Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Gas-Powered Tesla
With charging stations going up all over the place, there still aren’t enough to go around. However, this guy doesn’t like to stop on long trips, even for gas. His solution for his Tesla is unique:
Matt Mikka explained he used a 400-cc gas generator in the back of his Tesla Model S.
“I really like my Tesla but what I don’t like is stopping to charge, especially on a road trip,” Mikka said. “I don’t even like stopping to fill up my gas-powered car, and that’s way faster than charging.”
In a video posted to his YouTube channel, Warped Perception, Mikka explained that he placed the generator where the Tesla’s rear window is.
While Mikka made the 1,800-mile trip without plugging in at an electric vehicle charging station, he had to stop to allow the Tesla to charge on the side of the road. Mikka also said he had to drive at slower speeds in order to have enough energy to keep the Tesla charged.
Look at how he has to radically alter his driving to accommodate the generator.
Seriously, though. I believe if we ever do transition to all-EV cars, it should be a long, gradual, and voluntary process. The best way to bridge that transition is with hybrid cars that have a plug-in connection.
Now, my Toyota hybrid does not have an external jack for charging — the engine does that all on its own. But I can envision hybrids someday having a jack for battery charging from the grid.
Of course, the left wants to force people to EVs immediately when the infrastructure is not only not ready, but cannot be readily expanded because environmental groups fight that too . . .
Published in Technology
That’s…sub-optimal.
That’s called a plug-in hybrid. There are many models available from multiple manufacturers.
There is an argument to be made that fuel-powered generators aren’t subject to the same emissions control regulations as are vehicles powered by internal combustion engines, therefore it might potentially be cost-effective to own an electric car that one charges with a gas-powered or diesel-powered generator (especially if one uses biofuels to run the generator).
I do not believe anybody has actually done the math to compare the long-term costs. I wager that the higher purchase price and higher maintenance costs (e.g. battery replacement) for an electric car outweigh any savings from not having to comply with emissions control regulations.
Still, it’s an interesting thought experiment.
Yabbut, if he charged overnight by plugging into the grid instead of using the generator, he’d fill up his battery at electric company rates and then he’d only have to use the gas generator later in the trip.
Of course, the degraded aerodynamics would mean that his electric-only range would be even less than normal, but still…
I know several people with electric cars or hybrids.
I’ve never heard of one of them having to replace the batteries.
Reports are anecdotal, and it doesn’t seem to be something that many EV owners have had to do, but for those who have had to replace the battery it has been a very expensive undertaking. Generally, the batteries are only under warrantee up to 100,000 miles.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=electric+car+battery+replacement&iar=news&ia=news
It would actually make sense for EVs to have a gasoline motor built in as a reserve for extending range. The original Chevy Volt was built around this idea. But the Government insists that EV’s must be “zero emission” so this very sensible idea is not allowed.
A friend who lives in Fremont had to have the battery replaced, but she put a lot of miles on the car. I think it was at 150K that replacement was needed.
https://www.thedrive.com/cars-101/38127/prius-battery-life
The BMW i3 is really built on this concept (I owned one from 2014 – 18), and the gasoline motor generator is even called a “range extender.” The BMW’s built-in generator (approx. 600 cc 2 cylinder motor taken from a BMW motorcycle) exists only to recharge the car’s battery. There is no direct connection from the gasoline motor to the drive wheels. The gasoline motor is not intended to run for long, and could easily overheat.
Some part of government regulation and what could count as an “electric car” caused gasoline capacity to run the generator to be limited to 1.9 gallons. Various people with BMW i3 cars discussed ways to rig additional on-board gasoline capacity, but all were quite unsafe. So one pair of questions I have is, “Where does this guy keep the gasoline to run his generator, and what happens to that gasoline should he have a crash?” I did read an account of a guy who took an extended road trip in a BMW i3 with range extender. He had to stop about every 60 miles to refill the gasoline tank, but putting 1.9 gallons in doesn’t take very long, so he was in and out of the gasoline stations very quickly.
And this illustrates the most idiotic part of governmental climate policies. There are all sorts of technologies that reduce carbon emissions by 50% or more. e.g. Hybrid cars. Switching from coal to natural gas. Carbon sequestration. etc. etc.
But for some reason they’re committed to this “zero emission” boondoggle, all the while total emissions still keep going up every year because “zero emission” technologies don’t get the job done. If they relaxed a bit and let people use cheaper technologies that actually reduce emissions then total emissions would be going down.
(On one bright note, the Canuckistani government just announced that we’re finally going to get a small modular reactor built in this country. It’s too bad that taxpayers are gonna be stuck paying for it, but it’s a start.)
30 miles per gallon is nothing to brag about.
It makes sense if you recognize that their motive is not the environment, but stamping out Americans’ independent lifestyles. Control is what they’re after.
(Just wait until a social credit system denies you access to the highly technological charging infrastructure.)
So, the sort of gas engine that doesn’t have to conform to emissions control regulations for automobiles…
My 2022 Sonata Hybrid is averaging 48.6 MPG over 11,500 miles. Peak mileage for a tank of gas was 55.1 mpg over 524 miles.
Good to know! I’d be tempted to get that if it were an option on my car . . .
Too bad they don’t figure in the emissions from the electricity charging source . . .
That seems about average for a non-hybrid car. The best MPG for non-hybrid new cars in 2021 was about 33 miles per gallon.
https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml
Another problem caused by an arbitrary government regulation. How about not regulating to that depth and let manufacturers and consumers decide what size gas tank is good enough?
But noooooo . . .
That’s part of the problem. They want to go to zero emission immediately. But they ignore:
Are carbon emissions really a problem? (I think not)
Is zero emission even feasible?
Is dictating zero emission without a transition period viable?
Is Greta Thunberg nuts because now she’s for nuclear power?
Unless you drive a 426 Hemi . . .
Nailed it . . .
To be fair, nuclear power is zero emission technology (as long as the reactor doesn’t explode).
Those numbers shock me.
My 2008 Sonata (non-hybrid) averaged 27.5 mpg over 232,000 miles. My wife’s 2020 fullsize crossover (Hyundai Santa Fe) is averaging 25.6 over 20,000 miles.
It’s hard to believe that modern smaller sedans and hatchbacks can’t beat 33 mpg. I had a tiny little econobox hatchback [Plymouth Colt] in 1985 that got 40 mpg.
Those are called “hybrids” mostly.
The larger problem is that the batteries are chock full of toxic heavy metals.
Not sure that matters, electric cars are capable of burning and releasing toxic fumes possibly for days, all by themselves.
Replacing the battery in that is a lot cheaper too.
I don’t think that this is correct, for most people who support the Green agenda. I don’t have empirical data on this. It is just my impression. Most of those I’ve seen appear to genuinely believe that CO2 emissions are causing a serious climate problem.
There may be some who are just power-hungry people interested in “control.” I suspect that there are not many of these.
Another group would be the grifters — those who profit from the Green agenda, which would include investors and companies receiving subsidies.
This article from 2013 noted that fuel economy had gotten worse for many vehicle types over the previous 20 years, but did not offer an explanation for the decline.
For example:
However, this article from 2015 blames increased vehicle weight for the decline in fuel efficiency.
For example:
One can presume the problem is even worse today, since government mandates to get to “zero emissions” likely means that little-to-no R&D money is being spent on making combustion engines more efficient.
I wonder how much of the increased weight might be due to required emissions and “safety” equipment?
Also, I don’t think your comparisons are quite fair. The first Honda Fit image that came up, was a 4-door. As far as I can tell there was never a 4-door CRX and in the US the CRX never even had a back seat.
One counter example: Our 2009 Santa Fe got just a hair under 19 MPG over 115,000 miles. The 2020 we replaced it with is bigger, heavier, has a bunch more feature, and as I mentioned above, is getting 25+ MPG.
I assume a lot of the weight is from safety features and gizmos, plus cars are just generally bigger [its getting really hard to find decent 14 inch tires for my 1987 MR2. Most new cars seem to have 18″ or 19″ tires.] Manufactures also spent a good portion of the last decade or so getting engines to be more powerful instead of more fuel efficient, because that’s what people were buying. Compare the 0-60 times for standard family sedans of today to high-end sports cars of the 80s and 90s.