https://electrek.co/2018/11/12/elect...ckup-truck-gm/

 

As a previous Chevy Volt owner I'm not surprised. I loved my Volt and as a second vehicle it made perfect sense. Rarely needed the gas engine when commuting to work. A truck is a whole different animal. Until they can develop smaller, lighter, and more powerful batteries than are currently available I don't see an electric truck as a viable alternative to a gas/diesel engine except in a light duty truck for short to moderate distances and if a gas/diesel engine backup is needed I fail to see the point. Further, infrastructure for off site recharging is still lacking and cold weather significantly reduces battery miles traveled.

 

 

https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/denm...e-evs-cheaper/
They may want to rethink.

 

The entire topic of electric propulsion is all about power density of the energy source and cost.

A small electric car that commutes short-to-moderate distances actually does not take a lot of force to move along the road. The real force it takes to move a car (in a steady state of velocity) is just the force needed to overcome three things:
1) rolling resistance of tires
2) wind resistance
3) frictional losses
You can add in the force needed to accelerate the vehicle; making the car light really helps here.
In all, with modern technology, these force requirements are fairly low, and therefore a good battery pack can provide enough power to propel these small cars. I have a buddy that has a Volt, and he likes it, and it does well for his commute.

But ... what happens when you need a BIG LOAD moved? Consider things like these ...
- tractor trailer rig hauling 50,000 pounds of produce; a very high rolling resistance and very high wind resistance
- a pick-up hauling a fifth-wheel (same conditions as above)
- a tractor plowing up a corn field
- a combine harvesting a load of beans
- a tanker ship crossing the ocean
- a pleasure boat for skiing and tubing
- a locomotive traveling on rails hauling a bazillion pounds of cars, liquids, boxes and such
- a chain saw used all day for felling trees (not just trimming one 3" limb in your backyard)
etc ...
The need for power to produce force goes WAY, WAY up under these conditions. In addition, these are not situations where they are only used for 30 minutes of commuting; these are used for hours at a time, non-stop. The need for force is not only larger, but is also needed to be in use for a very long time. Hence, you need energy that can be stored as a dense product. Right now, there's not a good answer for these conditions past fossil fuels and some bio fuels. There's no practical electrical energy package that can give us what is currently available from carbon-based liquid fuels.
These three things currently make electrical power impractical and fossil/bio fuels quite pragmatic in some situations:
a) duration of use
b) magnitude of force required
c) cost of energy

No greenie tree hugger likes to admit this, but right now technology cannot overcome all these obstacles. Maybe someday in the future, but that's a lot further off than they want to admit. Places like Denmark don't have the vast distances we cover in North America. They are surrounded by the North Sea; let's see if they come up with electric ships .... yeah, right ....
And by the way, where do they think all this energy demand will be displaced to????? If you're not burning fossil fuels, you have to get the electricity from somewhere, right? Are you going to do it with nuclear energy? Solar? Wind? Again - these sources all have their own unique challenges that make the mass distribution of power difficult to achieve. Making an entire nation live on electric energy is a nice idea, but the actual implementation is astoundingly difficult. I'm not saying it won't happen some day, but each entity has to make the practical decisions for itself; what works in a tiny country by the Sea is not the same as what will work in rural America. I guess they just don't want to have 15,000 pound 5vers to go camping there ... and that's fine for them. But mandating no fossil/bio fuel vehicles really means taking certain markets (based on pleasure or work) and just eliminating them for life!

In North America, are we going to see all electric mandate anytime soon (in the next 50 years)? I highly doubt it. Our needs and wants demand solutions different from Denmark and other smaller EU countries. For one thing, we already are stressing our complete electrical grid to the edge of collapse, and some greenie-weenie wants to make our entire transportation system run on electrons? GET REAL FOOL!

However, I am 100% for EU countries and even China converting to electric cars. The sooner, the better! Every gas/diesel unit they take off the road in their country makes more fossil fuel available in the world wide market, which lowers demand, which lowers cost for me here in the USA!

 

Very thoughtful reply...

Almost every manufacturer is getting into the electrification direction///

In fact VW has proposed to install and pay for charging stations along the major freeways in much of the midwest . I found the article of interest..but there is very limited discussion on long term viability...

cost considerations..inffrastructure..

And for what end purpose.. to save fuel costs...

Doubtful ..

 

Yeah ... about VW ... isn't that the same company that had massive fines by the DOE/EPA for cheating in diesel emissions by secretly having two ECM programs in their cars? One for the road and one for the emission "test"?
Now I'm supposed to trust their plan for electric cars?
Screw VW and that electric pony they want us to ride.

 

Understood...But this state has a long history of German Immigrants and VW/Audi /Porsche have large dealership numerics here..Most likely the state will allow these recharging stations /They are allready in Most WallMart Parking lots here.

Good Article on the VW plan..

They will be at the forefront along with the Japanese//Ford says they are getting out of most passenger vehicles


http://www.autonews.com/article/2018...rging-vehicles

 

You do realize that Ford is now accused of the same EPA cheating, right?

 

Yes..It appears to have been commonplace across much of the automotive industry..Bosch as well

 

Have you seen the Tesla tractor?

If it was affordable that would make a great 5th wheel hauler.

 

Where I live you can Fall Over Tesla's None Of Them are affordable...And I thought Truck Prices Were high

 

I really like my Nissan Leaf 100% electric vehicle. It's great for what it is: a commuter car. To have fun, go places and haul stuff I use my F-350.

I agree with the sentiment above. The more EV's there are, the more petroleum based fuel there will be for my F-350. Until there is recharging embedded in the roadways I don't see any way to eliminate the internal combustion engine.

 

Yes - I have heard of the accusations. And Fiat/Chrysler/Ram. And others.
Being accused of cheating is different from actually admitting to it and having to recall vehicles and pay massive fines.
If Ford admits to it, recalls vehicles and pays the fine, then I'll pay attention.

 

The reason than so many diesel manufacturers are cheating the system is the EPA regulations were too far ahead of the technology. You could make it clean, or you could make the engine work and last, but not both. Before DEF came onto the scene emissions component malfunction were a common thing. DEF has helped that a lot, but at the risk of more things to break.

Caterpillar completely got out of the over the road engine business because their engines were practically worthless in 2008. They tried to not use EGR, and it bit them. Early International MaxxForce engines are also pretty much junk because they used too much EGR, and the resulting soot destroyed the engines. Somehow International was able to get approval to program out a lot of the massive amounts of EGR on their older engines, and redesigned the newers engines to use DEF.

During the dark diesel years of 2008 - 20012, you can pretty much guarantee if a company had a great performing, low breakdown diesel, they were cheating somewhere.