All-electric RV Coming to Market

Scarecrow

2017 LTV Unity Murphy Bed
Yes! I like the looks of that truck. But it's not an RV. Might make a good pulling iption for a 5th Wheel setup.

But one must wonder how long it will be before we start seeing fees at campgrounds for recharging an electric vehicle.

The surprising thing to me is the cost of running anything electric is nearly the same as a gas-powered option. Or, I should say, NOT "free".
 
Last edited:

Graphite Dave

Dave Orton
Yes! I like the looks of that truck. But it's not an RV. Might make a good pulling iption for a 5th Wheel setup.

But one must wonder how long it will be before we start seeing fees at campgrounds for recharging an electric vehicle.

The surprising thing to me is the cost of running anything electric is nearly the same as a gas-powered option. Or, I should say, NOT "free".
I know that the truck is not an RV but the drive looks like it could work in an RV.
 

gltrimble

2017 170 4x4
The state with the most registered all electric vehicles is Washington followed by Hawaii then California. .


Hummm....

In 2016 more electric vehicles were sold in California than all other states combined, almost 74,000. Washington was 5,400 and Hawaii was 1,200.



As of July, 2018 California had over 350,000 electric vehicles registered.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

TwoClinks

2016 Unity TB
I stand corrected. Looking back, my facts were from 2014. Californians are buying half of what Tesla builds. An all electric RV might work as long as you stay close in California with that many EVs registered.



Hummm....

In 2016 more electric vehicles were sold in California than all other states combined, almost 74,000. Washington was 5,400 and Hawaii was 1,200.



As of July, 2018 California had over 350,000 electric vehicles registered.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Klipstr

2018 Wonder FTB
Hummm....

In 2016 more electric vehicles were sold in California than all other states combined, almost 74,000. Washington was 5,400 and Hawaii was 1,200.



As of July, 2018 California had over 350,000 electric vehicles registered.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
And partially paid for by all of us whether we drive them or not...
 

glasseye

Well-known member
The surprising thing to me is the cost of running anything electric is nearly the same as a gas-powered option. Or, I should say, NOT "free".
A friend in the Bay Area tells me that his Volt is delivering about 250mpg equivalent.
 

autostaretx

Erratic Member
The surprising thing to me is the cost of running anything electric is nearly the same as a gas-powered option. Or, I should say, NOT "free".
The 2019 Nissan Leaf has a 40 KWh battery ... so at (let's say) 15 cents per KWh that's $6 to go 150 miles (at best)

At $3 per gallon, you'd have to be getting 75 mpg to match that.

--dick (who pays 13.5 cents per KWh for the second tier of power)
p.s. a 2018 Tesla Model 3 has a 75 KWh battery. Theoretically 300 mile range.
 
Last edited:

woundedpig

2018 Unity MB
I'm not clear on exactly how electric cars are helping to save the planet at this moment in time. Electricity for charging cars is only as clean as the fuel that’s used to produce it. We don't have the electrical grid to support any rapid transition to electric cars. Uncle Sam has basically subsidized fossil fuel-powered electric cars in terms of where the power from charging comes from.

Electric-vehicle makers have done something clever and interesting:. They have replaced visible carbon emissions with carbon emissions that you can’t see, at least not coming out of the tailpipe. In fact, if an electric vehicle is charged with electricity from a coal-fired power plant, it emits 15 ounces of carbon per mile, a full 3 ounces per mile more than a similar gasoline-powered vehicle. Nickel or lithium mining results in greenhouse-gas emissions, environmental pollution, and human-health impacts. Manufacturing emissions for electric cars are 68 percent higher than for conventional cars.
Why should government subsidies for electric cars have no end point in mind? Should they go on forever?

Electric cars are not yet the nirvana solution that some people think. We desperately need new, cheaper battery technology and power production methods.
 

avanti

2022 Ford Transit 3500
I'm not clear on exactly how electric cars are helping to save the planet at this moment in time. Electricity for charging cars is only as clean as the fuel that’s used to produce it. We don't have the electrical grid to support any rapid transition to electric cars. Uncle Sam has basically subsidized fossil fuel-powered electric cars in terms of where the power from charging comes from.

Electric-vehicle makers have done something clever and interesting:. They have replaced visible carbon emissions with carbon emissions that you can’t see, at least not coming out of the tailpipe. In fact, if an electric vehicle is charged with electricity from a coal-fired power plant, it emits 15 ounces of carbon per mile, a full 3 ounces per mile more than a similar gasoline-powered vehicle. Nickel or lithium mining results in greenhouse-gas emissions, environmental pollution, and human-health impacts. Manufacturing emissions for electric cars are 68 percent higher than for conventional cars.
Why should government subsidies for electric cars have no end point in mind? Should they go on forever?

Electric cars are not yet the nirvana solution that some people think. We desperately need new, cheaper battery technology and power production methods.
OF COURSE they aren't "the solution". But, they are a necessary component of the solution. We have to put all the pieces in place, and we can't do it all at once. No offense intended, but I find that (frequently stated) argument to be completely specious.
 

Graphite Dave

Dave Orton
...and helping to save the planet whether we live there or not.
If you really want to save the planet then I would suggest reducing the number of people that are the cause of the environmental problems.

Less people = less vehicles, less industry less deforestation etc. etc.

Vehicle design is not the problem.
 

woundedpig

2018 Unity MB
find that (frequently stated) argument to be completely specious.
Sorry, you may think the argument is specious but this is in fact the current reality. I listed only a few of the environmental impact issues that are part and parcel of electric car production and everyday use. There are many more scientific and policy ironies if you look deeper. Not every environmental governmental intervention has a happy ending (e.g., ethanol, biofuels) in terms of environmental impact, carbon footprint, 3rd world effects, etc.
 

autostaretx

Erratic Member
I believe Lithium mining is actually fairly low on the carbon-impact scale.
Primarily it's done by pumping up (or manually extracting the crust) the brine from the various Salars (salt flats) in Argentina, Chile and Bolivia.
Then it's left out for the sun to evaporate the moisture.
After 6 months of drying, the result is lithium carbonate which is trucked (or trained) for further processing.

Compare and contrast to steel production, with its coke-fired converters.

Either way, the lithium is a one-shot deal and recyclable when the battery dies.

Electric car production uses about 2% of the world's lithium mining.
At present, pure Lithium is about $100 per kilogram ( ref ) ... with prices expected to drop.
Lithium carbonate is currently about $13375 per ton.
( ref for some of those numbers)

--dick
p.s. i've also seen far more "optimistic" carbon efficiencies cited for the final end use in electric cars (from coal plants) compared to gasoline. (but i'll need to dig them up so i can cite references)
 
Last edited:

avanti

2022 Ford Transit 3500
Sorry, you may think the argument is specious but this is in fact the current reality. I listed only a few of the environmental impact issues that are part and parcel of electric car production and everyday use. There are many more scientific and policy ironies if you look deeper. Not every environmental governmental intervention has a happy ending (e.g., ethanol, biofuels) in terms of environmental impact, carbon footprint, 3rd world effects, etc.
Did you even read my comment?
 

TwoClinks

2016 Unity TB
California is heading towards mandated green energy by taking advantage of state & federal government tax incentives. About 1 in 5 new homes being built incorporate solar. Lots of large solar & wind projects. They seem to pride themselves in that effort and a select few members of this forum will argue the points of EV ownership.
 

woundedpig

2018 Unity MB
For lithium mining, it is not mainly the carbon footprint - it is the overall environmental cost. Lithium mining using the brine/surface drying method is rather cheap and effective, but it uses approximately 500,000 gallons per ton of lithium. In Chile’s Salar de Atacama, mining activities consume 65 per cent of the region’s water. That is having a big impact on local farmers – who grow quinoa and herd llamas – in an area where some communities already have to get water driven in from elsewhere.
There’s also the potential – as occurred in Tibet – for toxic chemicals to leak from the evaporation pools into the water supply. These include chemicals, including hydrochloric acid, which are used in the processing of lithium into a form that can be sold, as well as those waste products that are filtered out of the brine at each stage.
Research in Nevada found impacts on fish as far as 150 miles downstream from a lithium processing operation. Research in Australia found that only two per cent of the country’s 3,300 tons of lithium-ion waste was recycled.

Cobalt and nickel, also used in electric cars, may be even more problematic. Cobalt is found in huge quantities in the Democratic Republic of Congo and central Africa, and hardly anywhere else. You can literally just dig up the land and find cobalt, so there’s a very strong motivation to dig it up and sell it, and a a result there is motivation for unsafe and unethical behavior. The Congo is home to ‘artisanal mines’, where cobalt is extracted from the ground by hand, often using child labor, without protective equipment.

What is needed is new battery chemistries that replace cobalt, lithium, and nickel with more common and less toxic materials, such as the sodium chemistry being researched and developed at the University of Texas. It is interesting that John B. Goodenough, inventor of the lithium cobalt oxide and lithium iron phosphate chemistries used in the lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery, is working on this - he has stated his regret for the environmental issues his batteries have caused.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact
 

woundedpig

2018 Unity MB
Did you even read my comment?
Pete, yes I did. The word specious refers to a fallacious argument having only the ring of truth. However, what I posted about energy production for electric car usage is true and the reality now and for the foreseeable future. Until the power grid has huge inputs from other, not-yet-ready-for-prime-time technologies, electricity from fossil fuels will continue to charge electric cars. Not everyone's power comes from hydroelectric, nuclear, etc. Only a small fraction comes from wind/solar. Throw in the significant overall impact of extracting the exotic minerals for dense energy battery chemistries, and it is my feeling that electric cars do not have even a neutral impact.
We can disagree on this and it's ok.
 

avanti

2022 Ford Transit 3500
Pete, yes I did. The word specious refers to a fallacious argument having only the ring of truth. However, what I posted about energy production for electric car usage is true and the reality now and for the foreseeable future. Until the power grid has huge inputs from other, not-yet-ready-for-prime-time technologies, electricity from fossil fuels will continue to charge electric cars. Not everyone's power comes from hydroelectric, nuclear, etc. Only a small fraction comes from wind/solar. Throw in the significant overall impact of extracting the exotic minerals for dense energy battery chemistries, and it is my feeling that electric cars do not have even a neutral impact.
We can disagree on this and it's ok.
I don't disagree with all of what you say above. My response (and the use of the word "specious") referred specifically to the argument that "we currently generate electricity in dirty ways so electric cars are currently pointless" (forgive my caricature of your point). I see that argument as being precisely specious. Nobody really believes that electric cars alone are "green". They are worth building because they solve a part (probably the hardest part) of the problem. They are necessary but not sufficient. Imagine the opposite case: Suppose we were 100% solar but hadn't started on electric cars. In that hypothetical, we would STILL be many years away from clean transportation. I posted my "did you even read..." message because your response seemed to ignore the only point I was trying to make.

BTW: Give credit where credit is due: Tesla does own one of the largest solar installation companies in the world.
 

Top Bottom