> my cynical brain says the truth is much simpler, fossil industry they wants a stream of these type of articles so they can keep the illusion of 'just as bad' alive for buyers on the fence.

Yes that seems to be the takeaway from Transport Evolved on another recent “study” that compared EVs to ICE cars on tire particulate emissions.

https://youtu.be/aar8njoGgNY

A Hummer H3 is less than 5,000 pounds. The EV Hummer is about 9,000. This is a vehicle that's much heavier than almost anything on the road that isn't a commercial vehicle, including similar ICE vehicles.

(And for what it's worth, I don't think Tesla should get a free pass here. Tesla Model S's generally weigh about 4,000 to 5,000 pounds, which is awfully heavy for a Sedan. They just don't look heavy, so people don't think about it.)

I'm in favor of EVs generally, but I think the would would get along just fine if there wasn't an electric Hummer.

At 9000 pounds you need a truck driving licence in EU to drive such a beast.

... and it will likely get stuck in all the narrow streets ancient European towns/cities are filled with... a Hummer is too wide to enter many villages

Sure we'd also get along fine if there were no Hummers at all, gas or electric. But some people are going to make Hummers and some people are going to buy them. If the ones they buy are electric that's still a net win.

Sure but they should be taxed heavily based on height. The heavier vehicles are, the more maintenance and faster the roads wear out. That road maintenance need to be financed.

Well, if the amount of green energy doesn't grow fast enough, then switching to EV uses the same dirty carbon based energy, but require more of it.

I’m not a huge fan of that large of a vehicle being out on the road either, but realistically, it costs well over 100k, there aren’t going to be that many out on the road any time soon.

Most of this is a red herring.

also I read somewhere that road damage is proportional to fourth power of axle weight. essentially meaning this heavy beast make roads about 16 times worse off for rest of us. to be clear other EVs should not get a free pass here either.

Talking of making larger and large EV's, but I've thought for a while that electric RVs would be great. Though I imagine that the Tesla one would(will?) be 500k minimum.

But you'd get a huge electric battery for boon-docking it, running AC, etc and you get a large surface for solar panels. You might even be able to have enough solar to be able drive for a day to a new local, and then park for a few days to recharge and then drive again. ;)

I bet they'd sell pretty well and still be better environmentally than the RV's that get 5mpg.

So I've run some rough numbers on this- solar power a 40 ft class A is 8.5 ft wide, so 340 Sq ft of surface area. It appears that 20 watts per Sq foot is about average, so the rv roof can generate 6.8 KW. Parked you could reasonable set out a solar awning and double that to 13.6 KW.

Most existing class As are between 12000 and 30000 lbs. We are taking a 40' RV, so go to the top end of that. The F150 lightning and the Rivian both with around 8500 lbs and do about 50 kwh/100 miles on 135 kwh batteries, so a theoretical RV would likely need (very roughly) 3-4x truck equivalents of weight to maintain similar range characteristics (taking a little jump here, but most of that truck weight is battery and you still need to put an RV on top). The likely power requirements are 150-200 kwh/100 miles and 400-500 kwh of battery.

The means that, at the 6.8- 13.6 KW of solar panels are adding maybe a few miles an hour to range. Not impossible to boondock it and charge over the time, but going from 10% to 85 is going to take you a good chunk of the week under pretty optimal conditions.

That's awesome! I've not actually run the numbers, but yours sound about right. Though you might be able to add say 2 awnings to triple the regular roof. Of course, that adds weight, etc.

Alas it doesn't seem sustainable to self-charge for most. Not many people probably want to take half a week to re-charge for every few hundred miles they go.

Then again maybe for some it'd "add to the journey". It would still seem cool to do it all. If you were in a spot for a month, then you'd get a free "drive" afterwards. And the ability to boondock with effectively unlimited battery storage would be awesome.

While I don't think a fully self sustaining RV is practical for many use cases, it does open up some interesting possibilities- even with the relatively slow charge is enough to add maybe 30-50 miles of range over a weekend. That should calm range anxiety as there are going to progressively be less and less places more than 60 miles from a charging station.

Cost is a problem. Batteries are expensive - I saw $132/kwh as a low point, so at least $60k just for batteries, and maybe $3-6k for the solar stuff. That's half the cost of a low end class A already.

Charging even at normal stations will also be interesting. Will you be able to plug in to multiple chargers at once? If not, even most "fast" chargers are going to take hours.

I think the "fully self sustaining" would only be embraced by a subset of folks, but it might be a very big draw for them. Though that group doesn't often overlap with those can afford $500k+ rig. Though I think the primary benefit for the group who could afford that would be the built in self-sufficient (or excess!) solar power for daily living. Want to run a microwave, watch TV, and have an AC running while off grid at the lake? No problem and now no annoying generator running.

> That's half the cost of a low end class A already.

Yah I'd think an electric RV would have to target the crowd already spending $300k+ RVs. That'd overlap with the plush lifestyle folks above. Eventually a second hand market would emerge. Perhaps it'd ironically appeal to say remote oil rig workers (ok, maybe just the foremen) and such who sometimes have cash to burn.

Though including a smallish but high efficiency NG/LPG generator could supplement the battery range enough to significantly save on cost / weight. It'd also cover for say really bad solar spells, or after driving all day and boondocking, etc.

A 20 kWh NG/LPG generator ($6-10k) running for 8 hours would yield ~160 kWh. That'd extend the range of a 340 kWh (4x Model S's) battery to match that of a 500 kWh battery. It'd also only require about ~30-35 gallons of NG costing about $30-40 for the entire 8 hours of driving.

> Charging even at normal stations will also be interesting. Will you be able to plug in to multiple chargers at once? If not, even most "fast" chargers are going to take hours.

Ooft, good point! Maybe there will be more of those semi-truck capable Tesla super chargers. Still, it's an RV! Plug in for a few hours and eat lunch, take a nap, etc.

RV parks are also great places to find level 2 chargers even for non-RV EVs. If you are driving up to Alaska, most of the trip they are basically your only option right now.

I went on a long road trip recently with my Model S and charged up at RV parks where we tent camped. It's $10 more than a non-electric site, but that charge's range is worth about $30 worth of gasoline, so it's an easy win and you can skip the time to supercharge.

RV parks are probably going to start metering electricity if this becomes more commonplace... I imagine charging an EV takes a lot more energy than charging an RV, no?

They will charge by time (like by day as is common now) in most cases, since metering by usage often requires being regulated as a utility.

Are out those ev chargers regulated as utilities then?

Depends on the jurisdiction. In BC Canada at least, it has to be by time.