Fuel Savings from Roadbed Electrification Pays for the Power

In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW
mechanical energy/mile/lane.

Now let's be complete morons and ignore the supply - demand curve for
oil and ignore Obama holding the Fed by the short hairs and pretend
fuel will stay at $2.50 gallon:

$2.50/gallon X 2,000 kW/mile / ďż˝(13 kW-hr mechanical energy/gallon) =

$385/mile-hr = $3.2 million/mile-year for fuel.

If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.

In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for
the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.

Maybe.

Your units are so bizarre it is hard to make sense of your numbers.

A more sane person would use the daily vehicle-miles times the
average vehicle MPG to get the fuel usage.

Not if you are trying to spread sheet the /mile costs.

Somehow I knew you wouldn't understand.

Divide the total vehicle miles for a given road by the average MPG
for the vehicles and you get total fuel usage for the road.

Divide the total fuel usage for the road by the length of the road
and you get fuel/mile usage.

And what is daily vehicle milage?

Irrelevant.

Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify
roadways?

The answer to that will require some funding.

Nope, all it requires is a little knowledge of the real world to come
up with a ROM cost.

But, since you don't even have a rough design for a system that would
work, that is impossible.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Daniel T.]

Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:

I once considered an electric car conversion, because electricity is
cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the killer. Cost of
batteries per mile is about the same as gasoline per mile. That
pushed the advantage to the gasoline powered car.

If you could dispose of the batteries, it would be no contest:
electric cars would be the way to go.

What if you didn't have to buy the batteries? http://www.betterplace.com/

 

A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW
mechanical energy/mile/lane.

Now let's be complete morons and ignore the supply - demand curve for
oil and ignore Obama holding the Fed by the short hairs and pretend fuel
will stay at $2.50 gallon:

$2.50/gallon X 2,000 kW/mile / ďż˝(13 kW-hr mechanical energy/gallon)
$385/mile-hr = $3.2 million/mile-year for fuel.

You're assuming a busy freeway all day and all night long?

Come to think of it, solar does seem to provide the most power when
most are on the road.

If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.

In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for the
capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.

What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work all
cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone with
electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea. But it
sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete.

That's why DoE has grants for these studies.


Bret Cahill

 

A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW
mechanical energy/mile/lane.

Now let's be complete morons and ignore the supply - demand curve for
oil and ignore Obama holding the Fed by the short hairs and pretend
fuel will stay at $2.50 gallon:

$2.50/gallon X 2,000 kW/mile / ďż˝(13 kW-hr mechanical energy/gallon)
$385/mile-hr = $3.2 million/mile-year for fuel.

If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.

In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for
the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.

Maybe.

Your units are so bizarre it is hard to make sense of your numbers.

A more sane person would use the daily vehicle-miles times the
average vehicle MPG to get the fuel usage.

Not if you are trying to spread sheet the /mile costs.

And what is daily vehicle milage?

Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify
roadways?

The answer to that will require some funding.

It's like that old biker bumper sticker / T shirt:

Gas, grass or electricity.

No one gets answers for free.


Bret Cahill

 

[Eeyore]

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 19:48:30 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify
roadways?

The answer to that will require some funding.

No, it's readily estimable and totally stupid, like you. Go back to your
toy race cars.

Let's not flame!

I'm being very factual. The cost of laying new ultra-flat load bed with
embedded coils can easily be estimated.

Unfortunately with big rigs using it, it won't stay flat for long, so the idea
is stillborn.

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment
to my email address

 

[Eeyore]

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2009 11:29:52 -0700, Mark Thorson wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Bret_E_Cahill wrote:

If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.

In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for
the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.

What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work
all cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone
with electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea.
But it sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete.

It might work in a small community. Zermatt in Switzerland banned
internal combustion engine vehicles (except for some special vehicles
like fire engines) about 20 years ago, both to reduce air pollution
(important in this tourist town) and because of the very narrow streets.
Almost all vehicle trffic is electric, running off batteries. It would
be much greener to have no batteries at all and run everything directly
off the grid.

I once considered an electric car conversion, because electricity is
cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the killer. Cost of batteries
per mile is about the same as gasoline per mile. That pushed the
advantage to the gasoline powered car.

If you could dispose of the batteries, it would be no contest: electric
cars would be the way to go.

If you had a dilithium matter-antimatter converter...

If you had Mr. Fusion...

If you had Tinkerbell's pixie dust...

If Star Trek were true ! ;~)

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

 

[Eeyore]

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2009 19:40:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:

What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work
all cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone
with electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea.
But it sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete.

Don't expect a sensible answer from Brett. He has no scientific
knowledge.

I'm not at all down on electric cars. I tried to make it work for me, and
it just wasn't practical. If you could dispose of the battery issue,
electric cars would be great. Perhaps an induction system where magnetic
coils are implanted into the road bed or something. Those overhead wires
used on electric buses are right out for freeway use; they don't work at
60+ MPH.

Perhaps something similar to an electric train, where you drive your gas
car onto a flat-bed rail car/engine.

The embarkation/debarkation time and hassle would be a killer for anything
but long trips.

Almost every example of the above has died a death. It's expensive and slow.
The only uses I still know of are for overnight travel when you can sleep on
the train and genuinely save travelling time after a fashion.

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:00:01 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:
A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW
mechanical energy/mile/lane.

Now let's be complete morons and ignore the supply - demand curve for
oil and ignore Obama holding the Fed by the short hairs and pretend
fuel will stay at $2.50 gallon:

$2.50/gallon X 2,000 kW/mile / (13 kW-hr mechanical energy/gallon) =

$385/mile-hr = $3.2 million/mile-year for fuel.

If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.

In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for
the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.


Maybe.

Your units are so bizarre it is hard to make sense of your numbers.

Yes. He's comparing the one-time capital cost of an electric plant to
an ongoing gasoline fuel cost. Do electric plants get their fuel for
free?

I agree with the part about being a "complete moron."

A more sane person would use the daily vehicle-miles times the
average vehicle MPG to get the fuel usage.

Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify
roadways?

That, too. We could use overhead metal sheets, like the bumper cars at
the beach.

And what do you do when you exit the freeway for the street? Coast
into a parking lot and call a taxi?

John

 

[Eeyore]

"Daniel T." wrote:

Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:

I once considered an electric car conversion, because electricity is
cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the killer. Cost of
batteries per mile is about the same as gasoline per mile. That
pushed the advantage to the gasoline powered car.

If you could dispose of the batteries, it would be no contest:
electric cars would be the way to go.

What if you didn't have to buy the batteries? http://www.betterplace.com/

You expect someone to give them away and re-process them for free too ?

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment
to my email address

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 30 May 2009 22:11:07 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 19:48:30 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify
roadways?

The answer to that will require some funding.

No, it's readily estimable and totally stupid, like you. Go back to
your toy race cars.

Let's not flame!

I'm being very factual. The cost of laying new ultra-flat load bed with
embedded coils can easily be estimated.

Worst case, you can build it like electric subway cars.

Unfortunately with big rigs using it, it won't stay flat for long, so
the idea is stillborn.

Forbid the big rigs from using the lanes.

Replace "big rigs" with rail. The governments build roads for cars and
trucks, but not rails. Big trucks get a subsidy; low cost roads. As was
pointed out by one of my engineering profs, roads last just about forever
with cars on them, and have a 20 year life when you allow heavy trucks to
use them. So, if you're going to subsidize trucks, why not rail as well?









--
Flamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to
tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent
question and you want it answered, repeat it for them.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 30 May 2009 14:14:28 -0700, Puppet_Sock wrote:

On May 30, 2:37 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
[snip]
You could probably do something with induction coils.

Um, what? Do you have any clue what many-km-long induction coils would
cost? Or what you'd have to do in order to get any useful amount of
power into the vehicle? Or what the loss to the coils would be? Socks

Well, yes, that is what the nay sayers commonly say to piss on the idea.

Toyota is looking at the concept, however.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1431/





--
Flamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to
tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent
question and you want it answered, repeat it for them.

 

In sci.physics Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 22:11:07 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 19:48:30 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify
roadways?

The answer to that will require some funding.

No, it's readily estimable and totally stupid, like you. Go back to
your toy race cars.

Let's not flame!

I'm being very factual. The cost of laying new ultra-flat load bed with
embedded coils can easily be estimated.

Worst case, you can build it like electric subway cars.

Unfortunately with big rigs using it, it won't stay flat for long, so
the idea is stillborn.

Forbid the big rigs from using the lanes.

Replace "big rigs" with rail. The governments build roads for cars and
trucks, but not rails. Big trucks get a subsidy; low cost roads. As was
pointed out by one of my engineering profs, roads last just about forever
with cars on them, and have a 20 year life when you allow heavy trucks to
use them. So, if you're going to subsidize trucks, why not rail as well?

Any idea how much tax trucks pay?

Do you like to eat?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Uncle Al]

Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW
mechanical energy/mile/lane.

Now let's be complete morons
[snip rest of crap]

Sufficient unto the day.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

 

[Eeyore]

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 22:11:07 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Unfortunately with big rigs using it, it won't stay flat for long, so
the idea is stillborn.

Forbid the big rigs from using the lanes.

So how are you goinf to get your produce from A to B given that the places
that need them don't have yards or probably aren't even on a rail line ?

Graham

due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment
to my email address

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On May 30, 1:53 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Bret_E_Cahill wrote:
A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW
mechanical energy/mile/lane.

Now let's be complete morons and ignore the supply - demand curve for
oil and ignore Obama holding the Fed by the short hairs and pretend fuel
will stay at $2.50 gallon:

$2.50/gallon X 2,000 kW/mile /  (13 kW-hr mechanical energy/gallon)
$385/mile-hr = $3.2 million/mile-year for fuel.

You're assuming a busy freeway all day and all night long?

If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.

In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for the
capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.

What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work all
cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone with
electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea. But it
sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete.

The analysis doesn't have to be complete, since it never will.
But the maintainence cost saving alone with electric vehilces over
gasoline alone,
is enough to do it. So that's why so many work on fiber optics,
holographics,
Solar Energy, Pv Cells, Cell Phones, Optical Computers, On-Line
Banking, On-Line Publishing,
Self-Assembling Robots, Self-Replicating Machines, Thermo-Electric
Cooling,
Microwave Cooling, and Post idiot grease anyway. Rather than
bothering
with the parital analysis cranks anyway.

--
Flamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to
tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent
question and you want it answered, repeat it for them.

 

[Puppet_Sock]

On May 30, 2:37 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
[snip]

You could probably do something with induction coils.

Um, what? Do you have any clue what many-km-long
induction coils would cost? Or what you'd have to do
in order to get any useful amount of power into the
vehicle? Or what the loss to the coils would be?
Socks

 

In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notcoldmail.com> wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 22:11:07 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Unfortunately with big rigs using it, it won't stay flat for long, so
the idea is stillborn.

Forbid the big rigs from using the lanes.

So how are you goinf to get your produce from A to B given that the places
that need them don't have yards or probably aren't even on a rail line ?

Yep, rail works great for bulk, non-perishables like coal and ore from
the mines to steel yards.

It doesn't work worth a a crap for getting lettuce and tomatoes from
a bizillion farms to the supermarket.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Androcles]

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:ioq8f6-8qk.ln1@mail.specsol.com...

In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notcoldmail.com> wrote:


Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 22:11:07 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Unfortunately with big rigs using it, it won't stay flat for long, so
the idea is stillborn.

Forbid the big rigs from using the lanes.

So how are you goinf to get your produce from A to B given that the
places
that need them don't have yards or probably aren't even on a rail line ?

Yep, rail works great for bulk, non-perishables like coal and ore from
the mines to steel yards.

It doesn't work worth a a crap for getting lettuce and tomatoes from
a bizillion farms to the supermarket.

Oh, you can put refrigerated trucks on the road but not on rail?
If you can build tramlines in a city then you can distribute on tramlines,
and tramlines are rail, a whole lot cheaper than road surfaces or they
wouldn't be hundreds of years old. Ever heard of computers?
They can control switches and direct individual self-propelled cars
from anywhere to anywhere, at night, no driver needed, no train
needed, ideal for getting lettuce and tomatoes from a bizillion farms
in California to the supermarket in New York.

'Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good,
you'll have to ram them down people's throats.' - Howard Aiken
'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it with
reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero

 

[Eeyore]

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notcoldmail.com> wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2009 22:11:07 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Unfortunately with big rigs using it, it won't stay flat for long, so
the idea is stillborn.

Forbid the big rigs from using the lanes.

So how are you goinf to get your produce from A to B given that the places
that need them don't have yards or probably aren't even on a rail line ?

Yep, rail works great for bulk, non-perishables like coal and ore from
the mines to steel yards.

It doesn't work worth a a crap for getting lettuce and tomatoes from
a bizillion farms to the supermarket.

Precisely. And for non-bulk loads, trucks work out cheaper ( less energy
intensive ) too.

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

 

[Eeyore]

Androcles wrote:

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notcoldmail.com> wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2009 22:11:07 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Unfortunately with big rigs using it, it won't stay flat for long, so
the idea is stillborn.

Forbid the big rigs from using the lanes.

So how are you goinf to get your produce from A to B given that the
places
that need them don't have yards or probably aren't even on a rail line ?

Yep, rail works great for bulk, non-perishables like coal and ore from
the mines to steel yards.

It doesn't work worth a a crap for getting lettuce and tomatoes from
a bizillion farms to the supermarket.

Oh, you can put refrigerated trucks on the road but not on rail?

Rail doesn't go most places. Forget it. The cost of putting rail into most
small places would be insane. Rail is only good for regular high volume traffic
to / from large hubs.

Graham

due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address