RV.Net Open Roads Forum: Tow Vehicles: Gasoline vs Battery Energy Density Explained

RV Blog

  |  

RV Sales

  |  

Campgrounds

  |  

RV Parks

  |  

RV Club

  |  

RV Buyers Guide

  |  

Roadside Assistance

  |  

Extended Service Plan

  |  

RV Travel Assistance

  |  

RV Credit Card

  |  

RV Loans

Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Tow Vehicles

Open Roads Forum  >  Tow Vehicles

 > Gasoline vs Battery Energy Density Explained

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 5  
Next
Sponsored By:
FishOnOne

The Great State of Texas

Senior Member

Joined: 02/12/2011

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 03/09/20 08:07pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

I thought Engineering Explained did a good job of explaining energy density of both gasoline and battery capacity. This video also gives a good insight of the technical and the economics challenges Electric vehicles face and why it makes good sense to continue to improve the Internal Combustion engine.

Link

Video 2 explains the efficiency of the two different sources of energy.

Link 2


'12 Ford Super Duty FX4 ELD CC 6.7 PSD 400HP 800ft/lbs
"Built Ford Proud"
'16 Sprinter 319MKS "Wide Body"


Lwiddis

Owens River Road, California

Senior Member

Joined: 08/12/2016

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Online
Posted: 03/09/20 09:13pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Why would you propose to continue to improve only one?

IMO it makes good sense to continue improvement of both.


Winnebago 2101DS TT & 2020 Chevy Silverado 1500 LTZ Z71, 300 watts solar-parallel & MPPT, Trojan T-125s. TALL pole for flags. Prefer USFS, COE, BLM, NPS, TVA, USF&WS, state & county camps. Bicyclist! 14 year Army vet - 11B40 then 11A - (MOS 1542 & 1560)


gbopp

The Keystone State

Senior Member

Joined: 08/03/2008

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 03/10/20 04:08am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Lwiddis wrote:

Why would you propose to continue to improve only one?

IMO it makes good sense to continue improvement of both.

That's a good point. In the early 1900's electric and gasoline vehicles were common. Then the gas engine won and manufacturers concentrated on improving the engines.

I wonder what would have happened if they had concentrated on improving batteries? I know the technology was not available at that time.
I guess the same can be said for nuclear powered aircraft?

FishOnOne

The Great State of Texas

Senior Member

Joined: 02/12/2011

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 03/10/20 07:09am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Lwiddis wrote:

Why would you propose to continue to improve only one?

IMO it makes good sense to continue improvement of both.


I suspect some automakers don’t have budgets to support both. This is why some of the mergers are happening.

ShinerBock

SATX

Senior Member

Joined: 02/22/2015

View Profile



Posted: 03/10/20 07:24am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

FishOnOne wrote:

Lwiddis wrote:

Why would you propose to continue to improve only one?

IMO it makes good sense to continue improvement of both.


I suspect some automakers don’t have budgets to support both. This is why some of the mergers are happening.


And this is yet another EPA mandate that ends up doing more harm than good. One of the reason why these companies do not have the budget to do both is because they are having to pay hundreds of millions for carbon credits because the EPA CAFE fuel economy regulations increased sharply at too high of a rate for the available technology. Instead of taking a little more time and money to invest in BEV's or other technology along their ICE power plants at a gradual rate, the automakers had to scramble to improve only their ICE engines or pay hefty fines leaving little money for other investments. This is on top of stricter safety regulations that also requires money.

Although, if you look at where the money is going with these carbon credits, it starts to become clear why the corrupt EPA made this ponzi scheme.

FishOnOne

The Great State of Texas

Senior Member

Joined: 02/12/2011

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 03/10/20 08:44am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Lwiddis wrote:

Why would you propose to continue to improve only one?

IMO it makes good sense to continue improvement of both.


I suspect some automakers don’t have budgets to support both. This is why some of the mergers are happening.


And this is yet another EPA mandate that ends up doing more harm than good. One of the reason why these companies do not have the budget to do both is because they are having to pay hundreds of millions for carbon credits because the EPA CAFE fuel economy regulations increased sharply at too high of a rate for the available technology. Instead of taking a little more time and money to invest in BEV's or other technology along their ICE power plants at a gradual rate, the automakers had to scramble to improve only their ICE engines or pay hefty fines leaving little money for other investments. This is on top of stricter safety regulations that also requires money.

Although, if you look at where the money is going with these carbon credits, it starts to become clear why the corrupt EPA made this ponzi scheme.


I agree.... and these auto manufacturers are passing along those costs to the customer when they can.

philh

Belleville MI

Senior Member

Joined: 05/11/2015

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 03/10/20 09:43am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

What you don't see are the EPA projected mandated MPG numbers 10 years into the future. They are unobtanium with any version of IC engines. Nobody knows how to get there.

mkirsch

Rochester, NY

Senior Member

Joined: 04/09/2004

View Profile



Posted: 03/10/20 11:07am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Lwiddis wrote:

Why would you propose to continue to improve only one?


You wouldn't. He didn't.

The proposal among "greenies" is to stop all development on internal combustion technology altogether and abandon it.


Putting 10-ply tires on half ton trucks since aught-four.

Lwiddis

Owens River Road, California

Senior Member

Joined: 08/12/2016

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Online
Posted: 03/10/20 01:30pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

"Although, if you look at where the money is going with these carbon credits, it starts to become clear why the corrupt EPA made this ponzi scheme."

Congress can stop that at any time. What is your house member's position?

TurnThePage

North ID

Senior Member

Joined: 10/08/2003

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 03/10/20 03:16pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Ooops. There I go over reacting again. Sorry.

* This post was edited 03/10/20 03:36pm by TurnThePage *


2015 Ram 1500
2004 Pioneer 18T6

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 5  
Next

Open Roads Forum  >  Tow Vehicles

 > Gasoline vs Battery Energy Density Explained
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Tow Vehicles


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2020 CWI, Inc. © 2020 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.