Ford's all-electric F-150 is good for 300 miles of range and 0-60 mph in the mid-4 second...

captaincranky

Posts: 16,980   +5,757
I can't remember anyone with an EV ever mentioning charging at a station though. Those are for travelers mostly. Maybe a little for the forgetful types.
President Biden wants to install something like 500.000 of them. The Republicans simply won't hear of it.

IMHO, (which will surely be disputed by the environmental SJWs), the best way of transitioning to all electric vehicles is via hybrid designs.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,394   +1,285
TechSpot Elite
Honestly, I do not think that those who have commented in this thread are a good representation of forces that drive the market for EVs. There are those out there that have wanted EVs for some time.
Agreed. Hell, 3 months ago I was waiting for the Mach-E GT. Now I still am, but the list now also includes the F-150 and maybe even the LYRIQ (Which is a beautiful car).
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,980   +5,757
:eek: Holy crap really? That seems way ambitious considering there are only something like 160,000 gas stations.
Holy crap yourself:;)
BTW, you have to multiply the number of gas stations, by the number of pumps at every location.That would be more, (easily), than 500,000

Here, see for yourself. (Remember, each pump, is a "charging station".

gsbym2gdwhmn8dae8t5k


Then too you have to consider that the Republicans will try to chop at least the last zero off that number
 
Last edited:

mbk34

Posts: 185   +123
Agreed. Hell, 3 months ago I was waiting for the Mach-E GT. Now I still am, but the list now also includes the F-150 and maybe even the LYRIQ (Which is a beautiful car).
Any particular reason to go for them over a Tesla? I'll admit the Tesla truck looks like a 4 year old's fridge art but the rest of the range is pretty good as long as you like minimalist interior design. I'd never heard of the LYRIQ but the Cadillac site shows a simulated car which suggests the Sept 2021 release date is very optimistic. Judging by how long the Cadillac site took to come up, I wouldn't like their software in charge of the braking.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,394   +1,285
TechSpot Elite
Any particular reason to go for them over a Tesla?
Probably, but honestly I never even considered one.
which suggests the Sept 2021 release date is very optimistic
It's not like I'm in a hurry. I will buy what I want when I want to from what is available then. Or, if I decide on something a year away I will wait
I wouldn't like their software in charge of the braking.
Cadillac has had assisted braking for nearly a decade.
 
Last edited:

Questors

Posts: 34   +33
“the strongest steel ever put in an F-150 frame,”
- Does this mean that Ford's been skimping out until now?

It doesn't matter. It's going to be WTFOMGBBQ expensive (to own) and few, if any, people will buy it. Until electrics become affordable to the mass market, they'll just be a gimmick with little to no positive environmental impact. I really do hope that I'm wrong because this is definitely a thing that we need!

But they better not send them to Australia:

She is pretty until she opens her mouth. Then she becomes a foul mouthed arrogant lefty Karen. She and/or her puppet masters are sure they know everything and what is best for everyone, while they follow an entirely different set of rules. Meanwhile she also states possible lies, manipulated statistics and does not present the truth about the how electricity is generated with coal and fossil fuels. Nor is the fact that windmills and thousands of square miles of solar panels can't come close to meeting the need for the amount of electricity these products will demand. Keeping up with the massive number of electric cars they talk about is impossible. Forget about power to your home and cities/towns.

Then there is the plastic used in these and all vehicles. The plastics that the left already rages about being horrible pollutants that are destroying the world. The precious metals mining with massive machinery that require fossil fuels and coal power with which to get the work done. The smelting and purifying. and formulating processes that create poisons and toxins deadly to pretty much everything. No, the truth of EVs is so far from being told, it's almost like they are hiding it on purpose.

Some day the technology will develop sufficiently for EVs be viable on a mass scale. Probably not for a long time though. They will never tell you the difference though. Every side of any debate has an agenda. It's a universal truth. The point shouldn't be who's unicorn farts smell the sweetest. It who's downside (and EVERYTHING has a downside) is the least harmful versus its best upside benefits.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,394   +1,285
TechSpot Elite
She is pretty until she opens her mouth. Then she becomes a foul mouthed arrogant lefty Karen. She and/or her puppet masters are sure they know everything and what is best for everyone, while they follow an entirely different set of rules. Meanwhile she also states possible lies, manipulated statistics and does not present the truth about the how electricity is generated with coal and fossil fuels. Nor is the fact that windmills and thousands of square miles of solar panels can't come close to meeting the need for the amount of electricity these products will demand. Keeping up with the massive number of electric cars they talk about is impossible. Forget about power to your home and cities/towns.

Then there is the plastic used in these and all vehicles. The plastics that the left already rages about being horrible pollutants that are destroying the world. The precious metals mining with massive machinery that require fossil fuels and coal power with which to get the work done. The smelting and purifying. and formulating processes that create poisons and toxins deadly to pretty much everything. No, the truth of EVs is so far from being told, it's almost like they are hiding it on purpose.

Some day the technology will develop sufficiently for EVs be viable on a mass scale. Probably not for a long time though. They will never tell you the difference though. Every side of any debate has an agenda. It's a universal truth. The point shouldn't be who's unicorn farts smell the sweetest. It who's downside (and EVERYTHING has a downside) is the least harmful versus its best upside benefits.
If it doesn't work for you then fine. But please stop all the right wingnut propaganda about why you think you are right without needing to prove it (And yes we all know that proof isn't where the GQP shines nowdays).
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,394   +1,285
TechSpot Elite
BTW, you have to multiply the number of gas stations, by the number of pumps at every location
Ok, see I didn't think of it that way. Good point.
Then too you have to consider that the Republicans will try to chop at least the last zero off that number
Also, a good point. Most things that also benefit the 99% of Americans is not exactly a Republican concern.
 

mbrowne5061

Posts: 1,873   +1,095
Yep, yep we do. 10-20k in mods is a little overboard at least for the average truck buyer. I only spent $2600 on lift and new tires.

I own a 2020 Lariat. I will wait until my current truck is paid for in 2024 before I even think about an EV truck. First gens are buggy, by then maybe all the bugs are worked out and mileage is more.
I was thinking more in terms of 'total life of the truck'. I am assuming that when it comes time for new ball joints, new shocks+springs, tires, you aren't going back to stock and probably use it as an excuse to do another 'just because' mod?

I'm a 4runner owner myself, so I get it. You're not done modding it until you buy a replacement. (y) (Y)
 

mbrowne5061

Posts: 1,873   +1,095
That's called AWD, and off road guys do NOT want that. You want true 4x4, which locks all the wheel sinto the same speed all the time rather then a computer trying to shift power around. You cant predict where the power will be in an AWD system, you can with a proper 4x4 setup where the wheels are physically joined together and forced to spin the same speed. That's why off road guys still use old jeeps and side by sides when off roading.
That really depends on where the sensors are installed, and what the feedback loops are optimized for. For example, the Hummer EV will have 3 motors:


With three motors, presumably either the front wheels or the rear wheels will get one motor per-wheel, and the other pair will have to share a motor. Personally, I am bettering the rear wheels get independent motors, and the front wheels have to share (since there is a little more space up front to stick a diff, since the engine has been removed). Put absolute position and shaft encoders on the wheels and motors, and its not a stretch to virtually 'lock' all 4 wheels together. You do it all the time with mobile robots. And with the under-body camera system, if you added some computer vision processing+torque sensors, you could set it up to completely disable any tires that lifted off of the ground.

A 4 motor EV would make differentials - and thus, lockers - completely obsolete. And if you make those wheel motors, the is nearly no limit to lift height either - go ahead and install a variable lift system for the more extreme situations on the trail. You could even lift just one side of the vehicle at a time.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,505   +1,732
TechSpot Elite
I did look up Tesla maintenance and running costs before posting. Costs are about half the cost of standard cars mainly cause you're only replacing consumables. Even the brakes tend to wear less on EVs as they just use regeneration most of the time. I believe Tesla don't even ask you to take your car in each year now, they just tell you when something needs looking at. There's a fleet of Tesla's being used for taxi services with over 500,000 miles on their clocks, they don't report any major (or even minor) issues. I think my natural optimism was justified.
Well if that's true, that's a great thing for Tesla. I just don't expect the mainstream automakers to do the same. For example, the so-called "big 3" actually make more money servicing vehicles that they've sold than they do selling them in the first place. I really hope that I'm wrong but I just don't see them giving that up.

It's like Sony losing money on each Playstation sold, they know they've got you.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,505   +1,732
TechSpot Elite
I was thinking more in terms of 'total life of the truck'. I am assuming that when it comes time for new ball joints, new shocks+springs, tires, you aren't going back to stock and probably use it as an excuse to do another 'just because' mod?

I'm a 4runner owner myself, so I get it. You're not done modding it until you buy a replacement. (y) (Y)
Well, let's be honest, a 4Runner is a Toyota and Toyota trucks are immortal. :laughing:
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,505   +1,732
TechSpot Elite
Yes, and even the combination of the two, EV and dirty coal plant, is essentially break even or less than the pollution that comes from fossil fuel powered cars. This article is a bit of a read, however, as I see it, it sets the record straight. https://www.lightsonsolar.com/emissions-and-efficiency-in-electric-cars-versus-gasoline-cars/

EDIT: Another link that says essentially the same thing - https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikesc...-cleaner-even-when-the-power-comes-from-coal/
Oh yeah, you're totally correct. Coal plants have things like scrubbers that, while they don't remove CO2, they do remove everything else. That's fewer toxic chemicals in the atmosphere than what cars would emit.

I'm fortunate in a way to live in Eastern Canada because our electricity is overwhelmingly hydroelectric with a good amount of nuclear as well. Canadians in the East (and BC as well) don't say "electricity bill" we say "hydro bill". Either way, nothing's burning. :laughing:
 
Last edited:

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,394   +1,285
TechSpot Elite
Oh yeah, you're totally correct. Coal plants have things like scrubbers that, while they don't remove CO2, they do remove everything else. That's fewer toxic chemicals in the atmosphere than what cars would emit.

I'm fortunate in a way to live in Eastern Canada because our electricity is overwhelmingly hydroelectric with a good amount of nuclear as well. Canadians in the East (and BC as well) don't say "electricity bill" we say "hydro bill". Either way, nothing's burning. :laughing:

 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,505   +1,732
TechSpot Elite
Wow, I had no idea. I'm Canadian and any coal plants here MUST have scrubbers. AFAIK, they are also mandated in Europe as well. I had just assumed that the USA would have the same laws in place as the rest of NATO. Thanks for the correction, I've learnt something today.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,394   +1,285
TechSpot Elite
Wow, I had no idea. I'm Canadian and any coal plants here MUST have scrubbers. AFAIK, they are also mandated in Europe as well. I had just assumed that the USA would have the same laws in place as the rest of NATO. Thanks for the correction, I've learnt something today.
Hey man you aren't the only one that learned something. I knew we had no regulation, but I didn't know it was so bad and only learned it because your post got me curious.

But now you can see that it's not only politically we Americans cut our own throats. If the anti-regulation dipshits and the coal industry in general had not fought tooth and nail to halt the regulation requiring scrubbers 20-25 years ago solar and wind may still be a pipe dream.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,505   +1,732
TechSpot Elite
Hey man you aren't the only one that learned something. I knew we had no regulation, but I didn't know it was so bad and only learned it because your post got me curious.

But now you can see that it's not only politically we Americans cut our own throats. If the anti-regulation dipshits and the coal industry in general had not fought tooth and nail to halt the regulation requiring scrubbers 20-25 years ago solar and wind may still be a pipe dream.
Well, I think that the overly-narrow focus on non-constant power sources like wind and solar are done on purpose to make clean electricity seem more difficult than it actually is. Right here is a good case-in-point as you mentioned solar and wind but completely forgot about hydro. Hydro is proven, clean, cheap, efficient, renewable and constant. For that matter, geo-thermal is also all of those things but it also gets ignored. Weird, eh?

Now ask yourself "Why did I only think of solar and wind?" and you'll see a perfect example of how the media shapes our ways of thinking. ;)
 
Last edited:

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,394   +1,285
TechSpot Elite
Well, I think that the overly-narrow focus on non-constant power sources like wind and solar are done on purpose to make clean electricity seem more difficult than it actually is. Right here is a good case-in-point as you mentioned solar and wind but completely forgot about hydro. Hydro is proven, clean, cheap, efficient, renewable and constant. For that matter, geo-thermal is also all of those things but it also gets ignored. Weird, eh?

Now ask yourself "Why did I only think of solar and wind?" and you'll see a perfect example of how the media shapes our ways of thinking. ;)
Yeah, I just went with the most discussed, but I should probably have just said renewables.

Hydro is quite popular here overall though because it is a heavy producer of methane it is falling out of favor.
 

Adhmuz

Posts: 2,166   +963
Well, I think that the overly-narrow focus on non-constant power sources like wind and solar are done on purpose to make clean electricity seem more difficult than it actually is. Right here is a good case-in-point as you mentioned solar and wind but completely forgot about hydro. Hydro is proven, clean, cheap, efficient, renewable and constant. For that matter, geo-thermal is also all of those things but it also gets ignored. Weird, eh?

Now ask yourself "Why did I only think of solar and wind?" and you'll see a perfect example of how the media shapes our ways of thinking. ;)
I like to think our Hydro electricity is the best solution to clean renewable energy, heck I live within a couple KMs of one, but the sad reality is it still had a huge negative impact on the environment when the damns were built.

One such study explaining the release of CO2 trapped in the ground being released: https://www.nrcm.org/news/hydro-quebec-offers-misleading-claims-powers-climate-impact/

Then there was the mercury that was also released from the soil which subsequently was eaten/absorbed by the fish, which in turn were eaten by the native Americans in the region who started suffering from heavy metal poisoning.

Speaking of fish, the dams prevent them from migrating and using the rivers, newer dam installations have fish ladders, but most of the early Quebec dams did not, likely still do not.

Mind you I still prefer the idea compared to having an equivalent coal burning station.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,505   +1,732
TechSpot Elite
Yeah, I just went with the most discussed, but I should probably have just said renewables.

Hydro is quite popular here overall though because it is a heavy producer of methane it is falling out of favor.
I think that the use of the word "heavy" to describe the methane output is a bit...unwarranted.
"Impoundment of hydroelectric reservoirs induces decomposition of a small fraction of the flooded biomass (forests, peatlands and other soil types) and an increase in the aquatic wildlife and vegetation in the reservoir.
The result is higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions after impoundment, mainly CO2 (carbon dioxide) and a small amount of CH4 (methane).
However, these emissions are temporary and peak two to four years after the reservoir is filled.
During the ensuing decade, CO2 emissions gradually diminish and return to the levels given off by neighboring lakes and rivers.

Hydropower generation, on average, emits 35 times less GHGs than a natural gas generating station and about 70 times less than a coal-fired generating station."
Hydro-Quebec: Greenhouse gas emissions and reservoirs
Don't listen to corporate media about things like this because they don't understand the science behind anything and the narratives they push depends on who's paying them to do so. The idea that hydro is a "heavy producer of methane" is a false right-wing talking point that probably originated from some supporter of fossil fuel-burning in Texas.

What they do is take something that is ¼ to ½ correct, add the word "heavy" and state it like it's a fact. So sure, initially, there is a small increase of methane production but after a decade or so, it matches what was already there which results in a net-zero increase long-term. So they just say "It's a HEAVY producer of methane" because the word "heavy" could be considered semi-accurate as it does initially produce a bit more than the rest of the area in question but it's used more for the impact that the word has, like the impact it had on you. If it's falling out of favour, then their campaign of propaganda is clearly working because it rarely occurs to people to doubt what they're being told and even if they do, they're usually too lazy to learn the truth of the matter. It's completely disingenuous because the subtext is that the methane produced somehow makes hydro almost as bad as burning coal or gas.

However, it's pretty clear that if all power plants in the world were hydro, we might have never gotten to the point that we're at now in the first place. Rich oil barons are psychopaths who only care about their profits and are happy to see the world burn as a consequence of this. At any rate, you can see now that the idea you had about hydro being a "heavy producer of methane" was a load of BS.
 
Last edited:

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,394   +1,285
TechSpot Elite
At any rate, you can see now that the idea you had about hydro being a "heavy producer of methane" was a load of BS.
Methane is not the only factor, but that is actually a load of BS.



 
Last edited:

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,505   +1,732
TechSpot Elite
I like to think our Hydro electricity is the best solution to clean renewable energy, heck I live within a couple KMs of one, but the sad reality is it still had a huge negative impact on the environment when the damns were built.

One such study explaining the release of CO2 trapped in the ground being released: https://www.nrcm.org/news/hydro-quebec-offers-misleading-claims-powers-climate-impact/

Then there was the mercury that was also released from the soil which subsequently was eaten/absorbed by the fish, which in turn were eaten by the native Americans in the region who started suffering from heavy metal poisoning.

Speaking of fish, the dams prevent them from migrating and using the rivers, newer dam installations have fish ladders, but most of the early Quebec dams did not, likely still do not.

Mind you I still prefer the idea compared to having an equivalent coal burning station.
I'm afraid that the story you posted is completely false. Now, nrcm.org is blocked on my work pc so I googled it and found out that it's the Natural Resources Council of Maine, an NGO. Sounds legit and the Wikipedia page looks good too. In order to find out what the article you posted said, I did what I usually do when something is blocked on my work pc, I took the headline and googled it. The Portland Press Herald did have the story but nobody else did. Something like this, if legit, would have been covered by more than a local newspaper in Portland, Maine.

This story would have been big enough to have been picked up by the CBC, CTV, Global, CityTV, ABC, NBC and CBS. It would have most likely also found its way into the pages of the Montreal Gazette, National Post, USA Today, etc. Something like this is something that people latch on to, but it didn't catch on. Not only that, nothing like it has been published in the two-and-a-half YEARS since. I was wondering why this was the case, at least, I was wondering why until I actually read the article, then I understood completely.

Passages like:
"Here’s an example of their own best available science that Hydro-Quebec did not provide to the Press Herald: About a decade ago, Hydro-Quebec built dams to divert the Rupert River to the Eastmain hydro facility, flooding 175 square miles of virgin forest and wetlands. As a result, the first year after flooding, as much CO2 was released as would have been released by a coal-fired power plant generating the same amount of electricity!"
This is, of course, quite literally, impossible. Large news organisations and science journals read this and said "WTF?!". I honestly wondered why the article would say something so clearly insane and then I found the REAL reason which was, of course, political. This is what tipped me off about why someone would spread such false propaganda and the answer is, of course, money:
"How can we make the best of this situation? To reduce total regional emissions, Hydro-Quebec should export its somewhat-dirty hydropower to neighboring New Brunswick, displacing the much dirtier power produced there from burning coal while Maine and Massachusetts pursue truly carbon-free sources. That would result in a meaningful decrease in overall greenhouse-gas emissions."
You see, a huge chunk of the US Eastern Seaboard imports electricity from Quebec because Hydro-Quebec, while being a provincial government institution, is the largest producer of hydroelectricity in the Western Hemisphere. Maine is one of the states that is powered by Hydro-Quebec and there appears to be both a nationalistic and a corporate interest in producing their own electricity.

There is an ulterior motive here, a hidden agenda that you somehow didn't pick up, but, since my major in university was Political Science, I saw it immediately. This is especially true with the insane attempt to equate New Brunswick with Maine and Massachusetts.

What the article is banking on is the natural American ignorance about anything outside of their own borders. You're probably unaware of the fact that New Brunswick only has 776,827 people, less than most single cities. This article gives the impression that New Brunswick is completely powered by coal when that isn't even CLOSE to being true:
nb-fg02-lg-eng.png

New Brunswick is primarily powered by nuclear and hydro already. Only 30% of the province is powered by coal and gas which equates to about 233,000 people (a relatively tiny amount). Somehow that's equivalent to the populations of Maine and Massachusetts COMBINED? I'm not looking up those numbers, I don't have to. Boston alone is more populous than ALL of New Brunswick, let alone the rest of the state combined with the population of Maine.

This article's purpose is to gain the public's favour for the idea of stopping their importation of electricity from Quebec and having a local interest provide it. It's clear to me (and to anyone who knows how to read between the lines) that there is a rich and powerful interest behind this article.

The reason that no other media outlet picked this up is because it's clearly a misleading propaganda piece written by someone with credentials who should have known better.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,394   +1,285
TechSpot Elite
You see, a huge chunk of the US Eastern Seaboard imports electricity from Quebec because Hydro-Quebec, while being a provincial government institution, is the largest producer of hydroelectricity in the Western Hemisphere.
Is that right. There is a Hydroelectric plant in Washington that produced something like 6 or 7 GW from 3 facilities. I think it was one of the top 10 plants in the world and by far North America.