Fuel Savings from Roadbed Electrification Pays for the Power

[Dean Hoffman]

On May 30, 6:15 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@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

Nor does it work that well for getting grain to market. I live
in southeast Nebraska. Many of the small towns have lost their rail
service. The rail lines have been pulled up. Some of the right of
ways have been converted to hiking/biking trails.
The railroads want unit trains for the grain shipments. I think
that's a minimum of 54 cars. A lot of the local elevators don't have
rail service to their grain storage facilities partly because of
that.

 

In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

Power conductors in the road exposed to weather (and people) won't work
which is why they are only used in situations where the environment is
controlled.

You could probably do something with induction coils.

Even more expensive, lossy,

You know the efficiency of resonance indunction?

Yep, and for a system such as this, you are going to lose a LOT.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with how outrageously expensive
such a scheme would be.

and would never get past the NIMBY's for general
use.

Are there a lot of wackos out there who fear B fields?

Yep.

Just like there are a lot of wackos out there who think they can arm
wave and a new transportation system will magically appear.

Electricity is cheap compared to gasoline, and electric motors are more
efficient than gasoline engines. In the world of trade offs, that will
buy some innovation.

True, but electrical power has two very large problems for moving things
that can't be ignored:

It doesn't store well.

Which is the _whole point_ of powering directly from the grid.

It doesn't transport well absent wires.

OK, ok, now that you've twisted our arms (ouch), we'll use wires.

The only sort of electric transportation that works in the real world
exposed to the elements is overhead wires.

OK, ok. We'll use overhead wires everywhere except maybe the desert.

OK, now that you have a base idea that isn't arm waving fantasy, estimate
what it would cost to implement.

And, BTW, it rains and snows in the desert, just not as much as other
places.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

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?

We already know the efficiency of resonance induction: 75% (to
recharge a bus).

In your dreams.

As for the cost, it might best be limited to urban traffic where there
is no danger to pedestrians.

Urban area is where all the pedestrians are, that's one of the reasons
they are called "urban".

When yer talking trillion of dollars GUSHING out of the U. S. every
year for oil it might be wise to think about doing a little spread
sheeting.

Hysterical nonsense.

Rational planning solves problems, not arm waving "spread sheeting".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

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.

A few weeks would be closer to the payback time as fuel will be $15/
gallon before this is shovel ready.

Once again you totally ignore the cost to build the necessary infrastructure
and maintain it, which would be far more than the power plants.

<snip babbling nonsense>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

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.

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?

Jimmy Carter got the grid off of liquid fuel decades ago.

Irrelevant.

That's the _whole point_ of electrification.

Irrelevant.

Oil free grid power is much cheaper than liquid fuel.

Irrelevant.

Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs?

Are you talking to yourself?

<snip bumper car and spreadsheet babble>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

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.

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?

Jimmy Carter got the grid off of liquid fuel decades ago.

That's the _whole point_ of electrification.

Oil free grid power is much cheaper than liquid fuel.

Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs?

.. . .

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.

Sounds like you want to be on the committee that sets up the spread
sheet.

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

Then thangs are ugly at the beach and would be even uglier on the
freeway.

And what do you do when you exit the freeway for the street?

That's when you use the battery which has just been fully charged up
from the freeway.

Or you could use bio fuel in your plug in hybrid's tank.

The single magic bullet solution folk need to be lined up and . . .


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 / (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.

A few weeks would be closer to the payback time as fuel will be $15/
gallon before this is shovel ready.

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

Contractors generally bid on projects based on miles.

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

.. . .

And what is daily vehicle milage?

Irrelevant.

Then why did you mention it?

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

The answer to that will require some funding.

Nope

Sorry.

Gas grass or electricity.

No one gets answers for free.


Bret Cahill

 

Power conductors in the road exposed to weather (and people) won't work
which is why they are only used in situations where the environment is
controlled.

You could probably do something with induction coils.

Even more expensive, lossy,

You know the efficiency of resonance indunction?

and would never get past the NIMBY's for general
use.

Are there a lot of wackos out there who fear B fields?

Electricity is cheap compared to gasoline, and electric motors are more
efficient than gasoline engines. In the world of trade offs, that will
buy some innovation.

True, but electrical power has two very large problems for moving things
that can't be ignored:

It doesn't store well.

Which is the _whole point_ of powering directly from the grid.

It doesn't transport well absent wires.

OK, ok, now that you've twisted our arms (ouch), we'll use wires.

The only sort of electric transportation that works in the real world
exposed to the elements is overhead wires.

OK, ok. We'll use overhead wires everywhere except maybe the desert.


Bret Cahill

 

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?

We already know the efficiency of resonance induction: 75% (to
recharge a bus).

As for the cost, it might best be limited to urban traffic where there
is no danger to pedestrians.

When yer talking trillion of dollars GUSHING out of the U. S. every
year for oil it might be wise to think about doing a little spread
sheeting.


Bret Cahill

 

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 _always_ have to buy the batteries.

Try getting a large number of cell phones for less than the battery
cost.

This is even more true for EVs where the electric motors, tires and
other parts are valuable.


Bret Cahill

 

[Daniel T.]

Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

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 _always_ have to buy the batteries.

Is it against the law to lease batteries where you live?

Seriously though, look at Better Place's business plan. They aren't
hoping for some pie in the sky "future technology", they are fully in
the here and now. As far as I understand, they already have two
countries (Israel and Denmark) and one state (Hawaii) signed up.

 

[krw]

On Sun, 31 May 2009 05:30:02 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

Are there a lot of wackos out there who fear B fields?

Yep.

There are a lot of whackos out there that believe in the tales of
Tesla and don't believe in 1/r^2. Cahill is one of the leading loons.

 

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.

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.

Most of Southern California has been heavily overcast for about 2
weeks now.

Smog coming from high temperature high pressure combustion of fuel on
the freeways.

That is something that will _not_ improve with bio fuels.

Babbling nonsense.

It is a coastal marine layer, extends WAY out into the Pacific Ocean,
and happens every year.

It appears the real world is something totally foreign to you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com 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.

And if we had Mr. Fusioni running on banana peels, life would be wonderful.

Everyone agrees an electrification system could be made to work in a
controlled environment. We only need to look at subways and toys to
know it works.

Toys?

The only plausible issues that have been raised so far that may be a
problem are rainwater, dust, crankcase oil and debris from vehicles
and possibly vehicles themselves rolling over.

May be a problem?

News flash; water is conductive and causes all sorts of problems
for electrical systems.

These problems -- and their solutions -- could be identified at very
low cost without adapting a single Prius or Peterbilt or GM Volt.

The problem has already been identified at zero cost; water is conductive.

A 50' section of a lane could be electrified in several different
environments and situations around the country in locations where it
was convenient to monitor, i. e., in front of truck scales.

Or one could take high school science and know water is conductive.

If roads without proper drainage tended to short out the system then
the cost of draining all the low areas makes it way into the spread
sheet.

Drainage is irrelevant.

During a steady rain all surfaces get coated with water.

Have you never seen rain?

<snip nonsense about oil>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

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.

A few weeks would be closer to the payback time as fuel will be $15/
gallon before this is shovel ready.

Once again you totally ignore the cost to build the necessary infrastructure
and maintain it, which would be far more than the power plants.

If you knew the cost of the power plants isn't all that important,
then why did _you_ raise the issue?

It isn't that much by comparison to the cost of building and maintaining
the roadway infrastructure, but it is still a huge cost.

I'm happy that you have finally realized that simple fact.

<snip childish name calling>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Daniel T.]

Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com 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 _always_ have to buy the batteries.

Is it against the law to lease batteries where you live?

Is it against the law to lease cars where you live?

If not, then why are so few doing it?

The reason is it's cheaper to get financing and _buy_ the car.

That depends on the initial cost of the car. Many high end cars *are*
leased because it is cheaper to do that than get financing to buy them.
Also leasers tend to accept that they will not be keeping the car for
its entire life. Lot's of people lease their housing for the same reason.

Using the Better Place business model, the car owner will only posses a
particular battery for about a week out of its proposed 25 year
life-span. At that turnover rate, it's silly to buy.

Seriously though, look at Better Place's business plan.

A business plan ain't going to reduce the 3X higher cost of motoring
using battery only.

They aren't
hoping for some pie in the sky "future technology",

Then it's _guaranteed_ that it'll be 3X more expensive than road bed
electrification.

I guess you will have to put me in the same camp as the rest of your
detractors then. We are stuck with having to evolve from what we have to
what we want. If 100% roadbed electrification is your goal, then the
first step is to dramatically increase the number of EVs on the road.
That can only be done with batteries on board.

I expect that you might dispute my first step, if so, then what do you
think the first step should be?

they are fully in
the here and now. As far as I understand, they already have two
countries (Israel and Denmark) and one state (Hawaii) signed up.

If you want to discuss niche markets, feel free to start another
thread.

I think discussing "niche markets" is better than discussing
non-markets, especially if whole countries are considered "niche".

 

In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

And then that cost is compared to the cost of the trillions of dollars
going to oil rich despotisms.

Annual US oil import have totalled about 5 billion barrels for years.

In 2008, oil was at it's higest price and averaged a bit under $100/bbl
for the year.

That's $0.5 trillion, not trillions.

Roughly 3/5 of the imported oil came from Canada and Mexico.

"trillions of dollars going to oil rich despotisms" is babbling nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

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 _always_ have to buy the batteries.

Is it against the law to lease batteries where you live?

Is it against the law to lease cars where you live?

If not, then why are so few doing it?

The reason is it's cheaper to get financing and _buy_ the car.

Now how is a battery any different than any other part of a car or the
whole car?

Seriously though, look at Better Place's business plan.

A business plan ain't going to reduce the 3X higher cost of motoring
using battery only.

They aren't
hoping for some pie in the sky "future technology",

Then it's _guaranteed_ that it'll be 3X more expensive than road bed
electrification.

they are fully in
the here and now. As far as I understand, they already have two
countries (Israel and Denmark) and one state (Hawaii) signed up.

If you want to discuss niche markets, feel free to start another
thread.



Bret Cahill

 

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.

And if we had Mr. Fusioni running on banana peels, life would be wonderful.

Everyone agrees an electrification system could be made to work in a
controlled environment. We only need to look at subways and toys to
know it works.

The only plausible issues that have been raised so far that may be a
problem are rainwater, dust, crankcase oil and debris from vehicles
and possibly vehicles themselves rolling over.

These problems -- and their solutions -- could be identified at very
low cost without adapting a single Prius or Peterbilt or GM Volt.

A 50' section of a lane could be electrified in several different
environments and situations around the country in locations where it
was convenient to monitor, i. e., in front of truck scales.

If roads without proper drainage tended to short out the system then
the cost of draining all the low areas makes it way into the spread
sheet.

And then that cost is compared to the cost of the trillions of dollars
going to oil rich despotisms.


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 / (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.

Most of Southern California has been heavily overcast for about 2
weeks now.

Smog coming from high temperature high pressure combustion of fuel on
the freeways.

That is something that will _not_ improve with bio fuels.


Bret Cahill