Ford F-150 All Electric Pickup Truck

[thingstodo]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

I still believe an electric F-150 will cater mostly to the fleet market. Unless some "extended-range" version fitted with an onboard genset is made available initially for the military, and then maybe all the rednecks would daydream about getting a similar drivetrain in a similar way to how the Jeep and subsequently the Hummer made their way into the civilian market...

I've never been accused of being 'normal' ... I'm in the market for an electric F-150.

300 km range, as a people mover, on a charge would be my minimum.

I could deal with 150 km range, hauling a 5500 lb trailer, against the wind, in the rain, and whatever other worst case conditions you can think of ... before charging for an hour or two.

[redpoint5]

Range is largely a function of speed, so that's very dependent on how patient the driver is or the willingness to impede traffic. 300km range probably roughly equates to a 120 kWh battery, or twice the capacity of the Chevy Bolt. For reference, the largest battery Tesla makes for their vehicles is 100 kWh. The retail cost of such a battery I would roughly estimate at $25,000. Start adding up the price of the truck itself from there.

120 kWh is probably about the right size for a pickup too, all things considered.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by thingstodo

I've never been accused of being 'normal' ... I'm in the market for an electric F-150.

I'd still rather look at plug-in hybrid than a purely-electric powertrain. But anyway, I'm sure most of the frequent users of this board wouldn't be deemed "normal". Including myself

[thingstodo]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

I'd still rather look at plug-in hybrid than a purely-electric powertrain. But anyway, I'm sure most of the frequent users of this board wouldn't be deemed "normal". Including myself

@redpoint - agreed that range is subjective. 300 km at highway speed (65 mph, 105 kph) so I am not a danger to myself and others on the crappy roads that we have here.

@cRiPpLe_rOoStEr - I would settle for a mild hybrid. The new 48V accessories available from at least 1 supplier (only read through the AVID info so far) appear attractive:
- heating, air conditioning, ventilation of the cabin
- water pump for cooling the engine
- heat exchanger/pump for battery pack conditioning
- electric power steering assist
- electric ABS .. stuff ..
- a couple of kwh in the 48V pack
- still needs a 12V lead acid battery for running the contactors and running the BMS ... for some reason ..

The 48V pack is just too low and too small to drive traction motors. IMHO you still need 400ish V for that.

But putting most stuff on 48V is a first step, I guess.

[Tahoe_Hybrid]

Originally Posted by Xist

I believe it was in the hybrid Tahoe thread that someone said hybridizing a truck or SUV would make more of a difference than replacing a sedan with a Prius, but how many Prii were, confusingly, bought as a status symbol?

I would rather well-to-do sheep bought a 50 MPG hunchback than a 6,000-pound ego hauler.

However, twenty years later we have the 25 MPG ego haulers, so what difference does it make?

Still gets way better MPG then my old car did I'd be lucky to get 12/22MPG in that old V6 2003 btw
i get 21MPG in the city and 25 on the highway


i all ready saved $2,000 in operating costs so far with 6 months of ownership

(that is including repair costs)
My repair costs has only been $40 for a map sensor
maintenance costs $114

it's only costing me about $0.178 Avg Price/Mile

it will have paid for it self in 3 1/2 years


My previous car was averaging about 200-300 in repairs per month or about 45 cents a mile... I would have had to throw another $5,000 at it just to get it to pass smog, as it have several simultaneous Failures...


I don't want a Prius, people might think I'm gay or something.



electric car changes nothing..


you will just be powering the car from Dirty Coal or nuclear power(which is the worst EMISSIONS of all time since it will last tens of thousands of years as a waste product)

[oil pan 4]

Nothing wrong with the prius. I can say for sure more straight white guys and soccer mom's drive them than anything.

Who cares where electricity comes from its way cheaper to power an EV than fuel an SUV. Plus everywhere in the country coals market share is being eaten away and replaced by wind and natural gas.

When spent nuclear fuel is recycled it doesn't last tens of thousands of years. The unwanted waste isotopes loose approximately 99.99% of their radioactivity after 40 years when the waste and fuel are seperated.
Then the recycled mixed oxide fuel is stable and ready to use for tens of thousands of years.
Our current plan is to use nuclear fuel once, which consumes up to 5% of the fissile elements, then put it all in "temporary storage" permanently. Which is the stupidest plan anyone would possibly come up with. Thank politicians and nimbly useful idiots.
The reason the spent fuel stays highly radioactive for so long is because the vast majority of the "spent fuel" is still fissile material.

[redpoint5]

I wonder if a reactor could be designed so that as fuel is spent, the rods are placed closer together, or perhaps a design where new rods are added on the outside, while aging rods are moved closer to the center over time, thereby maintaining the same power output but extracting more of the fissile material?

I'd never design something that utilizes only 5% of the available fuel.

Considering our power plants are based on 60s technology, it seems likely there is a lot of potential for making fission plants more cost effective and safe. There would be an initial outlay of engineering costs associated, but once that's done, the plans could be applied to any number of generators, amortizing the development costs.

[freebeard]

Rods are deprecated:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor

[redpoint5]

I have a vague notion of other schemes, such as pebble bed and MSR. No idea how they compete cost-wise... just talking aloud out of ignorance that it seems there ought to be a better way to design rod reactors to make better use of the fuel and to operate more safely.

My assumption was that rods were retired at 95% fissile material remaining because they can't sustain the reaction at the levels required to produce "full power". If that's the case, it seems there should be a way to move material around in such a way that a larger percentage of the material can be consumed while still safely producing full rated power output.

As an analogy, when I'm burning wet wood for a campfire, I stack a lot more wood on to better trap the heat and to dry out the wood that will burn later. It's an inferior grade of fuel due to the water content, but that is compensated by using more of it at a slower burn rate, and arranging it in a particular way...

this thread went way OT very quickly.

[oil pan 4]

Oh no 5% is best case, older designs may use only 3%.
It's safety and cost.
When the current nuclear fuel cycle was thought of the idea was the waste would be recycled as soon as the decay heat output calmed down enough for the spent fuel to be transported.
If the uranium were highly enriched and the reactor was of a 2 mode design where it could start as a PWR and switch to a BWR it could use up substantially more fissile material.
But the cost goes way up to do that.