesh. We were discussing a very narrow point. The replacement of the horse with the motor vehicle at the turn of the 20th century.
I did not deny that govt played a role. I maintain that it was reactive in response to a leap in technology.

Govt did not drive that change, it reacted to the developing technology. There were no tax credits for purchasing early autos. There was no forced conversion from the horse to motor vehicle for govt use. It was allowed to evolve based on the improvement of the technology. As motor vehicles came into use, horse trails were used initially, then gradually upgraded into roads. The govt did not force the change, it reacted.

With EV's, the govt is forcing change, before the technology is adequate, betting on a future breakthrough in batteries, with massive subsidies, mandated govt purchases of EV's, & forced reduction of domestic oil production to drive up the price of motor fuel.

afan highjacked & widened a narrow discussion for his standard diversionary govt vs private rant,
You did not bother to read the thread before butting in to pick a nit with me.

afan can't figure out why he can ride a train rather than fly in a country smaller in size than TX, on a continent whose air traffic control system is so congested with longer flights that traffic is restricted by flow control. He can ride a train or fly in our NE corridor for the same reason.

Actually, I didn't respond directly to you at all, just to the exchange that was going on in the two pages immediately preceding my "highjack".

I saw comments like the government was forcing us to buy electric cars. Really?
We're in the Climate and Green New Deal thread, so clearly the central question to this thread is what policies will best address climate change abatement or mitigation, which includes transitioning away from fossil fuels and the pace of that transition.

But maybe I misunderstand the thread topic?

I looked a little deeper and the specific discussion at that point was the extent to which gov't actually chose to aggressively support the transition to automobiles, over public transportation. I'm not debating the merits of such, though that decision did have some unintended consequences of accelerating suburban sprawl.

But the gov't certainly did aggressively encourage and subsidize the expansion of the automobile industry and the transition to trucking from rail to a large extent. Because of those government encouragements and subsidies, manufacturers were able to invest in advancing they technologies and manufacturing at a scale and pace would not otherwise have occurred for decades longer. It was a conscious choice.

And the government has definitely regulated the industry in ways that have fostered, encouraged, and demanded improvements in safety and emissions...to much gnashing of teeth by some, but actually quite well embraced ultimately by the auto industry. they like a clear playing field on which to compete.

The government is now encouraging and subsidizing the transition to more electric, as you might say in response to the availability of technologies which have advanced that possibility to a reality...people were buying electric cars and would buy them absent government involvement, but our public policies are encouraging a swifter transition because of the externalities involved with fossil fuel powered vehicles.

The reason I called your argumentation "faithless" is that you make statements like "the govt is forcing change" as if that's some novel or extreme concept. No, the government is subsidizing mass production, logistics hubs, and mandating increased standards and, making some federally funded purchases ...all providing a clear playing field for manufacturers to make long term investments in technology and manufacturing, accelerating and magnifying those investments.

Which is the whole point of this thread.

[RedFromMI]

(omitted)

I'm glad your brother likes his Tesla. At no point in this discussion am I advocating against electric vehicles. I am against the auto industry being pressured by the government to manufacture them exclusively. For every person who loves their Tesla there are probably many more car owners that flat out don't like the electric car concept. If electric cars are to be the wave of the future manufactures have a long ways to go to make it a viable alternative to a vast majority of car owners. You think in a tractor trailer they have developed an electric motor that can replace that beloved work horse the Cummins Diesel engine? When I was at Coca Cola they purchased an electric truck that from day one was the biggest piece of chit in the fleet. It had no power. On the open road fully loaded it struggled to reach 55 and could not handle an incline. That very expensive vehicle sat in the back of the lot because none of the drivers would use it. It went away completely, with no fanfare, several years ago. My personal experience with the hybrid service vehicles Coca Cola purchased was no better. They had 3 service vans that spent more time at the dealership trying to chase down all the demons coursing through their engines. They all also went away and they purchased good old Dodge Ram vans with those gosh darn internal combustion engines.

It becomes IMO a matter of preference for the consumer. That preference, in the purchase of buying a very expensive vehicle will be going away. IMO the electric cars should work on improving their problems that are inherent with electric engines. Their integration into the auto industry should occur naturally as the confidence in them grows and they become the choice that consumers want. When the automaker decides that in 30 years that is the only option they will give you, i think they are making a huge mistake. I find it hard to believe that GM wants to do this all of their own volition. If you woke up this morning a Fan and decided that for the sake of peoples health, your only going to make 20 proof hootch. It tastes okay and it takes some getting use to but do you think your customers that want high Octane will buy it? It is probably a very poor analogy on my part, but I would like to think you want to make what your customers ask for and want, not what you think they should be imbibing.

The electric motor is NOT the problem. That technology, given the proper power supply can outstrip the diesel or conventional gas (Otto cycle) engine.

The issue is in the power supply. Until recently, batteries were not capable of storing enough energy in a small enough size to really work. But we are basically at the threshold of that working quite well as long as we are talking about a limited number of miles travel in a day (which covers the vast majority of trips like commuting/errands, etc.). The other issue is the time it takes to charge these batteries. Overnight in a garage at home is easy peasy. A 5-10 minute "fill-up" on a long road trip currently is not. The latest Chevy Bolt has over 250 miles range. Certainly enough for anything but a long road trip. But it costs over $36K (you can get I think $7500 back in tax credits) and takes 10 hours to fully recharge at 220V. So will see limited use as long as the cost is so high.

That is why for long haul trucks you still have a large interest in fuel cells (direct conversion of hydrogen gas into electricity to run the motor). Long haul trucks to be competitive need to be able to run long distances between replenishment cycles, and not spend a long time being replenished.

I am trying to follow you Red, you lose me when it comes to supplying enough power, by that i mean the torque needed to keep a tractor trailer with a full load and perhaps overloaded from getting from point A to point B. Coca Cola had a state of the art electric tractor 10 years ago that was a dog. It look very pretty and had awesome graphics but it had no power. Once loaded with 14 skids of product you might as well have been driving a tricycle up a hill. That was the reason none of the drivers would use it... NO POWER. If you are going to tell me that electric engines are on the cusp of providing enough torque to equal that of a Cummins Diesel, then I am all ears. The Cummins Diesel is THE standard when it comes to power. If you are telling me there are all electric motors on the drawing board that are the equal of that ubiquitous diesel powerhouse, not to be disrespectful but your blowing smoke up my ass. Battery power is great in many applications. I own a very large number of DeWalt 20 volt power tools. If I want to drill a hole in concrete to mount an anchor bolt, I break out my Milwaukee hammer drill with the long cord and all the power i need to drill into concrete that is re-enforced with 1/2 rebar. The very best 20 volt drill can't cut it, it can not drill one 5 inch dep hole, unless you have 6 fresh batteries at the ready. I'm sorry i went on a tangent... long haul trucks need POWER and reliability. I have enough experience driving trucks to understand when you are fully loaded, you need a truck that has serious balls.

The limit is NOT the motor. The limit is in how much current the battery can supply at peak. If the peak current is not high enough, not enough torque can be developed.

Look at the electric starter motor in your car. Rather small, right? But it has plenty of torque to spin even a cold engine (assuming the battery can supply enough current) because when you start the car you are dumping a huge amount of current into it. That is why they tell you not to keep cranking and cranking - you can more easily overheat that motor, which is not designed to use the starting current for any sort of long term use. (That was the actual genius in developing the electric start - the notion that you could put way too much current for normal design for a very short period of time without overheating the motor.)

You can do the same with a big truck - and in fact it becomes easier than you think with respect to the electric motor because you can have a motor for any wheel you want when you design it.

But again, the limit is how much current you can force through the circuit, which in a battery powered system is usually limited by the battery. That is why you need that Milwaukee drill to do the tough stuff because the limit of current from the wall is far higher than the limit from the battery.

That is also why GM's partnership with Navistar (International Harvester/IH trucks) is to supply fuel cell packs for generation of electricity from hydrogen directly. Using hydrogen has two advantages - much faster fuel times to "gas" up the storage cylinders, and a very high energy density possible (small enough pack of fuel cells to work). That is not to say that future battery development might get you there, but this is a good intermediate step.

Your not following me... Where is the electric motor that can generate the same power and torque as a Cummins Diesel? Our fleet mechanic had many of these " discussions" with the GM people in discussing all of the issues with the 2012 electric powered tractor coca cola purchased. The short answer was that was the compromise their engineers had to deal with. That vehicle was never designed or engineered to be able to handle the task at hand. If you can tell me outside of the battery issue how they have worked out the severe lack of power in the engine, I'm all ears. It will be a long time in the making before any electric motor will have the audacity to be in the same room with a Cummins product and claim to be it's equal. Who in the world is going to pay 100s of thousands of dollars for an environmentally friendly but far inferior truck in every way, shape and form. It will always be about power, I can't emphasize that enough.

Electric motors that can generate more power and torque than a Cummins Diesel already exist, but like I said, that does not remain the big issue. You only need a number of motors that in sum generate the power/torque, since you can have multiple electric motors. But to power all of them you still must have an electrical system that can power them. That is the nature of the compromise those engineers were talking about. And the technology battery wise in 2012 is tremendously different than today, and given another maybe 10 years will be even more different.

That tractor you refer to did not meet the basic expectations for such a rig because it was NOT comparable. You cannot find one on the market right now that is as well. But that does not mean they cannot be developed, and the technology is more ripe now than in 2012. Costs can still be an issue, but that is getting better. Remember cars did not really take off as a general means of transportation until the Model T brought prices within reach of a large portion of the populace.

[old salt]

So suburban sprawl, the death of rail travel & the lack of mass transit, were all caused by the govt promoting, mandating & subsidizing the motor vehicle over the horse at the dawn of the 20th century. ...just imagine the mass transit public transportation service that rural America could have had today. What about the impact of equine flatulence ?

[MDlaxfan76]

So suburban sprawl, the death of rail travel & the lack of mass transit, were all caused by the govt promoting, mandating & subsidizing the motor vehicle over the horse at the dawn of the 20th century. ...just imagine the mass transit public transportation service that rural America could have had today.

Again, a faithless argumentation as no one has made that statement but you.

[old salt]

So suburban sprawl, the death of rail travel & the lack of mass transit, were all caused by the govt promoting, mandating & subsidizing the motor vehicle over the horse at the dawn of the 20th century. ...just imagine the mass transit public transportation service that rural America could have had today.

Again, a faithless argumentation as no one has made that statement but you.

Read a fan's posts again. You are being faithless by expanding the original narrow issue.
I'm pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
If/when EV's demonstrate the advantage over MV's comparable to the advantages of MV's over horses, govt subsidies & mandates won't be needed to drive the conversion.

[a fan]

So suburban sprawl, the death of rail travel & the lack of mass transit, were all caused by the govt promoting, mandating & subsidizing the motor vehicle over the horse at the dawn of the 20th century

No, we already moved on from your canard.

Government has limited funds, my man.

I have a great example for you. My dad was on a citizens' advisory council back in 1980 in Denver, examining using either a combination of mass transit options (including a train to mountain towns) for the growing city----or doing what DC and other cities had done, and build a beltway surrounding the city.

Guess which one Coloradans chose?

Now think about the impact of that choice, and where (somewhat) free market builders chose to build since that decision was made. Did developers buy land next to light rail stops that were never built? Or did they buy up every piece of farmland surrounding Denver, and turn it into thinly populated suburban sprawl....making mass transit next to impossible, and much, much more expensive than the car.

You're acting like these things happen by magic. Nope. Government for the last 100 years has CHOSEN to make the gas car king.

And the result of this choice also made the US decide to meddle in the Middle East, and nonstop wars. Because we can't have lines for gas, now can we? A rather expensive choice, don't you think? Expensive in more ways than just money.

[a fan]

If/when EV's demonstrate the advantage over MV's comparable to the advantages of MV's over horses, govt subsidies & mandates won't be needed to drive the conversion.

You mean like spending 50 years blowing trillions to fight pointless wars in the middle east to subsidize cheap oil. Like that?

[old salt]

So suburban sprawl, the death of rail travel & the lack of mass transit, were all caused by the govt promoting, mandating & subsidizing the motor vehicle over the horse at the dawn of the 20th century

No, we already moved on from your canard.

Government has limited funds, my man.

I have a great example for you. My dad was on a citizens' advisory council back in 1980 in Denver, examining using either a combination of mass transit options (including a train to mountain towns) for the growing city----or doing what DC and other cities had done, and build a beltway surrounding the city.

Guess which one Coloradans chose?

Now think about the impact of that choice, and where (somewhat) free market builders chose to build since that decision was made. Did developers buy land next to light rail stops that were never built? Or did they buy up every piece of farmland surrounding Denver, and turn it into thinly populated suburban sprawl....making mass transit next to impossible, and much, much more expensive than the car.

You're acting like these things happen by magic. Nope. Government for the last 100 years has CHOSEN to make the gas car king.

And the result of this choice also made the US decide to meddle in the Middle East, and nonstop wars. Because we can't have lines for gas, now can we? A rather expensive choice, don't you think? Expensive in more ways than just money.

Interesting soapbox speech but irrelevant to the subject issue of how & why the motor vehicle supplanted the horse at the beginning of the 20th century.

[old salt]

If/when EV's demonstrate the advantage over MV's comparable to the advantages of MV's over horses, govt subsidies & mandates won't be needed to drive the conversion.

You mean like spending 50 years blowing trillions to fight pointless wars in the middle east to subsidize cheap oil. Like that?

Like restricting fracking & stopping KXL in mid construction, so we become dependent upon ME oil again.

[a fan]

Like restricting fracking & stopping KXL in mid construction, so we become dependent on ME oil again.

Oh, so you DO understand that government does indeed effect our economic choices, and that we CHOSE those gas cars.

Back in my camp, are we?


BTW, that second pipeline has nothing to do with ME oil. It's about money.

And also btw, I disagree completely with Biden's BS Keystone move that was nothing but pointless theater.

[Kismet]

If/when EV's demonstrate the advantage over MV's comparable to the advantages of MV's over horses, govt subsidies & mandates won't be needed to drive the conversion.

You mean like spending 50 years blowing trillions to fight pointless wars in the middle east to subsidize cheap oil. Like that?

Like restricting fracking & stopping KXL in mid construction, so we become dependent upon ME oil again.

Oversimplification (your forte)
Fracking ban is only on Federal land and is temporary
Keystone oil from Canada ships via rail now - the pipeline is not complete and without it we are not dependent on ME oil.
Also telling that you did not respond with any detail to a fan's Denver example. likely because you don't have a response.

[a fan]

So suburban sprawl, the death of rail travel & the lack of mass transit, were all caused by the govt promoting, mandating & subsidizing the motor vehicle over the horse at the dawn of the 20th century

No, we already moved on from your canard.

Government has limited funds, my man.

I have a great example for you. My dad was on a citizens' advisory council back in 1980 in Denver, examining using either a combination of mass transit options (including a train to mountain towns) for the growing city----or doing what DC and other cities had done, and build a beltway surrounding the city.

Guess which one Coloradans chose?

Now think about the impact of that choice, and where (somewhat) free market builders chose to build since that decision was made. Did developers buy land next to light rail stops that were never built? Or did they buy up every piece of farmland surrounding Denver, and turn it into thinly populated suburban sprawl....making mass transit next to impossible, and much, much more expensive than the car.

You're acting like these things happen by magic. Nope. Government for the last 100 years has CHOSEN to make the gas car king.

And the result of this choice also made the US decide to meddle in the Middle East, and nonstop wars. Because we can't have lines for gas, now can we? A rather expensive choice, don't you think? Expensive in more ways than just money.

Interesting soapbox speech but irrelevant to the subject issue of how & why the motor vehicle supplanted the horse at the beginning of the 20th century.

RIght. Stick to the part where the government didn't intervene (I agree to an extent..but the .gov accelerated the move by building engineered roads), and plug year ears when you see the parts where they DID intervene. It's much easier conversation, I'll grant you think.

[old salt]

If/when EV's demonstrate the advantage over MV's comparable to the advantages of MV's over horses, govt subsidies & mandates won't be needed to drive the conversion.

You mean like spending 50 years blowing trillions to fight pointless wars in the middle east to subsidize cheap oil. Like that?

Like restricting fracking & stopping KXL in mid construction, so we become dependent upon ME oil again.

Oversimplification (your forte)
Fracking ban is only on Federal land and is temporary
Keystone oil from Canada ships via rail now - the pipeline is not complete and without it we are not dependent on ME oil.
Also telling that you did not respond with any detail to a fan's Denver example. likely because you don't have a response.

I have plenty in response to afan, I'm just not interested in being dragged down that rabbit hole playing hypothetical what if's, as if we could overcome consumer preference with nanny state mandates. It is what it is. American consumers have implemented their preference.

Shipping by rail is more expensive & less safe. As soon as the Chinese fund a trans mountain pipeline to BC, that's where the Canadian crude will go, forcing US Gulf state & midwest refineries to rely on imported crude. US Bakken crude would also move via KXL.
Fracking ban on Fed territory is significant. Whipsaw election driven restrictions deter rational future planning & investment & stiff our closest, best ally.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/keyston ... roduction/

[a fan]

I'm just not interested in being dragged down that rabbit hole playing hypothetical what if's, as if we could overcome consumer preference with nanny state mandates.

You're SUCH a Republican.

It's free market awesome if Old Salt LIKES the government intervention.

It's "nanny state" if Old Salt DOESN'T LIKE the government intervention. Oh, and the libs are bad, and Republicans are awesome and self-sufficient.

The party in a nutshell. Hypocrisy at an elite level....

[old salt]

Like restricting fracking & stopping KXL in mid construction, so we become dependent on ME oil again.

Oh, so you DO understand that government does indeed effect our economic choices, and that we CHOSE those gas cars.

Back in my camp, are we?


BTW, that second pipeline has nothing to do with ME oil. It's about money.

And also btw, I disagree completely with Biden's BS Keystone move that was nothing but pointless theater.

Yes. As disciused, we chose gas cars over the horse & buggy.

Right now, the Canadian crude goes to US refineries AND ships to China from US Gulf Ports. If KXL is dead, the Chinese will fund a pipeline to BC & they'll suck up all that cheaper Canadian crude that is now feeding US mid-continent & Gulf coast refineries. Bakken (ND & MT) crude is limited by takeaway capacity which KXL would help relieve. When US refineries can't get enough US or Canadian crude, they import, much from the ME & Venezuela. KXL would allow for the export of US & Canadian crude from US Gulf state ports.

It's not only about $$$. It's energy security -- not depending on crude from unreliable, unstable, adversarial nations.

[cradleandshoot]

(omitted)

I'm glad your brother likes his Tesla. At no point in this discussion am I advocating against electric vehicles. I am against the auto industry being pressured by the government to manufacture them exclusively. For every person who loves their Tesla there are probably many more car owners that flat out don't like the electric car concept. If electric cars are to be the wave of the future manufactures have a long ways to go to make it a viable alternative to a vast majority of car owners. You think in a tractor trailer they have developed an electric motor that can replace that beloved work horse the Cummins Diesel engine? When I was at Coca Cola they purchased an electric truck that from day one was the biggest piece of chit in the fleet. It had no power. On the open road fully loaded it struggled to reach 55 and could not handle an incline. That very expensive vehicle sat in the back of the lot because none of the drivers would use it. It went away completely, with no fanfare, several years ago. My personal experience with the hybrid service vehicles Coca Cola purchased was no better. They had 3 service vans that spent more time at the dealership trying to chase down all the demons coursing through their engines. They all also went away and they purchased good old Dodge Ram vans with those gosh darn internal combustion engines.

It becomes IMO a matter of preference for the consumer. That preference, in the purchase of buying a very expensive vehicle will be going away. IMO the electric cars should work on improving their problems that are inherent with electric engines. Their integration into the auto industry should occur naturally as the confidence in them grows and they become the choice that consumers want. When the automaker decides that in 30 years that is the only option they will give you, i think they are making a huge mistake. I find it hard to believe that GM wants to do this all of their own volition. If you woke up this morning a Fan and decided that for the sake of peoples health, your only going to make 20 proof hootch. It tastes okay and it takes some getting use to but do you think your customers that want high Octane will buy it? It is probably a very poor analogy on my part, but I would like to think you want to make what your customers ask for and want, not what you think they should be imbibing.

The electric motor is NOT the problem. That technology, given the proper power supply can outstrip the diesel or conventional gas (Otto cycle) engine.

The issue is in the power supply. Until recently, batteries were not capable of storing enough energy in a small enough size to really work. But we are basically at the threshold of that working quite well as long as we are talking about a limited number of miles travel in a day (which covers the vast majority of trips like commuting/errands, etc.). The other issue is the time it takes to charge these batteries. Overnight in a garage at home is easy peasy. A 5-10 minute "fill-up" on a long road trip currently is not. The latest Chevy Bolt has over 250 miles range. Certainly enough for anything but a long road trip. But it costs over $36K (you can get I think $7500 back in tax credits) and takes 10 hours to fully recharge at 220V. So will see limited use as long as the cost is so high.

That is why for long haul trucks you still have a large interest in fuel cells (direct conversion of hydrogen gas into electricity to run the motor). Long haul trucks to be competitive need to be able to run long distances between replenishment cycles, and not spend a long time being replenished.

I am trying to follow you Red, you lose me when it comes to supplying enough power, by that i mean the torque needed to keep a tractor trailer with a full load and perhaps overloaded from getting from point A to point B. Coca Cola had a state of the art electric tractor 10 years ago that was a dog. It look very pretty and had awesome graphics but it had no power. Once loaded with 14 skids of product you might as well have been driving a tricycle up a hill. That was the reason none of the drivers would use it... NO POWER. If you are going to tell me that electric engines are on the cusp of providing enough torque to equal that of a Cummins Diesel, then I am all ears. The Cummins Diesel is THE standard when it comes to power. If you are telling me there are all electric motors on the drawing board that are the equal of that ubiquitous diesel powerhouse, not to be disrespectful but your blowing smoke up my ass. Battery power is great in many applications. I own a very large number of DeWalt 20 volt power tools. If I want to drill a hole in concrete to mount an anchor bolt, I break out my Milwaukee hammer drill with the long cord and all the power i need to drill into concrete that is re-enforced with 1/2 rebar. The very best 20 volt drill can't cut it, it can not drill one 5 inch dep hole, unless you have 6 fresh batteries at the ready. I'm sorry i went on a tangent... long haul trucks need POWER and reliability. I have enough experience driving trucks to understand when you are fully loaded, you need a truck that has serious balls.

The limit is NOT the motor. The limit is in how much current the battery can supply at peak. If the peak current is not high enough, not enough torque can be developed.

Look at the electric starter motor in your car. Rather small, right? But it has plenty of torque to spin even a cold engine (assuming the battery can supply enough current) because when you start the car you are dumping a huge amount of current into it. That is why they tell you not to keep cranking and cranking - you can more easily overheat that motor, which is not designed to use the starting current for any sort of long term use. (That was the actual genius in developing the electric start - the notion that you could put way too much current for normal design for a very short period of time without overheating the motor.)

You can do the same with a big truck - and in fact it becomes easier than you think with respect to the electric motor because you can have a motor for any wheel you want when you design it.

But again, the limit is how much current you can force through the circuit, which in a battery powered system is usually limited by the battery. That is why you need that Milwaukee drill to do the tough stuff because the limit of current from the wall is far higher than the limit from the battery.

That is also why GM's partnership with Navistar (International Harvester/IH trucks) is to supply fuel cell packs for generation of electricity from hydrogen directly. Using hydrogen has two advantages - much faster fuel times to "gas" up the storage cylinders, and a very high energy density possible (small enough pack of fuel cells to work). That is not to say that future battery development might get you there, but this is a good intermediate step.

Your not following me... Where is the electric motor that can generate the same power and torque as a Cummins Diesel? Our fleet mechanic had many of these " discussions" with the GM people in discussing all of the issues with the 2012 electric powered tractor coca cola purchased. The short answer was that was the compromise their engineers had to deal with. That vehicle was never designed or engineered to be able to handle the task at hand. If you can tell me outside of the battery issue how they have worked out the severe lack of power in the engine, I'm all ears. It will be a long time in the making before any electric motor will have the audacity to be in the same room with a Cummins product and claim to be it's equal. Who in the world is going to pay 100s of thousands of dollars for an environmentally friendly but far inferior truck in every way, shape and form. It will always be about power, I can't emphasize that enough.

Electric motors that can generate more power and torque than a Cummins Diesel already exist, but like I said, that does not remain the big issue. You only need a number of motors that in sum generate the power/torque, since you can have multiple electric motors. But to power all of them you still must have an electrical system that can power them. That is the nature of the compromise those engineers were talking about. And the technology battery wise in 2012 is tremendously different than today, and given another maybe 10 years will be even more different.

That tractor you refer to did not meet the basic expectations for such a rig because it was NOT comparable. You cannot find one on the market right now that is as well. But that does not mean they cannot be developed, and the technology is more ripe now than in 2012. Costs can still be an issue, but that is getting better. Remember cars did not really take off as a general means of transportation until the Model T brought prices within reach of a large portion of the populace.

Thanks for your information and knowledge . I'm always confused but I understand what you are saying.