This Solar-Powered RV Runs Without Fuel Or Charging Stations

That article was terrible, brutally self serving with no fact. But you're right, tesla is dong swimmingly. Just look at their junk bonds issued last month trading underwater a week later. Sure they don't need the subsidies and tax free deals. Lol I don't protest too much, just correct misleading stuff when I see it.

Any more info on the 6 panels that let a family drive for free? Where's yours, could it be because you know it doesn't work like that?
 
Last edited:
That article was terrible, brutally self serving with no fact. But you're right, tesla is dong swimmingly. Just look at their junk bonds issued last month trading underwater a week later. Sure they don't need the subsidies and tax free deals. Lol I don't protest too much, just correct misleading stuff when I see it.

Any more info on the 6 panels that let a family drive for free? Where's yours, could it be because you know it doesn't work like that?

Of course it's a bad interview when you are uncomfortable with the challenge of oil industry subsidies. That dirty little secret that is never talked about by the people who "tithe at the church of Tillerson".

Ford has a deal with Sun Power down in the states for a system that is 2.5 kW that they figure can supply 1000 miles per month for their EV. So based on that if you had 10 - 250 watt panels that would be 2.5 kW. The guy I know has 320w panels so you do the math.
http://www.plugincars.com/combining-solar-panels-electric-car-130161.html

And yes I know how the systems works .... It's not rocket science or Space-X science if you like. As for my EV, that will be my next purchase. Until then my family has a hybrid ... so half EV at this point. I think everyone in the world can see that EV's are coming and at some point you may just look around and notice them here on the island right now.
 
Last edited:
It's a bit of the chicken and the egg dilemma at this point looking forward. Something that was faced 100 years ago when people did not want buy cars until they knew there were fuelling stations. Oil companies didn't want to build petrol stations until people had cars. It took years for the market to sort it out but in the meantime some were content with their horse.

fun fact: Tesla is bringing online one supercharger multi bay station every day in North America it means to be ready for the when the model 3 goes into full production.
fun fact: Tesla opened an eight bay supercharger in Nanaimo last month.
https://www.cheknews.ca/tesla-superchargers-installed-nanaimo-363441/
It's absolutely true that it's a chicken-egg problem EXCEPT: we have no idea whether this chicken can lay eggs, or whether this egg will hatch a chicken.

It MAY be possible to scale up the EV industry to rival the ICE industry but we don't know, and we don't know what the problems with doing that will be.

Your analogy may be perfectly accurate: it might be just like oil companies and gas stations. We may well discover that attempting to scale up the EV industry becomes one of the largest environmental threats on the planet. We have no idea, and this is exactly the problem.

It's easy to call people Luddites if they look skeptically at new technologies. In fact, statistically speaking, you're far better off to be a skeptic of new technologies than an adherent, because most new technologies fail (much like the steam car, as I recall pointing out here not long ago). Not everyone who expresses skepticism is a Luddite, though: I work with new technologies every single day. I see new standards fade into obscurity approximately once every three months. I'm not a Luddite; my entire career depends on continuing technological development and I'm a part of that every day.

And as a result, I see an awful lot of blind alleys. We don't know if EVs are one of those or not, yet. The costs are not yet well understood.

At any rate, if we can all take Elon Musk's word that his company is successful and does not subsist on taxpayer subsidies, I guess we can also all take the word of every corporate head when they claim their companies are successful, beneficial, environmentally friendly, or otherwise beyond reproach.

Unless that only applies to information from Musk, of course.
 
I see a lot of people make the comparison between hydro carbons and the buggy whip. Only problem is when the gas powered vehicle came on strong it was a far superior mode of transportation than a horse and buggy such is not the case with EV's, they are not superior in any way. I would make the comparison more in relation to the microwave oven, they never did replace the home oven but rather were an addition to the home. I believe this will be the case of EV's a few driveways may have them as additions but it will be eons until they are a full replacement. I wonder if they will ever start to do the green house gas emitions foot print on some of these new products, from mining the recousreces to building these solar panels and batteries then onto the disposal of the the product ouch that's a bad one. But I doubt it, would go against the trend.
 
I see a lot of people make the comparison between hydro carbons and the buggy whip. Only problem is when the gas powered vehicle came on strong it was a far superior mode of transportation than a horse and buggy such is not the case with EV's, they are not superior in any way. I would make the comparison more in relation to the microwave oven, they never did replace the home oven but rather were an addition to the home. I believe this will be the case of EV's a few driveways may have them as additions but it will be eons until they are a full replacement. I wonder if they will ever start to do the green house gas emitions foot print on some of these new products, from mining the recousreces to building these solar panels and batteries then onto the disposal of the the product ouch that's a bad one. But I doubt it, would go against the trend.

Well I can think of one way that is easy to prove.
Quickest car that you can get off the showroom floor and can still drive to go get the groceries without busting the bank at the gas station. Notice the Corvette in that list?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration

Yes there have been many studies on the lifecycle of EV's compared to ICE on GHG's it turns out that it's just another FUD that some like to use to protect their industry.

As for the rest of your comments on the disposal of EV.... that's been worked out and the recycle/reuse of components is turning out to be a gold mine.
Quick question, since your in Northern Alberta, has there been any progress in the problem with the tailings ponds in Fort Mac?
 
Last edited:
Of course it's a bad interview when you are uncomfortable with the challenge of oil industry subsidies.

I'm not sure we read the same article, where did he challenge oil industry subsidies? All I can see is where he justified subsidies, from the article;

referencing incentive packages some of his companies received to build factories in states like Nevada. He said that the reason these incentives exist is because "voters want a particular thing to happen, and faster than it might otherwise occur." and Musk said that the only incentives he bargained for directly were state-level incentives.

So is he bargaining for them or are they what the voters want?

So we must be able to apply the same logic for the oil industry subsidies, they're there because that's what the voters want right? He never disputed that he received "incentives" as he put it all he said was; "The article makes it seem as though my company is getting some huge check, which is fundamentally false,"

So again let's apply that logic to the energy sector (or any other major industry in the western world), if it's not in the form of a check does that mean it's not a subsidy? Again what a terrible article, the guy is just worried what will happen to investors when they find out he's on the rocks without government help so he doesn't appreciate the article.

That dirty little secret that is never talked about by the people who "tithe at the church of Tillerson".

You know that refers to 100% of the planet right? Even if we want to be really generous and use the context of this article it's at least 99.2%, we'll pretend the .8% of EV owners don't rely on the energy sector. But I digress and besides everyone knows about the subsidies for energy and every other significant industry.

Quick question, since your in Northern Alberta, has there been any progress in the problem with the tailings ponds in Fort Mac?

More than has been made in Mongolia and China mining for the rare earth metals that build the EV's and wind turbines. They're awful now but just wait until production ramps up if the alternatives ever supply enough energy to be considered more than a rounding error. We know you don't care about that stuff over there though, you've said it on here before.

These threads always go the same way, someone comes on making big claims about how the big alternative is here, it's proven to be a false claim. Then along come the faithful to tell us well maybe it's not actually here yet but be patient it will be one day. Sounds like another dogma we're all familiar with that involves ignoring reality and keeping the faith because something big is just around the bend, the guys getting rich off it said so. These threads are pointless I know better but can't stand to see the blatant half truths and misinformation, have fun.
 
It's pointless having this conversation as apparently some do not see the shift that is here and where things are heading. I get it.... it's uncomfortable that what you thought was true seems to be turning upside down. EV's are here and they growing like no other segment in the market. I'm not the one betting on that, it's more like the car companies are the ones doing that. Who are we to argue with the fact that all the new investment in the auto world is going to electrification. If it's not pure EV then it's 48 volt mild hybrid or full on plugin hybrid (stepping stones to a full on EV). One thing for sure there will be an end to the ICE as we now know it. It's just a matter of time. Too many technologies are trending to make stopping this possible. Yes there will be vested interests trying as they may to slow it down but they will fail. The world is sick and tired of this FF treadmill with it's problems of pollution and corrupt leadership. Many may want to keep on that train but I see the world wanting another way.

Fun Fact: VW to invest 84 billion in EV and batteries.
https://electrek.co/2017/09/11/vw-massive-billion-investment-in-electric-cars-and-batteries/
 
Last edited:
True that the demand for unsustainable fossil fuels is there and will continue for awhile (how long it will be debatable and dependant on alternative energy technology advancements). However, changes are afoot in the world that are offering alternatives to fossil fuels that are more sustainable, and less harmful environmentally.

Doesn't take a 'rocket surgeon' to figure out that the trend over time will mean fossil fuel demand will most likely decrease and alternative sustainable energy sources will increase. I understand peoples' personal bias and myopia (especially those employed in the fossil fuel industry), but their opinions and desire for things not to change have little bearing on the changes that are starting to take place in the alternative and renewable energy sector around the globe. The times (as usual) are a chang'in
 
  • Like
Reactions: GLG
I have no idea about the tailing ponds, don't work in the oilsands and I live 400 miles away from Fort Mac. But you should know, it's mined to keep you and your city friends supplied in the products you desire and demand so it's good you keep an eye on it, it's your duty !!

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449026/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...r-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/

Sorry I thought you lived 180 miles for Fort Mac. You moved? It's everyone's responsibility to watch what's going on up there not just me..... after all resources are owned by the citizens of the province. So in fact best you keep an eye open too unless you gave up on Alberta.

As for your links...... FUD. (fear, uncertainty and doubt) yea like solar panels are a huge concern like strontium 90 .... what a load of BS. Tell me what problem would you rather have ? 100 solar panels or a gram of highly radioactive material? One that you can take to the recyclers or one that you need to store for 100's of years till the half life decays to a safe level. Good luck with that argument.

Fun Fact: Canada still has no plan on what we are going to do with our nuclear waste. It's been a problem since the 1980's https://www.nwmo.ca/en/Canadas-Plan/Canadas-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/How-Is-It-Stored-Today
correction: we have a plan just not a place.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly why discussion of topics like this goes so awry on open forums.

Sr90 vs 100 solar panels is like a gold bar vs an acre of land. They each have advantages and disadvantages.

Sr90 is an energy source that gets used in a bunch of different medical applications and a gram of it is pretty valuable. Besides which, in a hundred years, that gram will be about a sixteenth of a gram, and in 200 years, 1/128th of a gram on account of its relatively short half life. Being able to make it is actually fairly important to the environment: we use it as a power source for all kinds of remote equipment.

100 solar panels exist as the result of a whole lot of mining, manufacturing, and the burn of a whole lot of petrochemicals. They do give back energy and they can be recycled, but you don't get anything like the utility of Sr90 out of them.

What's better? What's worse? It depends entirely on the context.

Who exactly is engaged in debate based on "fear, uncertainty and doubt" again?
 
This is exactly why discussion of topics like this goes so awry on open forums.

Sr90 vs 100 solar panels is like a gold bar vs an acre of land. They each have advantages and disadvantages.

Sr90 is an energy source that gets used in a bunch of different medical applications and a gram of it is pretty valuable. Besides which, in a hundred years, that gram will be about a sixteenth of a gram, and in 200 years, 1/128th of a gram on account of its relatively short half life. Being able to make it is actually fairly important to the environment: we use it as a power source for all kinds of remote equipment.

100 solar panels exist as the result of a whole lot of mining, manufacturing, and the burn of a whole lot of petrochemicals. They do give back energy and they can be recycled, but you don't get anything like the utility of Sr90 out of them.

What's better? What's worse? It depends entirely on the context.

Who exactly is engaged in debate based on "fear, uncertainty and doubt" again?

I was referring (FUD) to the links that walleyes posted and went to the source. Have a look if you want and read the comments if you have the time. You can judge for yourself.
http://www.environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis

Yes I know that there are medical uses for radioisotopes and Chalk River is where we get most of them from. Remember when that went down? That was some shyte show back then. I'm not even sure what radioactive waste we have here in Canada (different reactor) but judging by this picture we have filled our boots and then some. FYI I worked, long ago, with Tritium and I'm aware of half life.
dry_storage_containers.ashx
 
Last edited:
Sorry I thought you lived 180 miles for Fort Mac. You moved? It's everyone's responsibility to watch what's going on up there not just me..... after all resources are owned by the citizens of the province. So in fact best you keep an eye open too unless you gave up on Alberta.

As for your links...... FUD. (fear, uncertainty and doubt) yea like solar panels are a huge concern like strontium 90 .... what a load of BS. Tell me what problem would you rather have ? 100 solar panels or a gram of highly radioactive material? One that you can take to the recyclers or one that you need to store for 100's of years till the half life decays to a safe level. Good luck with that argument.

Fun Fact: Canada still has no plan on what we are going to do with our nuclear waste. It's been a problem since the 1980's https://www.nwmo.ca/en/Canadas-Plan/Canadas-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/How-Is-It-Stored-Today

Well kinda and kinda not, I live maybe 180 miles away the way the crow flies, not sure actually never flew in a crow, closer to 400 km I guess it is sorry about that, it's about 4.5 hours by road bjt either way, I haven't been there in 20 years. But again topic gone array,, have at it.

I came across this the other day, gives a decent view of it, from a business point of view, you might not understand it.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-morgan-stanley-wrong-about-electric-cars-2017-5
 
Last edited:
Yes I think I can understand it. This from the article...

"The traditional auto industry has decided that it isn't worth it to sell those folks an EV, because all they really want is a Tesla. And the auto industry is betting that Tesla demand isn't infinite.
If that bet pays off, then it will be a long, long time before the gas engine is wiped out."

I wonder what he will write next when he finds out that VW is all in with their 84 Billion dollar bet?
https://electrek.co/2017/09/11/vw-massive-billion-investment-in-electric-cars-and-batteries/
 
I don't think anyone is saying EV's aren't going to have their place GLG, they are and they should. One only has to look at the skyline of Vancouver when your crossing the straight and the smog hanging over it is disgusting. When we came to the island this summer it was very warm I wanted to open my window and take in the smell of the ocean as we left the ferry but couldn't for the stench of exhaust, had to close up my window, Im just not used to that I'm from a small town and live quite a few miles in the country on top of that, traffic and smog are horrible in some parts out there. No EV's will have their place and will be a welcome site in many cases. I think what most of us are saying is, they are not going to have the impact some are predicting or hoping they are. I read a while back some goof was claiming they will replace the internal combustion engine in 8 years, like really, 8 years ! That goes by so fast it's unreal. Britain and France are having disgutions on banning the sales of petrol and Diesel engines by 2025 i believe it is. But,, petrol and deisel does not include Natural gas ie LNG market. I can see NG becoming the new power and replacing many gas and deisel engines long before EV's ever replace them.
 
Yep, they may well be here to stay. They may well make up a significant fraction of the market within 20 years. That will come at a cost and we don't know if the cost is worth the benefit yet. It certainly might be. It might not be, and insisting everyone who doesn't jump on board the EV train is purely driven by Luddite fears and loyalty to the oil industry is just simple-minded.

Is it progress? Maybe.

Is it the cobra effect? Maybe.

Is it greater progress than we could get out of increased ICE efficiency? Maybe.

Is it a technology which relocates waste rather than reduces it? Maybe.



The issue is not that EVs are bad, it's that we don't know whether they're very good, and if your source for information on whether you need a haircut is the Barbers' Guild of America, you'd probably be better off doing some real research than just accusing everyone else of denial.
 
Thought this was fairly interesting...


 
Motor Mouth: The inconvenient truth about Tesla’s truck
by David Booth | 2 days ago

afp_uc6fo.jpg


Tesla Chairman and CEO Elon Musk unveils the new "Semi" electric Truck on November 16, 2017 in Hawthorne, California.

Veronique Dupont, AFP/Getty

Tesla has finally unveiled its much-promised big rig. And with not a little fanfare, especially considering that said semi is claimed to have a range of 500 miles (800 kilometres!) and, more importantly — at least for fleets seriously considering an all-electric 18-wheeled future — is able to recharge 400 of those miles (640 km) in just 30 minutes. So the question is, has The Elon Musk really reinvented the electric vehicle yet again? Or are his latest claims of re-imagining heavy-duty transport just more of his Madoffian fantasy?

To find out, Motor Mouth broke out the old calculator — OK, my new iPhone 8; one must be au courante, after all — and used those few numbers Musk was willing to share to in order to try to shed some light on some claims that would seem to be the death knell of the diesel truck. The most important calculation, of course, is what Musk’s semi has under the hood — battery-wise that is, not engine — since what we all want to know is how many kilowatt-hours Musk imagines it takes to get a truck that may weigh as much as 80,000 pounds fully loaded to travel 500 miles on a single charge. Plugging what we know — 30 minutes of recharging time and the fact that the biggest recharger available is 600 kilowatts — into some fairly simple formulae and we arrive at a number that says Musk estimates his sleek semi will require about 300 kilowatt-hours to travel 400 miles.

semi_front_34.jpg


Now, here’s where those numbers go just slightly awry. Mr. Musk’s sleek Model S — a bit of a porker but aerodynamically efficient nonetheless — needs just a hair under 0.33 kilowatt-hours to travel one mile. So, if it, too, were to claim a 400-mile range, it would need about a 135 kW-h battery. Now, I am pretty sure that it doesn’t take a degree in rocket science to figure out that one of those calculations — a Model S needing 135 kW-hr to travel 400 miles or a full-sized 18-wheeler requiring just 300 kW-hr to do the same — is a little wonky. The truck is, after all, about 15 times heavier and probably has at least three times the aerodynamic resistance.

For those needing a little more arithmetic backup, consider the following: A current, fully-loaded 18-wheeler similar in shape and size to Tesla’s big rig can consume anywhere between 40 and 50 litres of diesel fuel per 100 kilometres while cruising at about 100 kilometres an hour. By way of comparison, an Audi A7 — similar in size and shape to a Model S, but also diesel powered — consumes about 6 L/100 km. And that’s with your humble Motor Mouth hogging the fast lane at about 120 km/h. Simple math, then, says that said ginourmous truck consumes somewhere in the vicinity of six to eight times more fuel to cover the same distance than the itty, bitty car. As further comparator, big rigs can use up 10 times as much horsepower to cruise at 100 km/h as a car, but we’ll stick with the more conservative estimate of six to eight for our calculations.

If we use the median of those figures and assume that Musk’s truck requires eight times the battery as his Model S to cover the same distance, then, that 500-mile range he claims requires somewhere around 1,000 kW-h to power. At current prices, the batteries alone could cost as much as US$200,000, a figure that jives (roughly) with a recent Carnegie Mellon study on electric semi trucksthat determined that “a 300-mile-capable battery pack costs about $200,000.” An entire diesel truck, by way of comparison, costs about US$120,000. That same study also estimates that the battery required for a long-distance big rig could weigh as much as as 22 tons — in other words, according to the study, the truck’s battery is heavier than its payload.

More dramatically, plugging those numbers — 1,000 kW-h rechargeable in 30 minutes — into those same basic recharging calculations tells us a 2 MW (yes, two megawatts!) charger would be required to replenish the new Tesla 18-wheeler in the time Musk claims. That, as they say, is a game changer, since the 0.6 MW unit I mentioned earlier is so powerful it needs to be fully automated, is about the size of a small gas station kiosk and costs in the range of half a million bucks.

And, lest you think I am being overly harsh with my estimations, that aforementioned Carnegie Mellon study (Evaluating the Potential of Platooning in Lowering the Required Performance metrics of Li-on Batteries to Enable Practical Electric Semi-Trucks) estimated that 1,000 kW-h would only generate 300 miles of range; so, in fact, Tesla’s proposed Megacharger might have to actually be larger than two megawatts if Tesla wants to recharge 400 miles in just 30 minutes.

Unlike previous Motor Mouths regarding Mr. Musk’s claims, I will pass no judgment on whether these latest pronouncements are feasible or outrageous. I am, frankly, tired of his acolytes portraying me as anti-electric and, more insulting, anti-progress. I will, instead, simply offer these calculations as a starting point for discussion. Make of them what you will.
 
Back
Top