C&D EV Tow Test

[shawndoggy]

1 minute ago, Slayer said:

I agree.  There are several other manufacturers engineering and testing hydrogen ICE's as well.  I find it fascinating and I believe it's a much better solution that 100% EV. 

It has been a LOOOOONG time since I looked into hydrogen, but isn't it kinda like corn gas / biofuels, where the cost of producing it is a net loss?  As a means of energy transfer / distribution / storage I get it (quick refills, transportable, etc), but it takes a ton of energy to create hydrogen.  So till that nuke plant is online, it means burning more coal / natural gas to create the hydrogen than to just use the same electricity charge a battery.

Interesting competing technologies, each with their own plusses and minuses for sure.

[justgary]

52 minutes ago, Tsumi said:

Rail is one of the worst examples you can bring up because it is one of the easiest transportation modes to electrify. Many countries have already done it;

Those countries also happen to get about 25% of their power from nuclear production.  They are also much smaller countries than ours, with much less wilderness between cities.  Running electric trains across the southwest US would take a huge infrastructure change.

[spikew919]

28 minutes ago, barefootpaul said:

Plenty of 50 year old electric motors still rocking. I don't see a lot of 50 year old cars running 50 year old gas

Battery progress needs to be made for sure, but it can be. Who really used battery powered power tools 30 years ago? They could barely drive a screw. Today I have a decade old Makita drill with original batteries that is plenty powerful and still holds a charge. Not the same as an EV, but I suspect the trajectory will be similar.

Should have specified. Name one battery powered motor in a harsh environment daily that sets up and will go back to normal use without havimg to spend more than just replacing to get back going. 
 

crazy story. 8 years Was clearing  land for a guy and he was selling all old tractors and implements that were grown up in trees for scrap iron. Had a buddy that wanted one of the tractors. Was an old long tractor with a front bucket, sitting there more than 30 years as it had a oak tree grown around the hoses on bucket that was over 30 years old. Cut tree on both sides loaded it in trailer and hauled it to buddy he pulled it off trailer with me on it. No tires just rims. I popped it in high gear and it rolled engine over twice and started on the 30 or more year old diesel in it.  Then had to stall it out with brakes since kill lever on was rusted apart 
 

 

Edited September 9, 2022 by spikew919

[spikew919]

43 minutes ago, shawndoggy said:

It has been a LOOOOONG time since I looked into hydrogen, but isn't it kinda like corn gas / biofuels, where the cost of producing it is a net loss?  As a means of energy transfer / distribution / storage I get it (quick refills, transportable, etc), but it takes a ton of energy to create hydrogen.  So till that nuke plant is online, it means burning more coal / natural gas to create the hydrogen than to just use the same electricity charge a battery.

Interesting competing technologies, each with their own plusses and minuses for sure.

 

my understanding is cummins is splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen And burning the hydrogen.  If memory from chemistry classes serves me doesn’t burning hydrogen and oxygen together precipitate water. I know some gets used as energy but seems like a pretty efficient set up if perfected. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by spikew919

[justgary]

2 minutes ago, spikew919 said:

splitting water into hydrogen and water

Or more likely, hydrogen and oxygen, which then would recombine as water when you burn the hydrogen.  The pesky part is that it takes a lot of energy to split valent bonds, and water happens to have two of them.  The other pesky part is that keeping the hydrogen from recombining with the oxygen immediately is hard to do.  Of course, you can cheat and split hydrocarbon fuels, so about 85% of hydrogen is produced by splitting natural gas.  Is that renewable energy?

Oh, yet another pesky part is actually storing hydrogen.  It is such a tiny molecule that it slips between the molecules of nearly any solid material, so building a storage tank for hydrogen is very hard to do.  The hydrogen has to be sequestered by reacting it with a storage medium, which then completely changes the energy equation and the energy density.

Oh, the troubles of using cheap and abundant energy....

[spikew919]

32 minutes ago, justgary said:

Or more likely, hydrogen and oxygen, which then would recombine as water when you burn the hydrogen.  The pesky part is that it takes a lot of energy to split valent bonds, and water happens to have two of them.  The other pesky part is that keeping the hydrogen from recombining with the oxygen immediately is hard to do.  Of course, you can cheat and split hydrocarbon fuels, so about 85% of hydrogen is produced by splitting natural gas.  Is that renewable energy?

Oh, yet another pesky part is actually storing hydrogen.  It is such a tiny molecule that it slips between the molecules of nearly any solid material, so building a storage tank for hydrogen is very hard to do.  The hydrogen has to be sequestered by reacting it with a storage medium, which then completely changes the energy equation and the energy density.

Oh, the troubles of using cheap and abundant energy....

Yeah I typed water, instead of oxygen 🤦🏻‍♂️ My tiny brain gets ahead of my fingers sometimes. 🤣🤣

what people on the new electric side can’t seem to understand. Is that it takes the same amount of energy to move the same amount of mass. Across the board no matter where energy comes from. And making said energy makes the same amount of byproduct. You have to take the sum of all the byproduct. For instance the byproducts from mining for the lithium for the batteries, needs to be considered and a percentage alotted to each battery as does the effort to get crude should be allotted to every product and gallon of product, plastic, pleather, wax, paraffin, paint, the list goes on and on. 🤷🏻‍♂️even the electric car gets its allotment from oil and gas and the lithium mining process. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by spikew919

[barefootpaul]

51 minutes ago, justgary said:

Or more likely, hydrogen and oxygen, which then would recombine as water when you burn the hydrogen.  The pesky part is that it takes a lot of energy to split valent bonds, and water happens to have two of them.  The other pesky part is that keeping the hydrogen from recombining with the oxygen immediately is hard to do.  Of course, you can cheat and split hydrocarbon fuels, so about 85% of hydrogen is produced by splitting natural gas.  Is that renewable energy?

Oh, yet another pesky part is actually storing hydrogen.  It is such a tiny molecule that it slips between the molecules of nearly any solid material, so building a storage tank for hydrogen is very hard to do.  The hydrogen has to be sequestered by reacting it with a storage medium, which then completely changes the energy equation and the energy density.

Oh, the troubles of using cheap and abundant energy....

I met a guy who engineers gas recovery systems from cow manure. They pump it back into the natural gas grid right from the farm. Crazy cool.

[hethj7]

7 minutes ago, Slayer said:

 

I agree.  There are several other manufacturers engineering and testing hydrogen ICE's as well.  I find it fascinating and I believe it's a much better solution that 100% EV. 

H2 is fascinating but I am not sure how it plays out.  Do you know how it is typically produced? By reforming natural gas (a fossil fuel) or electrolysis (which is a very power intensive process currently).   And to densely store it, you liquefy it or store as a gas which is also costly.  You can also crack ammonia to get Hydrogen, but the ammonia still has to be produced to start with.  

[Slayer]

5 minutes ago, hethj7 said:

H2 is fascinating but I am not sure how it plays out.  Do you know how it is typically produced? By reforming natural gas (a fossil fuel) or electrolysis (which is a very power intensive process currently).   And to densely store it, you liquefy it or store as a gas which is also costly.  You can also crack ammonia to get Hydrogen, but the ammonia still has to be produced to start with.  

It is fascinating.  You're 100% correct.  It's not immediately viable, either but will be interesting to see how / if it develops. 

[BlindSquirrel]

Yeah, I invested in a company that supposedly has the H2 transportation side figured out. AMMPF is the ticker.

[Slayer]

FWIW......I'm in a meeting with this company now......

 

[Tsumi]

3 hours ago, justgary said:

Please explain how gas and oil are "artificially cheap."  As an oil stock owner I see that my dividends are still rolling in, which suggests that they are selling oil at a price that allows them to make a profit.

On the farming side, I'm tickled by the studies that show that controlled (prescribed) burns in timberlands are carbon neutral, yet beef production is not.  Even more interesting is the current rush to feed kelp to cattle to reduce their methane emissions.  What does harvesting all that kelp do to the environment?

 

3 hours ago, Slayer said:

Great points.  But the Government is going to make it extremely painful and costly to own and operate ICE vehicles.  They've already said it and have been quoted as saying on various outlets that the only way to make the move to EV is to inflict pain on the populace and that's exactly what they intend to do.  Great idea.  Seems wonderful to punish the populace....s

Why is rail a terrible example?  Rail has been utilizing hybrid drivetrains for decades.  The point of the example is that heavy, long haul loads will not be commercially viable for decades.  And, rail is still heavily reliant upon fossil fuel ICE.  It's a wonderful example.

How is oil artificially cheap?  I don't understand that statement.  I further don't understand the suggestion that it needs to change.  That change should be driven by market forces, not a central authority, which is what it seems like you're suggesting.

I agree.  There are several other manufacturers engineering and testing hydrogen ICE's as well.  I find it fascinating and I believe it's a much better solution that 100% EV. 

Gas and oil are artificially cheap because of government subsidies and the fact that the price you pay for the vehicle and at the pump do not take into account the environmental impact. Same thing with plastic. No private company will factor in environmental impact costs if they can help it (see the past several hundred years of human history) so it is up to the government or some other central authority to do it. And yes, to get people to do the right thing, you either make it cheaper to do the right thing or more costly to do the wrong thing. It's the only method that works on a large scale.

Rail is a terrible example of a transportation industry that would be hard to convert to electricity. It is laughably easy to set up power distribution lines to electrify trains, at least from a technical perspective.

There is one primary reason I see hydrogen as not being viable for most transportation needs: efficiency. From power source to fuel cell, hydrogen energy efficiency is typically in the 25-40% range: production is ~75% efficient, large energy losses due to compression, and fuel cells max out around 60% efficiency. If you burn it instead in an ICE, that efficiency drops down to 25%, making your total efficiency less than 15%. Think about that: for every 1000 watts you put in, you get less than 150 watts of energy in a hydrogen ICE. You'll also need massive tanks to hold the necessary amount of hydrogen. Biodiesel made from agricultural waste would make more sense than hydrogen and is something I fully support.

[Tsumi]

2 hours ago, spikew919 said:

Yeah I typed water, instead of oxygen 🤦🏻‍♂️ My tiny brain gets ahead of my fingers sometimes. 🤣🤣

what people on the new electric side can’t seem to understand. Is that it takes the same amount of energy to move the same amount of mass. Across the board no matter where energy comes from. And making said energy makes the same amount of byproduct. You have to take the sum of all the byproduct. For instance the byproducts from mining for the lithium for the batteries, needs to be considered and a percentage alotted to each battery as does the effort to get crude should be allotted to every product and gallon of product, plastic, pleather, wax, paraffin, paint, the list goes on and on. 🤷🏻‍♂️even the electric car gets its allotment from oil and gas and the lithium mining process. 

Average ICE efficiency is 20-30%. That's not factoring into account losses due to braking and idling, which are greatly reduced with hybrids. Coal power plants are typically 35% efficient and can reach almost 50% efficiency. The most advanced natural gas plants can reach 60%. BEVs will also take advantage of any renewable power sources on the network. The higher efficiency of power plants vs ICEs is what makes BEVs better in terms of energy usage even if 100% of the power comes from fossil fuels. Besides, if you don't start somewhere, you won't get anywhere.

[Slayer]

4 minutes ago, Tsumi said:

 

Gas and oil are artificially cheap because of government subsidies and the fact that the price you pay for the vehicle and at the pump do not take into account the environmental impact. Same thing with plastic. No private company will factor in environmental impact costs if they can help it (see the past several hundred years of human history) so it is up to the government or some other central authority to do it. And yes, to get people to do the right thing, you either make it cheaper to do the right thing or more costly to do the wrong thing. It's the only method that works on a large scale.

Rail is a terrible example of a transportation industry that would be hard to convert to electricity. It is laughably easy to set up power distribution lines to electrify trains, at least from a technical perspective.

There is one primary reason I see hydrogen as not being viable for most transportation needs: efficiency. From power source to fuel cell, hydrogen energy efficiency is typically in the 25-40% range: production is ~75% efficient, large energy losses due to compression, and fuel cells max out around 60% efficiency. If you burn it instead in an ICE, that efficiency drops down to 25%, making your total efficiency less than 15%. Think about that: for every 1000 watts you put in, you get less than 150 watts of energy in a hydrogen ICE. You'll also need massive tanks to hold the necessary amount of hydrogen. Biodiesel made from agricultural waste would make more sense than hydrogen and is something I fully support.

Gas and oil are subsidized.  Same is true with EV.  I don't understand the argument.

Rail is not a terrible example because our country can't support the power necessary to electrify the rail network anytime soon.  I think it's laughable that you find it laughably easy to do so without first considering A) the generational needs and location of generation facilities and B) the cost and time necessary to install the transmission and distribution equipment.  You're only seeing one side of the equation.  T & D Costs are no joke and the necessary generational capacity will take forever to get through the regulatory red tape.  I've been involved in power generation projects my entire career and the demand necessary for this as well as mass adoption of EV will take a very long time to develop unless the regulatory environment changes, which doesn't seem to be on the horizon any time soon.

You make great points about hydrogen.  I still find it fascinating.  I too would support further development of biodiesel made from agricultural waste.    

[Tsumi]

2 hours ago, Slayer said:

Gas and oil are subsidized.  Same is true with EV.  I don't understand the argument.

Rail is not a terrible example because our country can't support the power necessary to electrify the rail network anytime soon.  I think it's laughable that you find it laughably easy to do so without first considering A) the generational needs and location of generation facilities and B) the cost and time necessary to install the transmission and distribution equipment.  You're only seeing one side of the equation.  T & D Costs are no joke and the necessary generational capacity will take forever to get through the regulatory red tape.  I've been involved in power generation projects my entire career and the demand necessary for this as well as mass adoption of EV will take a very long time to develop unless the regulatory environment changes, which doesn't seem to be on the horizon any time soon.

You make great points about hydrogen.  I still find it fascinating.  I too would support further development of biodiesel made from agricultural waste.    

I've said it three times now. Environmental impact costs are not built into fossil fuel prices (and nearly every other product for that matter), and they need to be. If not now, in the near future. Otherwise the next generations will be paying for it through more intense natural disasters, Superfund sites, etc.

Railway electrification doesn't need additional/better technology, unlike electric trucks. It's just a matter of will.

You are absolutely right about power generation issues. We should be building more nuclear power plants, especially fast reactor plants, not decommissioning them. However, none of that is a reason to stop the march towards electrification of transportation, especially considering the extremes the weather has gone to the last few years. If we're talking about tech available now, we should be transitioning to BEVs for personal vehicles biodiesel/other biofuels for long haul and industrial vehicles.

[justgary]

3 minutes ago, Tsumi said:

I've said it three times now. Environmental impact costs are not built into fossil fuel prices (and nearly every other product for that matter), and they need to be. If not now, in the near future. Otherwise the next generations will be paying for it through more intense natural disasters, Superfund sites, etc.

Railway electrification doesn't need additional/better technology, unlike electric trucks. It's just a matter of will.

You are absolutely right about power generation issues. We should be building more nuclear power plants, especially fast reactor plants, not decommissioning them. However, none of that is a reason to stop the march towards electrification of transportation, especially considering the extremes the weather has gone to the last few years. If we're talking about tech available now, we should be transitioning to BEVs for personal vehicles biodiesel/other biofuels for long haul and industrial vehicles.

It sounds like you drink somewhat more climate change Kool-Aid than I do.  Are you certain that battery technology for vehicles is actually more "green" than other alternatives, especially in the long run? 

Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) is amazing technology with a good combination of energy density and safety, but it has several traits that can severely limit its useful lifetime if exceeded, such as operational temperature range.

[spikew919]

34 minutes ago, Tsumi said:

I've said it three times now. Environmental impact costs are not built into fossil fuel prices (and nearly every other product for that matter), and they need to be. If not now, in the near future. Otherwise the next generations will be paying for it through more intense natural disasters, Superfund sites, etc.

Railway electrification doesn't need additional/better technology, unlike electric trucks. It's just a matter of will.

You are absolutely right about power generation issues. We should be building more nuclear power plants, especially fast reactor plants, not decommissioning them. However, none of that is a reason to stop the march towards electrification of transportation, especially considering the extremes the weather has gone to the last few years. If we're talking about tech available now, we should be transitioning to BEVs for personal vehicles biodiesel/other biofuels for long haul and industrial vehicles.

You do realize the enviro impact cost for the electric vehicle manufacturing with all oil products will also burden the Ev along with environmental impact of the lithium mining for battery, along with the huge environmental impact of a charging stations for instance like a Buccees. How big a footprint would it take to charge thousands of ev,s a day?? How many acres of cement parking drainage infrastructure are we talking for just one? Not to mention relying on big oil again to make all that. 

[MLBurns]

50 years ago they said cars would be flying in 50 years, now they say electric is the way to go. My son enjoyed his battery powered ride-on toys, but even he knows his gas powered 4wheeler would be the last one he would part with. I was in the renewables business for many years, I bet very few people know that a wind farm CAN NOT generate without a stable grid supporting it (power plant generation) to keep line voltage stabilized. I predict this will be something we look back in 5-10 years and laugh about.

[spikew919]

On 9/8/2022 at 4:15 PM, Nitrousbird said:

1914HP, 8.58 @ 167.5 MPH in the 1/4 mile bone stock.  So lame.  

 

 

[Nitrousbird]

16 hours ago, spikew919 said:

 

That's nice - I said nothing about a Tesla.

[spikew919]

3 hours ago, Nitrousbird said:

That's nice - I said nothing about a Tesla.

There I fixed it 🤣🤣

[carguy79ta]

On 9/9/2022 at 5:39 PM, Tsumi said:

Railway electrification doesn't need additional/better technology, unlike electric trucks. It's just a matter of will. 

Those massive diesel engines In the locomotives turn DC generators so the trains are actually run by electricity. However how would you provide electricity to the locos(without the diesel generators)? An overhead electrified catenary system like the lite rail metrolinks? Can't imagine the problems with that. Cross country rails, switch yards, etc. Not a matter of will..just not doable. Forget batteries. Along with trains..8000hp pushboats on our rivers..batteries won't work there either. Just my 2 cents.

[Nitrousbird]

15 hours ago, spikew919 said:

There I fixed it 🤣🤣

Again, that's nice.  I never mentioned 0-60 times either.

[Slayer]

10 hours ago, carguy79ta said:

Those massive diesel engines In the locomotives turn DC generators so the trains are actually run by electricity. However how would you provide electricity to the locos(without the diesel generators)? An overhead electrified catenary system like the lite rail metrolinks? Can't imagine the problems with that. Cross country rails, switch yards, etc. Not a matter of will..just not doable. Forget batteries. Along with trains..8000hp pushboats on our rivers..batteries won't work there either. Just my 2 cents.

Exactly!!  As it stands, current diesel locomotives are pretty efficient beasts.  I see no economically viable way of electrifying the railway system.  

[theloungelife]

Well this thread went crazy...  Just wanted to report in that in the past week I towed my A22 with my Rivian on a flat highway going 70mph and got 1.2 miles per killowatt hour.  Better than I thought I would get.  This is about 40% below normal non-towing efficiency.  

Edited September 15, 2022 by theloungelife