Electric Cars

[Bozo]

How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

There is a water storage hydroelectric about 3 miles from me.

 

[timwhit]

There is a water storage hydroelectric about 3 miles from me.

Can you tour it? Might be interesting.

 

[LunarMist]

I'll agree that it isn't entirely practical regardless of the energy densities they may devise. But compared to having a massive number of electric charging locations where the proprietor will not be making the margins they do on gas, many other things are feasible.

Whatever it is, I'll be long gone. At most I plan to buy one more vehicle ever, and it will be a conventional one. I'm still waiting on that atomic car propelled by the pea-sized power pack that would last for thousands of miles. Yeah, right.

 

[Howell]

All the local kids toured the one near me. I think they shut down the tours after 9/11.

They also have used parts around on the grounds. Like an old stainless steel turbine 15' across.
There are tons of trail running and other outdoor activities on the property.

Speaking

 

[Howell]

You may have trouble building such a system at a private residence. It would be awesome though.

Depends on where the residence is. Surely you know somebody who has a pool on a mountain. I mean especially if it's rain water and free. I'm sure there a catch to utilizing storm runoff from the higher elevations.

 

[LunarMist]

Depends on where the residence is. Surely you know somebody who has a pool on a mountain. I mean especially if it's rain water and free. I'm sure there a catch to utilizing storm runoff from the higher elevations.

Sure, everyone knows someone with a pool on a mountain. :lol:

 

[ddrueding]

You need to know someone with two pools; one on top and one at the bottom. They also need to not mind the pools being empty to some degree most of the time.

 

[LunarMist]

You need to know someone with two pools; one on top and one at the bottom. They also need to not mind the pools being empty to some degree most of the time.

In the valley, but not on the mountain.

 

[CougTek]

I'm still waiting on that atomic car propelled by the pea-sized power pack that would last for thousands of miles. Yeah, right.

You watched too much of the Jetson when you were a kid.

 

[Bozo]

Can you tour it? Might be interesting.

I don't know if you could. I would bet that after 9-11, all tours were stopped though.

 

[Handruin]

You need to know someone with two pools; one on top and one at the bottom. They also need to not mind the pools being empty to some degree most of the time.

If it's on a mountain, it'll also have to be somewhere that water won't freeze easily.

 

[ddrueding]

It freezes here 10 days a decade.

 

[Handruin]

It freezes here 10 days a decade.

lucky...:brilsmurf:

 

[ddrueding]

lucky...:brilsmurf:

Not bad, but I can't complain...

 

[time]

Budget electric sports car. Performance is probably deliberately restricted to balance range and battery weight, but I found it interesting because they managed to get the weight down to just 850kg (including battery) in a vehicle that might actually pass safety tests.

Unfortunately, the range would be fine as a commuter, but not much use for a blast in the countryside. Still, don't most people buy cars to be looked at in traffic, rather than to drive any distance?

 

[Howell]

I am surprised nobody has built a consumer grade recharging trailer. Just a simple trailer with engine, fuel, and electrical connection. You can find some homebuilt on the interwebs but I think it could be a good option for extending range occasionally.

 

[Stereodude]

Can you charge and drive?

 

[Howell]

The trailers I've read about are not as I described but I see no conceptual problem with what I've described even if it is not the most efficient due to all of the energy conversions. All the trailers that I have read about previous to this discussion were pusher trailers with a front wheel drive engine.

This is the one I look at periodically. Mainly because its the best looking EV conversion I've seen. I'm kinda partial to Porsches.

In some catch up reading it looks like Toyota was working on a towed generator project with intelligent trailer steering.

 

[Bozo]

The trailers I've read about are not as I described but I see no conceptual problem with what I've described even if it is not the most efficient due to all of the energy conversions. All the trailers that I have read about previous to this discussion were pusher trailers with a front wheel drive engine.

This is the one I look at periodically. Mainly because its the best looking EV conversion I've seen. I'm kinda partial to Porsches.

In some catch up reading it looks like Toyota was working on a towed generator project with intelligent trailer steering.

I don't see the point. Why not buy a hybred? Same difference.

 

[ddrueding]

The difference is you can leave the noisy, heavy part at home when you don't need it. That helps the EV range and performance considerably.

 

[Handruin]

Yeah but wouldn't the benefits of a hybrid be that the emissions handling would be regulated and part of the car with catalytic converter(s) where as a generator may have none. You would also gain the small benefits of regenerative braking in a hybrid where as a trailer would either have to have the electric run back to it, or have the trailer add the braking which is less safe. The trailer gains you an extra axle with more weight, complexity, and I would argue is less safe in bad weather.

 

[BingBangBop]

The point, in my mind, of the trailered generator, would simply be to extend your range. You wouldn't have to cart the thing around except when on a long trip where you could charge your batteries while asleep in a hotel. I'd agree that there are issues, if you were planning to permanently attach the generator to the car for use while driving

 

[Sol]

The electric motors are in the car, not the trailer, so the cars regenerative breaking would just work normally and charge the cars batteries. There is no reason to run the electricity back to the trailer, and the trailer doesn't need to do any breaking.
In the case of the linked trailer it was obviously built from a car so it probably still had the catalytic converter originally fitted to that car, admittedly that's not always the case if the trailer just houses a generator but converting kinetic energy to electricity and then back again (with maybe a stop in a battery) seems like a pretty poor idea anyway if you can just use the energy straight away.

Pushing with an external trailer is probably going to be less efficient and maybe slightly less safe than having an ICE directly powering the vehicle, but if you only need it 5-10% of the time it can be a lot less efficient and still beat out dragging an extra engine you don't need around the rest of the time.

 

[sechs]

converting kinetic energy to electricity and then back again (with maybe a stop in a battery) seems like a pretty poor idea anyway

So what's the deal on the diesel-electric locomotive?

 

[Sol]

So what's the deal on the diesel-electric locomotive?

Sure, sometimes it can be more efficient... But it's 2-4 more steps so it still seems like a bad idea...

 

[LunarMist]

Towing a generator around behind an electric car is just ridiculous. :rofl:

 

[Howell]

The diesel-locomotive doesn't really have the option of operating in parallel mode. Any diesel engine with enough torque to contribute to locomoting the locomotive would take up entirely too much space.

The nice thing about the trailer is that it modularizes the functions. I could easily drive to work and back plus errands with a one hundred mile range but there is no way I could take a trip without some kind of range extender.

The trailer for the Toyota project was built from a motorcycle engine and they say that once all the conversion losses were added up the combo was comparable or better than the pure gasoline version. Obviously a step backwards to leave it attached all the time but finding out how little you need to use the trailer before a hybrid becomes a better option is just math at that point.

 

[sechs]

The diesel-locomotive doesn't really have the option of operating in parallel mode.

Most diesel-electric locomotives don't have batteries for motive power, so that does limit them. Hybrid locomotives are really an invention of the last decade.

 

[jtr1962]

So what's the deal on the diesel-electric locomotive?

Lack of catenary. Most of the world's busier railways electrify to avoid the inefficiencies/extra complexity associated with using diesel locomotives. A diesel locomotive on average might last 15 years in service. It's not uncommon for electrics to run 40 or 50 years.

 

[LunarMist]

The point, in my mind, of the trailered generator, would simply be to extend your range. You wouldn't have to cart the thing around except when on a long trip where you could charge your batteries while asleep in a hotel. I'd agree that there are issues, if you were planning to permanently attach the generator to the car for use while driving

Wouldn't theft of the trailer be a problem too?

 

[ddrueding]

No more than theft of any other trailer. There are systems commercially available to reasonably protect a trailer from theft.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

Yeah a locking hitch is pretty common these days. Sounds like a good idea to me. Like the Volt, but you can leave the "range extender" behind on shorter trips.

 

[sechs]

Lack of catenary. Most of the world's busier railways electrify to avoid the inefficiencies/extra complexity associated with using diesel locomotives.

That's pretty much nonsense.

Railroads electrify because of exhaust issues. Electrification is an expensive undertaking, and maintenance of the plant is surely at least as complicated as the diesel locomotives it displaces.

The busiest railroad in the United States is the Metro-North. The reason that any of their lines have electrification is because it's required by law. They still have sections of unelectrified tracks and dual-mode locomotives to run on them.

 

[jtr1962]

That's pretty much nonsense.

Railroads electrify because of exhaust issues. Electrification is an expensive undertaking, and maintenance of the plant is surely at least as complicated as the diesel locomotives it displaces.

Not really. There is a payback period for electrification for sure, but in the long haul it's cheaper to run an electrified RR than a diesel one, except in cases of low traffic volume. This is why most of the world has electrified their main lines other than the US. Here is a special case which has more to do with corporate culture than anything else. The fact that a lot of major freight RRs in the US haven't yet electrified has to do with the payback period falling outside the typical CEO tenure. No CEO wants to end their tenure in the red. Still, I feel it'll happen in the long haul. Warren Buffett bought a lot of stock in BNSF. He's a big fan of electrifying because that means higher profits in the long run. You save on maintenance, as well as increase line capacity by increasing average train speeds.

And the RR usually uses grid power, not its own generators.

The busiest railroad in the United States is the Metro-North. The reason that any of their lines have electrification is because it's required by law. They still have sections of unelectrified tracks and dual-mode locomotives to run on them.

The low traffic volume sections are still dieselized but that's a very small percentage of the total number of trains. Fact is given the traffic volume on most of their lines, electrification is the only option, exhaust issues or not. Electrification increases capacity by allowing trains to reach line speed much more quickly. A diesel locomotive pulling a string of coaches is a slug which may require 3 or 4 minutes to hit 80 mph. A string of EMUs can get from a dead stop to 80 mph in a minute or less, depending upon design. That can cut running time in half on routes with many stops.

And actually the busiest railroad in the US is the NYC subway. It's not officially a railroad under FRA regulations but that's beside the point. It runs more trains per day by far than any other operation.

 

[ddrueding]

...and maintenance of the plant is surely at least as complicated as the diesel locomotives it displaces.

I don't know about the rest, but I'm certain this is wrong. In every heat engine I know of, efficiency increases with size and maintenance costs per unit energy don't.

 

[LunarMist]

The more I read about it these cars are not ready yet to take over the world, and some are not even ready for prime time. Maybe in 10 years it will different. Meanwhile, I hope to buy a regular gas vehicle in about 3 years and that will be the last one ever. I would go for a V6 this time instead of the V8 then and a real-world 18MPG would be fine.

 

[CougTek]

With your apparently appaling health condition, are you sure it will still be legal for you to drive in three years, assuming you'll still be alive?

I would see you in a Taurus.

 

[LunarMist]

Very funny. No more Fords for me since the 1993. I'd probably get a Grand Cherokee or maybe a Highlander if it were a 2012 model, but who knows in the further future.

 

[ddrueding]

The Wrangler just got a new engine/transmission that actually looks decent. The high-end configurations look relatively comfortable as well.

 

[sechs]

Not really. There is a payback period for electrification for sure, but in the long haul it's cheaper to run an electrified RR than a diesel one, except in cases of low traffic volume. This is why most of the world has electrified their main lines other than the US.

So, why did nearly all of the freight railroads de-electrify? I know that Great Northern, the Milwaukee Road, and Western Pacific all had portions of electrified track and ripped it out.

Here is a special case which has more to do with corporate culture than anything else. The fact that a lot of major freight RRs in the US haven't yet electrified has to do with the payback period falling outside the typical CEO tenure. No CEO wants to end their tenure in the red. Still, I feel it'll happen in the long haul.

Perhaps, but what would the payback period be? A hundred years, maybe more?

Warren Buffett bought a lot of stock in BNSF. He's a big fan of electrifying because that means higher profits in the long run.

Warren Buffet doesn't own any BNSF stock. It's owned lock, stock, and barrel by Berkshire Hathaway.

You save on maintenance, as well as increase line capacity by increasing average train speeds.

The average speed only increases if the tracks can take it. Very little track in the United States is rated beyond 110MPH (class 7 or higher); and not that much is rated for more than 80MPH (clases 5 and 6).

If UPS can get a package from one end of the United States in five days or less by sticking it on a freight train from Massachusetts to California, I don't see the advantage of increasing train speeds.

And the RR usually uses grid power, not its own generators.

That works if there's a grid there. An amazing amount of rail in the United States goes through "nowhere."

The low traffic volume sections are still dieselized but that's a very small percentage of the total number of trains.

And that is an excuse why?

What is the cost of buying and maintaining a fleet of dual-mode locomotives versus electrification, in the long run? Throwing that in with the efficiencies which you stated, it seems like it'd be a no-brainer.