rdamonTesla's Power Wall https://www.tesla.com/powerwall concept would be good for charging on off-peak lower rate times.
A splendid convenience... until Fire looks on, and laughs. I understand much of the actual destruction after the San Francisco earthquake was from this source, not city gas pipe leaks.
I have thought for many years that a sensible replacement for strict baseline capacity is widespread, subsidized distributed generation; that was the tacit business model behind what became of enginion AG, and it is one of the better potential uses of 'fracked gas' as currently distributed.
Obviously, great changes in local electrical-energy storage or in some kind of acceptable carrier-fuel provision will be needed for 'pure' BEV automobiles to become pervasive outside select markets. There may be ways to achieve the necessary energy-density accumulation and then transfer at low stranded cost -- I don't see much practical way to do that at "utility grid" scale even before you look at the actual amortized cost of renewables plus storage. Look for subsidized distributed generation (with natural gas or propane) as a necessary part.
And I doubt it will be long before the house fires and other issues start to appear...
Time will tell if the Post Office can function with
all EV fleet mandate...Green New Deal...Post Office Reform...
kgbw49 A gallon of gasoline is the energy equivalent of 36kWh.
A gallon of gasoline is the energy equivalent of 36kWh.
That's the thermal energy from burning 1 gallon (presumably US gallon) of gasoline. With the best engines running at conditions that minimize sfc, you could get around 14kWh of mechanical energy. Even with that caveat, pumping gas at a gas station represents well over a MW of energy transfer rate.
Erik_Mag, agree 100%.
If we no longer have gas pumps, as all 289 million vehicles are supposed to be replaced with electric by 2035, we have to add that daily load to the electrical grid. The power generation will have to be an enormous increase over what we are currently generating.
If each vehicle needs a quarter battery charge (quarter tank equivalent) each evening, the amount of terawatts needed each night is going to be enormous.
daveklepper I agree stringing catenary fr freight operations doesw seem to make ec9nomic sense to me. Why are commuter and even light rail so different? Jersey Transit has a diesel light rail operation, in addition to its two electric ones. Why did Denver opt for electric MUs and Cal Trans is in the midst of electrifying a diesel operation? And why is freight so different?
I agree stringing catenary fr freight operations doesw seem to make ec9nomic sense to me. Why are commuter and even light rail so different? Jersey Transit has a diesel light rail operation, in addition to its two electric ones. Why did Denver opt for electric MUs and Cal Trans is in the midst of electrifying a diesel operation? And why is freight so different?
And to add to this ....Why did BART (an electric system) extend their system with EBART (a diesel system)...
One technology that will help the grid cope with EV charging is V2G where cars batteries can fed power to the grid during high demand and then be charged during overnight. This will add stability to the grid.
beaulieu One technology that will help the grid cope with EV charging is V2G where cars batteries can fed power to the grid during high demand and then be charged during overnight. This will add stability to the grid.
York1 John
York1 beaulieu One technology that will help the grid cope with EV charging is V2G where cars batteries can fed power to the grid during high demand and then be charged during overnight. This will add stability to the grid. Unless the technology drastically changes (which it may), very few people will willingly have their expensive battery have its life cut by more than half with the additional cycles of V2G.
beaulieu
From what I understand, the cycle life of Li batteries depends a great deal on the extremes of charge/discharge, rate of charge/discharge and temperature. Worst case is charge above 80% and cell temperatures above 40C. To make this work properly would require a charging station at every parking spot that is normally occupied during the day to make use of solar generation to provide power for the early evening peak demand. This would probably mean that the parking lots would be turned into solar farms, which would have the advantage of prviding shade for the cars.
The most serious objection to converting to 100% EV is that it would require greatly expanded mining for a lot of materials, such as copper, rear earths, lithium, etc. On a related note, a half tonne of LWR fuel will provide about the same amount of electric energy as the lifetime output of a 3MW wind turbine. The 3MW wind turbine requires 335 tons of steel, 4.7 tons of copper, 1,200 tons of concrete, 3 tons of aluminum and 2 tons of rare earth elements along with a few tons of fiberglass. This does not include the materials for the energy storage required for the intermittent putput of the wind turbine.
York1 A real issue here is that we have technology today that has a stressed power grid, and generating capacity that, at times, is near enough to its limit to require rolling blackouts. Now, with no foreseeable huge advances in either generation or grid, we are going to require enough power to have all vehicles electric in 14 years. 14 years! That's an eyeblink when we're talking of transforming the electric system in our country. I'm a skeptic that it can be done. Of course, at my age, it won't matter. I'll probably be watching things from above.
I cry foul on this post.
We can have a discussion on our Generation, but the United States electric grid is an ABSOLUTE DUMPSTER FIRE. Old Technology, underfunded and underbuilt.
We don't need even one new technology. If the US switched to common technologies used by other countries right now. Things like HVDC and smart grid switching and just strung more lines, we could solve the grid problem easily. The US grid is an embarrasment and we should all feel bad about it.
Generation? We will need more, but if we had a grid that used 2021 technology, we'd be just so much better off and you wouldn't need to be skeptical.
YoHo1975I cry foul on this post.
I don't see anything in the bolded words that you quoted in my post that would cause you to cry foul.
You yourself said: "the United States electric grid is an ABSOLUTE DUMPSTER FIRE. Old Technology, underfunded and underbuilt."
You said, "Generation? We will need more."
It seems that your post supports mine.
Do you see anything in our power companies' plans or our government's plans that are anywhere close to suggesting we're willing to make gigantic changes to what we are doing right now?
The fact is the U.S. generating and grid system is nowhere near enough for just normal future increases in electrical use, let alone changing every car to electric power in the next 14 years.
YoHo1975 We can have a discussion on our Generation, but the United States electric grid is an ABSOLUTE DUMPSTER FIRE. Old Technology, underfunded and underbuilt. We don't need even one new technology. If the US switched to common technologies used by other countries right now. Things like HVDC and smart grid switching and just strung more lines, we could solve the grid problem easily. The US grid is an embarrasment and we should all feel bad about it.
The US grid is not as bad shape as you make it out to be. First HVDC line was put into service in the late 1960's, which along with intertie points allows the CONUS to operate as three systems with power with significant power transfers among the three. One recent development has been GE's variable phase shift transformer allowing reactive as well as real power transfer between systems.
One reason that Germany and Denmark can have a high level of "renewable" power is that France has a large nuclear baseload capacity and Norway has a large hydro capacity, the latter being suited for vary rapid changes in generation.
What might make sense in the US is to change the way utility scale renewable power is sold from spot markets to day ahead (or longer term) markets, with very substantial penalities for not meeting promised power production. This would be tied in with subsidies only applying for power that was sold on a day ahead or longer basis.
Erik_Mag,
Praise be! Someone who has a grasp of the U.S. electric power grid.
Widespread use of EVs, high speed trains, etc. are years away. The projected start date for Texas Central is 2026 or 2027.
Whether they buy from a dedicated power source or off the grid, there is more than ample time to ramp up the system to meet the need. After all, we have been doing it for more than 130 years in Texas.
Oh, BTW, no one should hold their breath with respect to the Texas Central startup date. They have postponed it time after time. And if it is like most major railway projects, according to several studies, they will postpone it again and again. And when it is finally done, the cost will be nowhere close to budgeted costs.
Erik_MagOn a related note, a half tonne of LWR fuel will provide about the same amount of electric energy as the lifetime output of a 3MW wind turbine.
I was focusing on the relative amounts of raw materials needed to generate a given amount of electrical energy - which does ignore the materials needed for cladding storage as well as the materials for the plant itself. Note that a single 1270MWe unit will produce about the same amount of electric energy as ~1,000 three MW wind turbines in a typical calendar year. That single unit would use subtantially less the 1,200,000 tos of concrete and 300,000+ tons of steel used by the 1,000 wind turbines. The nuclear plant would have roughly twice the economic lifetime as the wind turbine.
The supposed rationale for replacing nuclear with wind is that wind is supposed to be easier on the environment. Based on the material requirements for wind generation, I seriously doubt that wind is easier on the environment.
Radioactive waste is an issue, but it decays away with time. As my dad (PhD BioChem) would say, a lot of the chemical waste products last "forever".
JPS1 Praise be! Someone who has a grasp of the U.S. electric power grid.
While I've never worked in the electric power industry, I did take a couple of undergraduate power systems courses plus labs along with attending the power systems seminars at UCB. Graduate work involved one course on nuclear fuel cycles which included issues with financing. Fuel assemblies last more than one year, so the costs have to be capitalized rather than expensed.
One take away from the power system courses was that there is effectively no storage in the grid itself and that allowing load to exceed demand is an extremely BAD IDEA. My impression is that almost none of the advocates for 100% renewable electric generationhave any idea of the energy storage requirements to pull that off.
Erik_MagThe supposed rationale for replacing nuclear with wind is that wind is supposed to be easier on the environment. Based on the material requirements for wind generation, I seriously doubt that wind is easier on the environment.
Costs of various aspects of security, marking to detect diversion, etc. ought to be included in fundamental analyses of nuclear power -- they have to be funded and done right and effectively, not as a least-cost afterthought fobbed off on the government or a low bidder, and the ratepayers should cover it... but appreciate what they're paying for.
To this day I can't read some of McPhee's accounts of the goings-on at West Valley without cringing.
When we started the project for a PUD in Homer to support the proposed plant, we carefully considered what was necessary for sensible security without Mickey Mouse but without holes either. I learned quite a bit.
I don't quite understand why effective storage isn't still a major topic in conversion to 'renewable energy' -- it was an enormous topic circa 1998.
Battery powered electric locos for US freight - another step in the field of "Nobody follows us behind: we are the best"!
In the decission between straight electric and diesel electric you have chosen the lesser powerful traction. Now again you are choosing the less powerful option with prospecting for heavy freight service what European cities don't even use for their tramways.
Wonder what amount of batteries you will have to move your 15K foot and 15K tonnage freight further than to the exit of the freight yard, and that will be a new "powerful" environment pollution: mass-producing, using shortly and throwing away permanently those masses of toxic batteries. Never mind you are well on the way ruining your country! And all because you deny with horror to have any catenary erected. Ok, then this will be the land of the free: country is littered with oil sands carving and then with millions of tons of thrown away batteries, but the sky is catenary-free!
(shaking my head)
Sara
Batteries, catenary, and some forms of third rail are all important alternatives in getting to a 'low-carbon' future within the timetable the United States will be following the next 10 years or so.
The advantages of battery assist to make diesel-electrics capable of 'hybrid' operation are well established; it would be comparatively easy to design dual-mode power to give full electric performance when 'under wire' but I have also explained the reasons that's a poor choice for most American practice.
Catenary won't be built in a Looking Backward fashion, quickly and in massive parallel, unless someone credibly sets up how to pay for it. That kind of effort and money is in my opinion far better put into ECP braking.
Short of that, what is needed is a locomotive system that can draw from islanded catenary, interrupted catenary, or temporary setups but not depend on them. Even relatively small (or relatively inefficient-cycle) batteries can carry seamlessly through catenary gaps at bridges or other access impediments, or allow yard operations without a sea of wire strung down every track. The batteries can also 'store and forward' regenerated power from helper grades that have been preferentially electrified, even if they are technically isolated at the moment from major grids or wheeling.
Overmod
sorry (so sorry, really), have you never had a batteery driven child's car and experienced how fast it's stranded with battery empty?
So much I have learned: Nothing is for free in technology! A word so true, and a word that will tell you about batteries up hill and such xcwkcxs-ehem. Have you even gone by car around the world only by throwing a lump of sugar into the tank? Have you ever eaten well at home and then went out tracking the Himalaya for a week without any further food? Have you ever empties a bottle of a gallon of water and then didn't have to drink any more for a month?
If you can do any of these let me know because then perhaps you might get me to believe in your wonderwaiteries. But not otherwise.
YoHo1975t least as impactful as gensets
According to Trains, the class 1's are scrapping their gensets
Sara T Wonder what amount of batteries you will have to move your 15K foot and 15K tonnage freight further than to the exit of the freight yard, and that will be a new "powerful" environment pollution: mass-producing, using shortly and throwing away permanently those masses of toxic batteries.
Wonder what amount of batteries you will have to move your 15K foot and 15K tonnage freight further than to the exit of the freight yard, and that will be a new "powerful" environment pollution: mass-producing, using shortly and throwing away permanently those masses of toxic batteries.
Based on recent news ietms with repsect to Lithium batteries, by the end of the decade it should be possible for a battery powered locomotive to haul a train eastbound over Donner Pass (7,000' change in elevation). Batteries are good enough now to replace DMU's with battery MU's. As Overmod pointed out, a hybrid battery electric locomotive can make electrification much less costly by allowing dead spots in low clearance areas.
You do have a point on disposal of worn out batteries as the recycling infrastructure for Li batteries is nowhere near what's available for Pb-H2SO4 batteries.
All in all, I could only warn you don't even start with batteries. Catenary will in the end even be cheaper because it doesn't have to be replaced all the time and also it doesn't catch fire like the so perfect Tesla cars do now and then.
I can only repeat Juniaha's slogan:
Nothing is for free
in technology
Poor USA if they have to run mainline trains on bbbbatttttteriiiessss
instead once and for all installing full electrification on certain lines.
Batteries will never allow you to get out of your "up-hill creeping holes", taking "weeks" for a train to arrive at destination and the railroad needing three times as many cars as if their trains would positively move to get their cargo to appointments. If you have ever managed to escape your diesel trap you will look back and only then see you have never been best but last during those slow-creeping diesel stand-still days.
All European railways have found electric traction to be unbeatable the best. But they took their time to change over from steam to electric traction and thus could pay for it. Your "dieselization" was more an ad hoc throw away the former and quick buy the next, a Wall Street business plan, not a modernization of traction. And it keeps your railroads entrapped ever since the days you disposed with steam heels over head.
Wow! It's great to read how stupid we are!
All of the USA inside Europe! Who would have thought that!
Union Pacific with battery motors .......
gee ....
ehem, sorry ..............
Sara TAll of the USA inside Europe!
?
Are you OK? Too much music today?
Yorkone:
I'm fine.
You can't have too much music, provided it's good music, inspiring and stimulating.
Ehm, you posted it, remember? I wondered the US are no bigger, are you sure you had the fitting scales?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJRF8xGzvj4
(this is not america - david bowie /pat metheny)
Oh, and lest we forget:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnfdmK4DrMM
Sara Tsorry (so sorry, really), have you never had a batteery driven child's car and experienced how fast it's stranded with battery empty?
There is little commonalty between a Tesla in ludicrous+ mode and any child's vehicle or golf cart. Just a quick study of high-amperage voltage-to-voltage conversion will tell you how the petering-out of motor torque with dimming headlights issue was addressed in BEVs; fairly simple microprocessor-based range calculation is not a major step from there.
In practice, though, the battery on most of these modern proposals isn't, and really shouldn't be, treated as standalone traction power over long distances, especially when there isn't dedicated equipment for the recovery or recharge of equipment that 'falls short' on the road for the wide range of expectable reasons. In the BEV sphere, note how few 'hybrids' have more than a very few miles of effective pure-EV range before the combustion engine comes on -- I fully expect this to be true of most practical locomotive combinations. I sympathize in theory with Musk et al. trying to make out that straight electric is the wave of the future... but as I have repeatedly said, some combustion/energy-storage hybrid will be a much better practical solution in the absence of some very expensive and specialized infrastructure.
Note again the interesting research being conducted by RPS in Fullerton using large numbers of "expired" automotive traction batteries that could be obtained for recycle or even subsidized cost and remanufactured into the 'first best use' of batteries as regenerative and augmentive assistance for self-contained commuter trains. I had thought about that but they are doing it, which counts for much more.
deleted
YoHo1975whether you can reasonably build a big enough battery pack is a question not yet answered.
I'll say again that really good active cooling of the cells under all potential operating conditions is the most important design necessity. Look to see road designs stand or fall on this concern. The reason for building the center unit of a hybrid consist as a "battery locomotive" is a much better answer than what GE tried a decade ago, as there's plenty of room for even comparatively heavy or 'fidgety' battery chemistries, including sodium-sulfur with modern nanoinsulation, on something the size of a C-C locomotive chassis. This ain't the kind of engineering Wright has to do on their electric-aircraft inverters... not that the technology they evolve has no uses on high-speed rail equipment
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.