Electric Rag and Tube

[onetrack]

Quote

Melbourne like Perth, Adelaide and a few other cities had electric buses from early in the 20th century, but they all dumped them by the early 1960s.

IMO, calling trolley buses "electric buses" is comparing apples to oranges. None of these were truly "battery-powered electric", they ran off overhead wires and mains power.

Perth is now trialling some Volvo electric buses on a CAT service (Central Area Transit - i.e. short-route, inner areas, bus service) - but I can't for the life of me, understand why Volvo are charging $1M a bus for the "latest technology" in electric buses.

 

And in fact, it's the same with all EV's at present. They're a total and complete rort, and until they can reduce their pricing to acceptable levels, the uptake will be tiny.

I'm sure there's a method in their madness, the manufacturers are all trying to extract every last drop of profit in IC technology, before they're forced to scrap all their IC manufacturing and repair infrastructure.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Perth

 

https://www.perthnow.com.au/community-news/joondalup-times/electric-buses-to-roll-out-for-wa-first-trial-c-1132592

Electric power will eventually rule, but it will never rule as a stand-alone power source, I firmly believe there will need to be constant backup for the batteries. Whether that is a small on-board genset, a vastly-increased charging network, or a huge network of battery-swap stations, we will have to wait to see what will play out.

 

I'm of the opinion that a battery-swap network has the greatest potential to move electric motive power forward. It's just important that manufacturers standardise on battery sizes and interchangeability, and design quick-swap battery installations.

After all, no-one blinks an eyelid at todays gas-bottle swap network, which works just fine - but which setup was greeted with substantial opposition, when it was first mooted.

 

Electric motive power has many huge advantages - a vast reduction in the number of moving, wearing components - very little by way of substantial lubricant quantities and regular changes of those lubricants, simple conversion of energy to rotary movement, with no gearboxes, or components changing direction rapidly at dozens of times a second, vastly increased component life - and maintenance and parts reductions, by a substantial order of magnitude.

[Garfly]

Electric taxis in  NYC in the 1890s:

 

https://www.cartalk.com/blogs/jim-motavalli/what-we-can-learn-our-colorful-electric-car-history

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-electric-vehicles-1991603

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2021 by Garfly

[turboplanner]

17 minutes ago, onetrack said:

IMO, calling trolley buses "electric buses" is comparing apples to oranges. None of these were truly "battery-powered electric", they ran off overhead wires and mains power.

Perth is now trialling some Volvo electric buses on a CAT service (Central Area Transit - i.e. short-route, inner areas, bus service) - but I can't for the life of me, understand why Volvo are charging $1M a bus for the "latest technology" in electric buses.

The CAT makes sense because you have eliminated long range. However for a full Urban Route Bus system, where high power PLUS long range per shift is required, there hasn't been a battery invented yet to do the job. "Trolly" buses were electric buses that had an unlimited supply of full power, but as diesel developed it caught and passed them for range.

17 minutes ago, onetrack said:

And in fact, it's the same with all EV's at present. They're a total and complete rort, and until they can reduce their pricing to acceptable levels, the uptake will be tiny.

I'm sure there's a method in their madness, the manufacturers are all trying to extract every last drop of profit in IC technology, before they're forced to scrap all their IC manufacturing and repair infrastructure.

The electric fork lift trucks I was designing 50 years ago were simple and crude; however we couldn't get the price close to ICE and they eventually priced themselves out of the market. Currently a $19,990 small car compares with a Nissan Leaf at around $60,000, or Chinese MG at $46,000 and it's not that the electric car manufacturers don't know you can't sell cars on that basis.

17 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Electric power will eventually rule, but it will never rule as a stand-alone power source, I firmly believe there will need to be constant backup for the batteries. Whether that is a small on-board genset, a vastly-increased charging network, or a huge network of battery-swap stations, we will have to wait to see what will play out.

 

I'm of the opinion that a battery-swap network has the greatest potential to move electric motive power forward. It's just important that manufacturers standardise on battery sizes and interchangeability, and design quick-swap battery installations.

After all, no-one blinks an eyelid at todays gas-bottle swap network, which works just fine - but which setup was greeted with substantial opposition, when it was first mooted.

Problem is currently no one has to stop work for a couple of hours to do a battery swap now; Nissan Leaf Battery life is around 10 years, replacement set costs around $9500 every 10 years, and labour to do the swap is around $900.00 so a battery swamp in the middle of the day is not on.

 

Chevrolet US are specifically marketing their electric trucks for 30, 50 or 70 mile rounds, so a little like Perth's MTT where you can do short lead work and have the truck charged overnight for the next day. Once again, the bulk of the market is not catered for by electric.

 

I too thought of an on-board gen set, and recommended one of our manufacturers attach one to the chassis on their electric trial truck, so their customers who ran it out of power could get a partial charge rather than have to call a tow truck, but it appears even a partial charge would take too long, with some vehicles requiring 20 hours from zero to fully charged, so it's very much a balancing act and a nuisance unless some brilliant person comes up with a battery break-through. I've been waiting since 1986 for that to happen.

17 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Electric motive power has many huge advantages - a vast reduction in the number of moving, wearing components - very little by way of substantial lubricant quantities and regular changes of those lubricants, simple conversion of energy to rotary movement, with no gearboxes, or components changing direction rapidly at dozens of times a second, vastly increased component life - and maintenance and parts reductions, by a substantial order of magnitude.

True, but not the dreamland stuff the EV manufacturers tell you. It still requires tyre, bearng, brake, suspension, body maintenance etc. The Achilles heel of the "Simplicity" argument is that the ICE vehicle these days has a 50% prime cost saving and carts its complex engine and transmission to the tip at the end of its life cycle without rebuilds these days.

[jackc]

In thinking about about Electric rag and tube, why not incorporate them in our Part 103, powered hangliders et all?

IF people need an RPC to fly one, they are only single seat.   They won’t get off the ground due to rules unable to accommodate the technology.

So,  Aviation regulators need to get with emerging technologies and come up with a commonsense regulatory plan.

Drones have forced them to do it and they started with unlicensed operators who just taught themselves to operate them, I did 🙂  

Me?   I would put one together and fly it around my own property no licence, no rego.   My Youtube ‘training’ with ground runs on the airstrip, increasing in height over strip until one day.........just fly it!  Do like the Wright Bro’s and others have done, what’s not to like 🙂 

[Yenn]

I loved those old trolley buses in London when I was a kid. Very fast acceleration and silent plus the routes took them a long way.

Overseas the governments are actively promoting electric and providing subsidies to lower the price. much as our government did when it wanted to promote solar power. Of course our present government only wants to dig up more and more coal, so no subsidy for solar powered electric vehicles of any type.

I can see electric as a great way to fly, so long as you don't want to stay aloft too long. It would suit me, but I am not going to invest in it at my age. Let someone younger do that and leave my Grandkids legacy intact.

[aro]

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

The Achilles heel of the "Simplicity" argument is that the ICE vehicle these days has a 50% prime cost saving and carts its complex engine and transmission to the tip at the end of its life cycle without rebuilds these days.

I think Tesla and Toyota at opposite ends of the spectrum show that many EV problems are largely solved.

 

Tesla has range, fast charging and power (see ludicrous mode). Toyota put a battery, electric motor, regenerative braking etc into their hybrid models and only charge a couple of thousand extra on top of the petrol model.

 

If Toyota want to build a full electric car they need a bigger battery and electric motor, but the cost of that should be more than made up by being able to delete the ICE, fuel & exhaust systems, most of the transmission etc.

 

The reason electric cars are expensive is that we don't have the charging infrastructure for mass adoption, and (a) if you can't sell to the masses you have to recoup development costs over a smaller number of vehicles and (b) if you can only sell to a few percent of the population, you might as well target the rich people.

 

Aircraft are a different problem. Cars sit on the ground, they don't need energy to hold them up. With an aircraft, every kg requires energy to keep it in the air. As aircraft get bigger you quickly get into diminishing returns. I don't think that improvements in battery technology will ever solve that problem - there are limits to the energy available from the chemistry that can't be worked around. Synthetic liquid fuels for aviation use seem much more likely to me.

 

https://thebulletin.org/2009/01/the-limits-of-energy-storage-technology/

[jackc]

Simplicity cannot be a word used in any description of cars,  that went out the door years ago.   EVERY car today has whizbang b/s features that are not needed to carry our backsides from one place to another.

IF you built a basic EV, without all the fancy stuff in it, it’s range could be 30% better.  Same for a basic aircraft, the Aerolite offers a basic platform that would be fun to fly.  I would bet IF you put them up to RAAus, they would probably can it 😞. 

[aro]

42 minutes ago, jackc said:

Same for a basic aircraft, the Aerolite offers a basic platform that would be fun to fly.

Yes, looks like fun for local flying.

 

The biggest problem if you have limited energy is drag, so I think anything practical to go further will look more like a motor glider i.e. very streamlined with a big wingspan to minimize induced drag.

 

Pipistrel seem to be going that route, their electric aircraft are interesting. If they put their electric powerplant in their Sinus airframe it seems like it would be one of the most practical electric options.

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, aro said:

I think Tesla and Toyota at opposite ends of the spectrum show that many EV problems are largely solved.

 

Tesla has range, fast charging and power (see ludicrous mode). Toyota put a battery, electric motor, regenerative braking etc into their hybrid models and only charge a couple of thousand extra on top of the petrol model.

 

If Toyota want to build a full electric car they need a bigger battery and electric motor, but the cost of that should be more than made up by being able to delete the ICE, fuel & exhaust systems, most of the transmission etc.

 

The reason electric cars are expensive is that we don't have the charging infrastructure for mass adoption, and (a) if you can't sell to the masses you have to recoup development costs over a smaller number of vehicles and (b) if you can only sell to a few percent of the population, you might as well target the rich people.

 

Aircraft are a different problem. Cars sit on the ground, they don't need energy to hold them up. With an aircraft, every kg requires energy to keep it in the air. As aircraft get bigger you quickly get into diminishing returns. I don't think that improvements in battery technology will ever solve that problem - there are limits to the energy available from the chemistry that can't be worked around. Synthetic liquid fuels for aviation use seem much more likely to me.

 

https://thebulletin.org/2009/01/the-limits-of-energy-storage-technology/

Just so you know, the automotive industry has responded to the narrative demand for EV by committing to a HYBRID  model in every range for a target of 2020.

A Hybrid is not an EV, an ICE engine still provides most of the motive force, electric power is only used for acceleration or high power demand modes, and the alternator is designed to constantly charge the batteries while the ICE is running, together with, on some models regenerative braking which also adds a charge to the batteries - so 100% charging of batteries + additional charging on deceleration, and electric motors only big enough to contribute to startability and rolling resistance, but just help with grade resistance and air resistance which are much bigger equations.  VERY importantly the Hybrid has the ability to be built on almost standard chassis tooling.

 

The same people who promise Hybrids progressively coming on line by next year, have been announcing showcars, new factories, and some trial units, but are saying it will take  decade or so to get volume if there is a demand.  After about 30 years of EV claims the Australian market penetration stands at 0.5% so it is not a simple jump from Hybrid to EV, because of tooling, and powering the vehicle to suit startability, rolling resistance, grade resistance and air resistance, given that the last two chew into battery reserves if you have a long climb, say Melbourne to Ballarat, encounter strong headwinds, or wish to drive at Australia's 100/110 km/hr speed limits.

 

The fast charging being quoted is top up charging. In some cases a full charge can take 20 hours (full charge = travel for the full stated range) Many urban applications can be handled without a full charge, that's true, but this is Australia.

 

A light aircraft, probably has the limitations you refer to if you want to do anything but a short hop to a holiday destination, and don't forget that one of the most unreliable parts of a vehicle is its electrical system, so it could be exciting, but if there were a breakthough in solar panel design, there's a huge upper area to develop solar power. One breakthough did occur about 20 years ago when printed adhesive film panels were developed but these had a lower output than silicon and seem to have disappeared, probably due to damage factors. A secondary issue with solar power is the horrific cost of all the circuitry required. At one stage I was thinking of building a car for the Darwin-Adelaide Solar race, where the cars have no trouble maintaining 110 km/hr just on solar, but the $100,000 for the solar kit put me off. That may not be so daunting for an aircraft.

[jackc]

Years ago, when the first Prius was released (an ugly thing it was!). The local Toyota Dealer called me to offer me their demo car for the morning to drive and test.    The 3 things that lost me were......a hybrid capable of 160kmh, WHY?  Next was I could not drive it on electric only.......not enough battery capacity.  Also it had a little 12v battery that IF it went flat, it would not go.

At the time I told them I wanted a basic EV that had at least 100km range, so I could do the 60km return trip to town with 40km running around an be able to charge it overnight.  They laughed.......

And, we still don’t have something like that......the are all full of features I would never use for my purpose and the cost is driven up by all those features.  Complex parameter displays etc.  I just need a speedo and a ‘fuel’ guage....battery full or empty....along the lines of an FJ Holden.

[facthunter]

An electric motor requires a miniscule amount of attention and servicing compared to the super complex ICE motors. No warm up no freezing of coolant no heat to speak of No vibration no rusting exhaust systems no drive systems by shafts  and CV joints. It's a new ball game entirely. Nev

[octave]

14 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

The fast charging being quoted is top up charging. In some cases a full charge can take 20 hours

 

Really? If you charge an EV from a standard 10amp then yes it may take 20 hours, but nobody does that.   My sons Tesla will fully charge overnight from his 7kwh charger on ridiculously cheap off peak electricity or about 20 minutes to 80% from a tesla supercharger. When I visit him (he lives in NZ} he lends me this vehicle so I have first hand experience.

[turboplanner]

3 minutes ago, facthunter said:

An electric motor requires a miniscule amount of attention and servicing compared to the super complex ICE motors. No warm up no freezing of coolant no heat to speak of No vibration no rusting exhaust systems no drive systems by shafts  and CV joints. It's a new ball game entirely. Nev

Take a look at the electrical system of an EV. Sure the motor is simple, although I'm on my third air compressor motor.

[aro]

14 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

on some models regenerative braking

Are there any models without regenerative braking? Regenerative braking is the hybrid's main advantage - all the energy comes from the ICE engine, but regenerative braking allows them to capture much of the energy normal cars lose as heat in the brakes.

 

My point was that the hybrid is probably worst case cost and complexity wise. You have ICE, transmission, fuel system, cooling system, plus electric motor and battery. And it's still only 2K over the ICE only model.

 

21 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

it is not a simple jump from Hybrid to EV, because of tooling, and powering the vehicle to suit startability, rolling resistance, grade resistance and air resistance, given that the last two chew into battery reserves if you have a long climb, say Melbourne to Ballarat, encounter strong headwinds, or wish to drive at Australia's 100/110 km/hr speed limits.

 

There are a surprising number of Tesla's getting around these days. I know someone who regularly drives between Melbourne and Ballarat in their Tesla.

 

We traveled up the Hume at Easter, and were passed by several Teslas on the way. The technology is there when the large car makers decide they want to do it. What we do not have is the charging infrastructure for mass adoption.

 

I think we underestimate the capacity of the energy distribution infrastructure we have built around internal combustion engines. I was doing some back of the envelope calculations, and estimated that a single petrol pump delivers the energy equivalent of about a 2 megawatt charger. So a 10 pump petrol station might be the equivalent of 20 MW charging capacity. And there's another one across the road, and another around the corner.

 

One fuel tanker delivering petrol might have equivalent energy to the South Australian grid battery.

[facthunter]

Your  Petrol and diesel pumps will go empty fairly quickly if they operated continuously.. They reckon  a relatively  minor fraction of the Sahara would power all of Europe.  with SOLAR.  The point is WE just can't go on just burning hydrocarbons and coal just for energy. .  The fuel used in cruise and container ships also has above 7% SULPHUR which is pretty nasty stuff if oxidised. Try whiffing it on the rear deck if the wind's in the wrong place. It's not supposed to be used within 200 NM of a Port but is OK in Sydney Harbour. for moored Cruise ships for the engines used then.  Nev

[aro]

19 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Your  Petrol and diesel pumps will go empty fairly quickly if they operated continuously.

I don't mean operating continuously. Check my math:

 

My car can do about 800 highway km on a tank. Lets say you can fill 1 car every 10 minutes, that's 4800 km, call it 5000 km worth of energy dispensed per hour.

 

A Tesla supposedly uses approximately 20 kw/h per 100km so 5000 / 100 * 20 = 1000 KWh or 1 MWh per hour = 1 MW equivalent. I think I estimated 10 cars/hour and a more efficient car when I did the original calculation, but that is the order of magnitude.

 

I was prompted to think about it when we passed service stations on the Hume at Easter with queues of cars at every pump. Sure you can charge at home off peak most of the time, but it's the peak capacity when everyone wants to travel on a holiday weekend that poses the problem.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want an electric car ASAP and I know we have to go that way, but we also need to understand the obstacles we have to overcome. I don't believe we are going to get there by waiting for the market to move. Car makers and buyers will wait until the infrastructure exists, and infrastructure builders will wait till the demand exists.

[facthunter]

Regenerative braking is only available on Hybrids or electric. Look I can't follow your logic  at this juncture, but I know hydrocarbons are more power dense than anything else. Nev

[turboplanner]

37 minutes ago, aro said:

Are there any models without regenerative braking? Regenerative braking is the hybrid's main advantage - all the energy comes from the ICE engine, but regenerative braking allows them to capture much of the energy normal cars lose as heat in the brakes.

 

My point was that the hybrid is probably worst case cost and complexity wise. You have ICE, transmission, fuel system, cooling system, plus electric motor and battery. And it's still only 2K over the ICE only model.

Hybrids are not expensive compared with ICE, so you can pat yourself on the back and say you're doing something for the atmosphere, but the engine is emitting CO2 at the same rate as any other ICE engine, but a hybrid is nowehere near an EV.

 

We have the luxury for EV comparison of real life dealer prices now, and for the entry model cars, the 1.2 litre mini size the going rate for ICE is $19,999 retail. this about matches the pockets of young people buying their first car. The Nissan Leaf - same size (not a family car is $60,000.00 to $62,000.00, and the Chinese MG is $46,000.00. Bottom line is young people can't afford the lowest level EVs. . in the $26,000.00 economy family ICE range, ev EV is around $85,000.00, and in the $30-35,000 ICE range Teslas start over the $100,000.00. You then have to look at why you would pay all that extra money. It's not for CO2 reduction; until we have nuclear power, you are just increasing CO2 output at our power stations by about 20% compared with ICE.              

37 minutes ago, aro said:

 

There are a surprising number of Tesla's getting around these days. I know someone who regularly drives between Melbourne and Ballarat in their Tesla.

 

We traveled up the Hume at Easter, and were passed by several Teslas on the way. The technology is there when the large car makers decide they want to do it. What we do not have is the charging infrastructure for mass adoption.

 

I think we underestimate the capacity of the energy distribution infrastructure we have built around internal combustion engines. I was doing some back of the envelope calculations, and estimated that a single petrol pump delivers the energy equivalent of about a 2 megawatt charger. So a 10 pump petrol station might be the equivalent of 20 MW charging capacity. And there's another one across the road, and another around the corner.

 

One fuel tanker delivering petrol might have equivalent energy to the South Australian grid battery.

I mentioned Australia phasing out electric buses in the 1960s; we also phased out fleets of electric milk and bread delivery trucks and we've never went back once diesel produced a lower total cost of life, and as you point out energy is sold everywhere.

[octave]

2 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I mentioned Australia phasing out electric buses in the 1960s; we also phased out fleets of electric milk and bread delivery trucks and we've never went back once diesel produced a lower total cost of life, and as you point out energy is sold everywhere.

Certainly other countries are moving forward with technology. 

 

The City with 16,000 Electric Buses & 22,000 Electric Taxis | 100% Independent, 100% Electric

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, octave said:

 

Really? If you charge an EV from a standard 10amp then yes it may take 20 hours, but nobody does that.   My sons Tesla will fully charge overnight from his 7kwh charger on ridiculously cheap off peak electricity or about 20 minutes to 80% from a tesla supercharger. When I visit him (he lives in NZ} he lends me this vehicle so I have first hand experience.

I mentioned 20 hours for a charge from zero to Full Charge; something you might have to do on a long trip. I forget the car, but it may have been a Nissan Leaf.

You mention fully charge overnight, but don't say what the car arrives home with, and you quote 20 minutes to 805 from a Tesla supercharger, with no figures for the starting charge level.

It's in that last 80% that the time exponentially extends, and there are plenty of references to the extended time.

However, the manufacturers have been talking Top Up times,  i.e. leave home, drive for an hour, say 80 km, top up for another hour, drive 80 km back. In one case a truck manufracturer advertised a 30 minute top up for the 30 minute driver lunch break, seemingly unaware that most drivers by their lunch then drive, and don't have runs which allow just a 30 minute top up half-way through the day.

EV is no different to Applications Analsysis on ICE, you pull all the parameters together and then calculate the best vehicle for the job. The truck fleets are focusing on the "Middle Mile" a new term for the run from the Warehouse to the Dealer or retailer - usually very short distances on a return to base basis, and that would appear to be a good EV application.

[octave]

2 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

However, the manufacturers have been talking Top Up times,  i.e. leave home, drive for an hour, say 80 km, top up for another hour, drive 80 km back. In one case a truck manufracturer advertised a 30 minute top up for the 30 minute driver lunch break, seemingly unaware that most drivers by their lunch then drive, and don't have runs which allow just a 30 minute top up half-way through the day.

 

 

This is not right.  My sons Tesla has a 75KWh battery. At his home he has a 7KWh charger, I will leave you to do the maths.   Tesla superchargers are 120Kw and I believe there are even 250kw again you can do the maths.   We travel around NZ in the Tesla with no problems. Est range for this vehicle is 657km although that is in ideal conditions.

[turboplanner]

16 minutes ago, octave said:

Certainly other countries are moving forward with technology. 

 

The City with 16,000 Electric Buses & 22,000 Electric Taxis | 100% Independent, 100% Electric

Moving forward? you certainly aren't giving us much technical information Octave. Plenty of hyperbole though.

There's a new term which has come into use by responsible vehicle manufacturers - "Zero Tailpipe CO2"

As we saw during the last Federal election campaign, when the CO2 for exotic materials and coal fired Power Stations was included in the EV equation, the EVand its Satellite CO2 emissions were around 20% greater than ICE, so a pointless exercise even thinking about EV.

Hence, 16,000 EV Buses may emit no "Tailpipe: CO2, but they've racked up CO2 emissions being built and will rack up more at battery changeover every ten years. Then you start to look at how the power is generated to recharge these buses, given that the daily charge will be huge. If Chenxing is pulling from a nuclear Power Station then the CO2 emissions are those parasite CO2 emissions mentioned. On the other end of the scale if their power is coal-fired, they've gone backwards.

[turboplanner]

4 minutes ago, octave said:

This is not right.  My sons Tesla has a 75KWh battery. At his home he has a 7KWh charger, I will leave you to do the maths.   Tesla superchargers are 120Kw and I believe there are even 250kw again you can do the maths.   We travel around NZ in the Tesla with no problems. Est range for this vehicle is 657km although that is in ideal conditions.

I certainly quoted from memory, so I'll check back and let you know, because the one I quoted wasn't the only one which took an impractical amount of time from flat to full charge.

 

[octave]

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

I certainly quoted from memory, so I'll check back and let you know, because the one I quoted wasn't the only one which took an impractical amount of time from flat to full charge.

 

Yep you should check.   I know the everyday in and outs of driving an EV because for a few week a year I get to borrow one whilst on holiday in NZ.   The important points here are 75Kwh battery and home charger of 7KWh or supercharger 120KWh or 250KWh.  

[octave]

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

Hence, 16,000 EV Buses may emit no "Tailpipe: CO2, but they've racked up CO2 emissions being built and will rack up more at battery changeover every ten years. Then you start to look at how the power is generated to recharge these buses, given that the daily charge will be huge. If Chenxing is pulling from a nuclear Power Station then the CO2 emissions are those parasite CO2 emissions mentioned. On the other end of the scale if their power is coal-fired, they've gone backwards.

 

All vehicles rack up CO2 being built no matter what they are powered by. In addition petrol and diesel fuel racks up CO2 in its  extraction, shipping overseas, refining and delivery to service stations.  We know the negative effects of burning fuel not just CO2 but other pollutants which are unhealthy.