Electric Cars Not Yet Viable

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:26:52 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 6:03:04 PM UTC+2, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
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.

Not sure what you are talking about. The weight of the diesel motors is not an important factor in trains. In fact, they used to use "Bud" cars on a local line which had a motor in every car! Talk about weight inefficient. Clearly the railroad doesn't care.

The weight of the total load being shifted clearly does matter.

That is the point of contention. In fact, in some cases the engine doesn't have enough weight to start up cleanly and the traction wheels spin.

Here is a cite that indicates a modification increased the pulling power of an engine because of the added "weight".

https://www.wired.com/2005/03/hybrid-locomotive-gains-traction/

Face it, you are wrong about this.

--

Rick C.

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

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f90711e9-2cee-412c-
ac65-adc98bfd4589@googlegroups.com:

It implied that we didn't know where we needed to go.

You are incorrect. It did no such thing.

Fuck off.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 04/07/19 16:37, John Larkin wrote:

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.

Clarke's second law notwithstanding, it is a difficult
balance. We all (should) get it wrong sometimes, particularly
if the penalty is minor.

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.

Sounds like the stuff which dissolves spoons.

I always remember when I was a kid and my parents
got coffee in a cafe, they always had to insist
it was "strong", i.e. not overdiluted with
(cheaper) milk.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:31:45 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

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.

More like 5% around here. One actually does give us a free beer now
and then, to fortify us for the hike up to where I park.

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

We like dive bars that look and smell like proper bars.

I asked our bartenderess at GPS (Glen Park Station), if they had any
good rum, like Ron Zacapa or 10Cane or something.

"This ain't that kind of joint, honey."

But you can order pizza from down the street, and they deliver.

OK, now gotta hike down into old town Truckee for the 4th Of July
Parade. Fire trucks, old vets in old convertibles, girl scout troops,
flags and bunting, all that old-fasioned patriotism.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:22:59 PM UTC+2, 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.

Whence "charging stations or battery swap stations".

Rick C keeps on telling us that he can recharge his Telsa in the time that it takes him to buy and drink a cup of coffee. That's not overnight.

Truck batteries are just a lot of Tesla batteries in parallel. If you want to recharge a truck that fast, you can build the charging stationt that will do it.

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.

You really seem to know nothing about battery charging.

> And no, battery swap stations are not feasible either.

What makes you think that?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 6:00:24 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ee7bfaf5-ad79-46e5-8d07-8b843958be2c@googlegroups.com:

If you wanted to get enthusiastic about it, you could embedded
inductive charging loops in particularly heavily used bits of
highway,

Zero bits along a highway you dope.

Inductive charging at STOP points and intersections MAYBE, but not
any on-the-move methods. That would suck even more juice and the grid
boys won't like that. At intersections the amount and the user would
get logged.

As usual, you are the dope here. Remote sensing of what truck is passing over which string of inductive loops is entirely practical, and the user could get looged on the move just as easily as when stopped at an intersection.

Thirty years ago Eric Laithwaite spelled out a scheme for magnetically levitated and driven trains. Tapping off some of the drive power for the services on the moving train was part of the package.

People have put the idea into practice on a small scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev

It isn't remotely a truck replacement scheme, but it might give you some insight into some of the basics for recharging on the move.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:54:11 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:94a99a24-b7ea-450c-
aa64-ba4188baee0e@googlegroups.com:

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


You keep blathering about rail density and people moving.

How many of your electric trains are 2 miles long pulling thousands
of tons of freight.

What is the point of creating kilometers long trains with multiple
locomotives, other than save in train driver wages ?

The benefit of a train is that the air resistance is affected only
once, while each truck on a motorway suffer from the air resistance.
The air resistance is proportional to frontal surface area and
proportional to speed squared. For slow freight trains the air
resistance wouldn't even be significant.

The rolling resistance for each truck is the same regardless if the
trucks are connected or have a distance of 100 m to the next truck.

> I'd be willing to bet that EU runs much shorter trains.

Long freight trains have a low acceleration and low top speed, so this
will cause problem for the faster passenger trains.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:2773d7d9-35e9-41b8-
9408-555220aef3a5@googlegroups.com:

> So what? Most big cities are pretty close to that already.

You are an idiot.

Cities allow road cars.

Mine WILL NOT.

YOU DO NOT GET IT.

It is not ANYTHING like current city layout.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 6:31:24 PM UTC+2, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:11:13 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 5:58:14 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ee7bfaf5-ad79-46e5-8d07-8b843958be2c@googlegroups.com:

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.

Bullshit. It is about a MATCHED delivery JOB. Stopping ten more
times per thousand miles is 100% unacceptable and INCREASES trip
time and driver labors.

But not by much. Your idea of what might be acceptable has been presumably mined from your rather-less-than creative imagination.

Nope. It MUST be able to perform trip runs in the same time
windows we now have.

If the price is right, the end customer is likely to be more flexible.

You apparently do not get the requisite, because you keep coming
back with more labor intensive, more ridiculous means to move
between two points on a map.

Trucks are labour intensive. Putting the containers on properly automated railway system makes a lot more sense.

For a while all inland freight moved around on railways, but trucks got practical before containers were invented, and America missed that particular boat.

Dude, you might as well give that one up. My dad was a railroad dispatcher and a friend is a buyer of food goods which are nearly always trucked rather than deal with the problems of railroad freight.

So the US never got around to making it's railways work reliably or predictably. Other countries have done better.

> Long delivery times, unpredictable delivery times and the requirement for large loads. Then there is the need to coordinate truck hauling at each end.

The delivery time are only long and unpredictable if there isn't enough traffic to support frequent trains running on a regular schedule. The requirement for a "large load" is built into the idea of shipping stuff in standard sized containers.

Coordinating truck haulage at either end is easier if the rail network has lots of nodes so the end hauls are short.

> Railroad freight is used in the US, but not nearly as much as trucks because it is a PITA mostly. Trucking is a bit more expensive, but a lot less hassle and in most cases the only real option because of scheduling issues. One week vs. two or more weeks is a big deal.

If the railway system is rudimentary, it won't get used much.

> It seems Tesla uses railroads to deliver their cars in the US. The scheduling issues prevent Musk from ramping up deliveries at the end of the quarters, so he wanted to build his own trailers... lol

Maybe he wants to become an electric railway tycoon.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 8:54:16 AM UTC-7, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

How many of your electric trains are 2 miles long pulling thousands
of tons of freight.

The obvious answer, is as many as one wants. Trains are modular, you just
slave together the engines and put one every thirty cars or so...

But, one doesn't usually want to load/unload a stopped train that spreads
for miles; the loading dock isn't that long.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 6:49:30 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:2773d7d9-35e9-41b8-
9408-555220aef3a5@googlegroups.com:

So what? Most big cities are pretty close to that already.

You are an idiot.

Cities allow road cars.

Sort of. Moving so slowly, and at such a high price, that you are better off walking.

> Mine WILL NOT.

What do I care how your fantasy city might work?

> YOU DO NOT GET IT.

Your silly ideas are happily non-contagious

> It is not ANYTHING like current city layout.

So a free-form fantasy. Even less useful than one with some vague connection to reality.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f9e5cc9d-b1f3-4bd1-8f8f-fa8b82059a2a@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 11:19:07 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
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?

Your criteria is not important. The criteria of those who buy
semis is important.

Idiot. A "semi" is the trailer, not the tractor.

And the tractor criteria is exactly as I stated, because ALL thos
drivers you claim to know anything about do not want additional
stops or reduced pulling power. They want LESS stops and equal or
MORE pulling power.

So all these petty less than robust ideas suck, because the
criteria I gave IS the reqisite the drivers want.

Here, ya dope:

60000 Lb pull.

Minimum.

Axle loading has to be low too, as some places charge for high
axle loads. So the truck itself is heavier, and costs more to drive
as the individual axle weights are higher.

Drivers and fleet owners do not like that either.

So 60k load and 1000 mile per segment runs between "fueling
needs".

So... try again. My criteria is likely weaker even than the
drivers want.


Weaker truck "solutions" are not solutions at all. So my criteria
is likely the minimum of what drivers want.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:0fe9fe27-8859-47e2-81f0-66b9a4bb182e@googlegroups.com:

Thirty years ago Eric Laithwaite spelled out a scheme for
magnetically levitated and driven trains. Tapping off some of the
drive power for the services on the moving train was part of the
package.

I drew mag lev trains in drafting class back in the seventies.
You are stupid, presumptuous, and self impotent. Look where that got
you.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:b197a156-e88e-431c-91e0-6cc0e5e11b7f@googlegroups.com:

For a while all inland freight moved around on railways, but
trucks got practical before containers were invented, and America
missed that particular boat.

You are an idiot. Literally thousands of trailers are moving across
our nation right now... on train cars.

The boat of intelligence is what SloTurd missed. And the stench is
too much.

Already said fuck off and die before, but we're done, punk.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:a080b026-5b18-
4a8a-8311-5c60d93dca31@googlegroups.com:

> Why are you so opposed to learning anything?

Why are you like Sloturd, making retarded assumptions about what I may
or may not know, much less what I may or may not have learned.

Maybe you need to stop talking with the Sloturd, because his
stupidity is rubbing off on you, and you make statements that run along
the same stupidity level as he does.

Oh and deny what, dipshit? Now it appears that you cannot even make
a proper post because I do not know what you are failing to declare
that I missed. You fail to author a post that has discernable content,
because I do not know what the fuck you are talking about me denying.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:a080b026-5b18-
4a8a-8311-5c60d93dca31@googlegroups.com:

An electric semi can charge while the driver is taking his
break.

Bullshit.

First, it has to match hauling performance, THEN the charging
period requisite gets looked at.

Currently they do not perform load hauling at the same level as
diesel tractors in any way shape or form.

When they can, we can re-examine battery pack size and charge
times.

It certainly will not be something that charges during a break.
Not even during the 4 hour break that drivers are required to take
here. Likely not even during an overnight break.

Just think... 50 drivers of ETrucks all at the truck stop getting
fast charged... How many megawatt hours do you think the truck stop
would be pulling?

Sorry folks... But it's gonna be a while yet.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:f90711e9-2cee-412c-ac65-adc98bfd4589@googlegroups.com:

I've been in the technical advice business for long enough - a
couple of decades - to know that being diplomatic wastes time.

You are a jackass, and I will ignore you, so you can post your
blather all you want into this group and you will be ignored.

I will still see your stupidity because others may not follow.

But I am done with your inane utter stupidity.

Oh, and you are NOT "in the technical advice business".

So yeah, dipshit, lying is not very diplomatic.

You only prove the level of your idiocy.

Like the industry ignored your inane stupidity... I also will.
Bye, punk. FOAD while you are at it.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:4cd4f0e9-6df9-4ea3-b42c-0662b083673c@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 6:04:20 PM UTC+2,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ee7bfaf5-ad79-46e5-8d07-8b843958be2c@googlegroups.com:


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.


You need to get off your hobby horse boy.

I have missed nothing

Woosh!

snip

Retarded... SloTard is on ignore after this retarded foray.
There are a few more of his retarded posts to wade through but not
much more.

FOAD, chump.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:a8d5505b-c5a3-432c-9ada-f9fa99ffb195@googlegroups.com:

The fact that you can buy electricity from the grid much more
cheaply than yu can get it by running a mobile diesel--power
generator is probaby a bigger factor.

There are plenty of analyses.

LNG and CNG are no more efficient. We are not getting ANYTHING
from the grid and we are NOT building ANY overhead power feeds for
that purpose.

YOU must work within what there is.

Next thing you'll be trying to say we should run underwater HV
lines so that diesel electric ships and submarines (and nuke
powered) can hook up.

You seem to think that sourcing that level of electrical power is
trivial. The entire grid would have to be rebuilt just to support
it. It already leaks at a 15% rate now. A full rebuild is
required, much less adding a railway infrasructure to that.
It is simply not feasible at this time. The US has other elements
of its base and economy to upgrade first. Namely our standard of
living. That has taken the biggest hit. And if we did rebuild the
grid it would likely not be also for the additional need of a
connected railway system.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 1:48:39 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c24d80f3-2834-438f-80ef-391501161df8@googlegroups.com:


We have electric rail lines in the US. The northeast corridor
runs electric trains. They are also in other places in the US.
I'm not aware of any limitations on the size of freight trains due
to electric locomotives.

I think you are talking through your hat.

You have people movers.

The US freight railway system is not the BART system.

We have PASSENGER lines in the US with overhead electrical feeds.
I did not see any freight movers, and none with 2 mile long hauls.

And the web is full of folks talking about how it is a bad idea.
And there would certainly be many more deaths in the US as a result.

A guy in San Diego got nailed dead by a rail feed line shorted to
the bus stop bench he was sitting at. Seems they do not know how to
get from the ground transformers up to the overheads very well.

Again... that is just people mover level lines.

The 'rail grid' requirements and infrastructure are simply too
great to overcome, because WE here in the US actually DO care about
public safety.

Tens of thousands of miles of HV overheads ain't gonna ever cut
it.

We will likely end up on mag lev for some things like a new fast
train (and line) for people between major stops.

Freight is gonna be on diesel electric for quite a while in the
US, and overhead electric will never be realized here because it is
a non-goal from the start and not enough of a carbon footprint gain
to even make a difference.

You all cry about how IC engines are so inefficient.

The diesel electric locomotive is one of the most efficient ground
propulsion methods for IC there is. Always at optimal. Some waste,
but not like a passenger car being pushed by a hemi, when electric
IS better as footprint goes... for little cars. For REAL loads, we
ain't there yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mesa_and_Lake_Powell_Railroad

--

Rick C.

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