Electric Cars Not Yet Viable

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-
89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

> But you could have - pretty much overnight

Not really at all. That is another lie as you seem to conveniently
forget, underestimate, and mis-charcterize the POWER requisite for
freight transportation.

We simply do not have good enough batteries yet. Period. One can
place the biggest electric motors around into a tractor and if it
cannot do the load or move the distance, it is worthless for the task.
To integrate a battery which can means you are now moving the weight of
the battery pack around as well.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

Silly idea. Electrified railroads are standard everywhere where
the population density is higher than in the US.

electrified railroads move people. REAL locomotives move freight.

REAL locomotives are diesel electric. ALL our trains are
electric, but not on an overhead grid.

Your characterization of the 'idea' being silly, is pretty stupid,
because it is not silly, and it is not my idea. India, in fact, has
the first CNG train there is.

So much for your population density analysis.

Easier here to put a train on existing tracks that powers itself
than it is to erect overhead power feeds all over the place.

I do not think you thought it through as in the places you
describe, there are typically a single line running back and forth.
Here... in the US... there are thousands of lines. BIG
difference.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 6:11:56 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-
89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

But you could have - pretty much overnight

Not really at all. That is another lie as you seem to conveniently
forget, underestimate, and mis-charcterize the POWER requisite for
freight transportation.

We simply do not have good enough batteries yet. Period. One can
place the biggest electric motors around into a tractor and if it
cannot do the load or move the distance, it is worthless for the task.
To integrate a battery which can means you are now moving the weight of
the battery pack around as well.

You do know that Tesla already has built electric semis and is presently road testing them, right?

I don't know this for a fact, but I expect one of the limitations currently is the charging infrastructure. While it is very good for taking autos on trips, they use eight charging stalls to charge a semi. They will need to build new semi charging stations. Unlike autos which will be charged mainly at home, semis will mainly be charged on the road. They will likely only sell semis for specific routes initially and build the charging network to suit, expanding the routes and sales together. Or they might initially sell to short haul markets where charging can be done overnight at the owner's facility.

That gives me a thought. It is rather pointless to have solar cells on a car because the relatively small surface area doesn't impact the battery drain much. But on a tractor trailer the surface is *much* larger. I wonder if this could be used to greatly increase the range with a lot fewer batteries.

--

Rick C.

++-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 1:23:00 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:56:34 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lasse
Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote in
8e392128-9dad-4709-ade6-de459421a594@googlegroups.com>:

I once did a back of the envelope calculation comparing the local
coal fired powerplant making electricity for a Tesla and a car running on gaoline.
The chemical to mechanical energy efficiency came out about the same

but
the powerplants exhaust is run through scrubbers and filters and isn't
output
at ground level in the city

last night I watched a program on 3sat TV here about electric cars.
Calculations show that those only become more climate friendly after 100,000 km
They also went into the lithium mining, and the damage done to the environment and people by that.
And then they went into the lithium battery recycling and showed that only 20% or so was recycled.

I doubt they were showing 20% of EV batteries were being recycled. More likely they were looking at present lithium ion battery recycling which is mostly cell phones. Not at all a relevant number.

Did they consider the environmental damage done to mine the materials to make autos? How about petroleum? I'm sure petroleum mining is clean as the driven snow...

While you are an intelligent person and can learn all the facts of an issue, you instead prefer to only pay attention to the facts you want to hear. In some ways this is surprising, but this should be taken into account when considering your work.

--

Rick C.

++-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 6:22:59 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:


50 10k Lb trailers cost more to pull than 13 40k Lb trailers
cost.

So it needs to be able to tractor a 40,000 Lb trailer, just
like we
currently do.

But the prime mover only needs to tractor the load between
charging stations or battery swap station. Range is a negotiable
feature.


You are an idiot with that one. One will NOT be charging their
tractor trailer trucks overnight, AND as I stated, the difference is
unacceptable. I need a truck that can pull the load described AND
do so for 2000 miles at a time AND NOT have a 1.5 day wait between
segments of a long haul.

You really appear to know absolutely nothing about trucking.

And no, battery swap stations are not feasible aither.

I would think battery swap is much more feasible with semis than with autos and even Tesla considered battery swapping with autos.

The point of battery swapping in an auto is to get the time to something comparable to filling with gas. When a semi stops to fill the driver is also stopping to eat and likely has to rest some amount of time. So in this case the battery swap can take longer. The purpose is to reduce the peak electrical load while charging.

At that point the ownership of the battery changes. The battery is no longer a part of the semi, but a device that is rented for the fuel content like a propane tank.

Yeah, that could work.

--

Rick C.

+++-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Andy Bennet]

On 04/07/2019 11:11, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-
89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

But you could have - pretty much overnight

Not really at all. That is another lie as you seem to conveniently
forget, underestimate, and mis-charcterize the POWER requisite for
freight transportation.

We simply do not have good enough batteries yet. Period. One can
place the biggest electric motors around into a tractor and if it
cannot do the load or move the distance, it is worthless for the task.
To integrate a battery which can means you are now moving the weight of
the battery pack around as well.

The eDumper truck has a 4.5 tonne 700kWh battery. It transports up to 65
tonnes of rock (gross weight of 123 tonnes) down a hill. It uses the
energy required for braking down the hill to replenish its battery for
the empty return uphill run.

https://www.electrive.com/2018/04/23/empas-edumper-is-the-worlds-largest-electric-truck

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 08:38:32 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 03/07/2019 15:18, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 5:37:17 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/06/2019 14:35, Rick C wrote:

It's hard to imagine the British being so intransigent when they
invented the Steam Engine and Train. Had to make some changes to
accommodate that, eh?

Quite a few railway enterprises went spectacularly bust in the process
bankrupting their investors who used the 10% deposit scheme and found
themselves called upon to pay up the remaining 90% in the bust phase.

https://www.orbex.com/blog/en/2017/10/railway-mania-boom-bust

Be careful what you wish for. There are similarities with Tesla.

One huge difference. Tesla is a company. The railway bubble you talk about was an industry.

And what do you think each of the UK regional railway companies were?
They were public limited companies with shareholders.

The trend for unicorn companies that have never made a profit but always
promise "jam tomorrow" is a modern version of the same boom-bust game.

We partonize two bars that provide FREE BEER TOMORROW.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:11:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 04/07/19 09:53, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 10:15:03 AM UTC+2, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 04/07/19 08:38, Martin Brown wrote:
On 03/07/2019 15:18, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 5:37:17 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/06/2019 14:35, Rick C wrote:

It's hard to imagine the British being so intransigent when they
invented the Steam Engine and Train.  Had to make some changes to
accommodate that, eh?

Quite a few railway enterprises went spectacularly bust in the process
bankrupting their investors who used the 10% deposit scheme and found
themselves called upon to pay up the remaining 90% in the bust phase.

https://www.orbex.com/blog/en/2017/10/railway-mania-boom-bust

Be careful what you wish for. There are similarities with Tesla.

One huge difference.  Tesla is a company.  The railway bubble you talk about
was an industry.

And what do you think each of the UK regional railway companies were?
They were public limited companies with shareholders.

The trend for unicorn companies that have never made a profit but always promise
"jam tomorrow" is a modern version of the same boom-bust game.

You are really reaching with this one.

Am I? You choose to wallow in your wilful ignorance. Read the story.
Your failure to understand classic industrial history is astonishing.

Just so, on all counts.

I understand and appreciate
- enthusiasm for new products and concepts
- ignorance, since we can't know everything
but as I point out to my daughter, "ignorance can be
cured but stupidity can't".

Now when somebody *repeatedly* ignores or denies solid
examples that conflict with their statements, we are left
in a quandary:
- is the person a fanboi or shill?
- is the person stupid?
- should we trust their *other* statements?
- are they promoting the indefensible?

Unfortunately Rick C has repeatedly ignored and denied
multiple solid "inconvenient truths" on this topic.

Give him his due. He does pick up some new information, and while he denies other propositions, he does at least acknowledge that they exist.

Yes, but it took /too/ many messages and concrete
examples for him to start to acknowledge that where
he lives is /very/ different to other places.
It is being repeated with in this railway mania
subthread.

That doesn't engender trust in his other
statements; hence my /questions/ above.


John Larkin is a whole lot less eductatable, and Cursitor Doom and krw can't even imagine that they might ever be wrong.

CD is indistinguishable from a troll, but even he
is occasionally right - just like a broken clock.
I even found myself agreeing with /one/ of his
points recently!

JL has significant strengths, but also has
significant blind spots in a way that I find
difficult to understand. In other words, I'll
take what he says seriously on /some/ subjects,
but definitely not others.

Sigh, the penalty for having ideas and breaking rules has haunted me
my entire life. But there have been compensations. I'm drinking my hot
Peets coffee in one right now.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 10:21:23 AM UTC-4, Andy Bennet wrote:

On 04/07/2019 11:11, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-
89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

But you could have - pretty much overnight

Not really at all. That is another lie as you seem to conveniently
forget, underestimate, and mis-charcterize the POWER requisite for
freight transportation.

We simply do not have good enough batteries yet. Period. One can
place the biggest electric motors around into a tractor and if it
cannot do the load or move the distance, it is worthless for the task.
To integrate a battery which can means you are now moving the weight of
the battery pack around as well.


The eDumper truck has a 4.5 tonne 700kWh battery. It transports up to 65
tonnes of rock (gross weight of 123 tonnes) down a hill. It uses the
energy required for braking down the hill to replenish its battery for
the empty return uphill run.

https://www.electrive.com/2018/04/23/empas-edumper-is-the-worlds-largest-electric-truck

Did you see the picture? Snow! This must be a time when the truck is down for maintenance.

Interesting that the vehicle still has a radiator. I guess cooling the batteries is no small task.

I wonder if it is operating in a lithium mine? lol

--

Rick C.

+++-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:57:43 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 04/07/19 15:40, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:11:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 04/07/19 09:53, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 10:15:03 AM UTC+2, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 04/07/19 08:38, Martin Brown wrote:
On 03/07/2019 15:18, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 5:37:17 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/06/2019 14:35, Rick C wrote:

It's hard to imagine the British being so intransigent when they
invented the Steam Engine and Train.  Had to make some changes to
accommodate that, eh?

Quite a few railway enterprises went spectacularly bust in the process
bankrupting their investors who used the 10% deposit scheme and found
themselves called upon to pay up the remaining 90% in the bust phase.

https://www.orbex.com/blog/en/2017/10/railway-mania-boom-bust

Be careful what you wish for. There are similarities with Tesla.

One huge difference.  Tesla is a company.  The railway bubble you talk about
was an industry.

And what do you think each of the UK regional railway companies were?
They were public limited companies with shareholders.

The trend for unicorn companies that have never made a profit but always promise
"jam tomorrow" is a modern version of the same boom-bust game.

You are really reaching with this one.

Am I? You choose to wallow in your wilful ignorance. Read the story.
Your failure to understand classic industrial history is astonishing.

Just so, on all counts.

I understand and appreciate
- enthusiasm for new products and concepts
- ignorance, since we can't know everything
but as I point out to my daughter, "ignorance can be
cured but stupidity can't".

Now when somebody *repeatedly* ignores or denies solid
examples that conflict with their statements, we are left
in a quandary:
- is the person a fanboi or shill?
- is the person stupid?
- should we trust their *other* statements?
- are they promoting the indefensible?

Unfortunately Rick C has repeatedly ignored and denied
multiple solid "inconvenient truths" on this topic.

Give him his due. He does pick up some new information, and while he denies other propositions, he does at least acknowledge that they exist.

Yes, but it took /too/ many messages and concrete
examples for him to start to acknowledge that where
he lives is /very/ different to other places.
It is being repeated with in this railway mania
subthread.

That doesn't engender trust in his other
statements; hence my /questions/ above.


John Larkin is a whole lot less eductatable, and Cursitor Doom and krw can't even imagine that they might ever be wrong.

CD is indistinguishable from a troll, but even he
is occasionally right - just like a broken clock.
I even found myself agreeing with /one/ of his
points recently!

JL has significant strengths, but also has
significant blind spots in a way that I find
difficult to understand. In other words, I'll
take what he says seriously on /some/ subjects,
but definitely not others.

Sigh, the penalty for having ideas and breaking rules has haunted me
my entire life. But there have been compensations. I'm drinking my hot
Peets coffee in one right now.

We /all/ have our strengths and weaknesses, and
being aware of our /personal/ strengths/weaknesses
is valuable.

As long as you don't limit yourself by assuming that you can't or
shouldn't do something, or that it can't be done because experts don't
already do it.

Enjoy your coffee

Electronic design engineers tend to work a lot, so don't waste money
on silly stuff, and tend to marry stable women who have good jobs. The
combination makes for a good upper-middle-class life.

Peet was Dutch, and started roasting coffee in Berkeley, back when
americans were drinking weak swill. Peets spun off Starbucks, which
partly regressed to swill. Peets coffee is still great.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:11:56 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-
89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

But you could have - pretty much overnight

Not really at all. That is another lie as you seem to conveniently
forget, underestimate, and mis-charcterize the POWER requisite for
freight transportation.

We simply do not have good enough batteries yet. Period. One can
place the biggest electric motors around into a tractor and if it
cannot do the load or move the distance, it is worthless for the task.
To integrate a battery which can means you are now moving the weight of
the battery pack around as well.

So the battery capacity dictates the distance between charging stations, or battery swap stations if you can't get a faster enough charge.

It's not a question of power, but rather of energy density (where hydrocarbon fuels win big-time) and what you've missed is that you can accomodate the rather lower energy density of batteries by refuelling them more frequently than you would a hydrocarbon fuelled truck.

If you wanted to get enthusiastic about it, you could embedded inductive charging loops in particularly heavily used bits of highway, and let the trucks recharge themselves on the run. You'd end up with something equivalent to an electrified railwtya system, as discussed earlier.

There are bus systems that are playing with this technology already.

You do have an unfortunate habit of missing the fundamental points in these discussions. Try to think a bit harder and longer before you post.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:a22shehapp09kmmlv7g6bvlft19j373buq@4ax.com:

We partonize two bars that provide FREE BEER TOMORROW.

About 35% of all bars have such a sign.

Not usually 'higher class' drinking joints like 'nightclubs'.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:8a558e37-4da3-
4345-b280-e20a9aad2e3d@googlegroups.com:

The purpose is to reduce the peak electrical load while charging.

The purpose is and needs to be getting the driver, and his load
back on the road in the same timely mannetr that a tank fill takes.

The batteries that get swapped could actually be 'slow charged'
over time and solar panels at the truck stop and a few other things
can make it way less costly.

So the battery a truck swaps in may have been charged a long time
ago, and merely topped at the 'station' until deployed.

The time at which they perform the charging can be any time, but
would likely be when the industrial loads are offline. But then
THEY become 'industrial level loading' too. I'd bet that they do
not get a cheaper rate.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

Silly idea. Electrified railroads are standard everywhere where
the population density is higher than in the US.

electrified railroads move people. REAL locomotives move freight.

Rubbish. Really heavy duty locomotives used to be diesel-electric - electric motor are better adapted to providing the necessary torque at the wheels over the wide range of rotation rates needed.

The only economic question is whether taking the electicity generation out of the train save enough - in reduced load to be shifted - to pay for the overhead wiring along the whole lenght of the track.

Higher population densities - and thus more rail traffic along the track - makes electrification more attractive, because it is a a one-off cost, and you have to lug power generating unit along with every load you shift.

REAL locomotives are diesel electric. ALL our trains are
electric, but not on an overhead grid.

Your characterization of the 'idea' being silly, is pretty stupid,
because it is not silly, and it is not my idea. India, in fact, has
the first CNG train there is.

Does that make it clever?

> So much for your population density analysis.

So much for yours. The metric is the number of people per unit area who will pay to use the train, or shift freight on it.

India may have 382 people per square kilometre - alomst twice that of Germany - but it's average per capita income is a whole lot lower.

Easier here to put a train on existing tracks that powers itself
than it is to erect overhead power feeds all over the place.

Of course it is, but you only have to put up the power feeds once, and they save money on every train trip. Lugging the diesel part of a diesel electric locomotive around costs money on every trip, and the overhead wires save that on every trip.

I do not think you thought it through as in the places you
describe, there are typically a single line running back and forth.
Here... in the US... there are thousands of lines. BIG
difference.

Idiot. Europe has a rather denser rail network than the US because it has a rather higher population density.

The example I gave of a non-electricified line in the Netherlands, from Nijmegen to Maastricht, doesn't carry much traffic because most people want to get from Nijemgen or Maastricht to the area between Utrecht and Amsterdam (uusually called the Randstaat - "edge city") and the lines that cater for them are much busier, and all electricified.

It's you who hasn't thought the matter through.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9672821c-e745-4826-8880-73ee0c3cac61@googlegroups.com:

You do know that Tesla already has built electric semis and is
presently road testing them, right?

You do know that they do not match my criteria either, right?

 

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 06:31:23 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 6:11:56 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-
89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

But you could have - pretty much overnight

Not really at all. That is another lie as you seem to conveniently
forget, underestimate, and mis-charcterize the POWER requisite for
freight transportation.

We simply do not have good enough batteries yet. Period. One can
place the biggest electric motors around into a tractor and if it
cannot do the load or move the distance, it is worthless for the task.
To integrate a battery which can means you are now moving the weight of
the battery pack around as well.

Why not develop some Pony Express style operation. At selected
stations leave the emptied tractor at the station for charging and
take a fresh fully charged tractor to move the trailer to the
destination.

For longer high volume routes, put the trailer on to a train or ship
and then use ordinary tractors at both ends of the route.

You do know that Tesla already has built electric semis and is presently road testing them, right?

I don't know this for a fact, but I expect one of the limitations currently is the charging infrastructure. While it is very good for taking autos on trips, they use eight charging stalls to charge a semi. They will need to build new semi charging stations. Unlike autos which will be charged mainly at home, semis will mainly be charged on the road. They will likely only sell semis for specific routes initially and build the charging network to suit, expanding the routes and sales together. Or they might initially sell to short haul markets where charging can be done overnight at the owner's facility.

Do you how much energy a semi-trailer will consume ?

A battery operated city bus can handle about 1 km/kWh, so it is
possible to quick charge the bus at the end(s) of the line, while the
driver takes a coffee/tobaco/toilet break. Alternatively, install a
charging station on each bus stop and each time the bus stops on the
bus stop for 5-15 seconds charge the bus.

>That gives me a thought. It is rather pointless to have solar cells on a car because the relatively small surface area doesn't impact the battery drain much. But on a tractor trailer the surface is *much* larger. I wonder if this could be used to greatly increase the range with a lot fewer batteries.

What is the top surface area ? Perhaps 50 m˛ and assuming about 100
W/m˛ (with suboptimal solar angles) that makes 5 kW (7 hp) or in one
hour charged by 5 kWh, so a city bus would run 5 km once an hour and
much less for a semi-trailer.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 04/07/19 15:40, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:11:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 04/07/19 09:53, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 10:15:03 AM UTC+2, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 04/07/19 08:38, Martin Brown wrote:
On 03/07/2019 15:18, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 5:37:17 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/06/2019 14:35, Rick C wrote:

It's hard to imagine the British being so intransigent when they
invented the Steam Engine and Train.  Had to make some changes to
accommodate that, eh?

Quite a few railway enterprises went spectacularly bust in the process
bankrupting their investors who used the 10% deposit scheme and found
themselves called upon to pay up the remaining 90% in the bust phase.

https://www.orbex.com/blog/en/2017/10/railway-mania-boom-bust

Be careful what you wish for. There are similarities with Tesla.

One huge difference.  Tesla is a company.  The railway bubble you talk about
was an industry.

And what do you think each of the UK regional railway companies were?
They were public limited companies with shareholders.

The trend for unicorn companies that have never made a profit but always promise
"jam tomorrow" is a modern version of the same boom-bust game.

You are really reaching with this one.

Am I? You choose to wallow in your wilful ignorance. Read the story.
Your failure to understand classic industrial history is astonishing.

Just so, on all counts.

I understand and appreciate
- enthusiasm for new products and concepts
- ignorance, since we can't know everything
but as I point out to my daughter, "ignorance can be
cured but stupidity can't".

Now when somebody *repeatedly* ignores or denies solid
examples that conflict with their statements, we are left
in a quandary:
- is the person a fanboi or shill?
- is the person stupid?
- should we trust their *other* statements?
- are they promoting the indefensible?

Unfortunately Rick C has repeatedly ignored and denied
multiple solid "inconvenient truths" on this topic.

Give him his due. He does pick up some new information, and while he denies other propositions, he does at least acknowledge that they exist.

Yes, but it took /too/ many messages and concrete
examples for him to start to acknowledge that where
he lives is /very/ different to other places.
It is being repeated with in this railway mania
subthread.

That doesn't engender trust in his other
statements; hence my /questions/ above.


John Larkin is a whole lot less eductatable, and Cursitor Doom and krw can't even imagine that they might ever be wrong.

CD is indistinguishable from a troll, but even he
is occasionally right - just like a broken clock.
I even found myself agreeing with /one/ of his
points recently!

JL has significant strengths, but also has
significant blind spots in a way that I find
difficult to understand. In other words, I'll
take what he says seriously on /some/ subjects,
but definitely not others.

Sigh, the penalty for having ideas and breaking rules has haunted me
my entire life. But there have been compensations. I'm drinking my hot
Peets coffee in one right now.

We /all/ have our strengths and weaknesses, and
being aware of our /personal/ strengths/weaknesses
is valuable.

Enjoy your coffee

 

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:21:20 +0100, Andy Bennet <andyb@andy.com> wrote:

On 04/07/2019 11:11, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-
89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

But you could have - pretty much overnight

Not really at all. That is another lie as you seem to conveniently
forget, underestimate, and mis-charcterize the POWER requisite for
freight transportation.

We simply do not have good enough batteries yet. Period. One can
place the biggest electric motors around into a tractor and if it
cannot do the load or move the distance, it is worthless for the task.
To integrate a battery which can means you are now moving the weight of
the battery pack around as well.


The eDumper truck has a 4.5 tonne 700kWh battery. It transports up to 65
tonnes of rock (gross weight of 123 tonnes) down a hill. It uses the
energy required for braking down the hill to replenish its battery for
the empty return uphill run.

The main problem with such heavy vehicles is that they sometimes need
a huge peak power. With diesels you have to install highly oversized
engines to deliver that peak power. Most of the time the engine runs
at light partial power, in which diesel efficiency is quite bad.

Electric motors perform well at partial power, thus using a battery or
diesel electric system with large batteries allows less total
consumption. Even gas turbines (which do not like power level changes)
could be used in a series hybrid configuration to charge the
batteries.

https://www.electrive.com/2018/04/23/empas-edumper-is-the-worlds-largest-electric-truck

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5d001d32-e851-429a-bb2e-53b3d1cbd23c@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 10:21:23 AM UTC-4, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 04/07/2019 11:11, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:f34dcf90-6624-4362- 89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

But you could have - pretty much overnight

Not really at all. That is another lie as you seem to
conveniently forget, underestimate, and mis-charcterize the
POWER requisite for freight transportation.

We simply do not have good enough batteries yet. Period.
One can
place the biggest electric motors around into a tractor and if
it cannot do the load or move the distance, it is worthless for
the task. To integrate a battery which can means you are now
moving the weight of the battery pack around as well.


The eDumper truck has a 4.5 tonne 700kWh battery. It transports
up to 65 tonnes of rock (gross weight of 123 tonnes) down a hill.
It uses the energy required for braking down the hill to
replenish its battery for the empty return uphill run.

https://www.electrive.com/2018/04/23/empas-edumper-is-the-worlds-
l
argest-electric-truck

Did you see the picture? Snow! This must be a time when the
truck is down for maintenance.

Interesting that the vehicle still has a radiator. I guess
cooling the batteries is no small task.

I wonder if it is operating in a lithium mine? lol

More like cooling during the regenerative brake motor phase. They
likely get a lot hotter slowing the vehicle on a decline than it
does powering the empty truck back up the hill, which also likely
happens at a very slow drive speed so does not generate nearly as
much heat as slowing a huge load does, Ideally, a regen motor would
have perm magnet fields instead of energized field coils.

A lot to ponder.

I wanted to make a bicycle pancake motor that has a large torque
arm by placing the magnets near the rim of the wheel, instead of at
the hub itself. And the drive fields are in the 'stator' which arcs
off of the forks across the top portion of the wheel, acting as both
a fender and the motor stator.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 11:28:43 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:8a558e37-4da3-
4345-b280-e20a9aad2e3d@googlegroups.com:

The purpose is to reduce the peak electrical load while charging.



The purpose is and needs to be getting the driver, and his load
back on the road in the same timely mannetr that a tank fill takes.

The batteries that get swapped could actually be 'slow charged'
over time and solar panels at the truck stop and a few other things
can make it way less costly.

So the battery a truck swaps in may have been charged a long time
ago, and merely topped at the 'station' until deployed.

The time at which they perform the charging can be any time, but
would likely be when the industrial loads are offline. But then
THEY become 'industrial level loading' too. I'd bet that they do
not get a cheaper rate.

Why are you so opposed to learning anything? The target for Tesla semis is the over the road hauling where your current limitation is the rest time required by the driver. An electric semi can charge while the driver is taking his break.

Do you deny this?

--

Rick C.

-----+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-----+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209