Fully electric Ram 1500 in 2024

[cdn.tbird]

You have yet to hear me say "we can't do that." What I am trying to impart is exactly what you've stated, is that many full electrification vehicle advocates seem to think that all you have to do is plug it into the wall outlet, that there are no costs or downsides. Sure it can be done, but it will take time and money, but in some localities the expansion is going to be much more costly and time consuming.

But why should we do this? In reality the basic propelling premise of electric vehicles in reducing greenhouse pollution conflicts this push to completely electrify motor vehicles. To power an electric vehicle one must still generate the electrical energy somewhere. If that energy generation involves the combustion of a fossil fuel, all one will have done is move the engine of the vehicle to a remote location, one from which is it more difficult to access its energy output compared to some fossil fuel (gasoline, diesel, LP, CNG, etc.). To compound the inherent inefficiency of energy transfer to electricity, regardless of how this energy is generated, it must be fed downline in a system that has between 8-15% line loss.

According to much of the research, if you consider the average CO2, sulphur, and other pollutants found in automobile exhaust to that of a fossil fueled power generation station, you will realize a gross emissions of 500 grams of CO2 per electric vehicle kilometer, or a ratio of around 1.7 to 1 grams of CO2 generated versus a petrol powered one. (Elon Musk Should Come Clean: Tesla’s Emissions Are Rising.) [https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...ld-make-that-clear?srnd=opinion&sref=2o0rZsF1]

Best regards,
Dusty
2019 Ram 1500 Billet Silver Laramie Quad Cab 2WD, 5.7 Hemi, 8HP75, 3.21 axle, 33 gallon fuel tank, factory dual exhaust, 18” wheels. Build date: 03 June 2018. Now at: 0530392 miles.

Maybe not in those exact words but you along with others constantly bring up the fact that the current electrical grid in the US can't handle the increased demands. As for proponents of EVs thinking that all you have to do is plug it in and your done, I for one never said that it could happen overnight and called out the fact that even under the most aggressive timelines we probably would have at least 15 yrs if not 25-35yrs to start addressing the issues that our current infrastructure has.

I've also said that every country is different. Unlike the US, 82% of Canada's electricity production is already from non-emitting sources. Hydroelectric accounts for 60%, and another 20% is nuclear so the carbon footprint of EVs will look significantly different here. We also don't suffer from the same blackouts/brownouts that regularly make the news in the US. I remember the doom and gloom predictions when Ontario (Canada's most populous province) announced it was phasing out all it's coal plants. None of them came true.

Thank you for the link to the Bloomberg editorial. I've never been a fan of Elon Musk, and always questioned the truthfulness of Tesla's statements. One of the more interesting tidbits in there was.

The share of coal in power generation in India and China may be higher in 2035 than it is in developed countries right now.
As a result, the more cars Tesla sells in China and India, the more the intensity of its emissions — the emissions per vehicle sold, or per dollar of revenue — will rise.
Perhaps this doesn’t matter. Any electric vehicle sold anywhere in the world is likely substituting for one powered by petrol or diesel. What the climate needs is for the market share of battery-powered vehicles to increase vis-a-vis conventional ones. If that means a lot get sold in markets where the immediate greenhouse benefits are lesser than they are in the U.S. and Western Europe, it’s still, on balance, a plus.

They also call out the greenwashing that companies like BP are engaging in.

In some cases it seems we may be in agreement but arguing it from a different PoV. In others let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Dusty1948]

Maybe not in those exact words but you along with others constantly bring up the fact that the current electrical grid in the US can't handle the increased demands. As for proponents of EVs thinking that all you have to do is plug it in and your done, I for one never said that it could happen overnight and called out the fact that even under the most aggressive timelines we probably would have at least 15 yrs if not 25-35yrs to start addressing the issues that our current infrastructure has.

I've also said that every country is different. Unlike the US, 82% of Canada's electricity production is already from non-emitting sources. Hydroelectric accounts for 60%, and another 20% is nuclear so the carbon footprint of EVs will look significantly different here. We also don't suffer from the same blackouts/brownouts that regularly make the news in the US. I remember the doom and gloom predictions when Ontario (Canada's most populous province) announced it was phasing out all it's coal plants. None of them came true.

Thank you for the link to the Bloomberg editorial. I've never been a fan of Elon Musk, and always questioned the truthfulness of Tesla's statements. One of the more interesting tidbits in there was.

The share of coal in power generation in India and China may be higher in 2035 than it is in developed countries right now.
As a result, the more cars Tesla sells in China and India, the more the intensity of its emissions — the emissions per vehicle sold, or per dollar of revenue — will rise.
Perhaps this doesn’t matter. Any electric vehicle sold anywhere in the world is likely substituting for one powered by petrol or diesel. What the climate needs is for the market share of battery-powered vehicles to increase vis-a-vis conventional ones. If that means a lot get sold in markets where the immediate greenhouse benefits are lesser than they are in the U.S. and Western Europe, it’s still, on balance, a plus.

They also call out the greenwashing that companies like BP are engaging in.

In some cases it seems we may be in agreement but arguing it from a different PoV. In others let's just agree to disagree.

The flaw with the conclusion is the basis on which they contend there's a benefit "on balance." They conflate the generation of power with its delivery and consumption in an electric vehicle, as constituting one thing. As the article states, “A current-model large car with a battery produced and charged in an average European Union country emits about 88 grams of CO2 per kilometer, compared to 284 grams for a petrol-powered equivalent. In a country with a low-carbon grid like Sweden or France, that drops to 50 grams or less.”

But that only holds true because both Sweden and France depend on nuclear power (France generates 91% of its electrical energy from nuclear), combined with wind, solar and other renewable resources. All the Bloomberg article has done is to confirm that powering electric vehicles by means of a fossil fuel grid (our current direction), is the worst of all possible cost and climate combinations.

One size does not fit all. In your country the concept of a fully electric vehicle system would potentially be more attainable because of the amount of hydro and nuclear power generation per consumer. But there is a significant difference in population of our two countries and the ratio of vehicles to hydro, for instance, is much lower than it would be for the United States. And as for nuclear, I can't think of a power generation process that disturbs environmentalists more than their hatred of fossil fuels.

And to be clear, my criticism is not an unspoken inference that it can't be done, and noting any downsides is not confirmation of that claim.

Regards,
Dusty
2019 Ram 1500 Billet Silver Laramie Quad Cab 2WD, 5.7 Hemi, 8HP75, 3.21 axle, 33 gallon fuel tank, factory dual exhaust, 18” wheels. Build date: 03 June 2018. Now at: 0530392 miles.

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

The share of coal in power generation in India and China may be higher in 2035 than it is in developed countries right now.

I understand this is a quote from the article it just didn't paste that way for me...

Anyway, I don't agree with part of the article. I believe India and China are both developed countries. They are both nuclear capable super powers. They each have higher population than the US. Heck, they have to have more manufacturing since the majority of everything we buy is from those two countries. Allowing them to be labeled as not developed let's them slide on regulations that the US has to pay for.

 

[djjr50]

I’m all in for electrification…just has to make sense, and time. Right now hybrid engine is the way to go when you run out of electric power. Let that develop for a couple years.

Anti-electric folks keep forgetting how evolution works. Over time things get better and better. It takes time.

Anti-electric folks also forgot that before gas was invented, everything was horse and buggy, with steam trains in between. I’m sure back then, they said “ really gas…that won’t work in the future, I wouldn’t be able to find a gas station when I need it”


Owner of a 2020 Ram Laramie, 16 Dodge Charger scat pack and my wife 21 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara

Dont forget electric was before gas. https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...-history-of-the-electric-car-1830-to-present/

I am looking forward to an electric Ram 1500 with a foot shorter nose/hood that translates to a foot longer bed with the same crew cab. Dont style it to futuristic and those who use their trucks for everyday transports with occasional chores around town will have no problem charging at home. With the anticipated decrease in maintenance, it can be a decent upgrade from the gas/diesel counterparts.

 

[JTMachineDesign]

You wont see any electric RAM rated to tow 11,000 lbs...
Boss bought a Tesla X (he's an early adopter and believes anything a democrat says).. hooked up a jetski trailer to it. got 120 miles and it went dead.. Auto Club just laughed.
Now it's just a grocery getter.