FORD F-150 EV announced

[ldjessee00]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Still holds true today. Horses can go lots of places where wheeled vehicles can't. Even when they can go the same places, you can pretty well trust a trained horse to do its part of the job, where with a dirt bike or quad, you have to be driving it every second.

Yet, I do not think anyone is going to convince people today that 'ICE vehicles are impractical and will not overtake horses in some situations, so they are never going to be as good as horses in almost all other situations in the future...' but it feels like that is what is being said about electrically driven vehicles in this thread by some people.

I realize that there are some technical issues to be resolved or improved to make EVs better than ICE in all ways, but I think it is completely in the realm of physics and science... and within the near future, say 10 years.

These improvements will not require something to be changed fundamentally or drastically, just improvements that are already working in lab and controlled settings.

Companies are pouring billions of dollars into battery technology, electric motors are very efficient now, so I just am surprised about the resistance to EVs in this forum.

[thingstodo]

Originally Posted by ldjessee00

...
I realize that there are some technical issues to be resolved or improved to make EVs better than ICE in all ways, but I think it is completely in the realm of physics and science... and within the near future, say 10 years.
...
Companies are pouring billions of dollars into battery technology, electric motors are very efficient now, so I just am surprised about the resistance to EVs in this forum.

This is a pretty tough crowd to pitch solutions to. Many of us, myself included, appear to be pretty good at finding exceptions where something won't work.

Electric vehicles are presently good as a second vehicle almost anywhere.

As your only vehicle, they have some limitations. If you are a believer and have drunk the koolaid, you can fix that with effort, time, or money.

If you are not a believer and want it to make sense economically, you have a bit to wait for a solution or for the pricing to come down.

If you want it to work for *EVERY* situation .. even gas and diesel don't work right now, since they need the infrastructure in place, AND electricity to pump the fuel at the service station. During a disaster, few stations have that ability.

Don't be discouraged. If this group can't find anything wrong with a solution, we'll make something up to complain about!

[JSH]

Originally Posted by thingstodo

Here's a link to the story if you are interested

https://newatlas.com/electriq-global...er-fuel/57488/

The “fuel” is 3% hydrogen / 97% carrying fluid.

Hydrogen has an energy density of 10 MJ / kg
Gasoline has an energy density of 34 MJ / kg

So a kg of this mystery “fuel” will have roughly 1% of the energy in the equivalent amount of gasoline.

I see why they haven’t had any success marketing their technology.

[RedDevil]

Reminds me of the NanoFlowcell.
Which does not get much out lately. I wonder why, it sure looked promising.

Energy density of a fluid is not that important if that fluid is safe to handle, and safe to spill. Gas tanks need to be very safe for obvious reasons. What would happen if the 'hydrogen fluid' leaks out? Does it burn, do bystanders die, or is it

safe as milk

?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by ldjessee00

I realize that there are some technical issues to be resolved or improved to make EVs better than ICE in all ways, but I think it is completely in the realm of physics and science... and within the near future, say 10 years.

These improvements will not require something to be changed fundamentally or drastically, just improvements that are already working in lab and controlled settings.

Companies are pouring billions of dollars into battery technology, electric motors are very efficient now, so I just am surprised about the resistance to EVs in this forum.

Don't count me as part of the resistance; I'm among the biggest fans of all things electric. Because I love electric stuff so much, I'm among the biggest critics of the things that suck about them.

Batteries contain 1% of the energy as gasoline by weight. That's not a trivial fact. Then a battery is essentially a fuel tank; an enormously expensive fuel tank. It's also bulky and heavy. It's a fuel tank that shouldn't be filled completely or drained all the way, because it accelerates capacity loss. Finally, it's a fuel tank that requires thermal management. It can't get too hot or too cold.

There was a guy on another forum saying he wanted a EV truck that goes 500 miles. As I explained, a 500 mile range pickup would have a 250 kWh battery. This battery alone would cost $32,000 to manufacture (who knows the retail cost). It would weigh 4,000 lbs, or more than a typical sedan. The whole rig would be somewhere around 10,000 lbs.

The bigger the battery, the more capacity that is lost over time (degradation is roughly in proportion to battery size).

Tell me which chemical equations tell you that replacing ICE with battery technology is within the realm of physics and science. Stating it doesn't make it so.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by ldjessee00

It is funny, that this idea that electrically driven vehicles will not work for every situation. There were similar arguments made about fuel powered vehicles over horses 100 years ago. And seemed to hold true until WW2.

In the span of 50 years, the ICE was developed until it was far superior in all most all metrics that it was silly to think that a horse would out perform any ICE truck or other vehicle. Farm equipment, transportation, even logging switched over from horses (where you would think the remoteness, the removal from readily available fuel source, etc would have kept horses as a much better means of transportation).

While a horse can eat grass, and eventually its manure can become a feedstock for biogas to feed an ICE, other options which can still be used to power a vehicle depending on engine tech are brewing oneself's own moonshine or rely on straight vegetable oil as fuel. Eventually for a rural operator it might be more justifiable than blowing money on electric agricultural machinery, for example.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by wdb

The people I know who own F150s or similar sure as hell do. They need a truck that they can depend on which is why the F150 is a perennial sales leader. It works, and when it doesn't there are 10,000 places in a 20 mile radius that can make it work again, and they're all in competition so they all know they have to do it cheap. Now, make that truck an EV. Boom.

Honestly I'd love to see it though. I think if Ford can make it rock solid, with enough range to get through 1.5 typical workdays, and maybe throw some kind of multi-10s-of-thousands-of-miles powertrain warranty, and toss in some incentives for at home (or at small/medium company HQ) recharging, then they might be able to change the game. Just like they did with aluminum body panels.

An EV pickup is a concession to at least,CAFE and climate change.
For CAFE calculation purposes,automakers are allowed to factor in an EV at 135-mpge.So the F-150 will allow Ford to sell more gas-guzzlers.
As to climate change,perhaps those who will be the early adopter F-150 EV purchasers,wouldn't necessarily prioritize fuel price as a deciding factor in the purchase.They'd be going for zero carbon.That's what I mean about their calculus.
Many of my neighbors are contractors.The more they spend on fuel the less federal income tax they owe.
https://ecomodder.com/forum/a

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Many of my neighbors are contractors.The more they spend on fuel the less federal income tax they owe.

OTOH, the less they have to spend on fuel (and vehicle purchase & maintenance), the more chance they have of underbidding the other contractors and getting the jobs.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Many of my neighbors are contractors.The more they spend on fuel the less federal income tax they owe.

So pay $1 in fuel to save $0.25 in taxes? Doesn't sound profitable to me.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by aerohead

An EV pickup is a concession to at least,CAFE and climate change.

Since the F-150 is mostly targetted to Americans, with a smaller availability through official imports on foreign markets and some grey-imports elsewhere which attracts more people trying to get in touch with the American Way of Life instead of addressing an actual hauling need, I guess CAFE has a greater weight on that matter than any concern about climate change. I don't see any tree-hugger buying an F-150.

As to climate change,perhaps those who will be the early adopter F-150 EV purchasers,wouldn't necessarily prioritize fuel price as a deciding factor in the purchase.They'd be going for zero carbon.That's what I mean about their calculus.

Maybe it will be more attractive at least in a shorter term for the fleet market addressing the needs of businesses which effectively need a truck but want to look cool in the eyes of those tree-huggers who are most likely to never buy a truck.