Some things to look at about Biden's green new deal.

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCd7HXD/

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCdtARq/

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCdpxXu/

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCdcv1X/

 

So far there is bigger issues with the green new deal. So let's look how politicians travel by air and nothing said about jet pollution.

 

Let's start with a look at the most famous of jets, the Boeing 747. The Boeing website states that this model, with a gas tank capacity of 63,500 gallons, may burn five gallons of jet fuel per mile of flight. A 4,000-mile flight, then, requires 20,000 gallons of fuel. Sep 26, 2016.

 

Let's consider that there is no enough power to deal with just the EVs in California and lake Mead is almost dry main supply of California's power. Even that California's power is being rationed.

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCR5LFQ/

 

Then just consider all the forest fires the USFS is lighting up calling them a prescribed burn, also allowing fires to get out of hand. Huge pollution of CO2 here in the northwest. Then consider all the EV fires.

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCRrpTM/

 

EVs are not going to solve any issues. Just consider the amount of fires EVs have had.

 

Just consider the Ford Lightning. How long would it take to tow 10k trailer 2,000 miles?

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCR5pms/

 

I tend to think they ride the clean air act narrative because they think it will get them votes and votes keep them in power so they can keep earning $$$.  

 

I think if we would just clean up money in politics we would see much more genuine concern of actual issues.

 

As for what % I related to man made it is hard to say but it has to be some %.   We should be concerned about a warming earth regardless of if it our fault, humans need a pretty specific environment to live.  How much % change can we handle we will never know as the climate is a VERY complex thing.  But I prefer life.

 

Regardless of all that and good for earth vs not I will die on the hill that electric is a much better power source for movement than ice.   It just bothers me in a technical sense that we have controlled explosions causing pistons to constantly accelerate and then decelerate to rotate the crank at 90* to power a shaft through a gearbox etc etc.  ICE is just not efficient at converting fuel btus into work.

40 minutes ago, Me78569 said:

Regardless of all that and good for earth vs not I will die on the hill that electric is a much better power source for movement than ice

You still have to trace the source of the electricity, if it’s generated with fossil fuel then aren't we just moving a lot of the inefficiencies upstream? 
 

I read an article a while back and can’t remember exactly, but it was talking about the density of liquid fuel vs batteries. The liquid fuel is like 50 times the density of current EV batteries. So our trucks would need a 12,000 pound battery (is that right?) to travel the same distance. Assuming EV motors are more efficient I guess changes that, but I’m not smart enough to figure out all the variables. Bottom line, the article basically has everyone agreeing that battery tech won’t catch up and match petroleum for another 20 years. 
 

Which leads us back to what we agree on which is EV’s are great for local driving, running into town. I don’t think they save you any money, I think they’ll cost more (purchase price, electricity rate increases, tax increases to pay for grid) and I don’t think they’ll help the environment, not for a long time. 
 

The % raise due to human activity matters to me bc I want to know that we are working to solve the right problem. Otherwise, the massive global push to save earth through clean energy is akin to masks for Covid. 

Laws of Thermodynamics say that the most efficient energy system will always loose at least 10% of the energy when converting from one type to another.

 

Yes @Andyba20, we are going to see many more masks over the truth coming our way. Designs and paradigms that will even confuse the best of us. I learned to think for myself and trust nothing especially from MSN. Those guys are cherry pickers with tall ladders and big side sacks.

 

I got clients with money to afford most things, that don't want building permits. Willing to chance it because of the mountain of literal horse $hit and stupid price. Building dept.... best I can estimate are charging a thousand an hour for their services. You wouldn't believe the garbage work I've seen that was inspected and passed. It total masking/ shellacking however you like.

1 hour ago, Andyba20 said:

You still have to trace the source of the electricity, if it’s generated with fossil fuel then aren't we just moving a lot of the inefficiencies upstream? 
 

 

 

I am talking about the system contained within the technical aspect of the car itself.  Ice just bothers me from a technical point of view when trying to convert fuel into down the road movement.

 

 

I'd be willing to wager that at large scale power generation even if from fossil fuels is more efficient than the %80 loss we see when converting gas tank gas into down the road movement.  Then you start considering the possibility of things like replacing shingles on roofs with solar panels and figuring out a way to store that energy and things get better.

 

Trains are incredibly efficient and moving cargo and they run diesel generators to power the electric drivetrain. There is a reason for that.

 

Another example is I have a river that flows all year round 10's of thousands of cfm worth of water.  I would love to put into place a power generation unit into the river.

 

If I was a rich man I would design that and then give away the unit to every house on the river.  Its not world changing scale but it would help locally and those things bring me joy to think about.

 

 

None of this exists yet as a system but it is exciting to think about.  I think the world needs as much joy and excitement as possible.  

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Me78569 said:

 

 

 

None of this exists yet as a system but it is exciting to think about.  I think the world needs as much joy and excitement as possible.  

 

 

 

We restored and got going again the original 1930's water wheel that powered the first three cabins built in Gov't Camp. It was an amazing day. The following spring we poured footings for the reduction gear and generator and got it hooked up to the charger and battery bank. It was a fun job with locals coming around to see it.

20 minutes ago, Me78569 said:

would love to put into place a power generation unit into the river.

We were born 150 years too late, back in the day Americans could do stuff like this…you try that today and the federal government would own you forever…no good deed right? 

Gotta start resisting the overreach. Heck, the EPA is even rolling out standards for wood burning stoves. Check this out from the UK…they WILL NEVER stop… 

 

{Research published in the last year has shown wood burning in homes is the single biggest source of small particle air pollution in the UK, producing three times more than road traffic, despite just 8% of the population using wood burners.

Even new wood burning stoves meeting the “ecodesign” standard still emit 750 times more tiny particle pollution than a modern HGV truck. Wood burners also triple the level of harmful pollution inside homes and should be sold with a health warning, according to scientists.

 “You basically stop burning wood. That’s the bottom line”}

 

Portland, oregon already has burn bans for wood burning stoves and fireplaces. Usually during an atmospheric inversion layer when the air is stagnant. By the time the particles get across the state on windy or air movement days it falls as nutrients for forests and grasslands

 

I am noticing More and More EV's on the road lately. One was towing an empty trailer along side me. I guess he was thinking about saving the range or amp hours cause he let me get ahead and get over since I had to turn left a ways up. Good if concern over range causes EV'rs to drive nice and let you in.

 

I won't be buying one soon as it's cheaper to stay with what we have and I like the fact that the elderly can hear us coming when they are out walking. There are quit a few old folks walking our rural end roads around here in the morning. So the noise is good.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCAHMWA/

 

More about lithium batteries. You might not want to get them wet.

 

Video doesn't work for me.

 

Why does anyone want to get the metal out of a battery like that?

 

Is it toxic to breath or handle it?

Some interesting numbers to mess around with: 

 

Comparing a 2nd gen Cummins to a Rivian Truck.

 

None of this is adjusted for efficiencies lost in a Diesel engine, just a baseline to start some math.

 

RiviAn Battery holds 135KwH, weighs 1,750lbs, and can travel a distance of 300 miles peak at full charge.

 

Mopar1973mans Quadzilla tuned Cummins holds 35 gallons of diesel fuel, fuel tank weighs 245lbs, and at peak tune gets 945 miles per tank (27mpgx35)

 

1 gallon diesel contains 37.1 KwH

Full tank holds 1,298.5kwh (37.1X35 gal)

245lbs/1,298.5kwh’s=.188 lbs per KwH

945 miles/1,298.5kwh= .727 miles/KWH

 

RiviAn battery 

1,750lbs/135kwh= 12.96lbs per Kwh 

300 miles/135kwh= 2.2 miles/KwH 

 

12.96 X 1,298.5kwh (total held in diesel tank)= 16,832.4 lbs

 

RiviAn would need a 16,832lb battery to hold the same kwh’s as the diesel tank at 245lbs which gives a density of: 68.7X

 

2.2 miles/.727miles=3.05

 

So the RiviAn is getting 3.05X better mileage per kwh than the diesel. 
 

300 miles/27mpg=11.11 gallons

11.11x37.1= 412kwh

 

So for the Cummins to travel the same distance (300 miles) would take 11.11 gallons of diesel and 412KwH’s which again lands us at the RiviAn being 3.05X more efficient per KWH.

 

Of course this only highlights what we already know, which is the range and convenience/speed to (refuel) a diesel is superior to current EV battery capabilities and so the efficiencies don’t matter (yet). 

 

Next is to figure out the CO2 emmisons, feel free to help with math. I’ll post more when I gather all the info,  but here’s what I have so far. Need to adjust for efficiencies (90% RiviAn and ??? 25% diesel?) Also, need to know the true carbon footprint to mine/manufacture EV batteries, including considerations for volume of water to make them. Also need to adjust for EV power consumption demands when towing. 

 

Using EPA.gov info (valid to question accuracy)

 

A barrel of oil contains 1,700 KwH’s of energy 

 

1,700 KwH/37.1 KwH =45.8 gallons of diesel in barrel of oil. 

 

1lb coal=2.07lbs c02

1 gallon diesel=22lbs co2

 

1.12lbs coal=1 kwh

 

150lbs coal to create 135kwh electricity 

310.5 lbs co2 per riviN charge =300 miles

 

11.11 gallons diesel to reach 300 miles

11.11 X 22lbs CO2 =244.4 lbs CO2

 

This is as far as I’ve gotten, and not all electricity is made with Coal, so this will vary regionally. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/

 

Found this while looking for additional info.   Not exactly related, but I think it is pretty cool to see the depth of info on where the USA get's it's power from.

 

Using ID as an example,

 

%21 is Natural gas  .97 lb/kwh

%59 hydro   0 lb /kwh

%15 wind    0 lb /kwh

%5 other    ??

 

so lets call it %25 generated at .97 lb/ kwh and %75 generated at 0 lb/ kwh.

 

 

So that brings the CO2 total for 300 miles way down ~32 lb/ c02 for EV IF you live in Idaho.

 

 

 

So the 1:1 with Mike would need to adjust for CO2 offset by that.   

 

 

I think this all bring into the scope more variety in EV vs ICE for C02 based on region.   Too many data points.

Definitely ton of variables to consider. What I’m also wanting to figure out is how do we calculate power consumption increases when towing with an EV? This has good info. https://www.motortrend.com/features/how-far-can-you-tow-with-electric-truck-range/
 

So just like we have to consider efficiency lost in ICE vehicles, don’t we have to consider power consumption increases on EV’s when adding weight (towing)? Meaning if the RiviAn truly were to meet the range of the Cummins and really did require a 16,000 lb battery to do it, how much would that weight effect power consumption? Because that would mean more charging, more charging means more electric consumption which means more carbon footprint. 
 

we need a formula to figure miles per KWH adjusted for weight. 
 

and is added weight power consumption increases on EV’s the equivalent of heat/power loss inefficiencies in ICE vehicles? 
 

Maybe that won’t matter someday when/if the electricity  we consume is zero carbon, but it will matter in cost of KWH per mile. 

i think it is important to understand with the last coupe posts that we are comparing the worst use case for EV.  It is still good data.  

 

 

 

 

 

I only have range #'s for the f150 lightening so we will use that for loaded vs unloaded.  unloaded 255 miles vs 90 miles for the heaviest load or ~%35 loaded   Same situation I am going to guess Mikes truck drops to ~13-15 mpg, which is ~%55 loaded.   

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/ford-f150-lightning-electric-truck-towing-test/

 

Quote

The Results: How Far Can A Ford F-150 Lightning Tow?

Before we answer the big question, let's set the baseline. While the EPA says the F-150 Lightning Platinum is good for 300 miles, that number is based on a mix of city and highway driving. With only a driver aboard and no trailer in tow, the Platinum achieved a MotorTrend Road-Trip Range of 255 miles.

We had been warned to expect the range to be cut in half when towing, but the effect of towing these travel trailers proved even more significant. With the smallest and lightest trailer, we measured a range of just 115 miles. That figure fell to 100 miles with the middleweight camper and sank to a mere 90 miles with the 7,218-pound Grand Design trailer.

 

I think it we calculate it that way we have to adjust Mikes truck to match 90 miles. So 90/15mpg is 6 gallons. 6x22lbs co2 =132lbs 

 

using the KwH capacity from the RiviAn it’s still using 135Kwh per charge, just going less miles. So the RiviAn would still be using 151lbs co2 just to go 90 miles. 

would the ev co for 90 miles be ~3x the 32 lb at 300 miles?  so closer to 100 lb/c02?  my brain is a little foggy, but i think thats right.  Good catch on my mess up

 

or wait hte total c02 per kwh doesn't change only the c02 per mile, which when towing would be roughly 3x unloaded.   

CO2 isn't any issue. Being any forest fire up here produces CO2 way more than any diesel vehicle in its life time.

 

How about 747 Boeing it holds 63,xxx gallons of JET-A burning at of 5 gallons of JET-A fuel for every ONE MILE of air flight. Now let's look at how many jets are in the air and how much more CO2 the produce of diesel vehicles.

 

How about fright ships, burning thousands of gallons to transport goods from China to the US.

Don't overlook the scale of how many vehicles are on the road.  in 2012 there were 254,639,386 registered vehicles  that number has grown since.   a 747 does burn a lot of fuel, but how many jets are there?  roughly 6,000 in the US or .00000235 % of vehicles on the roads in the usa.  Planes can burn a metric F ton of fuel and still be no where near what cars burn yearly.  

 

thankfully this type of things is recorded and reported on, airlines burnt 14 billion gallons of jet -a in 2021.  The vehicles in the US burnt 134 billion gallons of gas last year and 47 billion gallons of diesel. 

 

So vehicles  burnt %97 of the total gallons of fuel compared to airlines.

 

 

How many gallons of fuel are being burnt a minute in a LA traffic jam?

 

 

but you are really missing the point of what we are calculating, C02 is something we can compare between the two, just because you disregard it doesn't mean the thought experiment isn't worth while and it also shows valid data.

 

6 minutes ago, Me78569 said:

would the ev co for 90 miles be ~3x the 32 lb at 300 miles?  so closer to 100 lb/c02?  my brain is a little foggy, but i think thats right.  Good catch on my mess up

 

or wait hte total c02 per kwh doesn't change only the c02 per mile, which when towing would be roughly 3x unloaded.   

This is the most math I’ve done since like 2001, and I’m not even sure what point I’m making other than to try to determine efficiency’s, and we’re comparing different technologies, but it matters bc one is trying to replace the other. So let me come at it this way…

 

best case, Mikes truck can go 945 miles on a fuel 35gal tank. No towing, just base weight, efficiency tuned in.

if the RiviAn wants to match that same distance without recharging it would need a battery capacity of 429.5 kwh’s based on 2.2 miles per KWh. Earlier that math showed the RiviAn battery weight at 12.9lbs per KWH. So 12.9X429.5 would mean a 5,541 lb battery. The RiviAn base weight is 7,134 lb. Add that to 5,541 lbs and subtract 1,750 so we don’t count the original batter twice and you get 10,925 lbs. So that’s nearly 5,000 pounds over the base weight we calculated from, and the additional weight requires a lot of extra power to move. So what we need to figure out is how to adjust the mile per kWh at 10,925 lbs which will ultimate require more capacity on the truck and more weight. Kwh’s on an EV come at a price, and that price is weight. I’m trying to figure out a formula for it…and my brain is shot too. 

 

14 minutes ago, Andyba20 said:

This is the most math I’ve done since like 2001, and I’m not even sure what point I’m making other than to try to determine efficiency’s, and we’re comparing different technologies, but it matters bc one is trying to replace the other. So let me come at it this way…

 

    I am feeling the same way hahaha.

So I just went ahead and used the

Motor Trend tow test and split the difference on weight/mileage and did 225m/135kwh: 1.66kwH per mile.

To match the Cummins distance it’s 945/1.66kwh: which would mean a 569.2kwh battery. 569.2 X 12.9 would be a 7,343 lb battery. 
 

im using this article as a reference point for determining CO2: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufacturing-batteries

so if the 80KwH Tesla model 3 battery makes an average of 9 metric tons of CO2 to manufacture, and each metric ton is the equivalent of driving a regular ice vehicle 2,500 miles, then before it’s rolled off the lot it’s produced the equivalent of driving a ice vehicle 22,500 miles. 
 

A RiviAn battery large enough to meet match the range of Mikes truck would need over 7 times the KwH in the Tesla battery, which would be equal to 157,500 ice miles before it’s even rolled off the lot.

 

Math comes to 1,319 lbs CO2 (RiviAn) and 770 lbs CO2  for the Cummins. Again-based on coal generated electric, if I adjust across averages for generating electricity it would be .885 X 569=503 lbs CO2 for the RiviAn. 

 

again, I’m likely oversimplifying some of this, and there are so many variables to consider, including the sources of information. But it’s something worth watching and adding new data and information to as it comes available. 
 

I’d still buy a Tesla just bc I think they’re cool and they’re fast. If it was solely based on practicality I’d probably go for a hybrid. 
 

The range/battery problem needs to be solved, someone will have to defy certain properties of nature to do it. 

 

Last thing, cost. You can see as the EV range increases the weight increases due to needing additional battery capacity. I used the national average cost of electricity.
 

135Kwh X .18 cents= $24.30 (8 cents per mile)

11 gal diesel X $6 =$66 (22 cents per miles)

 

when adjusted for mikes range of 945 miles

 

569kwh X .18 cents= $102.42 (10.8 cents per mile)

35 gal diesel X $6=$210 (22 cents per mile)

 

So as capacity is increased for range, the battery weight increases and begins to increase the cost per mile, while the diesel remains the same (duh).

 

Curious to see how the Tesla semi’s that Elon just rolled out will handle this.