Battery Powered Tram Charges in 60 Seconds

SK writes to tell us that a new streetcar, powered by lithium battery, has been invented by the Railway Technical Research Institute in Kokubunji, Tokyo. The new transport is capable of speeds of 40 kph for 15 kilometers and can convert 70 percent of its deceleration energy into electricity which is then sent back to the battery which can recharge in under one minute.

Comments

Awesome

[ArcherB]

Sounds great! Now if they can get it to go 80 mph for 300 miles on a single charge, it will be marketable here in the US.

It's only a matter of time!

Re:Awesome

[p0tat03]

Yes... Because a constantly powered tram car needs to go 300 miles on a "single charge" ;)

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

i think you missed the part where it says "street"-car. 130km/hr is a little too fast for city streets...

Re:Awesome

[Mattintosh]

Actually, for light-rail systems, this would be great.

- 40kph is enough. That's approximately 25mph, which is just right for light-rail.

- 15km is not quite enough. Many light-rail systems have stops that are farther apart than that. Double that number and it's golden. (15km = approx. 9 mi. 18 mi. should be enough for 90% of light-rail systems.)

Recharging at each stop is not unfeasible if the wait is only 60 seconds.

Now for the real problems:
- What does it cost?
- What does it cost to maintain?

If either of those numbers is large, it won't work in the US until mass transit catches on with the masses it's named after. Gasoline will have to be $10/gallon before that will happen.

Re:Awesome

[Annymouse Cowherd]

Why does light rail need batteries?

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes... Because a constantly powered tram car needs a *battery* ;)

Re:Awesome

[ArcherB]

i think you missed the part where it says "street"-car. 130km/hr is a little too fast for city streets...

No, but I meant for a car-car... just that piece of data didn't make it into the post. Improving street cars will do little to reduce pollution. What is needed is improvements that will allow for electric car-cars to become practical, and that was my meaning.

Re:Awesome

[Kuciwalker]

- 15km is not quite enough. Many light-rail systems have stops that are farther apart than that. Double that number and it's golden. (15km = approx. 9 mi. 18 mi. should be enough for 90% of light-rail systems.)

Add a second battery? That would double the range, and since you can charge them in parallel it should still only take 60 seconds.

Re:Awesome

[mikael]

In case someone crashes through the power lines and disables the system for some time. Or maybe there is a general power failure after a road digger cuts through the underground power lines.

Re:Awesome

[p0tat03]

Why not? They're talking about storing braking power and then using that to power the train. Without a battery any such energy is simply lost to the environment. Seems like a good idea a first glance - if their technology is efficient enough.

Re:Awesome

[ozmanjusri]

Improving street cars will do little to reduce pollution.

Improving public transport will reduce pollution, congestion and accidents. Sadly, before we can improve public transport, we'll need to change attitudes like yours.

Re:Awesome

[afaik_ianal]

Except you still need to handle double the current. Running two sets of power lines to the charging points may fix that (and provide redundancy ;)), but rapidly charging batteries is not as simple as you might think.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

It's totally stupid. In Montreal regenerative braking works by pumping the energy back into the grid. As one metro stops, another starts. What is difficult about this?

Re:Awesome

[enrevanche]

It does not require power at either track level or overhead. For new systems this is a cost saving (at least as far as the infrastructure goes). It also is safer.

It may allow systems to be installed where the were not previously feasible.

Re:Awesome

[TooMuchToDo]

Public transportation is a joke (at least in the US). It's also naive to believe public transportation is a viable solution in the United States. It works in small land masses (Europe, for example), but is inefficient and impractical. Why should I ride two hours each way to work on public transportation, making multiple connections when I can take a car and have a 25-30 minute commute? The problem isn't public transportation, it's the fuel source/storage problem. Electric drivetrains will fix transportation problems in the US, not public transportation.

Re:Awesome

[WindBourne]

Actually, 40kph is NOT fast enough. Most LRT (and monorails) move at ~ 60 MPH/100kph. But there is a simple solution on this. As you mentioned, 60 seconds is not that long for a stop. More importantly, the train could actually use a bit of a guidewire at first with much higher wattages. That way, when the train is first starting, it gets a boost from fixed wire (pantograph), and then uses the battery for running (which is very efficient). In fact, this would work very nicely with a monorail since they weigh a great deal less than LRT.

Re:Awesome

[halycon404]

I don't know. To build anything like this in US cities, you have to add in costs of elevating the line, or sinking it into the ground. None of the infrastructure exists here. To make matters worse, you can't just drop in lines as you go along. Everything needs to be deployed at the same time to make it usable. I'm all for public transportation, if it works. But the cost of converting the major cities in the US isn't billions, its trillions once you add all the cities involved and the amount of track/cars needed to be built. I just don't know if I'll ever see public transportation take off in my lifetime regardless of what sort of prices we see at the pump. The problems facing it are huge, and while its gains are probably larger than the investment made, no politician is going to sign off on that sort of investment of resources because Presidents, Congressmen, and Mayors don't worry about the future, they only worry about now. Maybe if you privatize it, we'd see real growth in the market. Add in subs for companies willing to put in the investment, in turn for a limited monopoly(5-10 years) to make a return on the investment, give the company a chance to retain the monopoly in exchange for another large chunk of capital used for upgrading the line. I don't know, I just don't see the government ever building anything as extensive as the nations highway system ever again.

Re:Awesome

[carl0ski]

Why should I ride two hours each way to work on public transportation, making multiple connections when I can take a car and have a 25-30 minute commute? that only occurs when their is either poor city planning
or you are misinformed of the best route to take to the destination

Transport companies really do need to resolve these

I used to take 2 hours Train versus 40minutes by car.
However taking the less obvious choice cut travel to 45minutes
(sometimes going the other direction is quicker than a straight line.)

Re:Awesome

[ArcherB]

Improving public transport will reduce pollution, congestion and accidents. Sadly, before we can improve public transport, we'll need to change attitudes like yours.

That's the joy of living in a free country. I'm free to have whatever attitude I like without people like you telling me what to think. Then again, why would someone as superior as yourself care about the people who live in communities that can not afford public transportation like Findlay OH for example. What about the good people of Springfield IL or Houma LA? Even in large cities like Houston TX have areas where people work that are not downtown. Many people work in the outskirts of town. What good is the Metro Park-and-Ride that takes people from parking lots in the outskirts of town to downtown Houston to people who work at HP (formerly Compaq), in north Houston. What good would a public rail system to and from downtown Austin do for the people who work at Dell in Round Rock?

See, that's the problem. People like you want to charge outrageous taxes to build a public transport system so people can get to and from the center of town. What that does is drive up taxes to the point where no new businesses can afford to be downtown. When they try to build on the outskirts, you claim that they are going to destroy the environment by building out there or that they are contributing to urban sprawl or whatever. Finally, the company says screw you people and moves to a friendlier are such as Houston or Austin, or they say screw it all and simply outsource their workforce to someplace like India or Mexico where there is simply no environmental regulation whatsoever. So while you think you are saving the world, you are actually playing a large part in destroying it. Instead of wanting clean, plug-in, quick charging cars that I can use to drive to and from work, you think that the government should be taxing businesses out of this country so I can ride in cramped quarters with a bunch of human flu-factories to my soon-to-be outsourced job.

Of course, this also forces people to live as close as possible to the rail or bus station. Few people can afford to drive to the place where public transportation picks them up. Then they are paying for a car, insurance, parking AND for public transportation. This means we'll all have to live in cramped, overpriced apartments next to the rail station. Nothing says dinner at home like the 5:15 L roaring by, squealing as it bounces from side to side. So much for Americans owning their own homes or making a life better for themselves. They must now live in planned communities, have to rely on the government to take them place to place, rely on the government to build and maintain public spaces for their kids to play in, only be able to buy a day or two's worth of groceries because they don't have a car trunk to put them all in.

Of course, don't even get me started on what will happen if an evacuation were to occur. Without a car, where will you go? Maybe you could go to the local sports stadium and wait for the government to take you away from there.

Is that your idea of 'land of the free?' Wouldn't it be better if I could just have my clean car AND my freedom? Isn't that what freedom is all about, being able to live as I want to live? I can take care of myself. I don't want the government proving for my every need.

Re:Awesome

[Craig Davison]

60 seconds is actually a pretty long time for the train to stop. It's rapid transit! I think the LRT doors are open at each stop for 20 seconds in my city, but that's with stops every 2 km or less.

An LRT vehicle is only going to be going 100 kph on dedicated track in the suburbs. An average of 40 kph is pretty reasonable running on the street in a city, which is where these cars are going to be used.

In a city, taking the expensive and unsightly overhead wire out of the picture is especially important. New streetcars/trams like this are a good thing for cities.

Re:Awesome

[GiMP]

Wow, what a strawman. This isn't about your freedom.

However, I agree with some the arguments you make, if you view things from a purely American point of view. You describe an implementation and a system where public transportation has failed. However, one flawed implementation does not mean that the entire idea is bad.

Public transportation works in Europe. Granted, there are geographical differences as well as cultural differences. If you spent enough time in the right European cities, you would probably see systems where public transportation is working.

Here is one case study... I spent a year in Poznan, Poland (pop 567,882). In that city, there are 20 trams (streetcar) lines and 57 bus lines. The trams run center-city and through the more dense areas, with buses making up the difference. While some own vehicles, the public transportation system has high ridership, to the point that during rush-hour one must be careful not to be crushed... People are not living by loud trains, but they are more comfortable with walking and riding bikes, and there are sidewalks (something quite rare in the USA). It may be 1-2 kilometers to the nearest tram stop, and that is perfectly fine by the city inhabitants. In fact, I would drive to the mall a few kilometers away, I would get heckled by my wife's friends -- who would drive if it was only a 30 minute walk? That said, I lived right next to the tram on the 6th floor of a high-rise, and hardly noticed the tram. It wasn't much, if at all, worse than the traffic of an average suburban street in the USA.

The area in discussion is fairly low income, relative to the prices for gasoline and for automobiles themselves. While the salaries were magnitudes lower than those in the USA, gas prices were around $6/gallon. So, if gasoline was lower, or if salaries were higher, would public transportation falter? Perhaps slightly, but one must also remember that the streets in this particular city couldn't handle that much traffic. In fact, this is already a situation occurring in Poznan, as more become capable of affording the cost of an automobile. The streets are becoming crowded at rush hour, and many drivers are choosing to return to public transportation as it is simply a much faster method of travel. Why wait in a traffic jam, watching the tram go past?

In other cities I've visited where the cost of travel was not as much a concern, such as Germany, I found cities where public transportation was not popular, but on the other hand, good city planning had eliminated the need. Walking from one side of the city to the other was no more than an hour, and much less by bicycle. They simply built a number of smaller cities with great urban planning, and in the 20th century linked them with high speed light rail. Thus, if you would rather take a train for 40 minutes, rather than walking for 40 minutes, you could do that as well.

Either way, I'm not sure I've ever met anyone in Europe that spent more than 40 minutes getting to work. I only knew a small handful of people that used a car for work travel, and they were in sales, freelance photography, and real estate. All cases were they were constantly 'on the go' where a car made more sense. (and even then, they would often use public transportation)

In the US, the combination of suburban sprawl and law have created an environment where companies have pulled themselves out of the downtown environments. This amongst other practices has have undoubtedly lead to much success, raising profits, and has helped make us a rich nation. However, these are also the things that, if you want to bring freedom into this, have stripped us of freedom, such as the freedom to walk down the street without the fear of being run over -- something that Ray Bradbury certainly predicted with 451/451' vision.

Finally, my point isn't that you're wrong that there are challenges, I admit that there are. In the USA, city planning is simply not pedestrian and public-transportation friendly. To ch

Re:Awesome

[mohjlir]

Why stop at two, why not add four or eight? The reason is that by doubling the number of batteries does not double the range. Energy is required to move the extra batteries, and I'm sure they aren't cheap or light. Not to mention that you reduce the payload the tram can carry. My guess is careful consideration has already gone into this and the engineers have found a balance (price / weight / volume).

Re:Awesome

[preem]

...It works in small land masses (Europe, for example)... yea, Europe is small land masses. what are you, in 6th grade for the 7th time?

Re:Awesome

[a.ameri]

What utter piece of crap that can come out of someone's mouth who has never seen a good public transportation in action. Move on dude, modern public transport can do much more than transport from Central Business District (what you call downtown in the US) to outer suburbs (which is the point your whole argument is based on). In Melbourne, Australia, you can get from virtually any outer suburb to any other outer suburb without going anywhere near the CBD. The combination of trams and trains works wonders, you have tram stations every 200-300 meters so you are bound to be within easy walking distance of one wherever you are, and you have trains to get you to far-away suburbs fast (and Melbouren is one of the world's most geographically distributed cities) Apartments do not exists here outside of the CBD, everyone likes and lives the "Australian Dream" of having quarter of an acre for their backyard garden, and yet everyone still uses the public transport. I am too familiar with the confused looks of shock, awe and hidden admiration whenever an American collegue or friend comes down here for a visit and realise how well a public trnasport system can work.

And this is the best part for you Libertarian slashdotters: we don't pay any taxes for it as it has been privatised for 8-9 years now. We used to subsedise it heavily but it has been self sustaining for the past couple of years and is actually turning a modest profit recently. Beat that!

And guess who is defending the public transport system here...a self proclaimed petrolhead. I have 3 cars and I absolutely love'em. A track-biased M3 beemer for my track days (soon to be replaced by an R8), a Megane R26 F1 hot hatch for my general use, and a super-hungry comfy V8 Holden (with the Corvette engine) for when I just want to enjoy the sound of that huge engine. But for me, cars are for Sunday mornings and track days and especial occassions, public transport is much more easier, cheaper and more comfortable for daily commute. If a public transportation system is built correctly, it can be so comfortable (short wait time, Air Condition in all trams, quiet and peaceful where I can read the newspaper or listen to my podcasts, never overcrowded) that you would loath having to take out your car and deal with the morning and afternoon traffic, just to get to work.

Get over your stereotypical notions of what a public transport system is and how it works. The world has moved on.

Re:Awesome

[Stefanwulf]

Public transportation is a joke (at least in the US).

In most of the US I'd agree, although not for the reasons the parent stated...public transit works amazingly well with older once-industrial cities, with a high-density downtown and either small clustered neighborhoods or high-density suburbs surrounding. It doesn't work well in a city which is essentially all "suburban." Not surprisingly, public transit does quite where you have the largest concentration of "old" cities. It works in places like san francisco and the pacific northwest, and it is arguably at its best in the northeast megalopolis. In fact you can take local and commuter rails and buses all the way from Virginia to Maine without ever having to resort to long distance solutions like Amtrak or Greyhound, and I've commuted to work on public transit since college, because it's usually faster and cheaper than driving.

Most cities in the US don't fit that model, however. Public transit just won't work without population density and clustered areas of employment, and in the post-WWII development boom we put almost no limits on how much people could spread out. A lot of new development and zoning (at least on the east coast where I live) is beginning to take public transit into account, forcing suburbs back into more of a small-town model, with sidewalks and a centralized school, shopping district, and transit station that everyone can easily walk to. Maryland has more info up at http://www.mdp.state.md.us/smartintro.htm/.

New planning like this is really most effective near an old city with effective public transit, however. Cities which primarily developed in the 50's or later were planned around individual car ownership. When each individual is driving the most effective layout is to encourage a high number of lower-volume commuting routes, and it is very difficult to make mass transit work in a setup like that.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Because this is a self-contained unit, not an entire tram system...

...and it's snooty Montreal. Have you ever tried asking for directions in English? The cops will literally ignore you and pedestrians just throw their noses up and walk away.

Re:Awesome

[yahooadam]

Because the added weight of the batteries and regenerative breaking system most likely make the train more inefficient then just braking normally

Re:Awesome

[ArcherB]

Wow, what a strawman.

The public transportation system I described is quite real. It was from my experiences riding in Chicago. I did not, however, mention the weather. It was 15 below 0 Fahrenheit that morning. I think it "warmed" up to about 5 by the time I got home. With wind gusts up to 30 mph, I'm not even going to guess at the wind chill. I had to stand outside for at least 15 minutes each way waiting for the train. So, no. It was not a strawman.

This isn't about your freedom.

First, the GP said my attitude needed to be changed. Why does that sound like the kind of job a re-education camp would perform? This guy is saying I don't even have the freedom to think what I want. My God! If I'm not free to think, what am I free to do?

This has everything to do with my freedom. When the government controls how I get places, then the government controls everything. Where I live, what I can carry, when I can travel, where I can go and how much it will cost me are all controlled by government rules. Sorry, but giving the government that much control over my life is not what I would call freedom.

Public transportation works in Europe. Granted, there are geographical differences as well as cultural differences. If you spent enough time in the right European cities, you would probably see systems where public transportation is working.

Maybe, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is all government controlled. I hear that their system is the best in the world, but that doesn't mean I want it forced on me here in the US. What advantage does a public transport system have over privately owned non-polluting automobiles?

Here is one case study... I spent a year in Poznan, Poland (pop 567,882). In that city, there are 20 trams (streetcar) lines and 57 bus lines. The trams run center-city and through the more dense areas, with buses making up the difference.

Poland? Did they used to be communist? Aren't these people used to having the government control their lives? That takes me back to my original point. Take new Orleans for example. Katrina was on the way and the people with cars left. No government assistance required. Those that didn't have cars went to the Superdome and were stuck. We all know how that turned out. If the government gets stuck, you're out of luck! (a counter example would be the evacuation of Houston about a month after Katrina in the way of another hurricane. There was a traffic jam from Houston to Austin, about 200 miles of bumper to bumper cars. There is better planning now for such a situation.)

I'll push all that aside for now. I live in a city with about 5,000 people. It's about 20 miles from where I work, a city of about 656,000. How do I get from one transportation system to the other? How long will that take? I work from 10:00am until 7:00pm. Sometimes I have to work late. Does public transportation run until 9:00pm? Does it run until midnight? Do I want to be on public transportation after midnight?

While some own vehicles, the public transportation system has high ridership, to the point that during rush-hour one must be careful not to be crushed...

A problem I don't experience in my car. Although, I may be crushed by another car, but that is a different story.

People are not living by loud trains, but they are more comfortable with walking and riding bikes, and there are sidewalks (something quite rare in the USA). It may be 1-2 kilometers to the nearest tram stop, and that is perfectly fine by the city inhabitants.

How was that walk in the rain? Any better in the snow? How about freezing rain? Granted, I don't like driving in bad weather either, but at least I'm not standing in it.

That said, I lived right next to the tram on the 6th floor of a high-rise, and hardly noticed the tram. It wasn't much, if at all, worse than the traffic of an average suburban street in the USA.

If you live in a high-rise, then

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's the joy of living in a free country. I'm free to have whatever attitude I like without people like you telling me what to think."

I can hate niggers, jews, spics, gooks or anybody and you can't tell me different. Nice attitude buddy. Now take off your Hitler Youth brown shirt and lighten up Francis.

Re:Awesome

[p0tat03]

And as the designer of this system I'm sure you're privy to all of its operational specs. Seriously now, can we at least give this a chance instead of following the standard Slashdot cynicism, where breakthrough engineering is *clearly* impossible?

Re:Awesome

[Mister Whirly]

I would imagine to recycle the braking energy as stated in TFA and TFS. Hard to store power up if you have no battery. Plus cleaner more efficient DC power. Why do servers run on a UPS?

Re:Awesome

[Z34107]

Sadly, before we can improve public transport, we'll need to change attitudes like yours.

Wrong. Public transportation competes with "private" transportation like personal automobiles. If you want people to use public transportation, there has to be a compelling reason other than "guilt."

You'll see people use trains and whatnot when they're better than cars. That's a tough goal, but as long as people have options, it's what's going to happen.

Re:Awesome

[lpangelrob]

Slightly on topic, I heard a story last night on NPR (Marketplace) that there is a dearth of taxis in Paris due to heavy amounts of congestion. (There's some irony in that, I know.) It may just be that congestion has to reach unfathomably bad levels in the U.S. for people to even consider public transportation. It also doesn't help that Chicagoland's public transportation specifically is chronically underfunded and mismanaged.

Re:Awesome

[jimmypw]

Either way, I'm not sure I've ever met anyone in Europe that spent more than 40 minutes getting to work.

I want you to pity us in the UK for a moment,,,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4052861.stm
Average commute time approaches an hour.

And in other news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6223701.stm
Train fares rise again.

UK unfortunately have one of the worst transport systems in Europe. And then idiots in charge spending all the money on Lemon scented floor polish. Glee

Re:Awesome

[drinkypoo]

...but that doesn't negate the fact that it is all government controlled. I hear that their system is the best in the world, but that doesn't mean I want it forced on me here in the US. What advantage does a public transport system have over privately owned non-polluting automobiles?

It concentrates maintenance in one place. This place is usually a center for fleet maintenance and even in the US, in accordance with state and local regulations (okay, at least in California, other states are often less picky) this often involves a sealed slab, oil/water separation, etc. It means less assholes flushing their cooling system into their driveway - and the most effective electric vehicles are in fact water cooled. And this is just an example anyway.

It also potentially eliminates style upgrades. People needlessly consume by purchasing new vehicles endlessly. They also crash vehicles when they are driving them. Public transportation has the potential to be substantially safer, and it often is. This reduces the amount of money society must pay. If I didn't have to suffer for your decisions, then I would agree with you - in principle, this is about your freedom. In practice, this is about your freedom to crap on everyone else.

In a system in which you didn't need your own vehicle, there would be no reason to have one outside of showing off how big and important you are - which I don't feel should be protected by government - or for travel not covered by public transportation, such as recreational uses. Vehicles for these purposes can often be shared. For example there's no reason why every hunter should have their own ATV. It's just stupidity, because they can't all go use them at once, the lands won't support it. Sorry, I'm not supporting stupidity, at least not willingly. If you want to gain the benefits of society, then you need to accept that you have to make certain sacrifices. If you don't like it, you can go and live someplace where no one else wants to live, and then no one will bother you.

Poland? Did they used to be communist? Aren't these people used to having the government control their lives? That takes me back to my original point. Take new Orleans for example. Katrina was on the way and the people with cars left. No government assistance required. Those that didn't have cars went to the Superdome and were stuck. We all know how that turned out. If the government gets stuck, you're out of luck!

That is one of the most amazingly ignorant and callous things I've ever heard. The people with cars left? What about the people who were so economically disadvantaged - many of them from the still quite real repercussions of slavery - that they can't afford fuel for a vehicle, let alone the vehicle itself? And who would have had no place to go anyway, to boot? Many of those who DID get out of town in time were still rendered utter homeless bums.

While it's easy to say that people shouldn't live there in the first place because it's guaranteed to be the focus of major weather sooner or later over even a human timeline, many people were born into that existence and it's not so easy as you would be making it out to be.

(a counter example would be the evacuation of Houston about a month after Katrina in the way of another hurricane. There was a traffic jam from Houston to Austin, about 200 miles of bumper to bumper cars. There is better planning now for such a situation.)

Such a situation is still predicated upon assistance from the government, which maintains the interstate highway system, or at least (kind of) funds it. What right does the government have to put superhighways across my country!? The nerve! I am being forced to pay for people to have transportation in Texas! THIS WILL NOT STAND!

I'll push all that aside for now. I live in a city with about 5,000 people. It's about 20 miles from where I work, a city of about 656,000.

Re:Awesome

[Max von H.]

Why not? They're talking about storing braking power and then using that to power the train. Without a battery any such energy is simply lost to the environment.

Simply not true. In my town the streetcars and electric busses send energy back into the network during braking. To avoid losses, the extra power only goes to the local power loop, benefiting other vehicles tapping from it, which can be quite a few in the downtown area.

Re:Awesome

[ArcherB]

It also potentially eliminates style upgrades. People needlessly consume by purchasing new vehicles endlessly. They also crash vehicles when they are driving them. Public transportation has the potential to be substantially safer, and it often is. This reduces the amount of money society must pay. If I didn't have to suffer for your decisions, then I would agree with you - in principle, this is about your freedom. In practice, this is about your freedom to crap on everyone else.

First, the government has no business dictating my "style". If paying for style is a bad thing, then why not mandate government uniforms for everyone? How about mandatory community housing? What about beauty care? Why should women be allowed to waste all that money on make up, manicures and hair care? Living in a free society means that we are free. I'm just as free to put spinners on my Yugo as you are choose what you do for a living.
My car dealer, mechanic, body shop and auto-tint dealer would all disagree with your assessment that my POV (Personally Owned Vehicle) is a waste. My car feeds their families. That's how economies work. My spending money on my car is not wasted. It is paid to someone else who either makes the parts or installs them. And when I wreck my car, society doesn't pay, I do in the form of insurance or directly. Again, this money is not lost. It pays for that little British gecko and all the people who work for him.

Such a situation is still predicated upon assistance from the government, which maintains the interstate highway system, or at least (kind of) funds it. What right does the government have to put superhighways across my country!? The nerve! I am being forced to pay for people to have transportation in Texas! THIS WILL NOT STAND!

First, the Interstate system in Texas is used to carry California Cherries to Florida and Mexican grown lettuce to... well everywhere. I agree that rail could do the job better in some instances, but that's not reality right now. Also, there are many truck drivers who would disagree.

Anyway, what is the biggest price-fixing cartel on the planet? You guessed it, the oil industry.

Since we are talking about an electric car vs public transportation, I don't see how this matters.

HOV lanes potentially help fight pollution, except that people often buy a new car for no reason other than getting into the lane. This results in a new vehicle purchase, which leads to future new vehicle production, which causes additional energy consumption, and is actually thus environmentally unfriendly. This is not least because the vast majority of vehicles which qualify are gasoline-electric hybrids, and the production of their batteries is horribly energy intensive, thus causing vast quantities of pollution.
HOV stands for High Occupancy Vehicle. It means that only cars with three or more people can drive in the HOV lane. Buses also take this lane. It's kinda like rail that cars can also use. And while some places may allow low emission vehicles on the HOV lanes, it is not the purpose of the lane.

By the way, HOV lanes do NOTHING, repeat NOTHING, to alleviate traffic pressure.
Well, since HOV lanes are actually built by public transportation departments for buses, then I guess you kinda shot down the whole public transport traffic benefit. However, I disagree, sort of. While I feel that it would be better to open two lanes to all traffic rather than a single HOV lane, HOV lanes do encourage car pooling. Look around the next time you are stuck in traffic. How many of those cars have a single person in them? How much do you think traffic could be reduced if each car had two people, halving the number of cars on the road? That is the type of think HOV lanes are meant to encourage... well that and allow buses their own lane.

Having the option of both is a pipe dream because public transportation systems fail if people do not use them.
If no one wants to use public transport, then

Re:Awesome

[drinkypoo]

First, the government has no business dictating my "style". If paying for style is a bad thing, then why not mandate government uniforms for everyone?

I bet you use that argument against helmet laws, too.

Hint: This is precisely the same situation.

the Interstate system in Texas is used to carry California Cherries to Florida and Mexican grown lettuce to... well everywhere. I agree that rail could do the job better in some instances, but that's not reality right now.

It's not reality right now because the auto industry took action to destroy it. And it was supported in doing so by their paid representatives.

Also, there are many truck drivers who would disagree.

Show me a truck driver who actually knows something useful about the issue and I'll show you someone dramatically overqualified to haul tomatoes.

HOV stands for High Occupancy Vehicle. It means that only cars with three or more people can drive in the HOV lane. Buses also take this lane. It's kinda like rail that cars can also use. And while some places may allow low emission vehicles on the HOV lanes, it is not the purpose of the lane.

But they DO allow supposed low-emission vehicles in the HOV lane, to persuade people to buy them. The only real problem with this is that most of them are hybrids and hybrids are ENVIRONMENTALLY UNFRIENDLY.

Well, since HOV lanes are actually built by public transportation departments for buses, then I guess you kinda shot down the whole public transport traffic benefit. However, I disagree, sort of. While I feel that it would be better to open two lanes to all traffic rather than a single HOV lane, HOV lanes do encourage car pooling. Look around the next time you are stuck in traffic. How many of those cars have a single person in them?

In central California? During commute time? The vast majority of them are PZEV or ULEV vehicles - the vast majority of which are hybrids - and they have a single occupant.

If no one wants to use public transport, then it is a failure to begin with. If the advantages of riding the Metro do not outweigh the advantages of driving yourself, then why would you want to force others to take it?

The advantages of riding the Metro outweighed those of driving yourself until the automobile industry spun up and did their dirty work. Now you can't get people to use public transportation because they already have a car. And Americans identify very closely with their cars, it's a part of our culture. I LOVE TO DRIVE! But I realize that it's not sustainable - probably even if we all magically had electric cars in our driveways tomorrow.

I'm saying that since it is not practical for everyone, we should be spending money toward the R&D needed to create cheap electric cars along with the infrastructure needed to support them.

As long as your solution doesn't involve batteries, I can more or less agree. Of course, as long as our electricity comes primarily from non-renewable (at least, over a human time scale) resources, running electric vehicles doesn't help much anyway.

Ultimately I believe that electric cars are not really the answer, at least not using electricity as the energy storage medium. Fuel cell cars, air cars, and turbine series hybrids are the alternatives that I see to the internal combustion engine. And I have a sneaking suspicion that electronically injected two stroke diesels are the answer. They can be turbocharged (and currently typically are, but it's not an absolute requirement, it just simplifies the engine) and can theoretically achieve efficiency otherwise unheard of in a small internal combustion engine. For an example design for aviation use anyway, see the Deltahawn V-4 Aviation Turbo Diesel.

Sure, nobody likes to be behind a diesel, but it's least odious on vegg

Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Colin Smith]

But a tram runs on rails which mean it always follows a known route rather precisely and can therefore be supplied with electricity directly... No batteries required.

Isn't this just solving a problem which doesn't really exist?

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[WiglyWorm]

Well, yes and no. Power delivery is not a problem at all. Look at the cable cars in San Fransisco, any modern subway... really most modern rail systems. However, if they can turn 70% of their breaking power in to electrical energy, accelerating the train back up to speed or, apparently, 15Km of crusing can be done absolutely for free. Lowering the carbon footprint to make it more environmentally friendly and cutting costs for the opperator all at once.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[7macaw]

"Conventional" tram needs wires along the whole route, while this one would need only a few recharging points => less wires needed.

I suppose a bus that works in the same fashion could be even more beneficial since it would combine the route flexibility of a bus with the cheapness and cleanness of an electrically-powered vehicle

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, and adding batteries and control electronics and employing people to write control software and building the damn things doesn't add any carbon at all!
See, that's the problem with current thinking re the carbon problem. We're just throwing more technology at the problem, technology which is subsidized entirely by the present fossil fuel economy. The only real long term solution to the carbon footprint problem is to radically re-think how we live our lives. Do we need to travel to and from work everyday when all we do is manipulate information?

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[qweqwe321]

From TFA: "According to the institute, it uses about 10 percent less power than existing streetcars."

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Constantine XVI]

Since it can recharge from itself, it uses less energy, and therefore doesn't cost as much to keep going.

PS: The self-recharging tram is not in charge of Gundam.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[frup]

Often the short term cost of a long term solution is great. From that the long term problem eventually gets solved/improved though. Even if this seems a waste in some ways it places building blocks for the next step. With out these kinds of projects it would be difficult for us to think differently or even transition to a new lifestyle. In New Zealand, if everyone employed solar water heating we would save 50% of household power usage from the old water cylinder. That's the amount a $1 billion power plant could give us extra. So each person spends an extra $10,000 on their home instead of a cheap water cylinder and the long term savings for the country are huge.

I agree that throwing ever more Hi-tech at the problem probably won't fix anything but thinking about how we use our current low tech in different ways will. I am studying architecture and have taken many papers and read many books on sustainable building (Not just in the sense of green building either) and can tell you from my point of view it is where humanity can save the most resources. Building smaller more contained rooms saves on heating, so does building thick concrete floors. The way we use windows etc etc.

I also think that taking an open source approach to more of our research and getting rid of patents will save a lot of money and carbon dioxide emissions. Too much effort is being put in to redundancy.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Colin Smith]

That's the amount a $1 billion power plant could give us extra. So each person spends an extra $10,000 on their home instead of a cheap water cylinder and the long term savings for the country are huge. Right... Because 1.4 million households spending $10,000 each to save a billion dollars makes perfect sense...

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[mrbluze]

But a tram runs on rails which mean it always follows a known route rather precisely and can therefore be supplied with electricity directly... No batteries required.

Currently, many tram systems (for example, Melbourne, Berlin) do generate electricity when braking, giving back electricity to the tram network and helping to save some energy, if another tram happens to be accelerating or running at the time.

However, if a tram is on a regional route and far from any other trams, such as at a late hour, this energy is wasted.

Using flywheels and other mechanical devices has been tried but is dangerous and expensive.

This battery device would greatly increase the efficiency of trams.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Colin Smith]

And no $20million/mile rails required...

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[fm6]

One problem with buses is that they require a lot more power than railed vehicles. I would guess that this new technology provides enough energy for a tram (in the U.S. we call them "light rail" or "trolleys") but not enough for a bus. But I'm no expert.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[frup]

The benefit being a reduction in your personal power bill, lower carbon emissions etc. We did it and save around $100 per month now. Over 10 years your installation is free.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[maxume]

Actually, the cruising can be done for the cost of the battery and associated management system. If the price of the battery is high, it could make the system more expensive for the operator. The efficiency benefits aren't automatic either, the battery is going to have a bit of mass(though the benefits are probably real).

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Mike89]

many tram systems (for example, Melbourne, Berlin) do generate electricity when braking

Do you have a source for this? I live in Melbourne and would be interested in reading how it works.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Colin Smith]

You realise that 1.4 million multiplied by $10,000 is $14 billion? Which is much, much bigger than $1 billion. In fact, it's 14 times as big.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[x1n933k]

You have a good point, we do need to do more than just invent new technologies however at the same time it the need is still there and the cost to repair and maintain current systems use massive amounts of energy anyways so it is better now to implement technologies that save than to find ourselves with completely redundant technologies in the future when we have fewer resources and less energy to spare.

[J]

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Rakishi]

Please tell me what power plants your area has so I can recommend them to my community. I mean free energy once it's built, no need to buy fuel for the power plant ever? Sign me right up.

Of course it is quite clear he meant $1 billion per year in terms of the cost of electricity had it been produced by a power plant (which includes fuel, construction costs, transmission losses and so on).

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Colin Smith]

That's the amount a $1 billion power plant could give us extra.

Of course it is quite clear he meant $1 billion per year in terms of the cost of electricity had it been produced by a power plant ( Nope. It's not clear at all that's what he meant. And $1 billion per year to run a power plant? Is that nuclear, coal, hydro-electric?

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[frup]

I seem to be wrong on the price... I had to check over my notes etc... $10,000 is one of the more expensive installations aimed more for commercial use. Very basic systems such as the Solar Edwards LX series are under $3000 and suitable for the average home. There may be cheaper solutions too.

The initial cost maybe more, but you save on your power bill and there is less cost in maintenance that a power plant would incur. It uses solar energy which is no doubt one of the cleanest.

There are personal benefits concerning liberty too, self sustainability and not having to worry about government or corporate policies. The warranty on the system that I just skimmed over was 7 years. No doubt many systems would last longer than that. One of my points was that the initial cost maybe higher but long term it get cheaper. It may cost $1 billion for a power plant but it is then run at profit, that doesn't get passed on to the consumer. We save $100 per month in power bills and after some time there is no cost to our water heating.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[gnuman99]

Agreed. Solution is simple. Convert all fossil fuel plants to nuclear and add more nuclear/solar (in desert areas, rooftops, for example) to generate hydrogen for stuff that is not fixed (eg. cars, trucks, long haul railway lines like in Siberia or Canada, etc.). Then you have no carbon footprint. Problem solved. Right?

But until then, throwing money and technology by taxing carbon is probably the best way of dealing with CO2. CO2 is a waste and when consumers pay for the waste they generate (ie. business generate CO2, pay for it, price of goods then in fraction reflects CO2 costs which is passed to consumers as cost of materials is now). Sorry, Utopia of living in caves will not solve the problem of CO2.

Money runs the world as people seem to like it that way. Put a price on waste, and people will start to reduce their waste.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[fizzup]

SkyTrain, in Vancouver, British Columbia, uses regenerative braking with a linear induction motor to accelerate other trains on the same line. All the efficiency, without all the batteries. SkyTrain is over 20 years old.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[xouumalperxe]

Sure, all those things generate some pollution too. Question is: is that pollution greater smaller than that produced by feeding the tram for the duration of its service life? If so, then you have a victory, however minor it may be.

Now, this of course does not in any way invalidate the argument that moving to a saner daily routine would help far more, but until then, this helps.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[UncleTogie]

I would guess that this new technology provides enough energy for a tram (in the U.S. we call them "light rail" or "trolleys") but not enough for a bus.

Actually, as indicated earlier, they've been testing systems in New York City using another regenerative braking system called HybriDrive from these folks...

No idea if the BAE system has the "70%" conversion rate of this one or not.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[mrbluze]

Well for specifics, the W-class trams have been fitted with magnetic track brakes which act as generators, and as far as i know the newer (Siemens) D1 and D2 trams have the same braking principle. In the past this excess energy from braking was released as heat without contribution to the electricity grid. My source was an employee of the tram companies in Melbourne, but I can't confirm if it really is used to save energy in Melbourne. In other words, the trams are capable and designed to do this, but now that I've looked I can't find a written source to verify that they actually are doing this in Melbourne.

Sorry about that.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[thogard]

Busses tend to weigh much less than trams since trams tend to be built like rail cars by companies that deal with rail roads. Trams could be much lighter but they aren't mostly because of a hundred years of doing things the same way. The new ones they just bought for Melbourne Australia are heavier and use more energy per passenger than the last ones and their energy requirement per passenger is still higher than high efficiency cars. Here in Melbourne one ticket will let your ride busses, trains or trams and the train and tram companies are heavily subsidised. That implies the cost per trip on the bus is lower.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[thogard]

The overhead lines for straight lines aren't the problem. Its the lines over stations, turnouts and intersections and bridges that are the real problem.

The train and tram system in Melbourne use different power (AC/DC and different voltages) and there are places where the trams cross the train lines and there is a bit of fancy insulation going there and they need to maintain speed or else they stop.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[3nd32]

Makes me glad I live in an apartment in Idaho. Your savings are about double my total bill for utilities.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Blakey Rat]

Not that I disagree with your point, but cable cars in San Francisco aren't electric. The "cables" in the name are looped steel cables run under the road. The trains travel by clamping onto these cables and "riding" them, the way you might grip to rope to get pulled up a ski hill. Next time you're crossing the street in San Fran, look down and you can see the cable whizzing by under the street.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[SnowZero]

Do we need to travel to and from work everyday when all we do is manipulate information? No, for that job you live and work in the White House.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[polar red]

for the duration of its service life? One of the advantages of trams : in my town there are trams driving around that are 40 years(interiors get changed of course) old ...

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[CastrTroy]

See, that's where the real problem with carbon is. People with 2000 sq. foot homes. Heating all that empty space is extremely expensive. And since heating and cooling costs are relative to volume of air, adding 100 sq. feet to a house with 9 foot ceilings adds 900 cubic feet of air to deal with. In America we all enjoy our huge homes, would spend tens of thousands on more efficient furnaces, triple glazed windows, and any other technology. But there's no way we're going back to living in smaller homes like we did 200 years ago.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Bruiser80]

Really, more government intervention is the solution? Government is what has prevented the US from building any new nuclear reactors in the past 20+ years! So you'd like to see government get into the CO2 taxing business? If the majority of the people wants to reduce their CO2 output, they should invest in and buy products from businesses that choose to use smarter manufacturing practices.

If you're looking at putting an artificial pressure on the sector, the options are taxes, usage vouchers, or a combination of the two (a carbon voucher with a "subscription").

I'm against taxes because that's money in the government's hands - even if the money is earmarked for research, government has a way of getting its mitts on it (see social security, gas taxes, etc).

Vouchers make more sense in terms of market dynamics because they can be bought and sold, giving companies incentive to use less, allowing them to sell their vouchers. The question with vouchers is how are they originally distributed? Are the vouchers going to slowly constrict on themselves, slowly lowering the carbon output? Are they going to be applied to citizens (every car, house, human needs one), or just to businesses?

Either way you go, government is involved, allowing the opportunity for people and industries to be exempted through loopholes, which prevents it from working. Taxing businesses will drive the businesses to moving someplace where the controls are not in effect.

Nuclear? You bet. Can existing plants be converted? I don't know about that - I'm all for building new. Build some breeder reactors while you're at it and you're all set.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[EatHam]

Do we need to travel to and from work everyday when all we do is manipulate information?

Yes, because there is a substantial set of the population that, when faced with the question of whether to manipulate information or manipulate other things based on the wide variety of porn at their fingertips, will choose to manipulate themselves.

Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of people who just jerk off all day anyway.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Touvan]

I'm glad to hear that things are going well for you. I wonder how everyone else feels about living in smaller places. Statistically, more people are making less each decade, not more, in the U.S. at least. It seems that based solely on that, people will be glad to take what they can afford - even if it's smaller.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[davidsyes]

"Isn't this just solving a problem which doesn't really exist?"

No, it isn't. Consider this: This technology could be applied to buses (is in some ways, if one considers non-gasoline/non-diesel buses) and free the pole-powered buses of delays causes when the bus ahead (or, the trolley car on tracks using a different power line but is somehow obstructing the bus' run) breaks down or, (in the case of SF MUNI) when some passenger threatens or harasses the driver, who then says (after a few warnings-- especially when a jackass boards without intent to pay, and haggles the driver) "This bus is going out of service; another bus is about 7 minutes behind me...), deboards everyone, then SITS there with the poles STILL UP on the grid. I saw something like this, one day, when the driver ahead of us had an attitude and wouldn't drop his poles, pissing off the driver of MY bus, and the two almost got into a pissing match.

Rails are a problem for rail cars, especially those raggedy-assed cars from around the world that SF MUNI runs. Some of them make weird-assed noises that got some of us imitating them, laughing, and then getting tired of it. Even the tourists got in on it. I think it was the Milan car, earlier this year. Other cars are irritating, too. The brakes and padding and friction noise are sometimes unnerving. Pumps or fly-wheels or compressors on them (underneath the carriage) are annoying, yet these raggedy assed cars are in service.

Taking power lines OUT of service might become a union issue if jobs become threatened. Doesn't matter how MANY, just that JOBS are threatened. Some people will be forced to retrain, or be retired or transferred, probably at the same (assume a $20+/hour) pay even if the job is less paid normally.

But, not having rail cars or buses dependent upon overhead lines or in-ground rails would be nice. It would be nice if the MUNI rail cars could be decoupled from the overhead. Then, eventually, the rails could be obsoleted. At that point, the severe commute-hours backups that the N-Judah and other lines have when one end of the underground stations get(s) (say, at Embarcadero, where it's busy as hell) backed up can be a thing of the past. The driver can just reroute and at least keep the carriage in motion since some of the tubes/tunnels could still be used if not blocked. Ahh, but again, jobs... under... threat..

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[godzilla808]

But a tram runs on rails which mean it always follows a known route rather precisely and can therefore be supplied with electricity directly... No batteries required.

Yes you can supply electricity along the known route, but at what cost? Putting in infrastructure for rail systems has immense costs, and you can't move electricity over a great distance with out loss. So maybe it's more efficient to keep the electricity right where it's being used? With a side benefit of lower start-up costs--to be used in places in which they wouldn't otherwise be able to start a rail system? (I don't know for sure, just "thinking out loud".)

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[ecloud]

So if it's all about regenerative braking, why not just push the freshly-generated power back into the power bus for other trams that are running at the same time to use? (Yes assuming it's AC power there are synchronization issues. Worst case the tram might need a CVT to keep the "generator" (motor) running at a constant speed while the tram slows down.)

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[fred fleenblat]

housing density has gone way up though. mid-century neighborhoods had 1/4 or 1/3 of an acre per house so you had some room for the kids to play. farm communities might have 100+ acres per house.

a 2000 sq ft condo is only barely adequate if the association discourages/disallows kids from playing outside. also you have no opportunity to install outbuildings so you have to store everything inside or else pay $150+ a month for a storage space rental. one place i lived actually wanted you to open up your garage door for inspection to make sure you were only using it to store cars, in order to minimize street parking.

the extra square footage inside the house isn't just wealthy people splurging, it's middle class people compensating for having little or no outdoor space available.

Sweet!!

[iknownuttin]

he institute will start conducting test runs in Sapporo at the end of November to check the streetcar's capacity.

A street car that runs on Sapporo! Can you drink out of the tank! Oooo sushi bar in the back of the car, drink out of the tank, party train!

Wait, it's 'in' not 'on'?!?

Dammit! I just bought plane tickets. Shit.

Obviously...

[locokamil]

... Sony will be lead supplier for the lithium ion batteries to power the vehicles, thus affording the industrial conglomerate an excellent opportunity to diversify into the burgeoning mass-traffic-explosion industry.

Re:Obviously...

[Anonymous Coward]

And they will blow up due to general shoddy quality.

Re:Obviously...

[Finallyjoined!!!]

And it runs on Vista. Noooooo.

Re:Obviously...

[Trogre]

I'm looking forward to the REVA coming to my country, the newer versions of which come with Li-Ion batteries. No more explosive than dead dinos.

Re:Obviously...

[Von Helmet]

Think of it as a sort of hybrid... If the electric power fails, you can just fall right back on good old internal combustion.

I think that website could use some ads.

[7macaw]

Really, why not earn a few dollars by putting some ads on? I think there's still some unused space on the page...

How much charge?

[mangu]

"Recharge in under one minute". Sure, but how much charge? Take how many kilowatt-hours of charge you want, multiply it by 60 and you'll get how many kilowatts of power you need to charge it in a minute. Now divide by the voltage to get the current. How big would the cable and the contacts need to be?

It seems we now have the ideal battery (also called a "capacitor"), now let's concentrate on creating the superconducting cables and contacts.

Re:How much charge?

[Dachannien]

A quick Google search turned up the rough conservative estimate of one square millimeter of copper bus bar per 10 amperes of current.

How good is this ?

[ianare]

TFA:

According to the institute, it uses about 10 percent less power than existing streetcars. Apparently, not very. Consider the initial cost of the battery (li-ion is not cheap, the tesla roadster for example costs $100,000 most of which is for the battery pack, ~ $75,000 IIRC). Then consider the cost of disposing or recycling the batteries which will presumably need to be done several times in the life of the streetcar. I guess this is a start, but at 10% less power, I don't see this as much of an advantage.

Re:How good is this ?

[philicorda]

It does seem an expensive and complicated was to power a bus. I don't understand why they don't use flywheels anymore. There were buses in the 1940's that used flywheels for energy storage, charged in 30 seconds and could do regenerative braking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrobus I bet modern flywheel storage, with magnetic bearings and more efficient conversion to electric power, would be comparable or better than batteries and cheaper too. No nasty waste to dispose of either.

Re:How good is this ?

[repvik]

Li-ION is worthless for this purpose. It'll only last a few hundred charge/discharge cycles. Lead-acid batteries are both cheaper and longer lasting.

Re:How good is this ?

[Bryan Ischo]

If you'll read the wikipedia article you linked to, you'll find tons of reasons that these aren't used.

Some disadvantages which it seems no amount of modern tech could get around are (from the article):

* Weight, a bus which can carry 20 persons and has radius of 20 km, must carry a flywheel which weighs 3 t.

* The flywheel, which turns at 3000 revolutions per minute, requires special attachment and security--because the external speed of the disk is 900 km/h.

* Driving a gyrobus has the added complexity that the flywheel acts as a gyroscope and so always has the same attitude, even when the bus goes around curves or corners.

Also the article mentions in several places that the amount of energy that could be realistically stored in a flywheel was prohibitive for longer or more complex bus routes (having to stop the bus for 30 seconds to 3 minutes every couple of miles seems like a show stopper).

And what happens if for some reason that bus has to stop for a while, like a flat tire, and the flywheel loses its momentum? How do you get the bus moving again?

I think that the pressurized air system mechanism of storing energy would be even better than this flywheel idea, and even that has too many disadvantages to see practical use.

Re:How good is this ?

[sssssss27]

I'd think a pressurized air or hydraulic system would be better than the battery as well.

Re:How good is this ?

[vivian]

Who said anything about using standard Ii-Ion batteries? TFA just says they are using Lithium batteries. I would imagine they are using LiFePO4 batteries (Lithium phosphate batteries) as have already been covered on slashdot several times before. The nano particle versions of these have charge characteristics similar to what are described in the article, have much longer duty cycles than lead acid batteries, much better power to weight rations and capacity, and have significantly improved safety over standard lithium Ion batteries. ( eg. you can cut them in half / shoot them / mash them to a pulp) and they wont explode.
Companies such as A123
and Valence Technology
and many others are already making these commercially available batteries.

They are also apparently recyclable and not as nasty on the environment as lead acid batteries either.

The car on Rongbad St.

[ackthpt]

I hope it doesn't asplode!

Re:I think that website could use some ads.

[damn_registrars]

Yes I also love websites so laden with flashvertisements that they bring my 1.8Ghz P4 with 2 Gb RAM to its knees. This obviously was what the internet was intended for...

Streetcar

[HTH NE1]

a new streetcar, powered by lithium battery, has been invented by the Railway Technical Research Institute in Kokubunji, Tokyo. The new transport is capable of speeds of 40 kph for 15 kilometers and can convert 70 percent of its deceleration energy into electricity which is then sent back to the battery which can recharge in under one minute. I desire this streetcar.

OMG so they could be

[Arthur B.]

gone in 60 second !

Do those batteries have a maximum charging rate?

[effigiate]

Wow, charging the batteries in one minute? I'm not sure about lithium batteries, but standard lead acid batteries have a recommended maximum charge rate. For them to recharge the battery in one minute, they're going to have to be pushing a LOT of current...especially considering they're going 15km on one charge. I'd be worried about battery life on these (probably) expensive batteries.

Old idea just new technology

[IvyKing]

Battery operated streetcars are nothing new - see The Time of the Trolley by William D. Middleton. Battery cars were used in such diverse places as New York City and Billings, Montana.

What makes this new is improvements in motor control circuitry making regeneration a lot more practical for streetcar use and improvements in battery technology - the old battery cars typically used Edison cells.

Trams are the wrong solution

[Colin Smith]

However, if they can turn 70% of their breaking power in to electrical energy, accelerating the train back up to speed or, apparently, 15Km of crusing can be done absolutely for free. The problem with trams is the same problem any group transport vehicle has... But worse.

Trams in particular have very short distances between stations, often only 500m or so. Great for getting on and off, it makes them very accessible unlike traditional rail which doesn't get used much because the stations are so far apart, but, because the distance is so short, they literally spend all of their time accelerating, decelerating and stopped.

Now, the most efficient way to run a vehicle is at a constant speed, acceleration is expensive in terms of energy, and the more mass you have, the more energy you expend. Trams almost never reach a constant speed and because they're basically rail, they're extremely heavy as well.

Essentially trams are a square peg beaten into a round hole. Hence the battery kludge to try to make them more efficient.

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[b0s0z0ku]

Now, the most efficient way to run a vehicle is at a constant speed, acceleration is expensive in terms of energy, and the more mass you have, the more energy you expend. Trams almost never reach a constant speed and because they're basically rail, they're extremely heavy as well.

Rail doesn't necessarily mean heavy. And trams are usually powered by low-voltage DC (relatively low: 600V as opposed to up to 25kV for a lot of trains) overhead lines, which makes pumping energy from regenerative braking back into the system relatively easy. And keep in mind also that rolling friction on steel rails is a lot less than friction from a rubber tire on a roadway.

-b.

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[Colin Smith]

Rail doesn't necessarily mean heavy. Meh. It pretty much does. It's the nature of the beast. If you're carrying a lot of people in a single vehicle, you need a vehicle which can carry the weight. Trams range from 20-50 tonnes per vehicle.

e.g.
http://www.edinburgh-tram.co.uk/tram.htm
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/sheffield-tram/specs.html

Then you need an infrastructure which can handle the weight of the vehicles. This is usually also very expensive per mile.

And keep in mind also that rolling friction on steel rails is a lot less than friction from a rubber tire on a roadway. Rolling resistance is secondary to air resistance and the effect on efficiency is much lower than simply going from internal combustion to electric. Trolley buses have most of the advantages of trams without the disadvantages.

I have no problem with rail used appropriately. You get a train carrying hundreds of people up to speed and then let it roll for 200 miles to another city you have one of the most efficient transport mechanisms in existence even if it weighs 200 tonnes. But stop/start that same train every 2 miles and it's a completely different story.

A much better solution in the second case is to use small vehicles which can pull into offline stations allowing other vehicles to continue non stop with no acceleration or deceleration.

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[b0s0z0ku]

"Meh. It pretty much does. It's the nature of the beast. If you're carrying a lot of people in a single vehicle, you need a vehicle which can carry the weight. Trams range from 20-50 tonnes per vehicle."

City busses aren't exactly light either.

"Rolling resistance is secondary to air resistance and the effect on efficiency is much lower than simply going from internal combustion to electric."

At lower speeds (under 25 mph/40km/h) rolling resistance has more of a pronounced effect. And that's where trams spend most of their lives.

-b.

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[Eclipse-now]

Trams in particular have very short distances between stations, often only 500m or so. Great for getting on and off, it makes them very accessible unlike traditional rail which doesn't get used much because the stations are so far apart, but, because the distance is so short, they literally spend all of their time accelerating, decelerating and stopped. Now, the most efficient way to run a vehicle is at a constant speed, acceleration is expensive in terms of energy, and the more mass you have, the more energy you expend. Trams almost never reach a constant speed and because they're basically rail, they're extremely heavy as well.

Yes, but the worst way to run a vehicle is on rubber tires on a bitumen road. Trams wheels are 8 times more energy efficient than cars. If it takes one horse to pull a tram with steel wheels on rail, it would take 8 horses to pull the same tram with car tires.

Essentially trams are a square peg beaten into a round hole. Hence the battery kludge to try to make them more efficient.

I disagree. Modern petroleum cars are the petroleum square peg kludging our cities into square expanses of suburban sameness without any sensible planning for local community infrastructure or sense of neighbourhood. If we massively upgrade tram and train networks:- 1. "If you build it, they will come." New Urbanism can then be built around the tram and train stations, making the tram lines economically viable. 2. It runs on electricity. We are seeing record high oil prices, as us peak oilers predicted a decade ago. Right on schedule we crash through the $90 a barrel limit, next year we may see $120 per barrel. 3. Once transport systems are converted to electricity then the "electron economy" will give us a bit of breathing space as we slowly transition from coal and gas into solar thermal, wave, geothermal, and other baseload renewable energy. Getting stuck without a train and tram system as we hit the final oil crisis simply because trams accelerate and decelerate a lot is not a valid argument. 4. America has hardly any trams and trains, and as the highest consumer of oil is also the most vulnerable to the final oil shock as it unfolds before our eyes. The USA uses over 20 million barrels of oil a day, or 25% of the world's oil. That's a lot of trams. Have fun without them! 5. How many times do you stop and start in traffic? ;-)

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[Anonymous Coward]

The interesting thing is that now you see what problem this solves. Earlier you appeared clueless.
I must be new here to wonder about this.

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[Colin Smith]

Trams wheels are 8 times more energy efficient than cars. If it takes one horse to pull a tram with steel wheels on rail, it would take 8 horses to pull the same tram with car tires Not true and irrelevant, much of the force goes into accelerating the vehicle, overcoming the rolling resistance is a small factor. The rolling resistance is only a small contributor to the overall efficiency of a vehicle. If that goes from 8% to 1% fine, but it's still only a 7% difference overall. Air resistance, engine/motor/drive efficiency and mass are much, much bigger factors.

If rolling resistance was quite as big a problem as you make it out to be, tyres would overheat and burst into flames on a regular basis as significant proportion of the 80, 100kW+ an engine produces is lost as heat.

Getting stuck without a train and tram system as we hit the final oil crisis simply because trams accelerate and decelerate a lot is not a valid argument. Yes, it is. You should investigate alternatives which are more efficient, more effective and cheaper than trams. If you spend $500 million putting in a tram system which only 5% of the local population can use effectively, that's $500 million which can't then be spent putting in a system which is twice as energy efficient and 30% of the population can use effectively.

e.g.
http://www.atsltd.co.uk/prt/spec/

Trams are the square peg in a round hole.

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[Eclipse-now]

You might be right -- I might have a mistake here. I've double checked my figures, and it's not just the rolling resistance of the wheels. Rail is actually 8 times more energy efficient overall.

Railroads are 8 times more energy-efficient than heavy trucks. The US used 19.8 million barrels/day in 2002 with two-thirds for transportation. (Today, roughly 20.7 million barrels/day.) Railroads carried 27.8% of the ton-miles with 220,000 b/day whilst trucks carried 32.1% of the ton-miles with 2,070,000 b/day (2002 data).

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm/

Your slow "Ultra" car system looks like the poor little cousin to Skytran! If you don't like trams and go for the individualized, personalized transport of Ultra... why not get the same, but at 100mph?

SkyTran is non-stop, 100 mph personal transit that can totally eliminate commuter congestion in any city, for the same costs of one linear line of light rail.

http://www.skytran.net/

I think the one area where I do agree with you is that transport must be electrified, but that "ultra" system seems anything but ultra. If we're going high tech individual pods, why not do Skytran? The intra-city stuff is lightning fast, the intercity stuff is even faster and can even do interstate journeys of about 500 miles quicker than airlines!

Intercity SkyTran 150 mph, non-stop travel between major cities will beat Commercial Jet travel times for distances of 600 miles or less. (Over 50% of all jet travel in the USA is for distances of less than 500 miles. Over $25 billion currently planned for USA airport expansions can be saved).

http://www.skytran.net/03Economics/s11.htm

Whatever we do, we've got to do it now. $200 a barrel anyone?

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[Colin Smith]

City busses aren't exactly light either. 10-15 tonnes per vehicle. I'm not saying trolley buses are a good solution either, being group transport vehicles. They're simply better than trams; they don't require $20-$40 million per mile infrastructure installed, they just need the overhead cables.

At lower speeds (under 25 mph/40km/h) rolling resistance has more of a pronounced effect. And that's where trams spend most of their lives. The effect is the same, the proportion of the overall resistance is higher simply because air resistance is lower. It's still a small percentage compared to going from internal combustion to electric.

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[Peeteriz]

"stop/start that same train every 2 miles and it's a completely different story."

But hey, that's the exact thing that this article is about! If this battery solution eliminates most (70%) of this overhead, then maybe it's not a completely different story anymore?

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[leenoble_uk]

You just gave me an idea.
How about instead of making the tram brake every time it reaches the station, the station is itself a rolling road (rail) which runs at a constant speed just below that of the tram, enabling peeople to comfortably get on and off at slower than walking speed, but the tram never stops and is always travelling at a constant speed. When the tram reaces the end of the station it finds itself travelling back at full speed.

Hey I'm just an ideas man, you work out the technology and safety implications and fix them yourself.

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[Viol8]

>http://www.atsltd.co.uk/prt/spec/

Oh please. How many times has this Jetsons style rubbish be proposed by people with their head in the clouds? This sort of system is incredibly inefficient not only in power (you don't have economies of scale in the drivetrain or the weight of the vehicle compared to passengers carried) but in the control system and , if they're to be truly flexible , the amount of real estate it would take up. You've bascially got cars on rails except without the flexibility of a car.

The whole point of railed vehicles is MASS transit to specific destinations. Trams do this better than buses and a damn site better than that 1960s The Future Is Now type of nonsense you linked to above.

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[Colin Smith]

Up to 7200 passengers/hour per lane, the equivalent of a 3 lane highway. Uses 50% less energy per passenger km than "light" rail, 66% less than a car. Cost per vehicle is £22k and each can replace up to 40 road vehicles. Real estate required is no more than the width of a footpath per lane.

Currently being implemented by BAA at Heathrow Airport... The busiest international airport in the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/20/npods20.xml

HTH.

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[Rei]

For it to be extended to personal use, a few major hurdles essentially have to be met:

1) Door-to-door service potential.
2) Individuality.

Without it going door-to-door, people won't give up the convenience of their cars in any significant numbers. Without being able to have their car which they can leave their stuff in, whose design suits their preferences and needs, and hasn't been trashed by someone else, they won't give up their use of a personal car.

If you don't want such a transition to move at a snail's pace, you additionally need to meet:

3) Backwards compatability
4) Optional offroad capability

Instead of a huge leap straight into (expensive) overhead rails, with the massive amount of replacement infrastructure that would need to be built, a more gradual (but planned) transition process would be more appropriate. Moving from cars to hybrids to plug-in hybrids is in the right direction; the closer we get to all-electric, the better. The next step is installing some kind of inductive or RF charging at intervals along the road, gradually phasing out the need to store energy on the vehicle (greatly lightening it and reducing its purchase price). Charging stations natural pair well with automated navigation (since each power station can have data lines laid down with its power lines and keep contact with the vehicle, as well as provide a very accurate fixed geometric point of reference), so if a navigation control system can be part of the charging system, all the better. Lanes that non-automatic-controlled vehicles would be banned from but would have higher speed limits would be next (vehicles would autoconvoy, saving a lot of energy in the process, as well as be assigned optimal routes, reducing traffic). Eventually non-automated vehicles would be phased out except on "offroad" stretches, where batteries would still be needed. Offroad stretches and optional battery power for offroad vehicles should be seen as essential for those who love to drive and wouldn't give up that freedom for anything, as well as for those who live out in "the boonies". Meanwhile, the rest of us get cheap vehicles, cheap per-mile costs, virtually no accidents, no traffic tickets, greatly increased speed, greatly reduced traffic OR greatly reduced roadcover (with infill or green space replacement), automated delivery (and corresponding economic benefits, as well as the economic benefits from cheaper per-mile costs and speed), huge benefits to the environment, and so forth. Rail to reduce rolling losses and keep vehicles on track in adverse conditions, thus improving safety and mileage even further, could come next, perhaps from wheels designed to mount either a road or rails, with rail lanes being built as new lanes on highways and gradually replacing the highways themselves. Another option would be one of the low-cost-per-mile maglev concepts like Inductrac, forming high speed "bulletways" between major cities that autoconvoyed vehicles travel (all that would need to be installed on the vehicle would be a halbach array or two, plus a firmware guidance system update). Elevated rails would also be possible to free up more groundspace in dense urban areas, with the control system for each stretch of rail knowing that particular segment's weight capacity and condition, and routing vehicles based on that).

Or, we can stick with our current lousy system forever :) I like to think that we can move forward as a society to a better transportation system incrementally.

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[kurzweilfreak]

Easy solution: just make the trams run downhill... both ways!

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[Colin Smith]

Without being able to have their car which they can leave their stuff in, whose design suits their preferences and needs, and hasn't been trashed by someone else, they won't give up their use of a personal car. Sure they will.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[Rei]

Just ignoring that without oil you certainly wouldn't be laying down huge amounts of track, the idea of a "peak oil crash" is economics-ignorant nonsense.

1) Most fundamentally, oil is physically unlimited so long as you have energy. I'm dead serious. Look up "Fisher-Tropsh" and "Sabatier" synthesis (one uses CO2, the other, CO). Depending on the catalysts and conditions you choose, you can pick the types of hydrocarbons you want. So, what you really need to be forecasting is "peak energy" (including electricity and just plain heat). Think that we're going to hit "peak energy"?

Why don't we use those methods now? They're more expensive than just digging oil up from the ground. We could easily have an economy based on, say, solar thermal and windpower with today's tech and still produce oil. It'd just be expensive oil. And there are must cheaper options, because...

2) Resources don't work like a canteen. Oil isn't like some jug of water that you keep drinking out of and then, poof, suddenly it's all gone. No resources are like that. Rather, there is the concept of "economically recoverable reserves", where "economically recoverable" is defined by what people are willing to pay, and how much it costs you to produce (the former going up with oil prices, the latter going down on their own as time goes on and tech advances, especially when prices are high). Double world oil prices and you ~5x or so its reserves. Double them again, and you do the same again.

Even if this wasn't the case...

3) There are tons of ways to produce oil apart from either directly pumping sweet crude out of the ground or outright using electricity or heat to produce it at high cost. For example, we've been sipping on the tap of syncrude by an increasing amount in the past decade. It's already up to 20% of Venezuela's exports from almost nothing a decade ago. This is made from the ultra-heavy Orinoco Belt bitumen deposits. When you include the (previously untappable, due to low oil prices and insufficient tech) reserves in Venezuela's total, it easily surpasses Saudi Arabia in terms of reserves. Yet Canada beats Venezuela with its Albertan deposits, for which there has been a veritable "black gold" rush since it, too, has become highly profitable. Coal liquefaction is also profitable presently, and we have hundreds of years of coal in the US alone (and coal exploration has been little pursued in the past century since we already know of so much of it). Thermal depolymerization of waste is almost profitable. Oil shale (which would make US reserves dwarf canada's reserves, which beat Venezuela's, which beat Saudi Arabia's -- getting a sense of how much is out there yet?) is getting there. Then there's methane hydrates/clathrates, and tons of biofuels, each made from a number of potential feedstocks that are being researched, many of which grow on marginal, unfarmable land, or use agricultural waste.

The concept of an "oil crash" is just plain stupid.

Now, what you *can* get (and will get) are year-to-year shocks. When the market is tight due to wars or other regional disruption (like we have right now with much of Iraq's oil offline and Nigerian unrest), prices can spike. With fear of war with Iran, that's going to push prices even higher. New fields and alternative source plants take several years to as much as a decade to start getting products to the market; it simply can't respond with new supply as fast as instability can take supply offline. But it can always respond with new supply. And, at the same time, as prices rise, economic growth slows, which reduces demand, which eases pressures on production.

Also, what you won't see again is $20/barrel oil. Those days are past; the practically-free-to-produce stuff is mostly out of the ground, except for the Arctic stuff that is being revealed thanks to global warming. $50-$60/barrel is a more realistic baseline for now. Most oil companies are still budgeting significantly lower than that, since you always want to be p

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[fractoid]

OH SHIIIIIIIT! IT'S DOCTOR SKYTRAN!!!!

That looks far too cool to ever be implemented. I bet it's not even a real doctor.

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[fractoid]

Without it going door-to-door, people won't give up the convenience of their cars in any significant numbers. Without being able to have their car which they can leave their stuff in, whose design suits their preferences and needs, and hasn't been trashed by someone else, they won't give up their use of a personal car. Don't get me wrong, here in Australia we HATE public transport and as such, try to avoid implementing it wherever possible, but still... Door to door isn't a necessity. Street corner to street corner is fine. Think of these systems as trying to replace a taxi service rather than replacing your personal car; It's not for 100% of journeys, just for regular commuting. Obviously if you're a tradie with a truckful of tools, you won't use it, but if you're just a regular Joe trying to get to his job in the city, it's perfect.

I can see how a gradual transition such as you describe would work, but it still seems to me that a lot of the intermediate stages are awkward and clunky compared to the start and end products. I can see these personal automated pod transport thingies growing up mainly in the very centers of large cities, then slowly being extended until they cover most of the extended city. You would still have a car if you lived 'in the boonies' but instead of driving in to the city or in to a train station, you'd drive to a pod rank and take the next pod.

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[fractoid]

This will not happen until the future. Nowadays trams run on flat ground, but when I were a lad they were uphill both ways, so...

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[Viol8]

"Up to 7200 passengers/hour per lane, the equivalent of a 3 lane highway"

Ok , lets do some maths here. Lets say the cars will be half full on average, so thats 2 people per car , so thats 3600 cars per hour per lane so that'd be one car per second. Hmm , whats wrong with this picture? Post some real statistics instead of some manufacturers wishful thinking marketing hype.

"Uses 50% less energy per passenger km than "light" rail, 66% less than a car"

Post some studies proving that , because frankly that sounds like rubbish.

Re:Trams are the wrong solution

[Rei]

If you don't replace 100% of journeys, people are going to stick with their cars. Otherwise, people have to choose between A) an extra vehicle purchase (very expensive), or B) shared, non-personal vehicles, which the general public has shown time and time again that they won't accept in sizable enough numbers to relevantly replace cars. And while a walk to the end of the block may be fine for some people, others are unable to, while many more still are simply unwilling to have to waste an extra ten minutes round trip every time they want to go somewhere. You rule out the majority of the general population, which means maintaining two incompatable, paralell sets of infrastructure. Which simply won't happen.

Yes, gradual transitions are generally clunky. But they're how we transition from one thing to another when there's many trillions of dollars of infrastructure already in place.

Best reply of the bunch

[IvyKing]

You're reply is pretty much spot on - having a battery will reduce the amount of wires needed. You're also correct in pointing out this would be even better for a bus - note that some work was being done in the 1960's on flywheel powered buses with recharging stations at the bus stops.

Has to be said [Humour]

[wikinerd]

• LiIon batteries exploding... Check
• LiIon has known safety limitations, especially when manufactured by slave labour in communist China PRC... Check
• Tram using LiIon... Check
• ???
• Profit!

Re:Has to be said [Humour]

[deftcoder]

1. Use unordered list where you should use an ordered list
2. ???
3. Profit!

Charge a lithium battery in one minute?

[ScrewMaster]

Huh ... I didn't realize that Japan was getting back into explosives research.

Re:Charge a lithium battery in one minute?

[r_jensen11]

Seriously, you didn't know?

is that all?

[Random User Name]

Oh and it flies and cures cancer too

hopefully this time they will stay around

[DMoylan]

The original Drumm train was constructed in the Great Southern Railways workshops at Inchicore. The weight of the train with passengers was about 85 tons. There was seating accommodation for 140 passengers. The train could accelerate from standstill at about 1 m.p.h. per second and attain speeds of 40 to 50 m.p.h. with ease. The train was fitted with a successful system of regenerative braking, whereby an important fraction of the energy surge made available on a down-gradient or on de-accelerating at a station was returned to the battery. The Drumm Battery train operated successfully on the Dublin to Bray section of the line with occasional runs to Greystones some five miles farther on, from 1932 to 1948. As passsenger numbers increased two pairs of power units were joined under the control of one driver and later a specially wired coach was put between the two trains bringing its capacity up to 400 passengers. By 1939, four Drumm trains had been built but it became impossible to secure orders and raw material once the World War 11, 1939-1945, broke out. The Drumm Battery Company folded in 1940. The outbreak of the war made the Drumm trains invaluable as coal for steam engines was in short supply and inferior. With the war over, it was decided in 1949 to scrap the Drumm trains at a time when the promise of diesel locomotives pointed to the end of the steam era. The Drumm trains, minus their batteries were sometimes used as ordinary coaches. http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/drumm.html

Re:hopefully this time they will stay around

[dotwaffle]

World War Eleven you say? I know the Irish stayed Neutral officially for WW2, but WW11? Yeesh.

Re:hopefully this time they will stay around

[The MAZZTer]

Why am I always the last to find out about these things? First it's a club meeting here I somehow did not know about but everyone else did, then something else there, and finally now I hear that 9 World Wars happened when I wasn't looking. I know I occasionally miss things, but this is just too much!

And more importantly, who won them?

Not really...

[denzacar]

Read that "capable of converting 70 percent of its deceleration energy into electricity, which it sends back to the battery." part again.

Every time it stops - it recharges a bit. On its inertia alone.
Also, being battery powered, you could set up recharge stations that get electricity from solar or other renewable sources.

And... you can remove all those cables and save/recycle quite a bit of copper.

Not a problem that doesn't exist. Maybe couple of problems we weren't aware of.

Obligatory...

[graviplana]

Batteruby on Rails? Charge up and you're Gone in 60 Seconds? Now that's a Streetcar Name I Desire!

You're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Subways, streetcars, trains, etc.. that run from a DC bus already use regenerative braking to pump energy back into the line for other trains / "things" to use. The cars in NYC, for example, can regen up to 500 amps PER CAR at 600v. That's a LOT of power for a few seconds. It makes things much more efficient.

-
MK

I hope they aren't using Sony batteries.

[andreyvul]

If a laptop explodes, you lose your data and/or get a first/second-degree burn on your hands/legs/chest. If a tram explodes due to a faulty battery, there will be plenty of death and Tokyo will be screwed.

Re:I hope they aren't using Sony batteries.

[BlueParrot]

You know, for a country which is located on geology that has been nicknamed "the circle of fire", exposed to pacific storms, and has nuclear reactors in the vicinity of major geological fault-lines , I really don't think that a little bit of lithium is going to pose challanges beyond the skill of their engineers. If they can build bridges, skyscrapers and power plants, that barely gets scratched from a 6 on the Richter scale, then securing a rechargeable tram-battery sounds relatively simple.

Re:I hope they aren't using Sony batteries.

[Brothernone]

Yeah, as long as they don't use them to power Godzilla, i don't see much damage from these batteries.

Awesome Lithium Tech

[Bryan Ischo]

If its battery is anything like lithium ion batteries used in laptops, then after a year it'll only go 5 km on a charge instead of 15. Also it will do weird things like indicate that it has enough charge to go another 5 km but just suddenly use up its last 20% in under a minute.

I am not a big fan of lithium ion tech. It seems very gimmicky to me; allowing manufacturers to claim that their laptop batteries last N hours when in fact that will only be true for less than 6 months, as the charge capacity of lithium ion batteries always rapidly deteriorate.

My Panasonic Y2 battery started at 6+ hours per charge, and is now, after not even three years, down to about 2.5 hours per charge.

So if the streetcar in question uses similar tech, then I would expect its range to diminish rapidly with recharges. Since it will be recharged much more frequently than any laptop would, can we even expect its battery to last a whole year before becoming basically worthless?

Re:Awesome Lithium Tech

[Techman83]

I find charge cycling very helpful in these circumstances. And discharging dead flat like Ni-Cad's either. I find the Li-Ion Batteries I've had to last quite a long time. Just so long as I've kept a good charging routine. Memoryless my ass, like most things, treat them right and they'll last you ages. (the occasional dud still happens).

Re:Remember the good old times...

[Anonymous Coward]

Off-topic? He's just pointing out that times change, and trams do not _need_ wires or rails any more...

2 Questions

[Opportunist]

First, well, I'm no expert in fast charging, but when I fast charge batteries, they tend to get quite warm. Isn't a lot of energy wasted in heat when you press the juice in?

And second, in what way is that superior to an overhead power line to draw the power from? I mean, train lines are kinda set in stone (or rail, rather), so it's not like cars that need to be able to drive where they want to.

Always was this way. Batteries not included.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Power delivery is not a problem at all. Look at the cable cars in San Fransisco, any modern subway... really most modern rail systems. However, if they can turn 70% of their breaking power in to electrical energy, accelerating the train back up to speed or, apparently, 15Km of crusing can be done absolutely for free.

And it already works that way. And it has been working this way since brush-powered electric trains and buses were first built.

If you've got a speed-controllable electric motor hooked to an electric grid, you can do regenerative braking by setting the motor's desired speed to something lower than its current speed. The motor then DEcelerates the vehicle, acting as a generator and putting the vehicle's energy (less resistive, eddy-current, hysteresis, and excitation losses) back into the power supply.

If there are rotary converters (or suitably designed electronic converters) in the system (for instance: To turn line AC into DC or lower-frequency AC for the trains/buses), they do the same thing - pushing the energy back toward the main grid. If not, the energy is still usable by other vehicles on the system that happen to be consuming power, dropping the amount that needs to be pulled from the primary supply.

This is very convenient: In addition to the energy savings, the vehicle's mechanical brakes get much less use, and much less wear. They can be reserved for the last moments of a full stop, holding the vehicle motionless when stopped, and for emergencies. This drastically reduces the necessary maintenance.

What the super-fast-charge battery does is let you do the same thing - MAJOR regenerative braking - for a vehicle that's NOT continuously attached to a power grid. The current hybrids do some of this using more ordinary battery technology. But there are limits due to the batteries' slow charging, large losses, and weight. The fast charge means even a panic stop can be salvaged and a much lower weight of batteries is necessary for a given RATE of energy transfer.

Also: The fast charge implies that the batteries lose very little energy when storing it (otherwise they'd melt down or catch fire). This implies low internal resistance, which also means fast and efficient DIScharge when you want the energy back. So we finally have batteries that can perform as well as (or better than) a (still mostly impractical) flywheel/motor-generator system for "peaking" storage. (TFA's stated losses of about 30% per stop/start cycle look about right for a system where the losses are virtually all in the motor and controller. That would be about 84% efficiency on both start and stop cycles, which is right in the ballpark for a good motor.)

Size the batteries large enough to store the power of a vehicle coming down off about 8,500 feet of mountain freeway and making a full stop near sea level and you achieve the full potential of regenerative breaking: The engine then needs only to be big enough to fight friction - like under 20 horse - and can run at maximum efficiency when it runs at all. Size them maybe a tad larger to also run a couple long and hilly commute-and-shopping cycles on a line-powered charge without starting the engine - reserving the engine for long trips - and you also achieve a fully-functional "plug-in hybrid", a single vehicle adequate to completely replace a normal, non-hybrid, car in ALL service cycles and run off utility electricity (currently the equivalent of about $0.75/gallon gas) in all but cross-country trips.

The usual statement about such breakthroughs - that deployment is always 10 years away - seems to have been hurdled. This technology was at that stage a year or two back. But THIS announcement, of deployment in a vehicle (even though experimental) implies it's not just sitting in the lab, but getting some real-world production and testing. Once that's a production vehicle (if not sooner) the batteries will also be available to automobile designers...

Re:Always was this way. Batteries not included.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

So we finally have batteries that can perform as well as (or better than) a (still mostly impractical) flywheel/motor-generator system for "peaking" storage. (TFA's stated losses of about 30% per stop/start cycle look about right for a system where the losses are virtually all in the motor and controller. That would be about 84% efficiency on both start and stop cycles, which is right in the ballpark for a good motor.)

Make that definitely "better than" flywheel peaking.

A flywheel peaking system runs the power through four mechanical/electrical conversions. A battery peaking system runs it through two mechanical/electrical and two electrical/chemical. If the battery's charge/discharge efficiency is better than the motor/generator's conversion efficiency at the power levels required, batteries win on efficiency. And it looks like this one beats the PANTS off a motor/generator.

I wonder...

[skelly33]

... what kind of fireball a giant lithium battery would create (?) Of course this is a minor detail as the power cell could be based on any storage technology conceivably.

I have a feeling that increasing speed is the biggest issue facing this technology because, if I'm not mistaken, most ground vehicles expend most of their energy defeating wind resistance. Thus if most energy were spent defeating wind, it would be impossible to reclaim most of that energy during deceleration. IANA fluid dynamics expert, but my guess would be that they avoid this problem specifically by keeping the velocity low, thereby reducing the energy required.

Sony Batteries!!?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you'll be able to see the Trams coming at night more easily, just look for the flames in the distance....

One minute? Perfect!

[PPH]

That's about how long the driver takes to argue with some hobo about dodging the fare. They could recharge at almost every stop!

Re:One minute? Perfect!

[rubycodez]

that's not common in japan's train system, events with periodicity of one minute would be groping of female passengers by perverts (aka japanese businessmen)

Interesting application

[PPH]

Besides regenerative braking, the battery technology could be used in areas where it is expensive, or unsightly to install an overhead conductor. The trolley can charge off the distribution system and then continue along routes where no overhead is required.

Visit Seattle and ride the SLUT!

Re:Interesting application

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an interesting thought, but there's a nontrivial problem in having the trolley find the conductor again. Most streetcars I've seen have a springy-thing that pushes up against the wire; you'd need to guide the contact back up against the wire again. For point-contact overhead devices, this would probably be rather tricky, especially since the contact would probably be free to swing around wildly while not being guided. I guess if you have a wide contact, though, I suppose you could probably just build in some retractor mechanism... eh, I dunno, it just strikes me as another darned thing to go wrong and make my trolley late. They have enough problems with that on the buses.

Re:Interesting application

[smeette]

They're installing a tramway near my home (work starts next year), and they're doing something similar in the city centre. The overhead lines are replaced by a power line that runs through the ground for a couple of kilometres. But installing this costs much more than the standard overhead lines, so it's only used in the areas where visual pollution would cause a problem. The battery system would have been a interesting alternative, with charging stations at each stop. I have a vague memory that that looked at a battery system, I'm not sure why they rejected it (cost? weight?).

Re:Interesting application

[PPH]

We have dual powered (diesel/electric) buses in Seattle. When they switch over and connect the lines, the process is manual. The driver gets out at a designated point and unhooks two ropes at the back of the bus. Aligning the contacts is 'automated' in that there are some guides at that location to ensure proper positioning. I'm sure they could automate the process completely with a retraction mechanism. It seems to be a pretty simple engineering problem.

Parallel vs Serial Charging

[Doc Ruby]

I don't understand why it takes so long to charge batteries. Why can't the charger charge little chunks of the battery independently, in parallel, then discharge the bank of batteries serially? Why not break down the bank into the maximum number of little chargeable batteries, for the fastest charging time? There might be some inefficiencies in the discharge through several separate batteries, but the slow recharge is the main obstacle to forgetting these batteries are even part of the problem.

Re:Parallel vs Serial Charging

[rcw-home]

I don't understand why it takes so long to charge batteries. Why can't the charger charge little chunks of the battery independently, in parallel, then discharge the bank of batteries serially? Why not break down the bank into the maximum number of little chargeable batteries, for the fastest charging time? There might be some inefficiencies in the discharge through several separate batteries, but the slow recharge is the main obstacle to forgetting these batteries are even part of the problem.

The big reasons it takes so long to charge batteries are heat and the surface area of the anode and cathode of each cell. It does not matter whether you, for example, pump 3A @ 4.2V into three li-ion cells in parallel or pump 1A @ 12.6V into three li-ion cells in series - each cell will see 4.2V @ 1A regardless (there will be slight differences because the cells are not identical, and will have different internal resistances at different charge states - charging/discharging cells in parallel actually exacerbates these differences, and that's one reason it's so rarely done.)

One of the really cool things about NiCd cells is that their charge cycle is endothermic - at standard charge rates, they actually cool down slightly as you charge them. At rapid charge rates, they heat up a lot less than NiMH or li-ion (assuming your charger shuts off when the battery is done).

The charge rates for cells are expressed as a multiple or fraction of C. Charging at C means your cell is charged in 1 hour. C/10 means 10 hours. 2C means 30 minutes. 60C means the one minute described in the article.

There's a little bit of a tradeoff between power density (how quickly you can get energy out of a cell) and energy density (how much energy you can get out of a cell). You want to make the surface area of the anode and cathode as large as possible for the former, and you want to make the mass of the anode and cathode as large as possible for the latter. This is also what differentiates lead-acid car batteries from lead-acid deep-cycle batteries. The lead plates in the car battery have lots and lots of holes to increase the surface area, and the plates in a deep-cycle battery are thick and solid to increase the mass.

Re:Parallel vs Serial Charging

[Doc Ruby]

But the idea is that you don't just put 3A @4.2v into 2 cells in parallel instead of 1A @12.6V into 3 cells in series. The point is that you put 9A @ 4.2V into 3 in parallel, 3A @ 4.2V each.

Then discharge them in series to sum their output voltage.

Why not use the same power that currently charges a single large battery 3x as long instead to charge a battery 3x as small? That would be faster than charging the big battery with it, right? And do that to 3 different small batteries at the same time, which are then switched into series for discharging at their combined voltage. Charging is usually not limited in the amount of power available to direct into the batteries - the amount of power delivered is usually a fraction of that available. Why not use more power, in parallel, to charge the smaller units faster?

Re:Parallel vs Serial Charging

[aXis100]

You miss the point. The limitation is not the available source power - it's how much current (and thus heat) each cell can handle based on it's design.

Breaking a cell down into smaller chunks decreases the electrode surface area, reducing the current handling capability. Even though this might get partially offset by the increased cooling surface area, I'd think there would be litle nett benefit.

Re:Parallel vs Serial Charging

[Doc Ruby]

Well, if the limit is the electrode surface area, then why not make electrodes in elaborate thin lattices, like metal snowflakes, or concentric cylinders drilled with lasers, coated with the rechargable cell chemicals?

Re:Parallel vs Serial Charging

[BlueParrot]

Well, if the limit is the electrode surface area, then why not make electrodes in elaborate thin lattices, like metal snowflakes, or concentric cylinders drilled with lasers, coated with the rechargable cell chemicals?

You also have to worry about the resistance in the electrolyte, and the contact between the electrodes and the chemicals. While I'm sure they do optimise the surface area, I'm not sure it is as simple as "larger = better". I imagine you have to start taking into consideration how rapidly various compounds diffuse through the different materials, how heat conductivity is affected, how this would affect the possible working conditions for the battery, will it have consequences for its lifetime etc... Very often the simple schematic description of how something works is not quite the whole story.

Magnetic track brakes

[IvyKing]

Magnetic track brakes use regenerated current to energize a magnet that applies the brake clasps to the wheels. There is a bit of extra braking effort due to force of attraction between the magnet and the rail below it. The technology probably dates back to before 1910.

Reminds me of the best recent Onion article

[ElDuque]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/earthquake_sets_japan_back_to_2147

Nanosafe

[kaizokuace]

I noticed the development from altairnano on what they call Nano Safe batteries. http://www.altairnano.com/documents/NanoSafeBackgrounder060920.pdf
Seems promising, they use nano-titanate materials (so says the spec sheet). This streetcar might be using this tech or a a similar type of tech. I want those batteries!

No Cables

[cybergen007]

This is very handy because you wont need to fill up your city with overhead wiring. This will allow other verhicles that dont fit under the wiring to now access the city, for example double decker buses.

A lot of questions about the why

[SmallFurryCreature]

Almost all trains are electrical nowadays, where they get their power from is the big question. Diesels get it from carrying a diesel generator with them. Handy because you can be totally disconnected from the net, disadvantage, extra weight (not that much of a problem in cargo trains where the locomotive needs all the weight it can get) and you are limited by the amount of fuel you can carry. Plus you smell bad.

The brits get their power from a third rail. Very hard wearing BUT you got a live wire exposed where everyone can touch it. Bad for level crossings, meaning the train needs facilities to be able to cross a spot without third rail.

Most other trains including light rail system like in the article and trolly busses, use an overhead wire (busses need two since they can't use the rails as the second wire). The problem with this is that it is fairly expensive, can easily break and gets in the way at level crossings where it puts a height restriction on traffic using the crossing.

There are ways around this, for instance at a bridge in holland by zaandam the overhead wire just has a missing part. Since trains typically only got one pentograph the train better be at speed or it will find itself without power (it is only a few meters and trains are notknown for their short stopping distances so this happening is highly unlikely).

This tram would allow itself to run off the overhead wires where they can be installed, but continue normal operation where they can't. This would make planning a lot easier because you can then keep roads open for special transports and still have tram system. This is extremely handy as lifting the wires everytime something big needs to pass is a hassle.

Finally why trams and not busses.

Several reasons, the simplest is driving license. Buss requires a bigger more expensive license then a tram/metro. This is important because while their not all that many jobs for a tram/metro driver, trucking has plenty of competition.

Trains offer a lot more space, because they can be build differently. A buss of the same weight as a tram simply can carry fewer people. While I have seen segmented busses with three segments now, that can carry a lot of people, they are still of lesser capacity then trams and have lost a lot of the freedom of movement of small busses.

Basically trams can move more people then busses can, on less real estate. The prime example might be in holland, between Leidseplein and Koningsplein, where trams run in both directions but the tracks "merge" in the street and split again on the bridges. If you know the area, imagine implementing the same amount of transportation with busses. YIKES!

Busses have their use, on infrequent routes, or routes that are too complex for a tramline. But when you have to move lots of people at street level, trams make a lot of sense.

Re:A lot of questions about the why

[Happosai]

[quote]The brits get their power from a third rail. Very hard wearing BUT you got a live wire exposed where everyone can touch it. Bad for level crossings, meaning the train needs facilities to be able to cross a spot without third rail.[/quote]

The only rail systems over here that have power supplied from a third rail are 'underground' ones, where nothing but the trains come in contact with the rails (OK, so the London underground does go outside in some places, but the rails are elevated and certainly do not have level crossings).

'Overground' (like the Metro here in Manchester) and national rail systems use overhead cables.

[Happosai]

Re:A lot of questions about the why

[defnoz]

Actually, a lot of overground routes have third rail electrification - all of the ex-Southern region, i.e. suburban rail south of London and even as far as most of the south coast IIRC (there's a map of rail routes in the UK here, pink=3rd rail, blue=overhead). The presence of a live rail is not such a problem as the GP suggested, since trains will have several pickups, so can easily traverse 10m or more with no 3rd rail, but the low voltage used requires frequent substations and doesn't supply enough power for long distance/high speed routes.
</nitpick>

I would imagine this technology would see more use in buses - after all, surely the cost of power lines is small compared to putting in the tracks for the trams?

Re:A lot of questions about the why

[Anonymous Coward]

The third rail does not have to be live along its entire length. It only needs to be live where the tram/train is. At this point, the vehicle can provide all the necessary protection. Hence the idea of segmenting the third rail in short pieces (one or two meters) and turning on only those that are entirely in contact with the train. This idea was implemented in Bordeaux' tram (France) and probably elsewhere too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_level_power_supply

Lithium != Lithium (at least in batteries)

[egghat]

There are various different technologies:

a) Lithium-ion-battery
b) Lithium-ion polymer battery
c) Lithium nanophosphate batteries from A123 systems
d) Lithium titanite batteries from Altair Nano

All have their own pros and cons.

a) is cheap and available
b) has the highest energy density
c) can't explode and can discharge fast
d) can be charged very fast (1 min)

And now you can add technology e) to this list.

So all those lame comments about exploding batteries are well lame. I've even heard about most of those technologies here on Slashdot. Slashdot readers should know better ...

Bye egghat

Battery/Capacitor?

[flyingfsck]

That device charges so fast, that I'm not sure that it is a chemical battery. I suspect that it is a super capacitor, which stores energy as an electrical charge.

alternative to batteries?

[loic_2003]

I seem to remember reading about a system that used a large roating weight to conserve kinetic energy whilst a train slows and starts. Basically, a gearbox would use the kinetic energy of the train to rotate the weight. In order to continue accellerating the weight as the train slows, it might need a fancy centrifugal clutch that would work in the opposite manner to a scooter.
Whilst the train is waiting in the station, the weight continues to spin, then a clutch engages and the momentum of the spinning weight is used to get the train moving again.
It'd be interesting to see how such a system compares to a battery system, in terms of efficiency, longevity, maintenance costs, added weight, etc.

Normal subway car currents

[KenSeymour]

A normal subway system might have DC power delivered at the third rail at either
600 Volts or 750 Volts. It can provide several thousand amps (6000 Amp IIRC).
So using the lower voltage figure, thats 3600 KW.

I think third rails are about 5 inches by 5 inches.

You should see what a CRT monitor looks like 50 feet away from third rails
when a train approaches.

Overhead lines

[mengel]

Overhead lines are by definition signifigantly longer than the distance from the motor to the batteries within the vehicle, so you have transmission loss. So if you do regenerative braking and dump the power into overhead lines, you lose a couple of percent dumping the power in, and a couple more percent taking it back out, just from transmission line loss.

On the other hand, current battery technology is fairly heavy, so you're losing some of the value by accelerating and decelerating the batteries themselves.

So I'm not sure where the trade-off point lies. In any case, running overhead lines all over the place is expensive, not to mention losing power due to rain, etc. So it's more flexible to have the power in the tram/bus...

Re:Do those batteries have a maximum charging rate

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but imagine how hot they would get (exploding batteries anyone?)....

Lithium Nano Phosphate

[leighklotz]

I've searched in the article for info about the battery technology and can't find it, but from the quick charge time, I am guessing that these might be Lithium Nanophosphate batteries from A123 systems.
They charge and discharge quickly and don't have nearly the safety problems of Lithium ion or Lithium polymer batteries.

Here's a video of the nail test A123 vs a standard LiIon cell, like the ones used in laptops.

The A123 cells have other advantages, such as a lower fully-charged voltage, that are helpful to systems that have specific voltage requirements, such as those designed for 12v-14.4v automotive-type systems. The fully charged voltage of LiPo and LiIon are too high (~16v).

Regeneration in San Francisco

[wsanders]

San Francisco has cable cars and BART, the heavy rail / subway.

Cable cars actually return power to the system - call cars remain attached to the cable going uphill or downhill, so the downhill cars help "pull" the other cars along.

Regnerative braking on BART, like other rail systems, returns power to the third rail. No expensive, fussy, heavy batteries required.

Light versus heavy defined

[wsanders]

In current US transportation terminology, "light rail" is usually given to mean a rail system that operates at grade, with at-grade street crossing that usually mix with street traffic, i.e. "tram". "Heavy" is the traditional rail with exclusive right or way, separated or protected grade crossing. It doesn't really have much to do with weight, but more like "light" vs "heavy" expenditures of money.

"Light" rail is still expensive, anywhere between $15 and $100 million per mile according to Wikipedia, although most systems are probably on the high side of that.

"Heavy" rail is insanely expensive. I think the estimates for BART extensions are running about $350 million per mile, with some more difficult segments closing on $1 billion per mile.

"Look at the cable cars in San Fransisco"

[More_Cowbell]

Not to disagree with your point at all... but I'm not convinced SF cable cars are an example that fit in with the rest.
They run on cables. The motors are not in the cars at all. The conductor increases speed by "grabbing" the cable (which is constantly running at a fixed speed under the ground) with varying degrees of force. If you generated power by the braking action - it would not be able to be used by anything.

Reduced cost of infrastructure

[DaChesserCat]

O.k. I'm seeing lots of comments on here about "trams don't need batteries because they're connected to electrical infrastructure" and "infrastructure for trams is too expensive." Y'all are missing the connection:

The reason infrastructure for trams is so expensive is BECAUSE they are constantly wired to an electrical supply system. If you don't have to electrify every last foot/meter of railway, the cost of the infrastructure drops, drastically. By making the trams run on battery, only the stations need to have electrical infrastructure. It leaves a station, runs on battery, gets most of its kinetic energy recovered through regen braking, and only has to "top off" the battery at the next station. And, with a 15 km range, it could actually hit several stations without electrical infrastucture, before it would need recharging.

Because of the lower speeds, and the reduced rolling resistance from metal wheels on metal rails, trams are much more efficient, in terms of energy expended/person/mile, than any other form of transport (bicycles and walking excepted). Making it better able to do the regen braking, and eliminating the need for most of electrical infrastructure will only make the cost of setup and operation more attractive.

Fewer excuses than ever

[HobophobE]

We're running out of excuses in the USA for not having ubiquitous public transportation in and between any moderately sized city.

The internet lets us move data at tremendous speed. To move physical things faster we need consolidated systems too.

Yet for some reason our rulers...err leaders don't seem to be campaigning on building a public transport infrastructure to compete with those found in Japan and Europe. They just promise to turn corn into fuel for cars. Damn them.