Electric Cars Not Yet Viable

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 1:21:40 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

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.

You don't really have any info on any of this, do you? What is the current rating of electric trucks? Do you have inside info from Tesla or others?

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 08:57:11 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

Yeah, I found a page that shows a class-8 truck using 160 kW for level ground at 65 mph.

If the driver is allowed to drive 10 hours before a long rest period a
battery capacity of 1600 kWh would be required at that speed

Are trucks allowed to drive at that speed in the US ?. With a more
realistic speed and required shorter coffee brakes during the day, a
more realistic required battery capacity would be 1000 kWh.

 

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

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

Which is where you fail, because 2 mile long trains are way bigger
loading than the weight of the locomotive does not matter at all.

Clearly you have no grasp of any kind of bigger picture.

 

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.

 

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in news:33795ec8-b64e-4108-8231-
4fd3df3b84b2@googlegroups.com:

> swap tractors.

That actually woud be doable. Need capable tractors though.

And double football field sized swap houses at more points along the
ways.

Dig down... put 'em in basements, and build high schools over top.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:be271a4a-b9c1-4b28-a8d7-c62b71b7457f@googlegroups.com:

What is the current rating of electric trucks? Do you have
inside info from Tesla or others?

It is obvious. Electric locomotion is still infantile.

Look at car ranges.

square that for the needs of a load hauler to even match that run
length... even empty.

If Tesla had a truck that could haul... a REAL hauler that can
keep up... it would be major worldwide news.

His announcement, as I recall, had folks talking about the very
things I mention... The world as we know, obviously has not
embraced all that is Elon Musk and are more aware apparently than
you about the engineering limitations. Like I said... if we had
one it would come.

The stop point is battery tech. Not charging tech or paradigms
about swapping trucks or electrolytes or battery packs, but the
battery technology itself. You know, that energy density and actual
weight thingy.

 

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news:8nashediqolpvhvkjisugi3kem1ihcsstj@4ax.com:

For slow freight trains the air
resistance wouldn't even be significant.

You ain't real bright to think that.

And what is a slow freight train? They are only slow where you see
them apparently because long freight runs can have some remarkable
speeds at certain points in the run.

Take Wheat Ridge Colorado for instance. There is a nightly freight
through there that can run pretty fast. That is where Western Digital
was at one time before they moved manufacturing overseas. There was a
LOT of train activity.

 

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 17:21:34 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

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?

Not a problem feeding from a High Voltage (100+ kV) line. Build the
truck stop close to a HV line or build a HV line branch to an existing
truck stop.

Even some medium voltage (MV) lines might do, but definitively not
those few kilovolts MV lines crisscrossing the residential streets to
feed the pig transformers.

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

 

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news:8nashediqolpvhvkjisugi3kem1ihcsstj@4ax.com:

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

Can you really be that stupid? Long trains are far more efficient on
long hauls.

Why do you think it takes miles to stop one?

Load haulers use Newton to their advantage far better than
simpletons.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a1781bc0-f2aa-4079-a967-d9381a336933@googlegroups.com:

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

Coaler me more informed.

So they haul stuff we are trying to use less of... is that my
read on that?

Are they they 100 ton cars or the 120 ton cars? Or are they the
"this rail is my rail" (that rail is your rail) sized cars? (a joke
on the "not on our current system" aspect)(probably the 120T jobs).

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 7:27:06 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

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.

And didn't learn anything about the electromagnetics involved.

> You are stupid, presumptuous, and self impotent.

You might have meant "self important". I'm not actually stupid - which is a presumptuous statement, but there is objective evidence to back it up. "Self-importance isn't something I could usefully comment on.

> Look where that got you.

A Ph.D. and couple of patents in areas not closely associated with my Ph.D. work, not that anybody could care less.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:07:26 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:1r6shepquecq509v5p5ksskd9qcj3bnhm0@4ax.com:

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.


I would rather bet that you have ZERO grasp on what typical EEs
lives are like.

I've spent my entire working life around EEs, and still do. Most are
stably married to good women who have good jobs (or vice versa for my
two female engineers.) EEs tend to be financially prudent and to make
pretty good money. I've never known one who was in financial distress.

There's a certain kind of woman who likes engineers, and they are a
generally superior type.

"The only use women have for engineers is to marry them."

You are silly stuff, and your bent mentality is a glaring example
of that.

You spout as if factual but what you just spouted was utter
bullshit, and based on zero statistics other then your own life
circumstance.

How well do you think the $9.00 an hour Boeing engineers live?

No American engineer would work for that. Where does Boeing pay $9?
That's not even minimum wage in Seattle.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 7:21:40 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

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,

Hauling performance isn't a problem. Electric motors have a better power-to-weight and power to volume performance than their hydrocarbon-fuelled equivalents.

> THEN the charging period requisite gets looked at.

And it isn't going to be different enough to be problem. The truck drivers would prefer zero fuelling time, but as long as it stays a small proportion of the journey time nobody is going to get too excited.

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

Because nobody has tried to. It's a relatively small market, and there isn't much money to made out of doing the engineering work involved.

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

You and all the other kibitzers.

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.

What makes you think that?

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?

The charging station may have to be rated in megawatts, but the megawatt hours are just what gets billed. Maybe a truck charging point is going to need its own private sub-station, but the utility companies are in the business of delivering megawatts of power to whoever is prepared to pay for it.

That isn't going to be a problem.

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

As if you had a clue about it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news3ishe998gkr8eqfjg52n17j3sk8ctkat8@4ax.com:

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 17:21:34 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

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?

Not a problem feeding from a High Voltage (100+ kV) line.

Sure there is. One does not simply tap on. Safeties, fusing...
many elements need to be there.

Build
the truck stop close to a HV line or build a HV line branch to an
existing truck stop.

Easier with MV.

Even some medium voltage (MV) lines might do, but definitively not
those few kilovolts MV lines crisscrossing the residential streets
to feed the pig transformers.

The voltages they carry would work fine. The problems is the age
and leakage rate of said current system. We need new grid before
new rail system and vehicle charging port inclusions.

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

So, you are saying that truck stops should now have their own
substation. That would work, but the boys down at the generators
may not like it much.

Again, new major grid elements and your special substations would
have to be put in place.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 8:28:37 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

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 you can get it by running a mobile diesel--power
generator is probaby a bigger factor.

There are plenty of analyses.

You've clearly found some particularly defective anlyses.

> LNG and CNG are no more efficient.

Than diesel? Obviously true - they burn much the same hydrocarbons in much the same engines.

Utility grid generators are lot bigger and can be appreciably more efficient.

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

We are not getting ANYTHING
from the grid and we are NOT building ANY overhead power feeds for
that purpose.

Silly of you.

> YOU must work within what there is.

Flake your tools out obsidian?

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.

There certainly are underwater HV lines.

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

Nobody has used them to power under-water inductive charging stations yet, but it's an idea.

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.

Don't be silly. The grid would have to supply about 30% more power than it does at the moment if grid electricity supplied the energy now shipped around in gas tankers. It's a big job, but it isn't going to happen overnight.

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.

Of course it is feasible. Fidning the investors to pay for it might take a while, but feasibility isn't an issue.

> The US has other elements of its base and economy to upgrade first.

Starting with the way you spread out political power.

> Namely our standard of living.

The median standard of living. The average standard of living doesn't look anything like as bad, because the fat cats who have most of the effective political power have used it to grab essentially all the growth of the US economy since Reagan came to power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century

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.

You don't have to rebuild it - you just have to build it up a little faster than you have been doing. The grid isn't some kind of static monolith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Electricity_by_type.png

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Doe]

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

> each truck on a motorway suffer from the air resistance.

Ever gotten a motorcycle within ten (or so) feet of a speeding semi-
tractor trailer? Sucks you right in there. Not something you want to do
for any extended period of time, but it's a thrilling experience. And if
you survive, it's a good lesson in aerodynamics.

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 5:16:26 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Sunday, June 30, 2019 at 8:36:35 AM UTC-7, Michael Terrell wrote:

I've seen one gasoline fueled car on fire, but it didn't emit the toxic chemicals that a burning EV does.

I drove past a burning truck once, and the stench was TERRIBLE; if it isn't toxic,
my nose was lying to me. Burning rubber was the dominant odor, so that's
sulphur compounds, I suppose.

So, the tires on EVs aren't rubber? Did it require a permit from the EPA to remove what was left of those tires?

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 3:15:09 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:be271a4a-b9c1-4b28-a8d7-c62b71b7457f@googlegroups.com:

What is the current rating of electric trucks? Do you have
inside info from Tesla or others?

It is obvious. Electric locomotion is still infantile.

Look at car ranges.

square that for the needs of a load hauler to even match that run
length... even empty.

If Tesla had a truck that could haul... a REAL hauler that can
keep up... it would be major worldwide news.

His announcement, as I recall, had folks talking about the very
things I mention... The world as we know, obviously has not
embraced all that is Elon Musk and are more aware apparently than
you about the engineering limitations. Like I said... if we had
one it would come.

The stop point is battery tech. Not charging tech or paradigms
about swapping trucks or electrolytes or battery packs, but the
battery technology itself. You know, that energy density and actual
weight thingy.

A number of large companies have already ordered trucks from Tesla as soon as they can get them.

You literally know nothing about this and you don't want to know anything. There is no point in discussing this with you.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[John Doe]

Michael Terrell <terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:

whit3rd wrote:
Michael Terrell wrote:

I've seen one gasoline fueled car on fire, but it didn't emit
the toxic chemicals that a burning EV does.

I drove past a burning truck once, and the stench was TERRIBLE;
if it isn't toxic, my nose was lying to me. Burning rubber was
the dominant odor, so that's sulphur compounds, I suppose.

So, the tires on EVs aren't rubber? Did it require a permit from
the EPA to remove what was left of those tires?

What toxic chemicals are you talking about? You were asked before, but
you ignored the question. Unlike nickel cadmium, modern batteries like
lithium-ion and lithium polymer are environmentally safe. I'm genuinely
curious, since it's not too uncommon for them to catch fire when an
remote controlled aircraft crashes hard. But I've never heard the fear
of toxic chemicals being released in such a fire.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 1:23:37 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:

Michael Terrell <terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:

whit3rd wrote:
Michael Terrell wrote:

I've seen one gasoline fueled car on fire, but it didn't emit
the toxic chemicals that a burning EV does.

I drove past a burning truck once, and the stench was TERRIBLE;
if it isn't toxic, my nose was lying to me. Burning rubber was
the dominant odor, so that's sulphur compounds, I suppose.

So, the tires on EVs aren't rubber? Did it require a permit from
the EPA to remove what was left of those tires?

What toxic chemicals are you talking about? You were asked before, but
you ignored the question. Unlike nickel cadmium, modern batteries like
lithium-ion and lithium polymer are environmentally safe. I'm genuinely
curious, since it's not too uncommon for them to catch fire when an
remote controlled aircraft crashes hard. But I've never heard the fear
of toxic chemicals being released in such a fire.

In case you aren't aware, he makes up what he wants to believe without a shred of evidence. This guy is pretty sad really. Rather than learning about the world, he prefers to live in a make believe world and criticize anyone who actually lives in the real world.

--

Rick C.

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