NFR Rivian R1T Driven Yesterday

Non-fishing related
Josh said:
The user problem is acceleration wear due to torque.
Click to expand...

They are heavier. This places more wear on tires as well as the road surface. I'm betting little of this is factored into the mighty carbon footprint model just like replacement batteries and life.

I'm not opposed to electric vehicles. It would just be nice to see some honest analysis of the benefits and detriments.
 
I’ve seen them on the road, and I’ll say that LED headlights are already too bright, not properly adjusted, and annoying to deal with on the road. The Rivian lightbar is absolutely silly in an urban setting. In fact, anyone driving around in a lifted truck with a lightbar on is silly
 
Dustin Chromers said:
They are heavier. This places more wear on tires as well as the road surface. I'm betting little of this is factored into the mighty carbon footprint model just like replacement batteries and life.

I'm not opposed to electric vehicles. It would just be nice to see some honest analysis of the benefits and detriments.
Click to expand...
If you're looking for that kind of critical analysis applied to not only electric cars, but the entire proposition that it's possible to power modern civilization by harvesting intermittent, weather dependent energy sources there are a couple of podcasts that you might enjoy.

The "Power Hungry" Podcast by Robert Bryce and the "Decouple" podcast by Chris Keefer.

robertbryce.com

Power Hungry Podcast - Robert Bryce - Author | Journalist | Public Speaker

The Power Hungry podcast spotlights energy, power, innovation, and politics. Author and journalist Robert Bryce talks with top thinkers, writers, and influencers — as well as regular citizens. Episodes
robertbryce.com robertbryce.com

Neither is right-wing (one is hosted by a Canadian labor-left environmentalist) or climate denialist, and neither is hostile to the idea of wind/solar in the abstract, but both are grounded in the conviction that access to reliable, affordable, abundant energy are a prerequisite for enabling humans to escape poverty, flourish in the modern world, and achieve a level of prosperity that enables them to have the luxury of concerning themselves with things like habitat preservation and the climate. Both also accept that there are certain applications for which there are no substitutes for hydrocarbon energy/feedstock anytime soon, if ever. Both correctly (in my view) conclude that when energy becomes increasingly expensive and unreliable, it's the poor that will suffer the most. Both favor the N-to-N path (natural gas to nuclear) transition as the most technologically and economically feasible path towards minimizing global carbon emissions.

One of my favorite episodes of Bryce's podcast featured a Vermont granny/physical-chemist turned accidental activist when she became concerned about the social consequences of grid-destabilization brought on by power-auctions mechanisms that mispriced reliability.


One of the most interesting "Decouple" podcasts featured an Aussie geometalurgist from Finland talking about the physical and economic constraints on the mining expansion necessary to bring about the "Energy Transition" as it's currently envisioned. E.g. the energy intensity of copper mining (for example) has steadily increased as ore-quality has decreased, so that not only does it require processing ever increasing quantities of ore to recover it, but the ore processing itself has become more energy intensive because the larger quantities of rock have to be crushed into finer and finer powder to liberate the ever-smaller grains of copper present in the lower and lower quality ore and at some point that translates into hard constraints on production.



Obviously not everyone's cup of tea, and probably aneurism-inducing for anyone with a strong emotional-political investment in the idea that wind/solar/and EV's are going to save humanity, but both podcasts are potentially a good match for anyone that's concerned about these issues that likes to solve problems with an approach grounded in analytical-pragmatism.
 
cedarslug said:
I’ve seen them on the road, and I’ll say that LED headlights are already too bright, not properly adjusted, and annoying to deal with on the road. The Rivian lightbar is absolutely silly in an urban setting. In fact, anyone driving around in a lifted truck with a lightbar on is silly
Click to expand...
That’s not just the Rivan but the majority of gas/diesel trucks on the road lol
 
Fourbtgait said:
One has to think realistically. It took from 1900 give/take to get to the power we have now with ice. A lot of that development happened after 1990.
ev has only been around since? So it is still in the infancy. It is amazing as it is the great strides they have made not just vehicles but batteries in the past 10 years.
we can’t expect instant results.
Click to expand...
Actually the first electric car was developed experimentally in 1832 and there were multiple on the market in the late 1890s.
 
Starfish said:
Actually the first electric car was developed experimentally in 1832 and there were multiple on the market in the late 1890s.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. So they have been in continuous production since then huh?
They also had cars running from boilers and diesel. Point is, only ice went into consistent production and development over a century. Other methods languished.
 
Last edited:
RCF said:
This popped up on one of my news feeds.

EV battery game changer?

finance.yahoo.com

New Battery Crushes Tesla's Tech, Unveils A Solid-State Marvel With 300% Higher Energy Density, 15-Minute Ultra-Fast Charge

In the rapidly evolving landscape of electric vehicle (EV) technology, a new player is emerging as a formidable challenger to Tesla Inc.’s dominance. QuantumScape, a Silicon Valley-based startup, is revolutionizing the EV battery market with its cutting-edge solid-state batteries. The batteries...
finance.yahoo.com finance.yahoo.com

The industry will need more innovations to support transition to EV vehicles...
Click to expand...
That's the trick to all of this, isn't it? Meet the high energy demands needed to power the vehicles, at scale and across platforms (replacing spent battery packs with a reasonably priced, for your vehicle, easy to recycle), while meeting all the environmental concerns of sourcing materials.
Thats a tall order. It's going to take time. And risk. And lots of other things.

It'll take innovators and investors and sweat and tears and we shouldnt expect expeditious help from our grid locked government.
 
Fourbtgait said:
That’s not just the Rivan but the majority of gas/diesel trucks on the road lol
Click to expand...
Couple years ago I was sitting in traffic waiting for a light to change ahead of me, and a Jeep pulled behind me with extremely bright headlights (maybe it was the angle of approach) .

Anyway, they cast such a bright reflection in my rear view mirror that I had to shield it with my hand to preserve my vision... again, maybe the angle of approach behind me, but the reflection must have been visible to the other driver, because he switched his headlights off after I'd shielded and unshielded the mirror once or twice. I gave them a wave of thanks.

Going to work in the wee hours???? How many vehicles coming the other way do you see with aftermarket headlights that need to be aimed correctly?? Bet it's plenty .
 
JayB said:
If you're looking for that kind of critical analysis applied to not only electric cars, but the entire proposition that it's possible to power modern civilization by harvesting intermittent, weather dependent energy sources there are a couple of podcasts that you might enjoy.

The "Power Hungry" Podcast by Robert Bryce and the "Decouple" podcast by Chris Keefer.

robertbryce.com

Power Hungry Podcast - Robert Bryce - Author | Journalist | Public Speaker

The Power Hungry podcast spotlights energy, power, innovation, and politics. Author and journalist Robert Bryce talks with top thinkers, writers, and influencers — as well as regular citizens. Episodes
robertbryce.com robertbryce.com

Neither is right-wing (one is hosted by a Canadian labor-left environmentalist) or climate denialist, and neither is hostile to the idea of wind/solar in the abstract, but both are grounded in the conviction that access to reliable, affordable, abundant energy are a prerequisite for enabling humans to escape poverty, flourish in the modern world, and achieve a level of prosperity that enables them to have the luxury of concerning themselves with things like habitat preservation and the climate. Both also accept that there are certain applications for which there are no substitutes for hydrocarbon energy/feedstock anytime soon, if ever. Both correctly (in my view) conclude that when energy becomes increasingly expensive and unreliable, it's the poor that will suffer the most. Both favor the N-to-N path (natural gas to nuclear) transition as the most technologically and economically feasible path towards minimizing global carbon emissions.

One of my favorite episodes of Bryce's podcast featured a Vermont granny/physical-chemist turned accidental activist when she became concerned about the social consequences of grid-destabilization brought on by power-auctions mechanisms that mispriced reliability.


One of the most interesting "Decouple" podcasts featured an Aussie geometalurgist from Finland talking about the physical and economic constraints on the mining expansion necessary to bring about the "Energy Transition" as it's currently envisioned. E.g. the energy intensity of copper mining (for example) has steadily increased as ore-quality has decreased, so that not only does it require processing ever increasing quantities of ore to recover it, but the ore processing itself has become more energy intensive because the larger quantities of rock have to be crushed into finer and finer powder to liberate the ever-smaller grains of copper present in the lower and lower quality ore and at some point that translates into hard constraints on production.



Obviously not everyone's cup of tea, and probably aneurism-inducing for anyone with a strong emotional-political investment in the idea that wind/solar/and EV's are going to save humanity, but both podcasts are potentially a good match for anyone that's concerned about these issues that likes to solve problems with an approach grounded in analytical-pragmatism.
Click to expand...

I'll add to this by saying that the environmental and societal costs vary greatly by location. I have a rooftop, grid tied solar system on my house, and it produces the same amount of electricity that we currently use without an ev. My system is relatively small, and it's on the east side of my house, but we do live in eastern Washington. There are a lot of ways (especially for people who can afford the higher end evs) that we can help to reduce the strain on society that are often overlooked by people who are analyzing mass power generation and consumption.
 
Grabbed lunch today at Fred Meyer.
The new Tesla charging stations that were put in seemed to be a hit. All full and vehicles waiting to charge.
SF

IMG_6075.jpeg
 
wonder how many among those parked are part of the two million (out of four million made) Telsa's recalled for faulty autopilot issues? My son just got the Tesla notice for his.
 
headduck said:
Couple interesting points above.

The parking in cities (my reference is seattle/portland) was typically excessive with a glut of routinely empty spaces. Also number spots were mandated by code, with variances initially very difficult or impossible to get. They're also typically sub grade which is super spendy and often dont bring additional revenue. Yeah, bike nuts push for less spaces for sure.

For mobility impaired, make sense to have ample spots or at least insure that parking is available is limited.

in the PNW where we're fed by Bonneville, electrical demand exceeds capacity, and all additional Kwhs come from dirty out of state sources subject to huge transmissions losses.

The consequence being that emissions of electric vehicles is displaced to out of state communities who rely on dirty sources for generation, then we lose a bunch of it in the way.

The batteries are also not the cleanest in production or end of life.

Not saying this breaks the benefit, as I haven't done the math, but as with everything, it's a bit more nuanced.

For the record, I'm ok with losing the ICE for good, but we need to figure out how to power all these new cars in a manner that makes sense. If everybody had one, we'd have a whole new set of problems for future generations.
Click to expand...
Just wait for those electrical rates to soar when demand for E goes through the roof. One of my best friends is German and has a small Audi EV and it costs more per KM than petro would. Needless to say, I give him a hard time.
 
charles sullivan said:
Wife has a plug in hybrid that gets 29 miles/ charge and we have solar. She almost never buys gas.

The lack of fuel costs does not out way the cars cost but she bought the car because she wanted it. It's a fantastic machine.

I chuckle at the fear that the change to electric brings. Any issue is blown out of proportion. Perfection is demanded of electric vehicles while we look past the real costs of fossil fuels that have been hidden for so long.

At one point in this country we believed that we could lead in changing for the better. Somewhere along the line we seem to have lost that. The people who believe that "yesterday is better than tomorrow can ever be" have taken the wind out of our sales in my opinion.

Personally, I'd rather not raise petroleum demand as it benefits Russia and theocratic Middle Eastern countries.
Click to expand...
Charles, we don’t always see eye to eye but you hit it perfectly, plug-in-hybrid, I like these designs.
 
Scottybs said:
Just wait for those electrical rates to soar when demand for E goes through the roof. One of my best friends is German and has a small Audi EV and it costs more per KM than petro would. Needless to say, I give him a hard time.
Click to expand...
Scotty: Could you supply more specific data on your second sentence.
 
Flymph said:
Scotty: Could you supply more specific data on your second sentence.
Click to expand...
Flymph, sorry but no exact data, Europeans calculate L/100KM instead of MPG, when he picked me up in FRA one day and took me for a spin (pretty cool ride) I asked him what the per kilometer costs in comparison to the comparable gas/diesel versions. I trust his analysis, as he is a PHD in a scientific/medical field.
 
Wondering if Tesla solved the "sudden" braking problem, too. Just this Fall, got hit with a 14% increase in electrical rate, now rates are going to go up 18% for 2024.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top