Slashdot Mirror
Sweden Tests World's First Electric Road For Trucks (inhabitat.com)
Kristine Lofgren writes: Electric vehicles are cool, but for industrial vehicles it can be a challenge to get very far on just electric power. That's why Sweden is testing out an electric road where e-vehicles can jump on, get juiced while they travel, and get back on the road. The country just opened a two kilometer test stretch in Sandviken on the E16 where electric vehicles can connect to an overhead system that is very similar to light rail. It's another exciting step towards a fossil fuel-free Sweden. Trucks can use the electric power while riding on the special electric road system -- on regular roads they operate as hybrid vehicles. The testing is scheduled to take place until 2018, which should give the country enough time to see how the technology functions in the real world. Sweden's energy and sustainable growth agencies will fund the project in addition to the transport administration.
Congratulations. You have invented the train.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Yes we can
Doesn't matter very much, honestly. Even 100% coal powered electric vehicles are cleaner than gasoline or diesel, and electric vehicles will improve as the cost of wind, solar, etc continue to drop.
Of course not.
We're talking about trucks here, not boats.
We should go back to the way it was before the Oil Rush. Electric and Steam power, they had it right all this time.
Well, Norwegians carry sandpaper and a car door in the desert.
Actually, no they are not, you are forgetting about a few factors including:
transmission losses
infrastructure loads required to delivery that much power to a significant percentage of the roading system
infrastructure loads required to add enough generation capacity to power the additional power draw
I refer to infrastructure loads here specifically because too often people hide behind infrastructure 'costs', but the cost is not pixie dust, it is much much more than that, it is its own mountain of pollution, waste, environmental damage, financial hurt, and bureaucracy that any such transformational change requires - your gains have to exceed that before you even gain anything.
I also wonder why you think the cost of wind generation is dropping - it is not as if building large structures is magically getting cheaper, and generators have been a well known science running at close to maximum efficiency for a long, long time. Base costs of wind generation stabilized quite a lot time ago.
Direct solar electric is dropping due to both efficiency gains and manufacturing scaling, but it needs to, it is still quite high.
If you want any significant growth in electric transportation, the ONLY viable power source is nuclear - is that a pill you are willing to swallow?
I am , but I seem to be in a very clear minority on that.
Sorry to shoot down your rainbow unicorns, but the real world needs real solutions, not simplistic hand waving magic solutions.
Trucky McTruckface?
That or freaking solar aquatic truckways!
This would also work for cars and would make electric cars a lot more practical. If you genuinely want to slow atmospheric CO2 buildup electrified highways powered by modern nuclear power plants (fission or fusion when available) is the only practical solution until or unless entirely new science is discovered. Combined with hyperloop vacuum tunnels for some stretches with compatible vehicles and this could be what our ground transportation might look like in 2116. Although I'd like to think that vacuum tunnel trains would be the default mode of long distance transportation in a hundred years in the most advanced countries. A ground level hot rail could also be used. Basically think of some kind of hybrid between electric trains and cars. You could even have lanes that are entirely rail based for compatible vehicles where you enter and exit at special locations. Whether you use rails or overhead cables this is far superior to relying exclusively on batteries and charging stations. Once we get all our highways wired up the next step is to stop trying to push a thick ocean of air out of our way all the time. It's the 21s century already. Aerodynamics should not be a major factor by now. Dealing with friction is another matter. Hopefully maglev will be made practical eventually.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Unless wind/solar/etc work when it's cloudy or windy like in other parts of the world nearly all the time it'll never replace other sources like hydro-electric or nuclear. And unless the cost is pennies people won't like their electric rates going through the roof like what we've seen in other countries or here in Canada either. Ontario has had a big push for green energy and as of today at peak you're paying just a bit above $0.17kWh for electricity for your home and double that for industrial uses. It's around $0.07kWh at peak just across the border in Michigan and half that for industrial rates. When nuclear costs under $0.05kWh to sell, when hydro-electric is $0.025, when coal and NG are $0.01-0.068kWh those green sources have to come a long way still.
And that's because in Ontario they decided to pay $0.80kWh for various forms of green energy. On the upside, it hasn't gotten as bad as Germany when it hit $0.43kWh for home use. Cheap energy is one of the greatest equalizers of civilization and one of the best providers in increasing the standards of living across the globe. Drive the price up too high and you see what happened in the UK a few years ago with the elderly on pensions dying because they froze to death during the winter.
Om, nomnomnom...
Electric vehicles are more efficient compared to ottomotors or diesels.
Found the Swede! :)
Ezekiel 23:20
"Drive the price up too high and you see what happened in the UK a few years ago with the elderly on pensions dying because they froze to death during the winter."
You are aware that this has very little to do with production costs and very much to do with whatever the government of the day is wanting to push, right?
Unless wind/solar/etc work when it's cloudy or windy like in other parts of the world nearly all the time it'll never replace other sources like hydro-electric or nuclear. And unless the cost is pennies people won't like their electric rates going through the roof like what we've seen in other countries or here in Canada either.
Just a few notes: 1) It's possible to build a hybrid hydro/solar/wind system to effectively extract more energy from the same amount of water, without reducing flexible load properties of hydro. 2) Sweden is nuclear to a significant extent. 3) Even if electricity price increased, I'm quite sure the lesser fuel costs (even expensive electricity is apparently a cheaper source of motive power than oil-derived fuels in most countries!) and perhaps even improved health care costs would act against it when it comes to net benefits for the society.
Ezekiel 23:20
I also wonder why you think the cost of wind generation is dropping - it is not as if building large structures is magically getting cheaper, and generators have been a well known science running at close to maximum efficiency for a long, long time. Base costs of wind generation stabilized quite a lot time ago.
I find that hard to believe. There's still economy to be extracted at least from the higher average size of the turbine fleet (unit efficiency, economies of scale, plus wind stability), and from improvements in lifetime/lower operating costs. If by "efficiency" you mean thermodynamic efficiency, well, in economy, that's not the efficiency you care about.
Ezekiel 23:20
Well you can look at Ontario, none of what you said actually stacks up to reality. Nuclear generates nearly 75% of our electricity, 21% hydro and 4% NG. Green energy generates between 1-2%. But the cost of including those via FiT programs has caused the price of electricity to increase from 0.05kWh at peak to just over 0.17kWh. So when you look for those net benefits they evaporate, what's the health costs of running nuclear, hydro? NG there is a small cost, but next to zero same as those green energy sources but said other sources drive your prices through the roof.
It's fun to play the "even if the price increased" unless you live there, like I live in Ontario. But it's bad for business, it's bad for people, it hurts the economy and in turn decreases the number of jobs for people because it's simply too expensive to do business. So now that tax base is starting to pack up and leave, and where are you going to get money now?
Om, nomnomnom...
Actually, no they are not, you are forgetting about a few factors including: ....... the USA. I suggest to read up on transmission losses, DC versus AC and voltage versus amperes to get a clue how power transportation works.
transmission losses
Transmission losses are neglectible. Every advanced nation has an electric grid for its trains, except
If you want any significant growth in electric transportation, the ONLY viable power source is nuclear - is that a pill you are willing to swallow?
... so your argument is moot.
Wind and solar are cheaper
I also wonder why you think the cost of wind generation is dropping
Because it is?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If by "efficiency" you mean thermodynamic efficiency, ...
Wind turbines have no "thermodynamic efficiency" anyway as the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to them. They are not heat engines
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
98% of Sweden's energy comes from carbon free or carbon neutral sources. (Hydro, Nuclear, and BIO) Only 2% of electricity is generated using fossil fuels, and almost all oil plants have been either shut down or relegated to reserve use.
:)
http://www.worldenergy.org/dat...
The railway system is already electrified.
So the only thing using carbon sources nowadays is the transport sector on roads. (cars and trucks). Which is why we are electrifying them as well
Being tested in sw London. Buses have recharging zones under vehicle at stops and traffic lights. No need to plug anything in.
On a side note isn't an electric road basically a tram line?
A Teslar, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... with a range of 500km has a 85kWh battery.
85kWh would cost me 15 Euros. (20cents/kWh).
My Diesel car would use for 500km about 30l Diesel (it uses a bit more than 6l/100km), Diesel costs about 1,20 Euro per litter so that would be 36 Euros. Cars using gasoline would be about 25% more costly.
On the other hand, if you would have a second meter and charge mainly at night with discount rates, charging the car would cost about half of it, so roughly 7 Euros.
Bottom line:
The cheapest Diesels, using about 4,5l/100km, would cost 27,00 Euro per 500km.
The cheapest electricity, about 10cent/kWh would cost 7,50 - 8,50 Euro per 500km. (not even sure if that includes regenerative braking etc. or was a raw number based on battery size and engine consumption, I want to say: the power cost could be lower as perhaps you can reach a bigger range than 500km with a 85kWh charge.)
As oil prices are rising and electric power prices are dropping the advantage goes even more to the electric cars.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
In Germany, utilities are obliged by law to buy green energy from the producers. The price depends on the energy source and when the power plant went online.
That price is guaranteed for 20 years after the power plant goes online, but the compensation for new power plants is reduced every year and additional restraints are phased in, such as the utilities having the ability to throttle generation in times of high production.
The historical maximum was around 50 cents/kWh for photovoltaics installed up to 2001. For new plants installed today it is around 10 cents/kWh depending on the size of the plant. But the old plants still get their 50 cents/kWh until the 20 years are up. During the 2020s, we will see the first installations lose their guaranteed compensation.
For the home consumer and small businesses (but not large industry consumers), there is a cost allocation to pay for the green energy. Currently, the home consumer pays around 30 cents/kWh.
And yes, that is a political topic.
C - the footgun of programming languages
So the government increased the price on electricity and it caused elderly people to freeze to death. Yeah some how that never happened especially since electricity prices in the UK are done like they are here in Ontario(and most of Canada), outside agency. The irony in all of this is they went hog wild and pushed for the "use less energy, it's great for the environment!" So everyone did. Now they're saying "we need to raise the rates, because people aren't using enough energy!" Enjoy that double edged sword.
Om, nomnomnom...
Now that sounds like an innovation I can get behind.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yes they are. What do you think makes the wind?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Doesn't matter very much, honestly. Even 100% coal powered electric vehicles are cleaner than gasoline or diesel, and electric vehicles will improve as the cost of wind, solar, etc continue to drop.
Maybe so in Sweden where coal plants are forced to install good smoke scrubbers and to double as district heat sources. That is not exactly the arrangement that they have in China or India. They just spew out the smoke with little to no scrubbing. A gasoline car will certainly be a lot cleaner than a 100% coal powered electric car under those circumstances.
The wind is produced by earth rotation and the sun.
That does not make a wind turbine a thermodynamic engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It is not so hard to read.
Hint: you don't need to read it at all if you grasp the picture in the upper right corner.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
...but where are they getting their electricity?
Traditionally close to 50% hydro power and 50% nuclear power.
Anything else?
(Now some wind, some solar, some bio-fuel, some garbage and also some oil not much and coal is likely very irrelevant in Sweden.)
Thanks for reminding us that there is no way to generate electricity other than by burning fossil fuels. This is a simple, True Fact that nobody ever seems to remember.
=Smidge=
"So the government increased the price on electricity"
That's not needed, specially if the government doesn't want to appear as the bad guy of the film. It just needs to set the rules on such a regulated and oligopoly-inclined market.
You'll learn lots of interesting facts about Sweden in Norway. :-)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Wind goes from a high pressure area to a low pressure area. If you had no heat you would have no wind. A wind turbine is part of a heat engine called the earth. It is that simple.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You can't call them fairies now. It's water sprites and pixies.
The problem is where to put the energy. The amount of energy recovered from a large train is just too large to store. So hybrid locomotives are used for switching, where the amount of energy is smaller.
Trains don't need additional power to climb grades, they just slow down. To go the same speed would requires not just more energy (fuel or electricity input) but more powerful electric motors to turn that energy into torque. And they just don't have those bigger motors. If they did, they'd just bring along a bigger generator and then again still have no need for the electrical input. Because in a freight train a lot of the ability to put down power relates to the weight of the locomotive, as more weight means more friction on the rails. So if you're going to make the locomotive heavier, why not just do it with more fuel, more prime mover and more generator?
Passenger trains usually hail the same cars every day. So those cars can have the motors in them and the locomotive (if present) just converts fuel to electricity. In that case, you have enough grip and power already, so removing the prime mover and generator can make it a lot more efficient. But since freight trains just drag different collections of cars each day, it has to do all the work.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Unless wind/solar/etc work when it's cloudy or windy like in other parts of the world nearly all the time it'll never replace other sources like hydro-electric or nuclear.
Wind power works quite well when it's windy. Sorry, but I couldn't resist.
Your point is valid, but it's also arguably one of transmission. The sun is shining and the wind is blowing somewhere. Maybe not in your town/state/country...
The issue is how do you get that excess power from where the sun is shining to where it's cloudy and, in our capitalistic society, how do those people get paid for doing so?
Every energy conversion process is lossy. Only some them are less lossy, some of them more. Why do you believe that nature can recognize heat engines and apply losses only to them?
Ezekiel 23:20
How do you prevetn people form tampering with the road?
Well,
first of all: energy processes are not lossy.
There is the law of energy conversion, perhaps you missed that in school. It was even added in a slight variation to the hand full of laws of thermodynamics later: "the sum of all energies in a closed system is constant." (loosely worded)
Secondly ... what has "lossy" or anything similar to do with thermodynamics? Again: nothing.
Perhaps you should google for the laws of thermodynamics and you realize: they handle a triple of volume, pressure and temperature.
The laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with losses in energy conversion whatsoever.
Anyway, relevant is: neither the efficiency or lack there of of an electric engine nor a wind turbine has anything to do with "thermodynamics". Actually a no brainer if you understand basic english: "thermo" == heat. Dynamics = movement, transfer, interaction. As long as the energy source involved is not heat, those laws don't apply. Plain and simple.
If you don't believe it: read the laws up and find a formula that affects a wind mill ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
That is an extremely far sketched interpretation of thermodynamics and a heat transfer.
If you would say that in a physics class you would get a bonus point for being "clever".
However regarding the topic at hand: you are wrong.
If I set up a billion of fans creating wind to move the wind turbines: then your analogy (albeit the fundamentals are correct) would fail. The wind turbines are not moved by the laws of thermodynamics. They wind that moves them is. That is a big difference. (And that is only true to a very low degree, to model weather or climate e.g. you don't use formulas from the Laws of Thermodynamics, they are completely irrelevant).
So perhaps you need a few more physics classes to grasp the difference.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There is the law of energy conversion, perhaps you missed that in school. It was even added in a slight variation to the hand full of laws of thermodynamics later: "the sum of all energies in a closed system is constant." (loosely worded)
That is perfectly correct in physics but also utterly useless in engineering. Low-grade waste heat is generally disregarded as useful energy even though it's a part of that constant sum.
Perhaps you should google for the laws of thermodynamics and you realize: they handle a triple of volume, pressure and temperature.
I don't need to google anything to see that you've been confused by the ideal gas laws here. That's not what I was talking about.
If you don't believe it: read the laws up and find a formula that affects a wind mill ...
Easy. Also, the well-known four laws of thermodynamics do affect wind mills...simply because they affect everything! (Two of them, admittedly, are of little importance here, though.)
Ezekiel 23:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mTLO2F_ERY
No, not every advanced nation has an electric grid for its trains except the US.
Sure, there are many electric trains, even freight trains. But many countries still move friend with diesel-electric locomotives. That includes every country in North and South America, India, China, Australia and many many more.
It is disappointing the US doesn't have more electrified passenger rail.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
actually we've reached the point where square miles of solar cells in desert are superior solution than fission power. The energy can be stored. That's a real solution with existing tech.
I've worked in nuclear power industry but now we can do better.
there is no longer a need for nuclear fission power
And marking my comment "Troll" just goes to how how shitty slashdot has gotten, FUCK YOU.
"f I set up a billion of fans creating wind to move the wind turbines: then your analogy (albeit the fundamentals are correct) would fail."
Yes and if you got a million trained hamsters to turn a steam turbine it would no longer be a heat engine.
A wind turbine is just the power turbine in a heat engine.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
A wind turbine is just the power turbine in a heat engine.
No it is not. Did you still not read the Wikipedia article? Wow, shame on you.
For starters: Thermodynamics is a set of rules of physics for closed systems. Earth is not a closed System ...
Then: everything thermodynamics is describing is the tripple between volume, pressure and temperature of "ideal gases" with a heat and mass transfer from the hot "reservoir" to the cold one. Best example is a Stirling engine. Second best is a steam engine (as it is striclty speaking not a closed system, too)
One of the core predicates is e.g. the "carnot efficiency" of a heat process. See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g...
I leave it up to you to calculate a reasonable efficiency based on thermodynamics for a wind turbine. Afterwards you might want to look up the real efficiency of a wind turbine.
Usually I charge about $100 for giving classes ... feel free to make a donation in that range to a charity.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
We talk about electrified rail grids.
And the EU is of noticeable size, and we are interconnected with Russia, Turky, Asia etc.
You are an idiot.
Your grid is peanuts.
And most of it is Diesel and probably even coal.
Perhaps you have a similar amount of miles, but not the interconnectivity.
Nevada as big as the UK? Hello? In what regard? Length and Width? How is that relevant for a rail grid when Nevada has what? 5million or 10million inhabitants? 75% living in Las Vegas? Where would the damn rails in Nevada go to? Into the desert? Why don't you compare Alaska with the UK? Would probably make more sense.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
that you've been confused by the ideal gas laws here.
Actually I'm not. As that is what thermodynamics is about.
Easy. Also, the well-known four laws of thermodynamics do affect wind mills :D
Unfortunately the link only contains the word "thermodynamics" and no physics according to its laws
Perhaps I should patent this phrase: "You should a) read the links you quote; and b) grasp/comprehend the article behind it".
There is no thermodynamics in windmills.
Thermodynamics describes energy transfer from the "hot side" to the "cold side". Based on "heat".
Wind mills convert kinetic energy, oops. And just in case you are interested: behind the wind mill, the air is _warmer_ than in front of it. Absolutely the opposite to a thermal engine :D (And it is left as an exercise to the reader to grasp why that is so, or you have to pay me to explain it to you)
The laws of thermodynamics don't affect everything.
* They don't affect how a stone is falling in a gravity field.
* They don't affect how a charged particle is accelerated in a magnetic field
* They don't affect how particles are deflected in a magnetic field
* They don't affect how a nucleus is decaying
* They don't affect how a rubber tie is losing traction when it switches from glued friction to gliding friction
* They don't affect how a leverage works, or hydraulics for that matter
* They don't affect how an electron is tunneling in a QET (or any other tunnel effect)
* They don't effect how an electron is hit by a photon in a photovoltaic cell and "produces a current"
* They don't affect how a Thomahawk fusion plant or Fusor fusion device works
* They don't affect how Cooper pairs form in a super conductor
* Not even how a meteor is melting/burning away in the atmosphere is covered by the laws of Thermodynamics Albeit there is lots of "thermo" involved.
* They don't affect how electrons or photons or hm
* They don't affect how chemical bounds are formed, ionic or bindings
* They don't affect how a wing of a plane creates its lift
* They don't affect how an electron decelerated rapidly creates Bremsstrahlung
* They don't affect how X-Rays are bend and scattered around an atomic nucleus
* They don't affect how time is bend around gravity fields
* They don't affect how time is bend under acceleration
* They don't affect gravity waves
Should I continue?
All of physics that has not written "Thermodynamics" on the cover of the book is completely unaffected by "The Laws of Thermodynamics". However it is a kind of Hobby by Physicists to try to explain unrelated "physical effects" by using the laws of thermodynamics. I stopped reading your link after it was obvious it is bollocks, so perhaps those guys tried the same and you did simply not grasp it?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"Nevada as big as the UK? Hello? In what regard? Length and Width? How is that relevant for a rail grid when Nevada has what? 5million or 10million inhabitants? 75% living in Las Vegas? Where would the damn rails in Nevada go to? Into the desert? Why don't you compare Alaska with the UK? Would probably make more sense."
If you're too stupid to understand that, you're too stupid to be commenting. What are you, 12 years old ?