Siemens eHighway

[Tech Enthusiast]

2 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

What could make it faster and easier than less infrastructure needed?

Well, not every company is gonna invest in Tesla. Some may prefer the option presented here, as it is not tied to a single truck supplier.

So, electric adoption will advance faster, due to more possible ways to join the fun. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Rattenmann said:

Well, not every company is gonna invest in Tesla. Some may prefer the option presented here, as it is not tied to a single truck supplier.

So, electric adoption will advance faster, due to more possible ways to join the fun. 

You'd have to be high to invest in this.

[Tech Enthusiast]

1 minute ago, RorzNZ said:

You'd have to be high to invest in this.

Well, then some companies are high, as it is already happening.

More options to get into a cleaner future are always nice. The more, the better.

At worst some of those things fail to get broad adoption, but may actually showcase some features that others could include.

 

Like this cable thing here. I also doubt it would be great for major rollouts, but it is WAY CHEAPER and faster to deploy than doing the same lines on the street itself.

Also, safety reasons. Not sure how this would work if someone touches a line like that embedded in the ground.

 

Anyways: This project could lead to new ideas to handle it. Like some form of non-lethal embedding into the streets later.

Kinda like a big proof of concept that leads to a more refined idea.

 

I don't get the negativity tho. 

Isn't it good that companies are willing to invest in a cleaner future?

Should we not applaud them instead of calling them silly / high / whatever? Hmm.

 

I am glad they invest in this kinda ideas. The more ideas we try and actually see in the wild, the better. Not like those [insert fancy way to make batteries last for weeks] that never make it into anything we use.

 

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

Also, safety reasons. Not sure how this would work if someone touches a line like that embedded in the ground.

 

Anyways: This project could lead to new ideas to handle it. Like some form of non-lethal embedding into the streets later.

Kinda like a big proof of concept that leads to a more refined idea.

 

It has two cables and two pantographs so no need for a connection on the ground at all.

 

8 hours ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

I don't get the negativity tho. 

Isn't it good that companies are willing to invest in a cleaner future?

Should we not applaud them instead of calling them silly / high / whatever? Hmm.

 

 

Because people think they know better,  ideals will make people ignore facts and believe whatever nonsense re-enforces their personal dogma.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

Well, then some companies are high, as it is already happening.

More options to get into a cleaner future are always nice. The more, the better.

At worst some of those things fail to get broad adoption, but may actually showcase some features that others could include.

 

Like this cable thing here. I also doubt it would be great for major rollouts, but it is WAY CHEAPER and faster to deploy than doing the same lines on the street itself.

Also, safety reasons. Not sure how this would work if someone touches a line like that embedded in the ground.

 

Anyways: This project could lead to new ideas to handle it. Like some form of non-lethal embedding into the streets later.

Kinda like a big proof of concept that leads to a more refined idea.

 

I don't get the negativity tho. 

Isn't it good that companies are willing to invest in a cleaner future?

Should we not applaud them instead of calling them silly / high / whatever? Hmm.

 

I am glad they invest in this kinda ideas. The more ideas we try and actually see in the wild, the better. Not like those [insert fancy way to make batteries last for weeks] that never make it into anything we use.

 

The key words here are invest and future. Why would a company invest in current technology for the future? By the time this can be rolled out, tesla and competing companies would have made their all-electric haulers. This idea by siemens is current technolgy, even older really - used in trams and buses. Its not a good idea to invest in something, when something clearly better is right around the corner.

[leadeater]

So anyone else thinking free EV car charging? Late night power raids .

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, RorzNZ said:

The key words here are invest and future. Why would a company invest in current technology for the future? By the time this can be rolled out, tesla and competing companies would have made their all-electric haulers. This idea by siemens is current technolgy, even older really - used in trams and buses. Its not a good idea to invest in something, when something clearly better is right around the corner.

I'm pretty sure a trucking company that cares most about freight to weight ratios would far rather 80%-90% of the trip to be overhead powered and the rest hybrid than hauling around a giant battery eating well in to that freight ratio.

 

Telsa truck is a very hard sell precisely because of the weight of the battery, it works if you're careful and plan routes well and keep to what the truck is suited to but it's no replacement for your standard long haul.

 

Not to mention in a country like ours pretty damn useless considering how varied our roads are in height, speed, turns, cities etc, but then so are these over head power lines here too. We'd have a better shot with full electric but very unlikely to be viable here until the battery tech gets a heck of a lot better to compensate for how EV truck unfriendly our roads are.

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

Anyways: This project could lead to new ideas to handle it. Like some form of non-lethal embedding into the streets later.

Kinda like a big proof of concept that leads to a more refined idea.

I may be mis-remembering but I think there might be something for that already, thick rubber covers over recessed tracks and the vehicle has a push rod that pushes open the rubber covers as it goes along so the only place the track is exposed is directly under the vehicle contact point.

[IhazHedont]

16 hours ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

The point people like to ignore about electrical vehicles:

 

Yes, they get charged by coal and other stuff.

Yes, they are not 100% clean, yet.

 

But every single coal plant replaced by whatever else that is not polluting, instantly makes every single electrical vehicle less polluting.

That is far easier to handle, than having to replace every single car and truck whenever something slightly cleaner comes around. It is like a joker card that just gets better and better on its own, without any adjustments. 

 

Claiming we should not use electrical, just because they don't eliminate 100% of the pollution NOW, is silly. Even if they are 10% cleaner only, it is still 10% cleaner. And it is going up without replacing the car in question.

Just like saying: "I don't have a million for a house now, so i better don't start saving for it either!"

Honestly, it would take a freaking book to answer you, but basically:

 

- Traditional plants (coal/gas and nuclear) produce energy that you can dynamically drive depending on the load.

 

- This is currently not possible with renewable energies (production =! consumption, hence Germany/Norway sold a shiton of electricity to Europe when consumption was low when production was high [sunny day with strong wind], and was importing a lot when the opposite happened, or, coal plant started running again).

 

- Investment to match this between renewable and traditional is far, far more superior with renewable energy: one being, that if your country consumes an average of, let's say, 1 TWh per year, you are not going to produce only 1 TWh, you need a reserve backup. Then it means that you also need more storage possibilities for such back up. Don't also forget that you need to take into consideration that a windmill is never producing at its full capacity, because ... well because sometimes the wind is not blowing enough. So you need to build extra to compensate.

 

Long story short: you want to have your train at 8h00 to go, whether or not wind is blowing? You don't want to lose your comfort, but reduce the impact on the environment (because this is the main idea: we want to keep the way we consume/produce, and reduce our carbone footprint) ? You want it to be financially feasible ?

 

Well then just go full nuclear.

 

PS: Windmill and solar panels are not carbon free. Put aside the fact that they are the product and the legacy of the oil/coal industry, they are not meaningless for the environment. Petrol, silicium, concrete, steel ...

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, IhazHedont said:

Honestly, it would take a freaking book to answer you, but basically:

 

- Traditional plants (coal/gas and nuclear) produce energy that you can dynamically drive depending on the load.

 

- This is currently not possible with renewable energies (production =! consumption, hence Germany/Norway sold a shiton of electricity to Europe when consumption was low when production was high [sunny day with strong wind], and was importing a lot when the opposite happened, or, coal plant started running again).

 

- Investment to match this between renewable and traditional is far, far more superior with renewable energy: one being, that if your country consumes an average of, let's say, 1 TWh per year, you are not going to produce only 1 TWh, you need a reserve backup. Then it means that you also need more storage possibilities for such back up. Don't also forget that you need to take into consideration that a windmill is never producing at its full capacity, because ... well because sometimes the wind is not blowing enough. So you need to build extra to compensate.

 

Long story short: you want to have your train at 8h00 to go, whether or not wind is blowing? You don't want to lose your comfort, but reduce the impact on the environment (because this is the main idea: we want to keep the way we consume/produce, and reduce our carbone footprint) ? You want it to be financially feasible ?

 

Well then just go full nuclear.

 

PS: Windmill and solar panels are not carbon free. Put aside the fact that they are the product and the legacy of the oil/coal industry, they are not meaningless for the environment. Petrol, silicium, concrete, steel ...

You didn't address his post,  He never said renewable sources that can't maintain a dynamic loading was the sole solution.  He said every time a source that does not pollute replaces a coal source it gets cleaner.  That is actually a fact you can't ignore. 

 

And to be more specific he was talking about the end result on the road as compared to the current situation where every petrol driven vehicle pollutes regardless of how clean power generation is. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

I'm pretty sure a trucking company that cares most about freight to weight ratios would far rather 80%-90% of the trip to be overhead powered and the rest hybrid than hauling around a giant battery eating well in to that freight ratio.

 

Telsa truck is a very hard sell precisely because of the weight of the battery, it works if you're careful and plan routes well and keep to what the truck is suited to but it's no replacement for your standard long haul.

 

Not to mention in a country like ours pretty damn useless considering how varied our roads are in height, speed, turns, cities etc, but then so are these over head power lines here too. We'd have a better shot with full electric but very unlikely to be viable here until the battery tech gets a heck of a lot better to compensate for how EV truck unfriendly our roads are.

EV's have absolutely no problem with our roads. NZ is pretty EV-friendly with charging stations everywhere. It wouldn't be hard to get McKeown on board and set them up at their current fuel stops. In a normal EV its not too hard to get across the south island in the same time a normal car does.

[IhazHedont]

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You didn't address his post,  He never said renewable sources that can't maintain a dynamic loading was the sole solution.  He said every time a source that does not pollute replaces a coal source it gets cleaner.  That is actually a fact you can't ignore. 

 

And to be more specific he was talking about the end result on the road as compared to the current situation where every petrol driven vehicle pollutes regardless of how clean power generation is. 

I should have only quoted this:

"The point people like to ignore about electrical vehicles"

 

My point is that this matter is far beyond energies being clean. Power availability is what makes our days "modern", and it has a price.

 

Then "He said every time a source that does not pollute replaces a coal source it gets cleaner.  That is actually a fact you can't ignore."

 

But renewable energies have an environmental cost. And that is also why I talked about power availability: if you want to keep things the way they are running, you need to produce extra renewable energies, and they are totally not carbon free, as well as storage and even water dams.

I'm not saying that we should keep coal though. Just that in my opinion, if we really want to keep the way we live, produce and consume while reducing carbon emission, then nuclear is the answer, especially when we tend to replace every oil consumers with electrical ones.

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

EV's have absolutely no problem with our roads. NZ is pretty EV-friendly with charging stations everywhere. It wouldn't be hard to get McKeown on board and set them up at their current fuel stops. In a normal EV its not too hard to get across the south island in the same time a normal car does.

The problem is energy per KM would be terrible compared to US and EU by a lot.

 

Edit:

We're talking EV trucks here not EV cars as well.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

The problem is energy per KM would be terrible compared to US and EU by a lot.

 

Edit:

We're talking EV trucks here not EV cars as well.

The trouble with EV Trucks is that no one has really made one yet for obvious reasons. We havent actually seen Tesla's solution, but my main point is that we need to be investing in future technologies, I imagine when these rails get implemented and we see them in action in 2 or 3 years, the EV battery game might have changed substantially - they might just not be needed within half a decade.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, IhazHedont said:

I'm not saying that we should keep coal though. Just that in my opinion, if we really want to keep the way we live, produce and consume while reducing carbon emission, then nuclear is the answer, especially when we tend to replace every oil consumers with electrical ones.

Plus a molten salt reactor will take all the waste fuel rods of current reactors and happily use the massive amount of energy still present. Current reactors are really not that good fuel efficiency wise and fuel quality requirements.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

The trouble with EV Trucks is that no one has really made one yet for obvious reasons. We havent actually seen Tesla's solution, but my main point is that we need to be investing in future technologies, I imagine when these rails get implemented and we see them in action in 2 or 3 years, the EV battery game might have changed substantially - they might just not be needed within half a decade.

You'd have to get the battery to 1/10th the weight for wide usage on trucks though, battery tech may be advancing but not that quickly. Overhead power for cars I agree is totally illogical but for trucks that will have a far longer charge time, driver shift limits, far more energy storage demand and weight restrictions on roads and bridges just make them impractical as a replacement.

 

And it's not like you can't leave the lines in place in sections for moving fast charging either, once something exists uses for it will be developed beyond the original purpose. 

[asus killer]

this is like inventing fire in 2018. I don't get it, this was a thing in the beginning of last century in most cities for trolleys.

Seems like a waste of money to electrify highways when full electric trucks are already such a near future. Have money to spare fund the companies designing the electric trucks or better yet electric battery innovation. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

You'd have to get the battery to 1/10th the weight for wide usage on trucks though, battery tech may be advancing but not that quickly. Overhead power for cars I agree is totally illogical but for trucks that will have a far longer charge time, far more energy storage demand and weight restrictions on roads and bridges just make them impractical as a replacement.

 

And it's not like you can't leave the lines in place in sections for moving fast charging either, once something exists uses for it will be developed beyond the original purpose. 

We'll have to see what technology brings I suppose but definitely huge strides in recent years. I think repurpousing the lines is a bit of stretch. Just look at the mess thats happened to wellington and their bus system. Lines everywhere and useless now. Even more of a concrete jungle. 

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, IhazHedont said:

I should have only quoted this:

"The point people like to ignore about electrical vehicles"

 

My point is that this matter is far beyond energies being clean. Power availability is what makes our days "modern", and it has a price.

 

Then "He said every time a source that does not pollute replaces a coal source it gets cleaner.  That is actually a fact you can't ignore."

 

But renewable energies have an environmental cost. And that is also why I talked about power availability: if you want to keep things the way they are running, you need to produce extra renewable energies, and they are totally not carbon free, as well as storage and even water dams.

I'm not saying that we should keep coal though. Just that in my opinion, if we really want to keep the way we live, produce and consume while reducing carbon emission, then nuclear is the answer, especially when we tend to replace every oil consumers with electrical ones.

 

He was not talking about the intrinsic nature of power generation and dynamic loads though,  that was all what you added. he was merely saying that when the power generation gets cleaner so does any appliance that runs from it.   I am not sure why that's a controversial statement. 

 

I whole heatedly agree nuclear is the answer right now, it is also not carbon neutral but it is leagues in front of other technologies and it will easily fill the gap between now and fusion/thorium/salt/zeropoint or whatever better solution comes up tomorrow without the same damaging effects as coal (plus it means we can use the coal we have for making steel rather than burning it for power).  This idea of poo pooing anything that is slightly better because it isn't leaps and bounds better is effectively the same thing as stoping the evolution of technology because we aren't happy with some of the steps in the middle.

[leadeater]

Just now, RorzNZ said:

We'll have to see what technology brings I suppose but definitely huge strides in recent years. I think repurpousing the lines is a bit of stretch. Just look at the mess thats happened to wellington and their bus system. Lines everywhere and useless now. Even more of a concrete jungle. 

These would be over highways though not inner city, I don't see it as being a big issue other than weather damage.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, asus killer said:

this is like inventing fire in 2018. I don't get it, this was a thing in the beginning of last century in most cities for trolleys.

Seems like a waste of money to electrify highways when full electric trucks are already such a near future. Have money to spare fund the companies designing the electric trucks or better yet electric battery innovation. 

they not though, electric vehicles (namely logistics vehicles) are still a long way away from being feasible.  Batteries are not there yet and still require a lot of rare earth materials and less than green mines to produce them. This solution alleviates the need for batteries making the trucks almost instantly feasible.

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

This idea of poo pooing anything that is slightly better because it isn't leaps and bounds better is effectively the same thing as stoping the evolution of technology because we aren't happy with some of the steps in the middle.

Should have just gone straight to the 2013 wheel, look at that stone and wood garbage.

[Trik'Stari]

Interesting to say the least.

 

Needless to say, you're going to need to do more than that pathetic 90kmh (55mph) if you want to see this in the US. The stretch of interstate I take every morning to get to work is a 70mph zone and to be honest, most people are doing 85mph for most of it.

 

A bunch of trucks doing 55 in that stretch would cause absolute chaos. Hell, one minivan that's doing 65 causes chaos.

[asus killer]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

they not though, electric vehicles (namely logistics vehicles) are still a long way away from being feasible.  Batteries are not there yet and still require a lot of rare earth materials and less than green mines to produce them. This solution alleviates the need for batteries making the trucks almost instantly feasible.

there are already electric trucks in testing phase. Sure it's not ready but i also didn't claimed it was. But this costs a lot of money that could be diverted to help fund research to development of electric vehicles.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, asus killer said:

there are already electric trucks in testing phase. Sure it's not ready but i also didn't claimed it was. But this costs a lot of money that could be diverted to help fund research to development of electric vehicles.

I would expect if required this can be retro fitted on to existing trucks, putting up lines and converting trucks is so many orders of magnitude cheaper than developing an entire vehicle, battery system and charging network then iterating on that until it is actually viable. At least if you have a hybrid system as batteries get better your on battery range increases while also having two other sources of power and one always available.

 

Also the other issue which I brought up in a similar topic ages ago is just how much power would be required at a truck stop to allow multiple trucks to charge, you'd basically have to build a power station or very large sub station to handle it. That costs more than running lines and poles with a much lower and distributed load demand.