2020 Ford E450 cutaway

Ok, yes, I said, "can't" in relation to a standard 120v 15a outlet.    I should have said, "impractical"... my bad.

Ok, yes, I said, "can't" in relation to a standard 120v 15a outlet.    I should have said, "impractical"... my bad.

I used to share the same thought, but time is on our side. My commute is ~60 miles a day. Lets say I get an electric vehicle to do it in. Whats my charge time needed if I only have a 15A 120V socket available? ?

""Electric cars sometimes have the option of designating either a flow rate of 8 or 12 amps. If you are plugging into a dedicated electrical circuit then you should be able to charge at the 12 amp rate. Best case scenario is you might be able to squeeze five miles of range per hour of charge on a 12 amp load.""

So... if I get home at 4 and plug my car in, then unplug at 6 am to leave, that gives me 14 hrs. 14 hrs x 5(miles per hour of charge ) = 70 miles of range.

Yes, this is all 'on paper', and real world will undoubtedly be different, usually less, right?     But if you have an employer that supplies a 15A outlet, and you can get charge all day (I do ) , there is another facet. IF the Electric car was only a commuter car, with our TDI as the 'road tripper', it would be practical. If I only had a 20 mile commute, like I did until 2014, even more so.

Just like the electric E450 - Great for last mile work, and local trips, but not so good for roadtrips.

My neighbor installed a 8KW solar array on his house that backfeeds into the grid. (He is HOPING for a battery bank someday....but $$$$) It is supplying all the power for his Nissan Leaf on average, with his driving around 75 miles a day. He was using a level 2 , 240V outlet.  Using his energy monitor attached to the charger on the leaf, He has found a net gain when we have many sunny days in a row, and net loss during overcast weather, or when he adds that extra trip to orlando. He is on year two doing it, and we have been watching with interest.  We have a VERY good area to put up a 8KW or even more. And we ARE the sunshine state... 

I think we all need to keep in mind that electric vehicles are at about the same place internal combustion ones were prior to the Model T.  In many respects horses were cheaper, easier, more reliable and had a far more extensive support structure.  But that changed.  And this situation will change as well.  Electric is the future but internal combustion is not necessarily ever going to go away.

And everything electric on the road or on the drawing board today is to some degree experimental and proof of concept.  But the snowball has started down the hill and nothing is going to stop it.

For commuters think a parking area at work covered with solar panels and charging stations at every parking spot.  Unlikely to get to full charge but with an 8 hour work day, more than enough to get back home where you can charge at home overnight.

I suspect RV's will hold onto internal combustion for a long time but with improvements in PV panels and battery technology I suspect electric will be practical there at some point.

I suspect RV's will hold onto internal combustion for a long time but with improvements in PV panels and battery technology I suspect electric will be practical there at some point.

Agreed!  Electric is certainly the way to go.. they beat ICE cars into production by decades. People knew electric was viable for transportation in the early 1800's.

When they get a battery worked out that gets even close to gasolines energy density, they will be the only option. But thats the big problem...

Lead acid batteries -  33–42 Wh/kg

Gasoline -  13,000  Wh/kg

Lithium batteries - 100–265 Wh/‎kg‎

So pound-for-pound, gasoline has 50 times more energy to be used than the best lithium, and 300+ times than lead acid. And 'recharges' in minutes. Hard act to follow.     We have lifestyles arranged around this easy energy.

Here is hoping there is a battery on the way that can overcome that deficit.   

And yet a good lithium battery is close (almost) to the range of an ICE vehicle.  If we double or triple the density of the battery (which does not seem unrealistic) we can easily match or exceed the range of an internal combustion vehicle.  I'm not sure why the discrepancy is so big in your numbers.  Not disputing them, just puzzled. 

Maybe the battery weighs more than the fuel tank but the electric motors weigh less than the ICE?  So the combo of drive system + fuel is closer to being equal?

And yet a good lithium battery is close (almost) to the range of an ICE vehicle.  If we double or triple the density of the battery (which does not seem unrealistic) we can easily match or exceed the range of an internal combustion vehicle.  I'm not sure why the discrepancy is so big in your numbers.  Not disputing them, just puzzled. 

Maybe the battery weighs more than the fuel tank but the electric motors weigh less than the ICE?  So the combo of drive system + fuel is closer to being equal?

Not sure what you have been smoking lately.... NO electric vehicle is anywhere close to "range" of an internal combustion engine.   

My 2551...loaded for a trip... At 70mph, easily gets 400 miles per tank (actually closer to 460) with about 5 gallons reserve left.

Call it 10 minutes to fill.

Show me any (let alone a 13,000 lb loaded one) pure electric vehicle that can go even 1/2 that distance and be recharged in 10 minutes.

The weight of a Tesla 3 battery alone is 1,200 lbs. 

Now scale that up to an RV sized battery. 

A Ford V-10 weighs in at 620 lbs.   

http://www.f150hub.com/specs/6.8-triton-v-10.html

And let's not forget the recent article about up to 40% less range for electric vehicles in the cold

http://www.telegraphherald.com/news/business/article_21422b18-537b-5dee-b344-c96a453f2d02.html

And yet a good lithium battery is close (almost) to the range of an ICE vehicle. 

Sure!  One can easily build a lithium battery powered car that has the same range as one with an ICE. (if you ignore weight...)  Just put a HUGE battery pack in the electric, and have a small gas tank on the ICE.

The numbers I referenced were for the 'power' part of things, IE: the gasoline or the battery. Numbers were off a google search, I used the 'best' numbers for electric and the 'worst' for gasoline to help the electric numbers all I could.

The purpose was to show how big a stumbling block energy storage was. In other words, if you carry 100 pounds of gas, or 100 pounds of lithium battery, the gas will give you 50 times the energy to move you.   I suppose the conversion efficiency is better for electric, but until we have the breakthrough in energy storage, electric vehicles will be much better suited for local use as opposed to RV/road trip use.

Not sure what you have been smoking lately.... NO electric vehicle is anywhere close to "range" of an internal combustion engine.   

Actually I don't smoke at all.   
 
I guess it depends on your definition of 'close'.  I drive a Toyota Highlander = full tank range is 375 miles and a Jeep Cherokee = full tank range is 310 miles.  There are several electric vehicles that exceed 285 mile range.  To me that is close considering the different maturity levels of the technology.  Close is well, 'close', certainly not there yet.  And as @Volkemon says the energy storage density needs dramatic improvement before EVs replace the ICE.  But again, look where we are in the technology curve, barely into infancy for EVs.  Truely Model T era.

Tesla model 3 = 310 miles
Tesla model S = 335 miles
Chevy Bolt = 235 miles
And no that is not a fair comparison to my Highlander, just that we are 'close' to a range in electric vehicles that many people will be satisfied with.  My point is only that today you can buy an EV with a range of 285+ miles.  I would definitely not want to take it on a cross country trip but for a commuter with plug in capability at home it works. 

We are a long, long way from an electric RV in this country.  But in Europe I don't think we are that far away.  Distances are shorter there and fuel is much more expensive so the economics are different.  Germany in particular is committed to all renewable power in a relatively short time.

One can easily build a lithium battery powered car that has the same range as one with an ICE.  (if you ignore weight...) 

All I meant was that a doubling in battery energy density over the 5 years (not impossible) will allow ranges comparable to ICE vehicles. 

Anyway, I think we have strayed a long way from the original post about an all electric RV.  Which I firmly is coming.  Someday.  But not soon.  Anything in that category is going to be a technology demonstrator for a long time. 

My last comment on this:

You forgot the recharging part.  10 minutes in gasoline vehicle, 8 to 10 hrs in an electric.

I am sure there are some, but I don't know anyone who buys a vehicle only to go back and forth to work.   Many, many commuter cars are also what's driven on vacation.

Don

I guess it depends on your definition of 'close'.  I drive a Toyota Highlander = full tank range is 375 miles and a Jeep Cherokee = full tank range is 310 miles.  There are several electric vehicles that exceed 285 mile range.  To me that is close considering the different maturity levels of the technology.  Close is well, 'close', certainly not there yet.  And as @Volkemon says the energy storage density needs dramatic improvement before EVs replace the ICE.  But again, look where we are in the technology curve, barely into infancy for EVs.  Truely Model T era.

Tesla model 3 = 310 miles
Tesla model S = 335 miles
Chevy Bolt = 235 miles
And no that is not a fair comparison to my Highlander, just that we are 'close' to a range in electric vehicles that many people will be satisfied with.  My point is only that today you can buy an EV with a range of 285+ miles.  I would definitely not want to take it on a cross country trip but for a commuter with plug in capability at home it works. 

Since we are sharing miles between replenishment.......

Our 2014 Nissan Altima with conventional internal combustion engine 4 cylinder 2.5L with the Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) will get over 600 miles per tank full.  But driving conditions have to be just right, and I'd have to drive till I run out of gas.  Both together would never happen.  Our fuel monitor will often say that our fuel economy is ~46 mpg on a wind-less day while driving conservatively on the open road.  I had trips averaging 43 mpg.

Fuel economy , exceptional comfort for 4 of the 5 adults, a big trunk, nice bells and whistles, and a $22k (+tax) negotiated price for our "SL" model made it a very easy choice.

You don't have to "go hybrid" to get good fuel economy on a decent size comfortable vehicle.

You forgot the recharging part.  10 minutes in gasoline vehicle, 8 to 10 hrs in an electric.

No I didn't forget it.  And it is a valid issue. But it is only 8 to 10 hours if you use a level 2 charger which you would at home.  On the road most likely a level 3 charger would be used which right now is about 30 - 40 minutes to 80% charge.  Still that is not good enough.

I'm sorry if my comments here gave the impression I was trying to convince anyone of anything.  For most of us an ICE will be viable (and likely the best choice) for the remainder of our lives.  But I am excited about a new technology that will (eventually) revolutionize how we power our vehicles.

Interesting idea, converting your house into a power generation station.  I guess that's what they mean about rebuilding every building in America for the "Green New Deal".  Because when you compare the yearly average output of a solar cell or wind mill to the current energy consumption required to run the United States, you realize that you'd basically have to convert the entire landmass into a giant energy generation station to do it. 

It's kind of like DONC13's comment about powering an electric Cruiser with the generator.  You can put enough solar cells on your roof to keep your house batteries charged, to watch TV.  But you couldn't put enough solar cells on the roof to drive it across Texas.  Real work requires lots of real energy.

It takes a lot more energy to run a country than just what we use to keep all the houses comfortable.  Solar and wind are simply not energy-dense enough to do the job without ruining the environment.  But amazingly, God apparently planned for this.  There are places right here in America where you can literally suck enough energy directly out of the ground in one little acre to power entire cities!  Isn't that amazing?

Physics!

@Blue Blaze. How could a personal computer ever replace mainframes as a business platform, the 64k of memory and 5mb hard drives will never be enough to run business critical applications.  At least that was the thinking in 1970's, I know because I made a fortune specializing in migrating companies from mainframes to pc's.
My power company (Xcel Energy) ONLY allows me to install solar panels in my home to produce 110% of what I have historically consumed if I want to participate in their "solar rewards" program selling them back my excess energy (I usually make $12-$15 dollars per month) . I have 14 panels in place, I have room on my south-facing roof for 45 more panels!  Xcel's biggest fear is that they will become a "backup" power source for customers rather than primary supplier.  I'm afraid you fail to take into account the rapidly increasing improvements in technology in your analysis and therefore reach the wrong conclusion.  BTW, it won't surprise you to learn that I'm writing this response online from my very compact, powerful and always connect cell phone, likely many others do too.   Would you have predicted that 10 years ago?

@Blue Blaze. How could a personal computer ever replace mainframes as a business platform, the 64k of memory and 5mb hard drives will never be enough to run business critical applications.  At least that was the thinking in 1970's, I know because I made a fortune specializing in migrating companies from mainframes to pc's.
My power company (Xcel Energy) ONLY allows me to install solar panels in my home to produce 110% of what I have historically consumed if I want to participate in their "solar rewards" program selling them back my excess energy (I usually make $12-$15 dollars per month) . I have 14 panels in place, I have room on my south-facing roof for 45 more panels!  Xcel's biggest fear is that they will become a "backup" power source for customers rather than primary supplier.  I'm afraid you fail to take into account the rapidly increasing improvements in technology in your analysis and therefore reach the wrong conclusion.  BTW, it won't surprise you to learn that I'm writing this response online from my very compact, powerful and always connect cell phone, likely many others do too.   Would you have predicted that 10 years ago?

Microsoft didn't need a government subsidy to create the personal computer.  When solar pays for itself without a government subsidy, it will be ready for primetime and I will be on-board.  But when that day comes, whoever invents that new technology won't need corporate welfare to sell it, any more than Bill Gates did.  Unfortunately, the PHYSICS of the current technology says that solar cells are about as efficient as they will ever be.  We've had them for 60 years and the current crop is only about 30% more efficient than the first crop. "Moore's Law" doesn't seem to apply to solar cells, so we're gonna need an entirely new way to do it. But like I said, if it happens, that future Bill Gates won't need a handout to sell it. 

By the way, solar cells actually work pretty well if you don't bury them under 100 miles of atmosphere and hide them behind a planet 12 hours of every day.  NASA proposed building solar satellites back in the 70's.  Funny you never hear the anti-oil crowd talk about it.

Sorry to take us so far off topic, folks.  I'll shut up now.

Quote from: dogyard on February 16, 2019, 11:25:17 am

@Blue Blaze. How could a personal computer ever replace mainframes as a business platform, the 64k of memory and 5mb hard drives will never be enough to run business critical applications.  At least that was the thinking in 1970's, I know because I made a fortune specializing in migrating companies from mainframes to pc's.
My power company (Xcel Energy) ONLY allows me to install solar panels in my home to produce 110% of what I have historically consumed if I want to participate in their "solar rewards" program selling them back my excess energy (I usually make $12-$15 dollars per month) . I have 14 panels in place, I have room on my south-facing roof for 45 more panels!  Xcel's biggest fear is that they will become a "backup" power source for customers rather than primary supplier.  I'm afraid you fail to take into account the rapidly increasing improvements in technology in your analysis and therefore reach the wrong conclusion.  BTW, it won't surprise you to learn that I'm writing this response online from my very compact, powerful and always connect cell phone, likely many others do too.   Would you have predicted that 10 years ago?

Microsoft didn't need a government subsidy to create the personal computer.  When solar pays for itself without a government subsidy, it will be ready for primetime and I will be on-board.  But when that day comes, whoever invents that new technology won't need corporate welfare to sell it, any more than Bill Gates did.  Unfortunately, the PHYSICS of the current technology says that solar cells are about as efficient as they will ever be.  We've had them for 60 years and the current crop is only about 30% more efficient than the first crop. "Moore's Law" doesn't seem to apply to solar cells, so we're gonna need an entirely new way to do it. But like I said, if it happens, that future Bill Gates won't need a handout to sell it. 

By the way, solar cells actually work pretty well if you don't bury them under 100 miles of atmosphere and hide them behind a planet 12 hours of every day.  NASA proposed building solar satellites back in the 70's.  Funny you never hear the anti-oil crowd talk about it.

Sorry to take us so far off topic, folks.  I'll shut up now.

I'll bow out as well, but do want to include this information to give some perspective to your assertion that solar is being unfairly subsidized/incented.
"Subsidies for Big Oil
Large oil companies also receive subsidies in the form of tax credits and exemptions. Oil companies have been able to avoid paying taxes on expenditures associated with the nebulous term “intangible drilling costs” since 1916. Intangible drilling costs can encompass fruitless efforts to drill in new locations, as well as costs associated with new equipment or drilling infrastructure. These are huge sources of capital expenditures."