2035

[Bill]

I'd like to thank all of the previous posters for providing me multiple LOL moments reading through this thread.

Reality has a nasty habit of sneaking up and biting dreamers in the rear end. That is what I predict will happen in this case in CA. The reason is very simple. CA does not have enough electricity to run things consistently now . . .

I've never had a rolling blackout here, but the issues California has with the grid involve a lot of "if x happens," and those are also concerns throughout the West and are mostly due to damage to transmission lines from fires and the inability to produce power from hydroelectric generation due to so many reservoirs running low on water. The companies that own the transmission lines have also failed to invest and upgrade.

 

[1990RangerinSK]

Using the rear wheels to power a generator would obviously add drag that would cause the rear wheels to slide on dirt, snow, or in heavy rain.

Yes, it would add some drag, for sure. We just have to find a way to reduce the drag. Probably done by gearing.

 

[RonD]

Yes, it would add some drag, for sure. We just have to find a way to reduce the drag. Probably done by gearing.

Look at the system this way
Get a 12volt battery
Get a 12volt electric motor
Get a 12volt alternator/generator

Hook them together with a "fan belt" and then to the battery, this is the system you are talking about, simplified

See how long the system would operate, gear it(pulley sizes) anyway you want, before battery died
This is a negative energy drain on the battery, even if its only a 10% drain its still a constant drain all the time

The energy it takes to turn the alternator is the only "drag" on this system, a vehicle would have tire friction and wind resistance on top of that, so why add another constant drain

Regenerative braking is a better method, it takes the vehicle's inertia(rolling weight) and uses that to recover some of the amps used to get the vehicle rolling, but only when vehicle is coasting or slowing or going downhill, so only a positive energy gain

 

[scotts90ranger]

The alternator on a non driven tire is a silly argument, I'm completely on Ron's side... It takes X amount of power to move a car down the road at a given speed, if you add any extra drag while going the same speed (putting up a sail, trying to pull ANY power off of a non driven tire, having a flat tire, bad alignment, squirrel stuck in the wheel bearing, give a couple clicks of the parking brake etc...) you are now requiring Xx amount of drag where x is more power required.

Unless you are only pulling the extra power while you are coasting down a hill or braking you are causing extra load and the inefficiencies of power production (usually 70-80% efficiency I think) far outweigh what you might gain, you would have to have over 100% efficiency to gain anything from it while going down the road at a cruise which is impossible as that would be perpetual motion...

 

[Uncle Gump]

Lol... @stmitch you certainly don't smell the same steaming pile of doo doo I'm smelling here coming from this current administration.

I'll also say for a guy that says you weren't trying to attack me personally... it sure is feeling that way to me.

Now go tug your own balls while you ponder the "Inflation Reduction Act" and how it's going to "lower inflation" for the hard working people that could really use some relief from the mess we're in.

 

[Eddo Rogue]

Very interesting thread. I was waiting for the chime on this subject. Read about this on the news and spit out my beer. Here is my 3 cents.

LA/OC and CA are different worlds. Central and Northern CA is mostly conservative small towns. Its Southern CA and its activist population that makes it such a blue state. Nobody likes LA natives.

There are all kinds of problems besides vehicle emissions. Plastic is a big one. Overpopulation is another.
But really the problem is the way we manage to extract things from the Earth, then combine them in a way that makes it toxic to the very same Earth we got it from. A lot of things.

The grid, highway system etc is all very old and outdated. Also they have become so congested that doing any roadwork is a major affair. A 30 mile drive from one side of LA to the other taking 4 hours is accepted. The roads are destroyed, especially the right two truck lanes, which is where I do most of my passing, because for some reason LA drivers have no concept of the left lane is for passing.

It's become quite the dystopia.

 

[fastpakr]

1) the rear wheels are already spinning.
2) It's already being done. You think my '95 Taurus runs all of its electrical needs solely from the battery while I'm driving down the road? It doesn't. It has an alternator, being driven by, and robbing efficiency and power from, the ICE (which happens to be a 3.0 Vulcan, by the way).

No kidding. There is no confusion among anyone in the conversation that you can generate electrical power using an alternator, or through regen from a wheel.

If (2) is already happening, and generating enough power to run my heater fan, headlights, tail lights, rear defrost, windshield wipers, marker lights, etc, then I don't see any reason why the rear wheels can't be put to work, driving a generator. I'm not talking about regenerative braking here, dragging the brakes constantly. I'm talking about using the rotational energy of the rear wheels to spin a generator to charge the battery. Like I said, my Taurus has an alternator, driven by the engine's crankshaft, generating electricity to supply all of the electricity I need to power my accessories, AND the spark plugs, without which, my ICE wouldn't even run.

More resistive drag is caused through your system than you gain from the electrical output.

 

[stmitch]

Lol... @stmitch you certainly don't smell the same steaming pile of doo doo I'm smelling here coming from this current administration.

I'll also say for a guy that says you weren't trying to attack me personally... it sure is feeling that way to me.

Now go tug your own balls while you ponder the "Inflation Reduction Act" and how it's going to "lower inflation" for the hard working people that could really use some relief from the mess we're in.

I haven't voiced any support for any political party or specific politician in this thread so I'm not sure why you're implying anything about my views or who I associate with. What I meant was that this mandate is not a personal attack on you. It's not going to impact you directly because you live thousands of miles away from where it's being implemented. It MAY impact you indirectly in many years if you just have to buy a new vehicle, and that new vehicle cannot have a plug for some reason. But you've said that you already accept hybrids and are open to EVs, so clearly that's not the case. You've got enough funds to consider buying new vehicles, but you're worried about minor increases in running costs? Some of this just doesn't seem well thought out, and rooted in political ideologies more than logic and math.

If all you wanted was to complain about Federal leadership (and it seems like that's really the goal here since you say that you support most of what this California mandate involves) then you can do that down in the Tailgate section. None of your opinions (or mine) about Federal leadership apply to what California is choosing to implement within their own borders.

The fact that you think you know my political leanings, and keep bringing up Federal policies supported by Democrats, or random issues like inflation (which has occured across regimes in the White House, and with both parties voting for massive spending in Congress) is a problem with you and your mindset. Were you complaining about inflation or hurting the middle class when GOP lead White House and Congress were printing money to give out during the pandemic? Or were you championing their help for the downtrodden? Because that's where this all started. Too much money chasing too few goods. Both parties have run off the tracks with the Fed's printing press in the last 2.5 years. If the middle class is getting squeezed, there's plenty of blame to go around to both parties.

I've not personally attacked you at all in this thread or any other. I have targeted some of your points that I think are questionable, and instead of defending those points, you go off on tangents about unrelated issues, or you get personal and imply that I'm not man enough to agree with you. It seems like you got all worked up about this mandate without learning all of the facts, or considering just how likely you might be to be impacted by it. And then you rushed here all lathered up to "own the Libs" or whatever and continued to spread poor info. It sure seems like you came here just looking for a bunch of "hurr durr, Commiefornia sucks" "Stupid Lib-tards" types of posts to reinforce your preexisting ideas rather than actually wanting to discuss this mandate. Keep the political opinions in The Tailgate where they belong.

I value this place, and the knowledge that it holds. I try to contribute to that knowledge base when and where I can so that it might help others. But in recent years the discussion and posts here seem to have really lost focus on technical aspects and drifted into group think with political undertones. It's why I don't spend as much time here as I did a few years ago. Lets try to stick to trucks, or at least facts of truck related things like this legislation so we can get back to a helpful, thriving community where we're all learning things from one another instead of insulting each other. Hopefully, as a Mod here, you can lead that initiative.

 

[Blmpkn]

...Keeping your old beater going is probably better environmentally than being responsible for manufacturing a new EV or PHEV anyway. At least with current materials and manufacturing methods.

So... being good for the earth is going to be bad for the earth for the foreseeable future.. got it.

Or... being bad for the earth is being good for the earth?

 

[stmitch]

So... being good for the earth is going to be bad for the earth for the foreseeable future.. got it.

Or... being bad for the earth is being good for the earth?

Making new stuff is bad for the Earth. Reusing existing things is almost always better than making new stuff. So if the choice is to keep your old ICE going, or be responsible for the manufacture of a new vehicle, then the environmentalist in me supports the old beater over the new vehicle. Even if the new vehicle is an ICE that's cleaner and more efficient, or even an EV with no tailpipe emissions at all. There are of course exceptions if you're going from one extreme to another (Old Hummer to Ioniq EV would probably payoff in short order for example, while going from an older Prius to a new Hummer EV would probably never pay off). But if you're at a point where you're going to buy new, then an EV will almost certainly be better than a new ICE in fairly short order. Which is why the mandate being discussed here will apply to new vehicles being purchased, rather than simply banning all ICEs outright and causing the unnecessary replacement of perfectly fine ICEs already on the road.

The order of operations is Reduce -> Reuse -> Recycle for a reason. So consume less, get as much life as you can out of what you already have, and then recycle when it's reached the end of it's usable life.

As global population continues to explode, we must become more efficient in the way that we live. Anything else is unsustainable. This may involve some lifestyle change, where not everybody drives huge trucks that get poor fuel economy, while sitting in drive thrus to consume horrible fast food thats slowly killing us. Or maybe we don't need some junk trinket shipped from across the globe in 3 days just to end up in a landfill in a few months. Or maybe we can improve the efficiency of our homes as new technologies and building techniques are adopted so that our monthly utility bills are less affected by a war on the other side of the planet, or Big Oil deciding they need more profit this quarter. Taking these steps is not only better environmentally, but each of them also improves our financial health, and they can increase our independence as individuals too. That means that we're more insulated from things like inflation, wage stagnation, energy price increases etc. These steps protect the middle class individuals that choose to take advantage of them. But taking ownership in our own decision making and it's consequences isn't as popular as complaining about leadership on social media and playing the victim while we spend every dime we make consuming crap for no reason.

 

[sgtsandman]

I think everyone here agrees in the matter that we need to take care of the earth and make it a better place than we found it.

I think where we differ is the how we go at it and who is making the decisions on how it gets done.

when it comes to discussions like this, keeping politics out of it is hard but it is possible to do it. Especially when it comes to one party versus the other. Hopefully, I’ve managed to do so and I certainly don’t want to be jabbing a finger at any individual on here because of any differences we might have.

It is important to talk about things like this, get different points of view, and debate the details on it.

We also need stay away from going after each other on the differences in our points of view.

 

[Blmpkn]

We also need stay away from going after each other on the differences in our points of view.

^^^

This.

People gotta be able to agree to disagree on opinions.

 

[stmitch]

when it comes to discussions like this, keeping politics out of it is hard but it is possible to do it. Especially when it comes to one party versus the other.

Doesn't it seem weird that whether our cars are powered by liquid dino juice or electrons is somehow political at all? What about it is "one party versus another"? The only reason this is perceived as political at all is that we've been told it's political and programmed by what we consume to think that a person who supports clean energy or EVs must be in one political party while somebody that does not must be in another. And then, we jump to yet another conclusion and assume that the person that might have different political view is somehow our enemy instead of a valued member of our own community.

 

[Blmpkn]

Doesn't it seem weird that whether our cars are powered by liquid dino juice or electrons is somehow political at all? What about it is "one party versus another"? The only reason this is perceived as political at all is that we've been told it's political and programmed by what we consume to think that a person who supports clean energy or EVs must be in one political party while somebody that does not must be in another. And then, we jump to yet another conclusion and assume that the person that might have different political view is somehow our enemy instead of a valued member of our own community.

One word answer, emotion.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Doesn't it seem weird that whether our cars are powered by liquid dino juice or electrons is somehow political at all? What about it is "one party versus another"? The only reason this is perceived as political at all is that we've been told it's political and programmed by what we consume to think that a person who supports clean energy or EVs must be in one political party while somebody that does not must be in another. And then, we jump to yet another conclusion and assume that the person that might have different political view is somehow our enemy instead of a valued member of our own community.

It shouldn't be but somehow it is.

The current administration's very poor delivery on the cause/effects of gas prices are not helping a thing either.