Siemens eHighway

[mr moose]

20 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.

Why would you divert funding from one technology to another which is arguably inferior and has more problems that technology is yet to solve?

[cj09beira]

34 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

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.

from the documentary i saw salt already had a working reactor, so it shouldn't need too much extra R&D the problem is the funding as the politicians/people are very adamant of investing in anything with the nuclear symbol on it, if only someone made that documentary go viral, hmmm

[asus killer]

34 minutes ago, leadeater said:

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.

you have to change the transmission system for a traditional fuel truck to work on electric power, even if you can avoid the batteries in this case. I would imagine this would be more costly then building a new truck. A conversion that costs money and assures you a truck that can't work on a normal charging station unless you then put batteries on it, but then it made no sense as you could go full electric anyway.

 

There are a lot more cars then trucks and energy is energy, it would cost as much in the power grid to charge all the cars in the highway as some trucks i imagine. You will have to build charging stations anyway as EU has already deadlines for the change to electric cars. Doesn't it create a double cost unnecessarily?

 

What i was saying is that this money could be better spent in funding research for electric vehicles, even more in a country that relies so much on the car industry for its GDP. I would imagine they would go through a rough time if VW, BMW, Mercedes lost it's edge.

 

But most than everything, let's forget hybrids, we must go full electric and soon.

 

 

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Why would you divert funding from one technology to another which is arguably inferior and has more problems that technology is yet to solve?

 

don't you mean you are diverting funding from finally stop using fossil fuels to create a solution that doesn't solve the problem you are trying to address? i get hybrid in a "it's better then nothing" but not if it is costly and that money could be better used in finally stoping the use of fossil fuels. I know not everybody will like this, but there is only one earth and time is running out. 

 

 

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

from the documentary i saw salt already had a working reactor, so it shouldn't need too much extra R&D the problem is the funding as the politicians/people are very adamant of investing in anything with the nuclear symbol on it, if only someone made that documentary go viral, hmmm

The problem with a lot of those reactors is not that they aren't viable, it's just hey are at the same stage of development as quantum computers,  no one really knows how long until they are mainstream and thus no one really wants to invest except for the universities and the odd large company with deep pockets.

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

The problem with a lot of those reactors is not that they aren't viable, it's just hey are at the same stage of development as quantum computers,  no one really knows how long until they are mainstream and thus no one really wants to invest except for the universities and the odd large company with deep pockets.

this one had zero development made since the 80s, literally zero, thats the problem, it was one of those projects that no one care too much about then and most people (including people with masters on nuclear energy) never heard about them (the documentary i saw was made by a post graduate that was shocked it was never once talked about it in his class

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, asus killer said:

you have to change the transmission system for a traditional fuel truck to work on electric power, even if you can avoid the batteries in this case. I would imagine this would be more costly then building a new truck. A conversion that costs money and assures you a truck that can't work on a normal charging station unless you then put batteries on it, but then it made no sense as you could go full electric anyway.

 

There are a lot more cars then trucks and energy is energy, it would cost as much in the power grid to charge all the cars in the highway as some trucks i imagine. You will have to build charging stations anyway as EU has already deadlines for the change to electric cars. Doesn't it create a double cost unnecessarily?

 

What i was saying is that this money could be better spent in funding research for electric vehicles, even more in a country that relies so much on the car industry for its GDP. I would imagine they would go through a rough time if VW, BMW, Mercedes lost it's edge.

 

But most than everything, let's forget hybrids, we must go full electric and soon.

 

 

 

 

Siemens aren't really interested in giving their money to VW or Mercedes.  They would rather develop a long term product that solves a current problem.  Batteries are not a good solution for trucks and current trucks can be converted to run with an electric motor. Isuzu use the same cab chassis for their electric trucks. but with the batteries they only have a range of 250Km.  This pantograph system would make them be able to drive Melbourne to Sydney without having to recharge (1000Km).  Or if they had a hybrid motor as far from the grid as necessary.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

this one had zero development made since the 80s, literally zero, thats the problem, it was one of those projects that no one care too much about then and most people (including people with masters on nuclear energy) never heard about them (the documentary i saw was made by a post graduate that was shocked it was never once talked about it in his class

Professor Poliakov talks about the alternative nuclear reactors in one of his periodic videos.   Wish I could remember which one.

[leadeater]

25 minutes ago, asus killer said:

A conversion that costs money and assures you a truck that can't work on a normal charging station unless you then put batteries on it, but then it made no sense as you could go full electric anyway.

There are/can be batteries in this proposed system, it's a three source hybrid system: Engine, Battery, Overhead/Mains. I do agree conversion might not be viable though I have no idea how much that actually would cost, graduated replacement as normal would be the most logical.

 

Quote

On electrified routes, the electric motors in eHighway trucks are powered via the overhead contact lines and the active pantograph. For remaining sections of road, the eHighway truck has a hybrid drive. There are no restrictions on the type of hybrid drive: depending on the application and customer requirements, serial and parallel concepts with internal combustion engines, battery solutions, fuel cells etc. can all be implemented. The electric motors of the eHighway trucks also enable recovery of the vehicle’s braking energy.

 

 

25 minutes ago, asus killer said:

There are a lot more cars then trucks and energy is energy, it would cost as much in the power grid to charge all the cars in the highway as some trucks i imagine. You will have to build charging stations anyway as EU has already deadlines for the change to electric cars. Doesn't it create a double cost unnecessarily?

The problem is specifically charging as I highlighted not the energy storage and usage when driving. Electric cars and fast charging introduce point specific extremely high peak power demands, trucks would be even worse.

 

Getting 10KWh of power to a charge point versus 20KWh can actually be more than double the price, a lot more, figures used are purely exemplar. Electrical distribution costs are not linear and due to safety regulations have very big leaps in cost as you pass thresholds.

 

For a more accurate but still guess work the Tesla truck is estimated to have a 1MWh battery, if you want to charge that to 80% in 1 hour then you need 800KWh delivery capability (overhead required not included). So if you need to cater for 10 trucks charging at once you need 10MWh delivery capability (overhead included and rounded up so easy numbers). This is all based of an impractical vehicle though so it's worse for an actually practical one.

 

A more realistic truck stop to cater for truck charging in a high density transport location would have a minimum of 15 charging stations, longer it takes to charge the more charging stations you will need, and trucks with 2+ MWh batteries so for 1 hour turn around that's 24MWh power delivery requirement which is equivalent to powering a city of 45,000 people but in a single smaller area. All I can say is good luck scaling that out and this is using conservative numbers as well, would be safer and more likely to calculate on 50MWh or 100MWh truck stops.

 

Edit:

The above issue is why power stations are built next to super computer clusters.

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, asus killer said:

don't you mean you are diverting funding from finally stop using fossil fuels to create a solution that doesn't solve the problem you are trying to address?

No.    Why divert all the funds into only one idea (battery driven vehicles), at least with overheads if battery technology never gets there they will still have options and quite possibly a working system that has greatly reduced pollution in the meantime.

[IhazHedont]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

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. 

 

To me it is, because this statement turns a big blind eye of electricity production implications.

It is true that you can not breath exhaust gas out of an electric car, or even out of your cooking appliances, but it does not mean it does not exist, it is simply relocated elsewhere.

 

This is the same reasoning when building windmills, dams and solar panels. Sure, there is no direct carbon emission at the production site, but (and I don't this to be some kind of "whataboutism") you cannot occult the sand needed for concrete, the silicium/lithium/steel, transportation, the inherent problems it causes to the environment itself: birds/fish path being, deconstruction/allocation of natural habitat for the solar panels, fish paths in the rivers and so on.

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, IhazHedont said:

To me it is, because this statement turns a big blind eye of electricity production implications.

It is true that you can not breath exhaust gas out of an electric car, or even out of your cooking appliances, but it does not mean it does not exist, it is simply relocated elsewhere.

 

This is the same reasoning when building windmills, dams and solar panels. Sure, there is no direct carbon emission at the production site, but (and I don't this to be some kind of "whataboutism") you cannot occult the sand needed for concrete, the silicium/lithium/steel, transportation, the inherent problems it causes to the environment itself: birds/fish path being, deconstruction/allocation of natural habitat for the solar panels, fish paths in the rivers and so on.

lets nuclear all the things  

[IhazHedont]

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The problem with a lot of those reactors is not that they aren't viable, it's just hey are at the same stage of development as quantum computers,  no one really knows how long until they are mainstream and thus no one really wants to invest except for the universities and the odd large company with deep pockets.

 

It is actually the same problem with electricity storage.

A French company which funds where raised by the state released a very competitive Na ion battery.

 

Same capacity than lithium, better charging cycles performances, no thermal runaway, easier to recycle, same form factor.

 

The problem ? Well, salt is quite easy to find, and many countries rely on the lithium industry.

 

I can try to find an english article about it if interested.

[IhazHedont]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

lets nuclear all the things  

Honestly if the political route is to keep growth based economy then yes, absolutely.

 

I am completely ok with renewable energies as long as we decide to slow our lifestyle pace in terms of production and consumption.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

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

Lets first get proper road maintenence done here. Maybe in Germany, but maybe it would be a better idea to have these as stops, rather as a track on the highway - much like a plug for an EV but you stop instead of plug in. Much higher output as well. It would be easier to maintain too. 

[asus killer]

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

i get your point on the energies needs for the charging stations, i guess that is a little outside what i can argue.

But isn't that a problem that is or will be overcome at least in the EU? it would made no sense to create the mentioned deadlines to change all cars to electric if it were an impossible to solve problem. But like i said can't really argue that.

 

Still what i meant (i don't know if you understood) was that i guess someone calculated some number for energy needs for each charging station, for the traffic expected, if it is by 2 trucks or 20 cars it shouldn't matter.

[leadeater]

Just now, RorzNZ said:

Lets first get proper road maintenence done here. Maybe in Germany, but maybe it would be a better idea to have these as stops, rather as a track on the highway - much like a plug for an EV but you stop instead of plug in. Much higher output as well. It would be easier to maintain too. 

Or put them in over 10-15 minute drive stretches in strategic locations, why stop when the system allows you to be moving .

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, IhazHedont said:

To me it is, because this statement turns a big blind eye of electricity production implications.

It is true that you can not breath exhaust gas out of an electric car, or even out of your cooking appliances, but it does not mean it does not exist, it is simply relocated elsewhere.

 

This is the same reasoning when building windmills, dams and solar panels. Sure, there is no direct carbon emission at the production site, but (and I don't this to be some kind of "whataboutism") you cannot occult the sand needed for concrete, the silicium/lithium/steel, transportation, the inherent problems it causes to the environment itself: birds/fish path being, deconstruction/allocation of natural habitat for the solar panels, fish paths in the rivers and so on.

That is true, but I don't think tech enthusiast's point was to be an absolute look at the impact of power generation as it is right now, but a long term view of power generation getting cleaner and not polluting.  Thus his assertions that this system and electric cars in general will be better for the environment with every improvement in power generation. 

 

Also raising that the building of power stations has a cost is kinda moot because anything we build now will have a footprint and environmental impact, it's just some of those technologies have a significantly lower environmental impact after completion whilst others will have an impact for centuries to come. I know which I would prefer until we find a way to build a power plant without upsetting the environment.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, IhazHedont said:

 

It is actually the same problem with electricity storage.

A French company which funds where raised by the state released a very competitive Na ion battery.

 

Same capacity than lithium, better charging cycles performances, no thermal runaway, easier to recycle, same form factor.

 

The problem ? Well, salt is quite easy to find, and many countries rely on the lithium industry.

 

I can try to find an english article about it if interested.

Always interested please.

 

EDIT: I think Bolivia would love to see that tech stifled for a while, that is unless another unscrupulous country comes in and takes all their lithium and leaves them with nothing again.

[cj09beira]

3 minutes ago, IhazHedont said:

Honestly if the political route is to keep growth based economy then yes, absolutely.

 

I am completely ok with renewable energies as long as we decide to slow our lifestyle pace in terms of production and consumption.

when we get better at keeping the made electricity it will improve costs of all energy types significantly as right now one of the problems is that most of the renewable energies are too instable so we have to keep coal and other sources runnning in the event that wind decides to stop

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, asus killer said:

But isn't that a problem that is or will be overcome at least in the EU? it would made no sense to create the mentioned deadlines to change all cars to electric if it were an impossible to solve problem. But like i said can't really argue that.

It's easier to place more car charging stations than it is to place truck stops. Also at home charging is being calculated. One problem power companies have is the night time power usage is so low compared to day time it's actually a significant problem to deal with, example here is at night the wholesale grid price per kwh drops to less than 1/3 daytime price. Turning power generation off and on is not that easy to do so night time usage is very much wanted.

[IhazHedont]

2 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

when we get better at keeping the made electricity it will improve costs of all energy types significantly as right now one of the problems is that most of the renewable energies are too instable so we have to keep coal and other sources runnning in the event that wind decides to stop

From my perspective (which is very very limited heh), we keep coal because if politician speaks positively about nuclear, then he is basically doomed and can forget his political career, even/especially in France.

Nuclear power is a debate of opinion, frequently driven by emotions and heart feelings, whereas it is a very, very technical subject.

 

Just ask an anti nuclear militant what is a Becquerel, Sieverts, how many types of nuclear waste exist, do they all have the same longevity, which are those we chose to bury, are they all solid, liquid, or gas ?

 

They'll just reply "DUH nuclear is dangerous, and a power plant is ticking nuclear bomb".

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Or put them in over 10-15 minute drive stretches in strategic locations, why stop when the system allows you to be moving .

I believe there are union rules which require them to stop every so often (and there should be) at a reasonable time per 3 or 4 hours. Its irresponsible to not and driver fatigue is quite real.

 

[EDIT]

10-15 minute stretches is quite a long way, and along a highway (where applicable in germany etc) that will be costly.

[IhazHedont]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Always interested please.

http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/3033.htm

 

It is the most recent article.

 

Coming from other article:

https://www.generation-nt.com/francais-developpent-batterie-sodium-ion-sel-actualite-1922160.html

 

Interesting points:

"...(l'autre avantage de) la batterie sodium-ion est sa durée de vie : elle a atteint 2000 cycles de charge et de décharge"

"... ( the other advantage of) the Na iom battery is its life span: it reaches 2000 cycles of charge/discharge cycle"

 

The article does not mention it, but I hope they were talking about 100%-0% cycle, which is, in average, 500 cycles for a standard lithium battery.

They noticed a problem at the early development of this kind of battery though: 

 

"Toutefois, si le lithium est aujourd'hui préféré dans les batteries, c'est qu'il permet d'atteindre une plus grande tension électrique ainsi qu'une plus forte densité énergétique ( 200 Wh/kg contre 90 Wh/kg pour la batterie au sel présenté)."

"However, if the lithium is mostly used, it is because it has a better energy density (200Wh/kg against 90Wh/kg for the Na ion).

 

Hopefully, with all the knowledge we gathered about batteries, and serious investiment, it could be a significant step forward in energy storage imo.

[asus killer]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's easier to place more car charging stations than it is to place truck stops. Also at home charging is being calculated. One problem power companies have is the night time power usage is so low compared to day time it's actually a significant problem to deal with, example here is at night the wholesale grid price per kwh drops to less than 1/3 daytime price. Turning power generation off and on is not that easy to do so night time usage is very much wanted.

i saw a documentary about that once. If you connect the worlds power grid, it's always daytime and night time somewhere at the same time, if you could share the pool of global energy, don't know how practical it would be to do. Europe could be connect to Asia more easily, you would need underwater cables between US and Europe for example, if that is even possible.

But in European countries and i think between US and Canada (might me mistaken on this one) you already have connections between different countries.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

I believe there are union rules which require them to stop every so often (and there should be) at a reasonable time per 3 or 4 hours. Its irresponsible to not and driver fatigue is quite real.

 

[EDIT]

10-15 minute stretches is quite a long way, and along a highway (where applicable in germany etc) that will be costly.

Not sure about union rules but here are the legal ones

 

Quote

In any cumulative work day (legally defined as no more than 24 hours), drivers can work a maximum of 13 hours and must then take a break of at least 10 hours (as well as the standard half-hour breaks required every 5½ hours).

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/heavy-vehicle-road-code/information-for-heavy-vehicle-drivers/work-time-and-logbooks/

 

Trucking companies wants the driver to go as far as possible in the allowed time which is why as few stops as possible is wanted for the shortest time possible.