Vision Motor Cars' Light-Duty All-Electric Pickup
Like anyone, I’m loath to post unflattering pictures of myself, but I had to laugh when I saw this one, so I thought I’d go ahead.
I spent most of last Thursday in Charlotte, NC with Vision Motor Cars’ CEO Brooks Agnew and COO Ed Kowalski. After several hours’ conversation on business strategy in Amelie’s, a fabulously hip French bakery that has become my Charlotte office, I test drove the latest version of VMC’s light-duty all-electric pickup truck, the “Everest.” I look extremely uncomfortable — almost frantic — backing the truck out of a parking space in Amelie’s cramped lot, desperately trying not to hit anything.
In my defense, and as I mentioned earlier, driving the Everest takes some getting used to, in several respects; it has a clutch to “feather” shifting between its five forward speeds. But there are so many differences between this and my little (45 MPG) six-speed VW Jetta diesel or the six-speed BMWs (an ’85 735i followed by a ’95 540i) I had earlier, it’s hard to know where to start. First, this isn’t an internal combustion engine with a flywheel that needs to keep spinning; you couldn’t stall it if you wanted to. And because of the high torque at zero RPMs, you can take off from a stop in 3rd or even 4th gear, and forget about shifting altogether.
It’s reliable, inexpensive, and all-electric, with a range of about 100 miles. It’s a great little truck for folks who work locally and don’t like the concept of our country’s borrowing a billion dollars a day to support our addiction to oil, and sending that money to our enemies.
I did some work at Fordham U at the Rose Hill campus in the Bronx 2 weeks ago and got driven from the building I was working in to the parking garage where my car was in an electric van. I didn’t take down the name or model and the guy that was driving told me the battery doesn’t last long even though it’s just used for driving around the campus. It was OK for moving equipment around campus but I don’t think it was road worthy. This is my first ride in an electric road vehicle since being in electric Cushmans at the Coast Guard academy and Governor’s island. I am heartened to hear that there are more electric road vehicles being offered.
Most electric vehicles don’t have multi-speed transmissions. It’s unclear why that one does. It would seem to be an unnecessary complication.
Its designer believes he can get by with a smaller motor if he lets the driver choose between these gears.
Yes, it is possible to get by with a smaller motor with a multi-speed transmission. But that adds complication and it would almost certainly be less expensive to have a larger motor than a stepped transmission.
Tesla at first used a 2-speed transmission for their (very expensive) sports car, but then changed to a 1-speed drive train.
Yes, I know this is a strange solution, but he seems resolute on the idea.
This does not solve fossil fuel energy problems. The electricity you use is generated with coal, natural gas or nuclear power. Hydro, wind or solar is unlikely. It does not matter which snake you grab, they are both poisonous … We need to improve the source, not the load.
Let us suppose that we improved the source. The benefit of improving the source would be greater if we also got rid of vehicles which use fossil fuels. Perhaps we could wait until the source is improved and THEN introduce electric vehicles, but then it would take longer to phase out fossil fuels.
Actually, we cannot be certain that EVs will be the winning vehicle technology. It may become possible to produce suitable liquid fuels to use in such a way that there is not a net emission of CO2.
Does you objection to nuclear power include the LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactor)? Have you studied LFTR technology and are you familiar with it? Do you, as a matter of principal, object to all possible nuclear technologies so that there is no conceivable nuclear technology that you would find acceptable under any circumstances?
I’ve seen a few of the videos on the subject, and apparently there is a lot to like here in terms of safety. However, most people think we’re a very way in terms of time and money from having a practically deployable solution here. You (obviously) don’t agree, but you’re in the minority. Do you want to post a link to what you consider to be the most credible (and accessible) article or video on the subject? Better yet, do you want to be a guest blogger on the subject?
Here’s a link to a video on the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1YjDdI_c8
One objection to the LFTR, and it’s a valid objection, is that it is not ready for production. But, while implementing other solutions, we should be doing everything possible to get it ready for production then use it, assuming that that seems appropriate after the necessary development work is done. There are no guarantees, but to me, it seems very promising.
I am not convinced that renewables will do the job except in certain limited (although still important) situations. If we work on expanding wind and solar THEN find that it is not capable of doing the job, we will have lost many years during which we could have expanded our current nuclear technology which we know will do the job, although with some rather obvious problems. Meanwhile, global warming, which is almost certainly far more dangerous than our current nuclear technology, would be increasing and endangering our civilization. Even with its problems, our current nuclear technology has a far better safety record than any other power technology. While that is being expanded, we could be working on LFTR technology and assuming that that is successful, stop expanding our current nuclear technology and implement LFTR technology which would eventually replace our current nuclear technology.
France went from 0% nuclear to 80% nuclear in 20 years. I do not believe that we could do that so fast with wind and solar, even if wind and solar could do the job. I have been unable to get accurate and verifiable figures on how much concrete and steel is required for wind and solar, but it seems to be at least 10 times as much as is required for nuclear or coal. That, plus the need to make extensive grid modifications to gather power from widely scattered sources, combined with a lock of a practical storage system, would greatly retard implementation. Then too, even with conservation measures, on a global level the need for power will dramatically increase. Only a very repressive dictatorship could prevent that.
The legal difficulties of getting easements for new high tension power lines should not be underestimated. Environmentalists and others have often greatly delayed building new power lines for years. They will also continue to find objections to wind and solar projects.
If, while expanding nuclear power capability, a break-through occurred making wind and / or solar practical, then we could stop expanding nuclear capability and expand wind and / or solar.
In the 19th century, steamboat explosions, which resulted in many horrible and ghastly injuries and deaths, were common. When Congress finally, after using many excuses to do nothing, took action, safety dramatically improved. When air travel was new, crashes were common until the technology improved. The very few nuclear reactor problems we have experienced have been with reactors the basic design of which is more than 30 years old. Considering that experience shows that advances in technology greatly improve safety, it would be most reasonable to assume that advancing reactor technology will result in improved safety, even if we continue to use pressurized water uranium reactors. The latest Westinghouse design is probably far safer than that of currently operating reactors. It has passive emergency cooling that is capable of preventing overheating without power for three days which should provide sufficient time to take additional measures if required.
Considering my age, I do not expect to live long enough to see the worst effects of global warming. However, I am concerned for those who will still be around. The risks of even our current nuclear technology seem very small by comparison.