Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 13
13142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6164

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1600302 28-Jul-2016 18:16
One person supports this post
Send private message

They may work on the motorways of Europe but the Mangaweka or Rimutaka hills will drain them before halfway point




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


184 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 44


  Reply # 1600311 28-Jul-2016 18:33
One person supports this post
Send private message

Linuxluver: There are heavy truck EV options emerging that could displace diesel.

Mercedes-Benz has announced one.

http://evtalk.co.nz/mercedes-benz-gazumps-competition-with-full-electric-heavy-truck/


I note also Elon Musk's new long term plan for Tesla is to extent EVs into the cargo vehicle area.

https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/20/teslas-master-plan-part-two-is-huge-for-the-company/



5225 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1120

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1600315 28-Jul-2016 18:49
Send private message

MikeB4: They may work on the motorways of Europe but the Mangaweka or Rimutaka hills will drain them before halfway point


Once upon a time most freight in NZ moved by rail. Then, in 1983 or 1984 Minister of Transport in Muldoon's last Cabinet, Tony Friedlander (of the Friedlander trucking company) removed the 150km limitation on truck transport.

This unleashed large trucks onto the formerly mainly car bearing highways of New Zealand. The National Party has ever since been the tool of the trucking lobby.

If we were to electrify the main trunk line ( as was the plan until National killed it) we could then very happily operate a more competitive rail system, with the track being used by several freight operators, feeding electric heavy trucks for local distribution. Basically the same model NZ operated on for 50 years, except the state needn't have a monopoly on rail operators on the state-owned electrified rail "highway". Electric trains have been pulling heavy freight across all manner of terrain around the world for ages.

No diesel and no need for diesel.






____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet




5225 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1120

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1600371 28-Jul-2016 22:05
Send private message

New fast-charging electric buses in Switzerland can carry 133 people and charge in as little as 15 seconds at 600KW. 

 

They use gear from ABB, who also supply the Vector rapid (50kw) chargers around Auckland and WEL's rapid charger in Hamilton.  





____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


Aussie
4235 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1600374 28-Jul-2016 22:17
One person supports this post
Send private message

Linuxluver:
MikeB4: They may work on the motorways of Europe but the Mangaweka or Rimutaka hills will drain them before halfway point


Once upon a time most freight in NZ moved by rail. Then, in 1983 or 1984 Minister of Transport in Muldoon's last Cabinet, Tony Friedlander (of the Friedlander trucking company) removed the 150km limitation on truck transport.

This unleashed large trucks onto the formerly mainly car bearing highways of New Zealand. The National Party has ever since been the tool of the trucking lobby.

If we were to electrify the main trunk line ( as was the plan until National killed it) we could then very happily operate a more competitive rail system, with the track being used by several freight operators, feeding electric heavy trucks for local distribution. Basically the same model NZ operated on for 50 years, except the state needn't have a monopoly on rail operators on the state-owned electrified rail "highway". Electric trains have been pulling heavy freight across all manner of terrain around the world for ages.

No diesel and no need for diesel.


 

Back in the day, nobody expected anything "overnight"... There was no "online" to buy things from. You got what you got when you got it, and if you didn't like the colour, too bad. Times have changed. As you know, there were no EV's either.

 

And what powers electric trains? Where does that power come from? What happens in a storm when the power goes out? I can link you to many, many stories of trains not running because of a power outage. Where do you want to start? Look at Welly commuter trains.

 

How long are you willing to wait for your groceries? Trademe purchases? Anything couriered? 

 

 

 

BTW, How much diesel was used bring your car into the country?

 

 

 

Look, I'm glad you love your car, but sometimes you have to be realistic.

 

 


Aussie
4235 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1600377 28-Jul-2016 22:26
Send private message

MikeB4: They may work on the motorways of Europe but the Mangaweka or Rimutaka hills will drain them before halfway point

 

 

 

I used to drive a truck over the Rimutakas every second night, because the Manawatu Gorge was stuffed for a year. Every other night was Welly - New Plymouth... I'd love to see an electric truck in the snow. :p

 

And considering that that freight HAS to move, and trains are out of the question and don't go where the freight needs to be, diesel will be around for many,many more years, no matter what people think.

 

 




5225 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1120

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1600379 28-Jul-2016 22:32
Send private message

blakamin:

MikeB4: They may work on the motorways of Europe but the Mangaweka or Rimutaka hills will drain them before halfway point


 


I used to drive a truck over the Rimutakas every second night, because the Manawatu Gorge was stuffed for a year. Every other night was Welly - New Plymouth... I'd love to see an electric truck in the snow. :p


And considering that that freight HAS to move, and trains are out of the question and don't go where the freight needs to be, diesel will be around for many,many more years, no matter what people think.


 



Trains can get close enough and trucks go the rest.

There's a rail tunnel through the Rimutakas.

This government spent $8 billion on roads for trucks. Another government with an eye to the future instead of the past can do the same for rail.

It can work just fine.




____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


452 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 209


  Reply # 1600400 28-Jul-2016 23:29
5 people support this post
Send private message

I'm a big fan of electric vehicles, and a big fan improving air quality (particularly urban air quality).

 

 

 

But there is no way that banning diesel as a fuel is sensible of feasible for New Zealand.

 

 

 

 

 

We could get far better benefits at a much lower cost by taking a more pragmatic approach:

 

 

 

Fires:

 

In winter, Particulate emissions (PM10) in Auckland are made up of the following Source:

 

  • Industry: 7%
  • Vehicles: 18%
  • Domestic Fires: 75%

Clearly domestic fires are the low hanging fruit here, unlike the others they don't support big chunks of the economy. Fires aren't even that cheap to run (unless you can get wood for free, and value your time chopping, stacking etc the wood at zero).

 

By chance it appears in general people are moving away from fires in Auckland, in favor of more convenient forms of heating. (Generally heat pumps or central heating)

 

 

 

Light Vehicles

 

In terms of light vehicles, The most polluting 10 per cent of vehicles (nominated as the “gross emitters”) emitted between 39 to 53 per cent of the total emissions, depending on the pollutant. source

 

A targeted emissions testing regime (Such as the smog check in LA), could be incorporated in our WOF/COF tests (perhaps only once a year, or every two years). This would get the gross emitter's repaired, or off the road. A decent chunk of the gross emitter's will only require minor repairs, or reversal of (sometimes illegal) modifications (EGR disable, Cat converter / DPF removal etc). I would expect costs to be low compared to health benefits.

 

I must say it is very nice in California, to be able to drive the freeways with the air vents on fresh air mode. Seeing a smoke belching car is rare. Manila is the opposite.

 

 

 

Heavy Vehicles:

 

Heavy vehicles do about 8% of total annual mileage in Auckland but are responsible for 41% of annual emmisions related health costs.

 

Heavy vehicles have similar issues with gross emitters. Lots of scope for improvement without changing the fuel. Justification for compulsory testing the heavy fleet is strong.

 

Due to higher value, and longer lifespan of heavy vehicles it will often be cost effective to retrofit them to improve emissions.

 

Buses

 

While also considered heavy vehicles, given their routes are concentrated places where lots of people (Schools, CBD, Busy Bus stops, town centers), special attention should be paid to buses. Also the council has control to specify emissions requirements in bus tenders.

The Clean Air CNG buses used in California look like a really good option for routes with high pedestrian concentration. Lots of emerging technology in the electric space too. We should take a look at the "charge with overhead rails at bus stops". Inductive Power transfer tech embedded into certain bus routes is worth exploring too.

 

For minor bus routes, (and double deckers (No space for CNG tanks)), we should specify Euro6 minimum with two emissions tests a year.

 

Where volumes can justify (i.e. dominion road, Auckland), we should be restoring light rail.

 

Marine

 

Big gains for little cost by requiring ships to run clean fuel (low sulphur diesel instead of heavy fuel oil / Bunker oil / Crude) in our national waters (as is requires in places like California)

 

Additional gains from requiring "Cold ironing" (where ships plug in to grid power, and shut down their electricity generators) of ships (particularly cruise ships) while in port (as is requires in places like some California ports)

 

Currently recreational petrol powered boaties get charged (and cannot have refunded, unlike commercial boats) road user tax on petrol. This is a massive tax advantage for diesel. By allowing road user tax to be refunded to boaties, it would level the playing field, and more boaties would use petrol power. We could also add marine emission requirements for new imports of boat engines.

 

Motorcycles.

 

Many scooters and small motorcycles pollute excessively (especially given their low fuel consumption) I would like to see much tighter emissions restrictions put on them. With an appropriate carrot, it would be nice to see a lot of electric scooters replace the 50cc scooters.

 

 


3235 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 633

Trusted

  Reply # 1600401 28-Jul-2016 23:33
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

A Tesla has 7,000 batteries how many would be required to power a rig the size of a Freightliner  or Kenworth? Our fleet of cars is around 800,000 now in any ones thinking that is a lot of batteries. Then there is things like tractors, military vehicles, construction vehicles, Aircraft and so on.

 

the figures required just for our little piece of paradise is staggering. I do not think the current thinking on electric vehicles is the answer.

 

 

You have got me thinking

 

Electricity is the answer. But batteries only get us so far.

 

There is a company in europe that is testing a road made of solar cells, with a chipseal-like plastic surface over the top. They say they are more durable and designed with better grip than actual sealed roads, and can supply power to the national grid for nearby homes.

 

At 100km/h a typical electric car would have a constant load of about 130 watts. There is more than enough surface space surrounding your car, within your lane to maintain that supply from solar on an overcast day.

 

Wireless cellphone charging provides about 60-70% efficiency. Even at 30% efficiency between a road and a vehicle its still quite workable when you take into account there is always a safe following distance between each car of surface area for solar too.

 

So why not take the solar road idea, and combine it with inductive wireless charging?

 


So we see battery disposal as the main barrier with electric.

1) Supercapacitors can be used to supplement battery capacity. They are designed for quick charging and discharging so can be charged up and provide an instant supply of electricity for things like takeoffs from intersections or in stop-go traffic.

2) Targeted induction supply areas for instant consumption
In areas of high fuel consumption or high traffic volumes such as uphill climbs, motorways and intersections, induction supply can be provided for charging batteries and supercapacitors, or for instant consumption.

 

3) Solar-on-vehicles
I would really like to see a car with solar cells on every surface, covered in a smooth resin. I would hope it could have a very dark carbon fibre appearance. No longer would I complain to the local mitre 10 for having an anti-tree policy in their carpark, I would actually enjoy parking in the sun. Again having solar on the vehicle would be for instant consumption.

 

We all know that the less you use your lithium batteries, the longer they last - so if anything can be done to encourage instant consumption rather than drawing electricity from onboard storage then the batteries would require replacing less often.

 

So with these solar roads, where does the excess go?
Into the national grid of course.

 

There are other benefits this can provide

 

 - Solar supply to nearby power consumers with tarriff incentives to encourage more daytime power consumption as opposed to evening peaks.
 - Sunny one place, cloudy another place, provides redundancy
 - Hydro plants could be partially shut off and generation capacity saved for night time - Less cars being recharged at night
 - Excess solar power can be used to run pumped hydro storage





Ray Taylor
Taylor Broadband (rural hawkes bay)
www.ruralkiwi.com

There is no place like localhost
For my general guide to extending your wireless network Click Here




452 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 209


  Reply # 1600415 29-Jul-2016 00:36
Send private message

raytaylor:

 

At 100km/h a typical electric car would have a constant load of about 130 watts.

 

 

That might run the headlights.

 

 

 

Tesla Model S (large car) is about 18kW at 60mph (source)

 

Nissan Leaf used about 15.7kW average on the EPA test cycle (135mile epa rated range from 21.3kWh usable capacity (in the 24kWh battery version)

 

 

 

Regarding solar, currently other grid scale renewable (i.e. hydro, wind and geothermal) are cheaper than solar PV in NZ.

 

 

 

Regarding IPT (Inductive power transfer), check out HALOIPT. It's based on university of Auckland research. -Charging roads etc...


467 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 100


  Reply # 1600416 29-Jul-2016 00:56
One person supports this post
Send private message

Linuxluver: If we were to electrify the main trunk line ( as was the plan until National killed it)
I'm pretty sure it was being electrified by Muldoon (National) under Think Big and then Rogernomics (Labour) nixed it?  Since then it's just been talk, aside from the work on Auckland's commuter routes. It's currently projected to cost £2.8 billion to electrify 107 miles of the Great Western Main Line in the UK.

 

Electricity supplies 25% of New Zealand's total consumer energy demand (all sectors), with other renewables and geothermal accounting for 12%.  Taking out the fossil-fuel portion of our electricity supply (20-25%) and you're left with an incredibly large increase in electricity supply - electricity demand would increase by ~200% if we assume a straight swap between consumed energy. Given current electricity consumption of 38,729GWh, the increase would be equivalent to approximately 8,700 more Project West Wind wind turbines (77458 [GWh increase in demand] / 8.87 [GWh per turbine]. Though I doubt you could site 8,700 turbines in areas with a cf. of 44%... At the price of Meridian's Mill Creek development that's ~$57 billion dollars in farm costs alone (optimistic because it leveraged West Wind's existing infrastructure). The grid improvements needed to move a peak increase of ~10,000GW of electricity around would be massive.  That scenario assumes that other electricity supplies were able to accommodate wind fluctuations etc etc.

 

You could add solar, but if you went all in on that it's 5.8 million more 3kW arrays (using Porboynz data) at approximately $58 billion if you discount Porboynz cost of installation by ~20%.

 

Another way of looking at it is 37 more Clyde Dams...

 

 

 

*I accept all my figures are ball park.


2515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 541
Inactive user


  Reply # 1600430 29-Jul-2016 06:09
Send private message

Linuxluver:

 

Executive Summary:

 

1. Promote emission-free vehicles
2. Ban diesel

 

Here's why:

 

As people may be aware the first Unitary Plan of the amalgamated Auckland was released this week.

 

One of the overlays for planning restrictions is "Built Environment: Air Quality - Transport Corridor Separation".

 

This restriction places a buffer zone of 150m around motorways and 70m around main arterial roads.

 

Why? Emissions. It's all about emissions.

 

The original draft from 2013 included a lengthy examination of fossil fuel emission hazards and health consequences for all, but particularly relevant to the health of children. Heart problems. Respiratory problems and cancers. They forecast diesel fuel traffic to increase along the corridor by 65% between 2016 and 2035.

 

To me, it's an excellent case for banning diesel fuel altogether.

 

The link to the 2013 draft is here:

 

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/…/2.43%20Air%20quality-m…

(Pages 2 and 3 detail the health problems around emissions, particularly diesel.)

 

 

 

The final version of the Unitary Plan includes the restriction and gives a very high level description of why it exists, but leaves out all of the substantiating detail included in the earlier, 2013, draft version.

 

http://unitaryplan.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/…/Plan/Book.aspx…

 

I note note that it appears residential development can occur in the emissions buffer areas. Apartments up to 7 stories in the area I looked at. But you can't locate a childcare centre in such a building because of the relatively poor air quality and risk to the health of the children. 

 

On this basis, it looks like a no-brainer to promote a future - a very soon future - with emissions-free vehicles playing a larger and larger part in transportation. This issue is - to me - likely to be more immediately relevant and compelling to many people than something as abstract (to most people) as climate change.

 

Their (and their neighbour's and THEIR neighbour's) diesel SUV / car is producing emissions that can make them and everyone else sick.....or - ultimately - dead. The carcinogens in diesel aren't slackers. They are highly active. 

 

The health case against internal combustion engine vehicles - and diesel, in particular - is compelling.

 

One wonders why we allow it to persist.....as though these engines are a force of nature we can't do anything about. Yet in Europe, diesel is rapidly falling out of favour........

 

None of this is new......but this official, policy document acknowledges emissions harm and this harm is used to place restrictions on property use. It can't be dismissed as rumour, hype or propaganda.

 

 

You do a lot of talking what HAVE you done about the problem? Just curious.




5225 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1120

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1600451 29-Jul-2016 08:06
Send private message

blakamin:

 

 

 

Look, I'm glad you love your car, but sometimes you have to be realistic.

 

 

You're talking about expectations. No problem. They can be met easily enough. With modern package handling methods there is no reason why stuff can't move around just as easily, if not more so in a competitive mixed rail / truck shipping context. Or fly....as much of it does anyway already.   

 

I'll see your occasional power outage and raise you a 5 hour traffic jam on a highway or motorway due to a serious accident. Happens almost everyday somewhere in the country. I could show you links. Lots of links. 

 

'Let's be realistic'. Rail is more reliable and consistent than the witches brew of vehicles on the major highways and roads every day. I can see SH1 from my house. What goes on out there is like a rolling power outage much of the day, every day. Everyone crawling......for hours. 

 

We see what we want to see. You've decided to focus on certain things and ignore the obvious counterparts to exactly the same sorts of problems....and the health side doesn't even register. But the health side is where I'm starting from. 

 

I can see how it is perfectly possible to deliver goods across a mixed-mode rail / trucking network where the trucks don't NEED to go more than 200km because they are electric and interface to rail and regional hubs. 200km. 200KM!!!! ...and that's just first generation of EV heavy trucks. 

 

 

 

 





____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


13142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6164

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1600455 29-Jul-2016 08:10
2 people support this post
Send private message

We had more stuff disappear in transit with rail than we ever did by road. The goods yards did more sales than Trademe does now.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 




5225 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1120

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1600509 29-Jul-2016 08:31
Send private message

Scott3:

 

I'm a big fan of electric vehicles, and a big fan improving air quality (particularly urban air quality).

 

 

 

But there is no way that banning diesel as a fuel is sensible of feasible for New Zealand.

 

 

 

 

 

We could get far better benefits at a much lower cost by taking a more pragmatic approach:

 

 

 

Fires:

 

In winter, Particulate emissions (PM10) in Auckland are made up of the following Source:

 

  • Industry: 7%
  • Vehicles: 18%
  • Domestic Fires: 75%

Clearly domestic fires are the low hanging fruit here, unlike the others they don't support big chunks of the economy. Fires aren't even that cheap to run (unless you can get wood for free, and value your time chopping, stacking etc the wood at zero).

 

By chance it appears in general people are moving away from fires in Auckland, in favor of more convenient forms of heating. (Generally heat pumps or central heating)

 

 

 

Light Vehicles

 

In terms of light vehicles, The most polluting 10 per cent of vehicles (nominated as the “gross emitters”) emitted between 39 to 53 per cent of the total emissions, depending on the pollutant. source

 

A targeted emissions testing regime (Such as the smog check in LA), could be incorporated in our WOF/COF tests (perhaps only once a year, or every two years). This would get the gross emitter's repaired, or off the road. A decent chunk of the gross emitter's will only require minor repairs, or reversal of (sometimes illegal) modifications (EGR disable, Cat converter / DPF removal etc). I would expect costs to be low compared to health benefits.

 

I must say it is very nice in California, to be able to drive the freeways with the air vents on fresh air mode. Seeing a smoke belching car is rare. Manila is the opposite.

 

 

 

Heavy Vehicles:

 

Heavy vehicles do about 8% of total annual mileage in Auckland but are responsible for 41% of annual emmisions related health costs.

 

Heavy vehicles have similar issues with gross emitters. Lots of scope for improvement without changing the fuel. Justification for compulsory testing the heavy fleet is strong.

 

Due to higher value, and longer lifespan of heavy vehicles it will often be cost effective to retrofit them to improve emissions.

 

Buses

 

While also considered heavy vehicles, given their routes are concentrated places where lots of people (Schools, CBD, Busy Bus stops, town centers), special attention should be paid to buses. Also the council has control to specify emissions requirements in bus tenders.

The Clean Air CNG buses used in California look like a really good option for routes with high pedestrian concentration. Lots of emerging technology in the electric space too. We should take a look at the "charge with overhead rails at bus stops". Inductive Power transfer tech embedded into certain bus routes is worth exploring too.

 

For minor bus routes, (and double deckers (No space for CNG tanks)), we should specify Euro6 minimum with two emissions tests a year.

 

Where volumes can justify (i.e. dominion road, Auckland), we should be restoring light rail.

 

Marine

 

Big gains for little cost by requiring ships to run clean fuel (low sulphur diesel instead of heavy fuel oil / Bunker oil / Crude) in our national waters (as is requires in places like California)

 

Additional gains from requiring "Cold ironing" (where ships plug in to grid power, and shut down their electricity generators) of ships (particularly cruise ships) while in port (as is requires in places like some California ports)

 

Currently recreational petrol powered boaties get charged (and cannot have refunded, unlike commercial boats) road user tax on petrol. This is a massive tax advantage for diesel. By allowing road user tax to be refunded to boaties, it would level the playing field, and more boaties would use petrol power. We could also add marine emission requirements for new imports of boat engines.

 

Motorcycles.

 

Many scooters and small motorcycles pollute excessively (especially given their low fuel consumption) I would like to see much tighter emissions restrictions put on them. With an appropriate carrot, it would be nice to see a lot of electric scooters replace the 50cc scooters.

 

 

 

All good information, Scott. But the picture is evolving rapidly. 

What you assert isn't feasible today is close to being feasible as heavy truck and bus makers announce new, powerful electric options for moving heavy stuff. 

Think 5 years out. Planning for yesterday is always too little and too late. 





____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 13
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.