Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
Deleted
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.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
... 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.
It seems we now have the ideal battery (also called a "capacitor"), now let's concentrate on creating the superconducting cables and contacts.
I hope it doesn't asplode!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
gone in 60 second !
\u262D = \u5350
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.
Yes... Because a constantly powered tram car needs to go 300 miles on a "single charge" ;)
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 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.
Deleted
i think you missed the part where it says "street"-car. 130km/hr is a little too fast for city streets...
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.
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.
Huh ... I didn't realize that Japan was getting back into explosives research.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Oh and it flies and cures cancer too
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.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Batteruby on Rails? Charge up and you're Gone in 60 Seconds? Now that's a Streetcar Name I Desire!
"Time is nothing; timing is everything."
Why does light rail need batteries?
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.
proud caffeine whore
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?
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.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Add a second battery? That would double the range, and since you can charge them in parallel it should still only take 60 seconds.
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.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Peace sells, but who's buying?
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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...
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
... 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.
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.
Improving public transport will reduce pollution, congestion and accidents. Sadly, before we can improve public transport, we'll need to change attitudes like yours.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
That's about how long the driver takes to argue with some hobo about dodging the fare. They could recharge at almost every stop!
Have gnu, will travel.
Visit Seattle and ride the SLUT!
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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.
--
make install -not war
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/earthquake_sets_japan_back_to_2147
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.)
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.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
Hands in my pocket
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
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!
Balderdash!
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).
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.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
--
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.
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
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
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.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Because the added weight of the batteries and regenerative breaking system most likely make the train more inefficient then just braking normally
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.
http://www.frenchgeek.com/
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
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
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...
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
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?
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?
"But this one goes to 11!"
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.
DATABASE WOW WOW
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.
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
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).
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
...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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
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
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
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.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
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.
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
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.
... by the Dew of Mountains the thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning
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.
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
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
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"