Visiting Family With An EV

Having needlessly planned to retrieve next year’s Solo EV from Calgary, I have a bunch of tools I can use to visit just about anywhere there are people. Take folks in dry land Saskatchewan, in the southwest corner, no less. Charging stations are few and far between but there is one at Shaunavon, SK, at the hockey rink, and it’s wind-powered. I like that. That station is only 63km from relatives so I could easily drive to Shaunavon, charge up, go visiting and return the way I came. The biggest problem might be driving on 126km of gravel at the far end. That can’t be good for a belt-driven car…

From that point, it’s

  • 109km to Peavey Mart at Swift Current,
  • 171km to Peavey Mart at Moose Jaw,
  • 77km to Peavey Mart at Regina,
  • 168km to the townhall/library at Whitewood,
  • 115km to the train station museum at Virden, MB,
  • 79km to Best Western at Brandon,
  • 43.7km to Carberry Town Hall,
  • 152km to Best Western at Headingley, and
  • 45km to Home!

No doubt I could skip some of those stops but Canada is an interesting place to visit, food is good most places, and I like to take breaks. The longest leg is 171km in Saskatchewan but Electra Meccanica claims 160km is achievable at 130km/h so at the rate I drive, with much less air-resistance, I should be fine.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Visiting Family With An EV

  1. dougman says:

    “you and idiot”

    Who is “you and idiot”?? If you mean to say, me, being dougman and yourself, being the idiot, that suits me just fine.

  2. oiaohm says:

    Fifi do you even drive, let alone own a vehicle?
    Dougman who is Fifi. Right that is someone who does not exist who you bring up when all the documentation says you and idiot.

  3. dougman says:

    Fifi do you even drive, let alone own a vehicle?

  4. dougman wrote, “I can do all that on one tank of wood gas in my truck. Same with my 7.3 F-250. Your EV notion is silly.”

    1. That might be true if you don’t need stops. Even pros are often mandated to take rests every few hours.
    2. That might be true if hauling a ton of extra stuff around made sense. It doesn’t. You could probably drive three times further if your truck had three wheels, no extra seats, a smaller engine, etc.
    3. That might be true if I wanted to work with a toxic chemical routinely or didn’t care about CO, CO2, NOx, but I don’t the former and I do care about the latter. It’s just not necessary to operate that way, at least for me a retired old guy who likes technology that works.
  5. oiaohm says:

    I can do all that on one tank of wood gas in my truck. Same with my 7.3 F-250. Your EV notion is silly.
    dougman
    “Generator Gas: The Swedish Experience from 1939-1945”
    Go read that book. Sorry to say in colder areas wood gas ends up not being that safe.

    There were cases where wood gas vehicles end up deadly because too many were parked in the same street. The issue here wood gas solutions for vehicles don’t in fact scale. 1 or 2 in a area safe. Every car in the street wood gas totally not safe documented as resulting in deaths.

    https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/process-turns-timber-waste-into-diesel/1877201/
    One solution is wood gas to diesel that is quite a bit safer than wood gas in each vehicle. I guess your wood gas solution is not set-up to make a liquid fuel. The issue is gasifers can only be so close to each other without causing nightmares.

    EV might sound stupid to you dougman but you can have every car in the street be EV and not have people falling over dead. Or have to worry if there is another car of the same type in the area as you should with wood-gas.

    Basically wood-gas disappeared out of common usage due to safety problems. Anyone who has done the proper background reading on wood-gas would not be thinking that vehicle based wood gas is that great of a idea.

    The first liquid fuel you can produce from wood-gas is methanol. Most countries are not like Brazil demanding that cars support running on methanol all the way to standard gasoline. A stack of cars all using methanol fuel all parked near each other are as about as safe as the gasoline and diesel.

    So dougman if you were talking about cars running on methanol with home set-up wood-gas to methanol plants you would have system that is somewhere near valid. Of course limitation on how close gasifiers can be to each other kind of take out lot of areas of the cities.

    Really what you dougman were are suggesting instead of an EV is technically stupid but that does not stop people from doing it. Particularly when you consider its possible to have a vehicle that will run on methanol and product methanol in a stationary plant with exclusion zone to other items to avoid CO and CO2 poisoning.

    Yes having the gasifier and drive engine in different locations effectively gives more area for the CO/CO2 to disperse into. That is the problem with Gasifier on car/truck. The burn to produce the gas produces so much CO/CO2 add that to the CO/CO2 from the engine and you are in a risky location. Documented in World War II and nothing about the current designs of gasifiers on cars and trucks effectively deal with the problem. Only reason wood gasifiers on cars and trucks works without deaths at the moment is there is not enough on the road at the moment for 3 of them to end up parked next to each other.

  6. dougman says:

    I can do all that on one tank of wood gas in my truck. Same with my 7.3 F-250. Your EV notion is silly.

    While all hypocrites in government, namely Trudope, stating that less is doing more for the environment. They expect you to get by with less, while they jet-set around the globe, all at your expense.

    Since the beginning of their philanthropic endeavors, the Rockefellers have used social causes to amass influence in policy areas of their choosing. Since the 1980s, their cause of choice has been the climate change agenda (originally called global warming). Their crusade to collapse the fossil fuel industry in favor of renewable energy in well-documented, from their involvement in major global climate treaties and organizations ā€“ the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1992 to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol ā€“ to spending hundreds of millions to advance the renewable energy industry.

    https://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Rockefeller-Way-Report-Final.pdf

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *