Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Electric power to the next level (Little off topic but still relevant)
| Electric power to the next level [message #118896] |
Tue, 15 March 2011 15:06  |
willietrucker
Messages: 83
Registered: April 2010
Location: Central Texas
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Seen a lot of posts regarding using electric power in the GMC's. I'll be the first to admit I don't know squat about the subject other than what I read and see in the "News".
Check out this video. Seems like this guy has taken it to the next level.
http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/segments/view/1686
Although he claims he doesn't use fossil fuels to power his car, he does have to charge it up, which does use fossil fuel to generate the electricity to do the charging.
Tom Henderson
Elgin, TX
'76 Birchaven 23'
GMC..."Gimme More Cash"
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electric power to the next level [message #118908 is a reply to message #118896] |
Tue, 15 March 2011 18:02  |
fred v
Messages: 999
Registered: April 2006
Location: pensacola, fl.
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
lots of guys have done similar things with electric motors but how far can he go on a charge and how long does it take to charge it? we need a technology breakthrough to make this really practical but there are too many powerful forces trying to stop it.
Fred V
'77 Royale RB 455
P'cola, Fl
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Electric power to the next level [message #118911 is a reply to message #118908] |
Tue, 15 March 2011 18:23 |
Mitch
Messages: 272
Registered: May 2009
Location: Tacoma, Wa
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm in a *Dreamin' Big* mode right now.
How about gas/electric hybrid with electric motors at all ffour corners?
Sure it would take a little re-work of the rear suspension, but isn't that what winters are for?
----- Original Message -----
From: fred veenschoten
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Electric power to the next level
lots of guys have done similar things with electric motors but how far can he go on a charge and how long does it take to charge it? we need a technology breakthrough to make this really practical but there are too many powerful forces trying to stop it.
--
Fred V
'77 Royale RB 455
P'cola, Fl
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Mitch
Tacoma, Wa.
'80 Spitfire
'03 Windstar
'77 Jaguar XJ6-C
X(very)'76 PB 26 "The Beast"
Where it rains, always.
It's wet, No sun, Gray.
Go to Oregon.
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Electric power to the next level [message #118912 is a reply to message #118896] |
Tue, 15 March 2011 18:28 |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Tom,
Interesting video but you are correct in saying that charging the batteries
takes energy and if the electricity is generated with fossil fuel they do
generate pollution.
Plus as I understand it the manufacture of batteries creates nasties too.
As far as building an electric powered GMC goes it is fun to talk about it
but I don't think I'll live long enough to see it happen.
Regards,
Rob M.
USAussie - Downunder
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
[mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Tom Henderson
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 7:07 AM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: [GMCnet] Electric power to the next level
Seen a lot of posts regarding using electric power in the GMC's. I'll be the
first to admit I don't know squat about the subject other than what I read
and see in the "News".
Check out this video. Seems like this guy has taken it to the next level.
http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/segments/view/1686
Although he claims he doesn't use fossil fuels to power his car, he does
have to charge it up, which does use fossil fuel to generate the electricity
to do the charging.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Electric power to the next level [message #118920 is a reply to message #118911] |
Tue, 15 March 2011 19:27 |
|
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mitch,
"A little rework of the rear suspension"
Yup, *Dreamin' Big* is correct!
Regards,
Rob M.
USAussie - Downunder
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
[mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Mitch
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:24 AM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Electric power to the next level
I'm in a *Dreamin' Big* mode right now.
How about gas/electric hybrid with electric motors at all ffour corners?
Sure it would take a little re-work of the rear suspension, but isn't that
what winters are for?
----- Original Message -----
From: fred veenschoten
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Electric power to the next level
lots of guys have done similar things with electric motors but how far can
he go on a charge and how long does it take to charge it? we need a
technology breakthrough to make this really practical but there are too many
powerful forces trying to stop it.
--
Fred V
'77 Royale RB 455
P'cola, Fl
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electric power to the next level [message #118923 is a reply to message #118896] |
Tue, 15 March 2011 20:19 |
jknezek
Messages: 1057
Registered: December 2007
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
We need at least a 10x increase in battery performance per lbs/area. If the volt's rather large battery pack can take a small, light, aerodynamic car 40 miles on a charge, a 10 fold increase would essentially get a GMC motor home about... 100 miles on a charge, using the battery primarily for propulsion and not electrical add-ons.
Hang with me here, the Volt goes 40 miles on a charge and about 40-50 mpg on the gas engine. It weighs about 3500lbs. This is convenient because a GMC weighs 3-4x as much (a little overloaded, but we all do it...) and gets at best 20-25% of the gas mileage. So we've got a direct relationship between weight and gas mileage. Therefore the Volt battery pack should be able to move the GMC about 8-10 miles on a charge (20-25% of 40 miles). A 10 time increase would get you 100 miles down the road, making it only a 2.5 day trip for me to go from Birmingham to GMCES. Hmm... better hope for a 50x increase in battery performance...
Ok, it's a remarkably terrible, completely unscientific and totally false argument. However, the conclusion actually isn't too bad. What's it going to take to get a 50x increase in battery performance? According to "How Stuff Works": "Using lead-acid technology, it takes 6 kilograms to store the same amount of energy that a 1 kilogram lithium-ion battery can handle". So Lithium Ion technology that makes cellphones, laptops, and newer power tools possible was only a 6x increase. According to Wikipedia, Li-ION batteries were first proposed in the 70s and first commercially marketed in the early 90s with less than 1/2 the current capability, so we're working on a 40 year horizon for that 6x increase, or a 20 year horizon for a 3x increase.
While we probably have already proposed the next battery breakthrough, there is no shortage of ideas for another 10x increase, no technology I can find at current is close to market. Therefore I believe we are probably 2 or 3 generations away from the battery power weight/space ratio required to power a heavy vehicle like a GMC. Those 2-3 generations, even hoping for an increase in research and funding for battery technology, are probably at least a 40 year cycle for development (assuming at least a 2x increase in development speed) and more realistically a 50-60 year time to commercial viability.
Battery power for a GMC is a nice dream, but I wouldn't hold my breath for practical application. Lets get some decent mileage in smaller vehicles and look for efficiencies in our large vehicles. For example, partial (or light) hybridization of local work trucks. That alone might provide a 20% increase in fuel mileage in everything from UPS trucks to work vans.
If we want to improve the fuel per mile of heavy trucking, we could invest in more trains and take 18 wheelers off the road. If we don't want to invest money, the best solution is to simply lower the speed limit on our highways. Set it back to 55 and you'll see a 10% or more improvement in fuel economy from cars to 18 wheelers from 65.
Thanks,
Jeremy Knezek
1976 Glenbrook
Birmingham, AL
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electric power to the next level [message #118952 is a reply to message #118896] |
Tue, 15 March 2011 22:59 |
JohnL455
Messages: 4447
Registered: October 2006
Location: Woodstock, IL
Karma: 12
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I light of Japan's problems, I can't help think that plugins are just a bad idea. New cars with modern IC engines burn the dead dinosaurs (gasoline) in such a clean fashion other than CO2 I can't justfy it, not to mention the dirty job of battery production and end of life disposal the plugins have. If you live in Illinois, then your new Volt is really a nuclear car, just with the nuclear engine part remotely located off premises. There is for me no imaginable amount of CO2 emissions that could be as bad for earth, plant (they probably like it) and animal life here as a nuclear release. We have more nuke plants than any other state. If there is one think I have observed about accidents, no matter what type of accident you are talking about, is that they seem to happen or unfold in a logrithmetic fashion, and when things go bad it's really hard to stop, interrupt or reverse the process. The fact that some of our nuke plants are on a fault line, and in tornado alley does not reassure me, and when the experts say they are safe, then I really worry. The last big shake here redirected the Mississippi, which today could redirect it into the backup gennerators / UPS setups rendering it useless (ala just as in Japan). A direct F4 tornado, though it probably would leave the reactor vessel standing, could in my mind strip away all surrounding support and cooling equipment with no hope of a feasable shutdown. I'm no expert, just my common sense observations.
John Lebetski
Woodstock, IL
77 Eleganza II
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electric power to the next level [message #118964 is a reply to message #118952] |
Wed, 16 March 2011 07:07 |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| JohnL455 wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 23:59 |
I light of Japan's problems, I can't help think that plugins are just a bad idea. New cars with modern IC engines burn the dead dinosaurs (gasoline) in such a clean fashion other than CO2 I can't justfy it, not to mention the dirty job of battery production and end of life disposal the plugins have. If you live in Illinois, then your new Volt is really a nuclear car, just with the nuclear engine part remotely located off premises. There is for me no imaginable amount of CO2 emissions that could be as bad for earth, plant (they probably like it) and animal life here as a nuclear release. We have more nuke plants than any other state. If there is one think I have observed about accidents, no matter what type of accident you are talking about, is that they seem to happen or unfold in a logrithmetic fashion, and when things go bad it's really hard to stop, interrupt or reverse the process. The fact that some of our nuke plants are on a fault line, and in tornado alley does not reassure me, and when the experts say they are safe, then I really worry. The last big shake here redirected the Mississippi, which today could redirect it into the backup gennerators / UPS setups rendering it useless (ala just as in Japan). A direct F4 tornado, though it probably would leave the reactor vessel standing, could in my mind strip away all surrounding support and cooling equipment with no hope of a feasable shutdown. I'm no expert, just my common sense observations.
|
Well John,
According to DOE numbers (if you can believe anything the government publishes) says that Illinois is over 50% fossil power and less than 49% nuclear power on an annual basis.
The Mississippi for all its size will be real tough to use as a power generator, it has neither the fall or the velocity. That same combination is what makes it a great transportation waterway (or it will be until fossil fuel is outlawed).
The New Madrid quakes of 1811-12 were at least four quakes over Richter 8.0 (some data indicates levels over 9.0). There were shakes, quakes and after shocks four more than four months. The only reason there was not massive loss of life is that nobody that lived there had any regular communication and there was nothing to fall on and kill people other than log cabins and First Peoples nomadic shelters (most of them were snow birds and so gone during that time of year). The first steamboat on the river had tied up to a tree on the bank one evening. They felt the shake and when morning broke the tree was gone and the mooring line was now straight down.
The two current problem power plants in Japan were constructed 30 years ago to stand an 8.2 quake (8.0 being the largest recorded in the area) and a Tsunami about 90% of what occurred.
There are no easy answers here. If you like the comfortable life you currently enjoy it comes with radiation or CO2 - your pick. The country is just about of hydro. Wind and solar are not reliable power and can provide only a small part of the current demand.
So, place your order now for a Mr. Fusion and hope it works as well as the one shown on TV.
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electric power to the next level [message #118967 is a reply to message #118964] |
Wed, 16 March 2011 07:53 |
Keith V
Messages: 2337
Registered: March 2008
Location: Mounds View,MN
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
A common rhetoric of the anti electric vehicle crowed is that the power still have to be generated. And is generated in dirty coal fired power plants. the cite this as being worse that generating the power from many small IC engines.
But think about it. Think about how hard it is to regulate, maintain and control hundreds of thousands of small engines. it is practically impossible. a few thousand large power plants are much easier to manage and monitor. They have lots of data logging capability and can be retrofitted to perform better as needed.
There is also the economy of scale. A large power plant running hard will be much more efficient than the afore mentioned hundreds of thousands of small engines.
Battery recycling an be done cleanly, I really don't see it as a problem.
Nuclear energy is still the best power solution out there Irrational fear has no place in national policy.
Just because someone, somewhere dropped an ipad on the foot and broke a toe doesn't mean all ipads should be banned.
Keith Vasilakes
Mounds View. MN
75 ex Royale GMC
ask me about MicroLevel
Cell, 763-732-3419
My427v8@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electric power to the next level [message #118969 is a reply to message #118967] |
Wed, 16 March 2011 08:03 |
jknezek
Messages: 1057
Registered: December 2007
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Keith V wrote on Wed, 16 March 2011 08:53 |
A common rhetoric of the anti electric vehicle crowed is that the power still have to be generated. And is generated in dirty coal fired power plants. the cite this as being worse that generating the power from many small IC engines.
But think about it. Think about how hard it is to regulate, maintain and control hundreds of thousands of small engines. it is practically impossible. a few thousand large power plants are much easier to manage and monitor. They have lots of data logging capability and can be retrofitted to perform better as needed.
There is also the economy of scale. A large power plant running hard will be much more efficient than the afore mentioned hundreds of thousands of small engines.
Battery recycling an be done cleanly, I really don't see it as a problem.
Nuclear energy is still the best power solution out there Irrational fear has no place in national policy.
Just because someone, somewhere dropped an ipad on the foot and broke a toe doesn't mean all ipads should be banned.
|
Thank you Keith! I've tried to make the single point source versus multiple point source argument so many times. But people prefer not to think about it. And nuclear is safe. At least compared to dino burning plants. How many coal mine collapses, refinery fires, and oil leaks do we need to prove this? This is only the third major nuclear disaster in the last 30+ years. Only one of those disasters resulted in long-term damage (Chernobyl), and that was primarily because the stupid Russians at the time didn't build a containment vessel according to international convention. They were too smart. How many massive oil leaks and refinery fires have we had in the last 30 years? Dozens if not hundreds.
You just can't prove things to people who have already closed their minds to the facts.
Thanks,
Jeremy Knezek
1976 Glenbrook
Birmingham, AL
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electric power to the next level [message #118971 is a reply to message #118964] |
Wed, 16 March 2011 08:06 |
hertfordnc
Messages: 1164
Registered: September 2009
Location: East NC
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It's still more efficient to turn fuel into electricity.
There's an economy of scale at the power plant and then the electric motor/ battery allows you to capture braking and deceleration energy.
Meanwhile, the gas engine uses most of it's energy removing heat and exhaust.
We may be a long way from a usable elctric motorhome but electric commuter vehicles and hybrids make perfect sense.
My civic get's 40 mpg with me driving it like a teenager, I've had it up to 103 MPH and it has a 1.3 liter gas engine.
Battery replacement cost has fallen by 50% since the first hybrids came out.
The hybrids will continue to drive down the battey cost, and elctric car range will get better.
I'm just glad the treehuggers were driven by conviction to spend so much on the early version that now it finally makes sense to a capitalist like myself.
Dave & Ellen Silva
Hertford, NC
76 Birchaven, 1-ton and other stuff
Currently planning the Great american Road Trip Summer 2021
It's gonna take a lot of Adderall to get this thing right.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electric power to the next level [message #118980 is a reply to message #118959] |
Wed, 16 March 2011 10:05 |
 |
mike miller
Messages: 3576
Registered: February 2004
Location: Hillsboro, Oregon
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Hardie Johnson wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 23:26 |
The Tesla is faster;
Goes farther;
And is a hell of a lot prettier.
But it is over $120,000.
http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster
Sigh . . .
|
Yes. But can it be towed 4-down?
Mike Miller -- Hillsboro, OR -- on the Black list
(#2)`78 23' Birchaven Rear Bath -- (#3)`77 23' Birchaven Side Bath
More Sidekicks than GMC's and a late model Malibu called 'Boo'
http://m000035.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electric power to the next level [message #118995 is a reply to message #118969] |
Wed, 16 March 2011 13:07 |
Keith V
Messages: 2337
Registered: March 2008
Location: Mounds View,MN
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| jknezek wrote on Wed, 16 March 2011 08:03 |
Thank you Keith! I've tried to make the single point source versus multiple point source argument so many times. But people prefer not to think about it. And nuclear is safe. At least compared to dino burning plants. How many coal mine collapses, refinery fires, and oil leaks do we need to prove this? This is only the third major nuclear disaster in the last 30+ years. Only one of those disasters resulted in long-term damage (Chernobyl), and that was primarily because the stupid Russians at the time didn't build a containment vessel according to international convention. They were too smart. How many massive oil leaks and refinery fires have we had in the last 30 years? Dozens if not hundreds.
You just can't prove things to people who have already closed their minds to the facts.
|
Yep, how soon people forget the BP gulf oil spill.
and arn't they STILL cleaning up in Alaska from the Exon Valdez??
Keith Vasilakes
Mounds View. MN
75 ex Royale GMC
ask me about MicroLevel
Cell, 763-732-3419
My427v8@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electric power to the next level [message #119005 is a reply to message #118896] |
Wed, 16 March 2011 14:37 |
willietrucker
Messages: 83
Registered: April 2010
Location: Central Texas
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
I knew I would get an education when I posted this video. A great big "thank you" to all who responded now and in the future. You have expanded my knowledge base.
Tom Henderson
Elgin, TX
'76 Birchaven 23'
GMC..."Gimme More Cash"
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electric power to the next level [message #119029 is a reply to message #118896] |
Wed, 16 March 2011 18:51 |
Larry C
Messages: 1168
Registered: July 2004
Location: NE Illinois by the Illino...
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Although he claims he doesn't use fossil fuels to power his car, he does have to charge it up, which does use fossil fuel to generate the electricity to do the charging.
________________________________________________
THAT IS COOL!!!
Only I think you are wrong about the motor. He has one motor that develops 300hp and bolts to the tranny. No 4 wheel drive here.
He has 60 batteries I think he said, stuff em under the bed and couch... lol
I think the next thing he needs to try is solar cells to charge the batteries. We certainly have enough roof for it.
The scammer "TILLY FOUNDATION" had a Delorean electric. What I found interesting was he had the motor bolted to the tranny and a wind generator bolted to the motor. when the motor was not devouring power and coasting, the wind generator was supplying the motor or/and charging the battery. at least that's what he claimed.
I have always found that configuration interesting. Though I don't think it would supply all the power so you were self sufficient, I do believe the wind gen would be able to supply some kind of charge.
But it is not our time yet, at least not electric.
I'd like to find a way to make the old girl get better mileage, maybe inject a cheep gas, propane or ??? to suppliment the gas??
The propane would be a metered supply at cruising speed and the variable speed would be controled by cruise control with the on board gasoline?????? maybe a dream but sounds good. 
Just my thoughts, but cool video though
Gatsbys' CRUISER  08-18-04
74 GLACIER X, 260/455-APC-4 Bagg'r
Remflex Manifold gaskets
CampGrounds needed, Add yours to "PLACES" />
http://www.gmceast.com/travel
_
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Electric power to the next level [message #119030 is a reply to message #119029] |
Wed, 16 March 2011 18:59 |
|
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Larry,
Propane isn't any cheaper than gasoline in the USA and the ignition advance
curve is way different from gas.
When I was investigating what it took to convert a gas engine to LPG I seem
to remember reading something about diesel trucks injecting LPG for some
reason.
Regards,
Rob M.
USAussie - Downunder
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
[mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Larry
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 10:51 AM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Electric power to the next level
I'd like to find a way to make the old girl get better mileage, maybe inject
a cheep gas, propane or ??? to suppliment the gas??
The propane would be a metered supply at cruising speed and the variable
speed would be controled by cruise control with the on board gasoline??????
maybe a dream but sounds good. :lol: :lol:
Just my thoughts, but cool video though
--
Gatsbys' CRUISER :d
74 GLACIER X, 260
455/APC/4 bagg'r(ver3)
Remflex Manifold gaskets
_______________________________________________
Purchased 08-18-04
_
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Nov 15 22:11:16 CST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01376 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
