News Electric vehicles to pay for detroit bailout?

[mheslep]

...If you want to use EVs or FHVs, either way you have to build a new infrastructure. The current one can not support either and both will be probably equally expensive.

This is wrong on the EV network, the current grid can support pretty much even the entire US light duty fleet replaced with EVs. There have been numerous studies done about this, some posted on PF. As to the user end where the vehicles are plugged in, there will need to be numerous charging points - several companies make them already at $200 to $1000 for 6kw street side units, plus battery exchange stations in one scenario. This works out to less than 1% of the cost of the EV. There's no comparison to a theoretical H2 network.

 

[Topher925]

NREL example
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/44082.pdf , page 17 (ICE, not turbine)

I can't believe they put that in there. That would be a pretty asinine thing to do. Anyway, a much smarter way to produce electrical work from H2 would be to just use SOFCs or PAFCs. SOFC stands for Solid Oxide Fuel Cell which are crazy efficient and reliable energy conversion devices. They are common in applications where steady reliable power is required. They are also now finding their way onto large boats and semi trucks as APUs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxide_fuel_cell

Because the H2 has to be transported, incurring energy losses, across an H2 network that doesn't exist, stored in cars that can't accommodate the volume even at 10k PSI, and then burned in fuel cells that are unreliable over the vehicle lifespan.

I disagree. We already transport hydrogen for relatively low cost in high pressure canisters. We also have a natural gas infrastructure all over the country, why can't we do the same for H2? Cars can accommodate enough volume at 10K psi and travel adequate distances. The vehicles that Honda and GM lease to the general public prove it. And what about FC technology makes it unreliable compared to battery technology? PEMFCs have been shown to last over 7,000 hours of cycling conditions (well over 150k miles on a car). Can batteries do that? (the answer is no, they can't)

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/epact_743_fuel_cell_school_bus.pdf

 

[Topher925]

This is wrong on the EV network, the current grid can support pretty much even the entire US light duty fleet replaced with EVs.

DOE estimates up to 180 million or about 80%, but that doesn't include all locations. In areas where the electric grid is older and weaker, EVs could not be that well supported. For example, in the area I live in they are building a new nuclear power plant in order to maintain the already struggling electrical grid.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/180_million_plu.php

 

[mheslep]

I can't believe they put that in there. That would be a pretty asinine thing to do. Anyway, a much smarter way to produce electrical work from H2 would be to just use SOFCs or PAFCs. SOFC stands for Solid Oxide Fuel Cell which are crazy efficient and reliable energy conversion devices. They are common in applications where steady reliable power is required. They are also now finding their way onto large boats and semi trucks as APUs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxide_fuel_cell

Can we drop 'crazy' hyperbole and 'asinine' government labs assertions and the Wiki links, and stick to what can be demonstrated?

I disagree. We already transport hydrogen for relatively low cost in high pressure canisters.

No we don't. Those are mostly 3000psi trucks. It requires roughly a dozen or so such loads of H2 to provide the same energy in one common semi-tanker of gasoline. This is reflected in Bossel's graph up thread - 20% hit.

We also have a natural gas infrastructure all over the country, why can't we do the same for H2?

Not without spending a fortune. Google. There's a lot of literature on why moving the tiny H2 molecule around is much much harder than CNG. Larger diameter pipes required to push the same joules, linings required, metal embrittlement, etc, etc.

Cars can accommodate enough volume at 10K psi and travel adequate distances. The vehicles that Honda and GM lease to the general public prove it.

WHAT distance? How much does the vehicle cost? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=az48qD9Cl_kQ"

And what about FC technology makes it unreliable compared to battery technology? PEMFCs have been shown to last over 7,000 hours of cycling conditions (well over 150k miles on a car). Can batteries do that? (the answer is no, they can't)

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/epact_743_fuel_cell_school_bus.pdf

I posted a link on why above, again:

...The committee observes that the federal government has been active in fuel cell research for roughly 40 years, while proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells applied to hydrogen vehicle systems are a relatively recent development (as of the late 1980s). In spite of substantial R&D spending by the DOE and industry, costs are still a factor of 10 to 20 times too expensive, these fuel cells are short of required durability, and their energy efficiency is still too low for light-duty-vehicle applications. Accordingly, the challenges of developing PEM fuel cells for automotive applications are large, and the solutions to overcoming these challenges are uncertain.

The committee estimates that the fuel cell system, including on-board storage of hydrogen, will have to decrease in cost to less than $100 per kilowatt (kW)4 before fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) become a plausible commercial option, and that it will take at least a decade for this to happen.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10922&page=4

Edit: I see the 2008 FC improved reliability under table 1 of the school bus FC paper. I also see below that

...While these advancements are significant, PEM fuel cell technology for light-duty fuel cell vehicles is not yet ready for the commercial market. Cost remains a major hurdle, and durability must be proven.

Batteries: LiFePO batteries 3000 deep cycles retaining 90% DoD. For a sedan w/ a 25kWh (100mi) pack that's nearly 300,000 miles.
http://www.a123systems.com/a123/technology/life

DOE estimates up to 180 million or about 80%, but that doesn't include all locations. In areas where the electric grid is older and weaker, EVs could not be that well supported. For example, in the area I live in they are building a new nuclear power plant in order to maintain the already struggling electrical grid.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/180_million_plu.php

Ok so we agree there is a commercial, economic EV back end infrastructure mostly in place now, and commercial H2 infrastructure is virtually non existent. BTW, 'weak' or old grids are not the issue. Where ever there exists over capacity for daytime peak demand, there's idle capacity at night to charge EVs.

 

[Topher925]

Can we drop 'crazy' hyperbole and 'asinine' government labs assertions and the Wiki links, and stick to what can be demonstrated?

OK. The wiki link has examples of SOFCs being used but you can also find that many industrial manufacturers produce SOFCs, like Siemens for example:http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/products-solutions-services/products-packages/fuel-cells/fuelcells.htm

For large scale applications (~20 MWe) staged reheat cycles have indicated that electrical generating efficiencies could reach as high as ~70%.

http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/products-solutions-services/products-packages/fuel-cells/sofc-gt-hybrid/

A lot higher than any thermal cycle I know of.

No we don't. Those are mostly 3000psi trucks. It requires roughly a dozen or so such loads of H2 to provide the same energy in one common semi-tanker of gasoline. This is reflected in Bossel's graph up thread - 20% hit.

Again, I would like to stress that this is only with current methods. I'm sure better methods will become available once an infrastructure is actually created like using hydride technology. Our lab buys 3,000psi five-9 H2 for about 4 bucks a kilogram delivered with no infrastructure. Thats not to far off the cost of gasoline. We also have a choice of driving 10 miles south and getting it from a hydrogen fuel station for about 4 bucks a kilogram at 10k psi. Of course this doesn't reflect the efficiency of transport, but I would call that rather economical. The transport of energy via H2 will never be as good a electricity. However, the methods we use to generate energy can help make up for that loss.

Not without spending a fortune. Google. There's a lot of literature on why moving the tiny H2 molecule around is much much harder than CNG. Larger diameter pipes required to push the same joules, linings required, metal embrittlement, etc, etc.

And the natural gas lines didn't cost a fortune either?

WHAT distance? How much does the vehicle cost? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=az48qD9Cl_kQ"

The FCX goes about 280 miles on 4kg of H2. How much do you think a low volume production of a Toyota Corolla costs? How about the first few Tesla roadsters? Low volume production is going to be expensive regardless of kind of car it is which is why you can't compare it actual production costs.

While we've yet to hear any more about Toyota's planned tests of its plug-in hybrid, the company has apparently made quite a bit of progress with its fuel cell vehicles, two of which recently made a non-stop 350 mile trip from Osaka to Tokyo (with the air conditioning on, no less). What's more, according to MSNBC, the vehicles still had 30 percent of their fuel remaining, giving them a total potential range of 480 miles.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/28/toyota-shows-off-fuel-cell-car-with-480-mile-range/
(FYI, this article dates back to 2007)

Batteries: LiFePO batteries 3000 deep cycles retaining 90% DoD. For a sedan w/ a 25kWh (100mi) pack that's nearly 300,000 miles.
http://www.a123systems.com/a123/technology/life

Lab testing does not equal field testing. 3,000 cycles in the lab does not equate to 300k or 10 years of real use. Not to mention that I don't think any major auto manufacturer is using A123 cells because their energy density is just way to low to be used in cars.

 

[Topher925]

That article "GM, Toyota Fuel-Cell Plans Clash With U.S. Battery Car Push " makes a good point about how far US is behind.

“Germany has come out with a very strong program to develop infrastructure; we don’t have anything like that on the federal level,” Dunwoody said.

Government support for the goal is stronger in Germany and Japan than in the U.S., according to GM’s Freese and Samuelsen of the fuel cell center. Germany plans 1,000 hydrogen stations by 2015, and Japan has a similar goal.

The German government is working with utilities and Linde AG, the world’s second-biggest maker of industrial gases, to set up a station network, Bharat Balasubramanian, Daimler’s vice president for product innovations, said in Los Angeles.

“It might look right now that EVs and plug-ins are winning the race, certainly in terms of federal funding, but that’s because they’re a bit more near term,” Kammen said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=az48qD9Cl_kQ

 

[mheslep]

...How much do you think a low volume production of a Toyota Corolla costs?

No more than $100-200k to make a single vehicle. Not $1 million. Toyota I see is claiming they will bring the price down in future models. So far no actual cheap ($100k) prototypes though.

...Low volume production is going to be expensive regardless of kind of car it is which is why you can't compare it actual production costs.

Sure you can. Divide by ~ten.

 

[mheslep]

...Lab testing does not equal field testing. 3,000 cycles in the lab does not equate to 300k or 10 years of real use. Not to mention that I don't think any major auto manufacturer is using A123 cells because their energy density is just way to low to be used in cars.

<shrug> They're at least 100 wh/kg, maybe much higher, I dunno. Regardless, most of the EV vendors are going w/ LiFePO, which is stable and exhibits high cycle life.

 

[mheslep]

FPL and Duke Power are replacing their entire car and truck fleet (10,000) with EV's starting next year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090924-705557.html" .
This makes since 1) they don't need long distance, 2) on a cost per mile basis the EVs are at least break even today, and can only become more cost effective in the future.

There seem to be a dozen or so bucket truck vendors, who all buy their chassis from either GM, Ford, or International. I'll be curious to see which one steps up w/ an EV chassis and one of them will, as they're not going to give a foreign make an entry into the truck market.

 

[mheslep]

Detroit (GM) hates Battery Switchers (unless it's them)

Some electric vehicle infrastructure people and General Motors got together for a panel discussion last week, including the Better Place the battery switch company. I don't think BP and GM like each other much.

Face Off: GM and Better Place on Electric Car Services
http://www.reuters.com/article/mnGreenAutos/idUS427988708320091016

GM:

...will other carmakers warmly embrace Better Place's model? Not according to panelist Byron Shaw, who manages GM's advanced technology office in Palo Alto. "If there's money to be made on batteries, we're going to be one of the competitors trying to make money on it." Shaw said that GM has been "on the short end of the stick for quite some time" when it comes to providing energy and other service for gas-powered cars. That could change with electric or plug-in hybrid cars, like the upcoming Chevy Volt. "There's going to be a lot of competitors in the space and we certainly intend to be one."

Shaw disagreed with the cell phone analogy, saying that there's a big difference between a $100 cell phone, and a vehicle, which costs at least tens of thousands of dollars. He believes that the carmaker is best positioned to provide all the post-purchase services. "Do you want another bill from another service provider that has nothing to do with your vehicle? Buying the battery from General Motors with the vehicle and the financing agreement in one integrated package is the advantage an OEM (original equipment manufacturer) provides."

GM's Shaw pointed to the company's OnStar crash notification system as a platform that could be used to help plug-in car owners monitor and maintain batteries.

BP:

Wolf of Better Place responded, "OnStar is an example, I wouldn't go as far to call it a good example, of the things a car can do once it becomes a network device. It doesn't matter what the propulsion is. But when you start thinking about networks connected to the vehicle, you have a lot of capabilities." Wolf specifically mentioned entertainment services and "advertising industry needs" that a networked car could provide. He added, "In looking at how industries cannibalize and change themselves, it doesn't usually happen from the incumbents."

 

[mheslep]

Another data point for battery energy density, this time with zinc/air chemistry. Zinc/Air has been around for a long time in non-rechargeable form. The Scandanavian research group SINTEF and a Swiss company ReVolt found an effective way to make Zinc Air rechargeable. My Linden handbook shows Zinc Air traditionally at 440 watt-hours / kg, or about triple current rechargeable Li ion batteries [1][2]. Cycle life on the ReVolt device is still too limited for EV use.

LLNL took a shot at this in the 1990's, and actually ran a modified bus off a zinc/air battery that was 'refueled', i.e. the zinc in an electrolyte was pumped out and replaced a depletion, the depleted electrolyte was then recycled.[3] For vehicle sized batteries, I expect something like the LLNL approach is the best one if 1) the zinc oxide can be reduced efficiently, and 2) recharging electrically is supported by the same device so that the zinc/air EV's are not tethered to refueling stations (as w/ petroleum).

The price structure of current non-rechargeable zinc air presents some interesting issues. The specific energy capacity for zinc air has long been inexpensive, some $50 per kWh per this dated source, or about 15x cheaper than Li-ion. A 120 mi range sedan EV battery would then cost only $1500 (plus the recharging technology premium via ReVolt). However, the power capacity of zinc air is about 4x less than Li ion ( ~80 Watts/kg zinc/air, 340 Watts / kg for Li ion). Such a battery would provide cruising horsepower (30HP/ 22kW), but would need a power supplement, such as Li Ion or ultracaps for shorter bursts of power.

[1] http://books.google.com/books?id=M-...nden+battery+handbook&ei=9JboSvyVL5m8M_LxxZ8M
[2] http://www.technologyreview.com/business/23812/
[3] https://www.llnl.gov/str/pdfs/10_95.1.pdf\
[4] 320 Wh/kg commercial non-rechargeable product. http://www.efbpower.com/ba-8180.html
[5] Novel zinc-air battery for EVs, 1995. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=398494

 

[mheslep]

PBS NOW episode on EVs, mainly about the howto/why on the EV infrastructure coming to Denmark 2010 and 2011.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/544/index.html
Usual suspects make appearances - DONG CEO, BP CEO, Lomborg. Lomborg says money would be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps just based on climate change, but Denmark also puts a premium on energy independence (reasonably given their history). The latter carries the EV low taxes argument in my view.

 

[russ_watters]

Older post, but...

FPL and Duke Power are replacing their entire car and truck fleet (10,000) with EV's starting next year.

...on a cost per mile basis the EVs are at least break even today, and can only become more cost effective in the future.

What does an electric company pay for electricity? I've designed the HVAC and electrical systems for a few power plant buildings and the owners haven't tended to care about things like energy efficient lighting and insulation.

That said, due to infrastructure needs and specific driving constraints, fleet vehicles are probably where most EVs are going to start.

 

[mheslep]

Older post, but... What does an electric company pay for electricity? I've designed the HVAC and electrical systems for a few power plant buildings and the owners haven't tended to care about things like energy efficient lighting and insulation.

Probably they don't care either. I expect they do care about what they're paying now gasoline/diesel. Or, they care what they might pay if oil spikes again, because unlike, say, an oil company they require regulatory approval to raise rates to increase revenue. Or, how they are going to roll trucks (at any cost) if there's a supply crisis (caused by the latest Ayatollah wingnut, refinery hurricane)?

That said, due to infrastructure needs and specific driving constraints, fleet vehicles are probably where most EVs are going to start.

Makes sense to me. The USPS just did a large study on converting their fleet (I posted either here or in your 'Energy Crisis' thread). They've turned it down for now.

 

[mgb_phys]

That said, due to infrastructure needs and specific driving constraints, fleet vehicles are probably where most EVs are going to start.

For in-town, stop/start driving there are a lot of advantages.
Apart from oil cost, they are silent, low maintenance, deal well with constant stop start and are less likely to be stolen.
Anyone British (and >30) should remember milk floats, they would make a lot of sense for mail vans, store deliveries etc.

Also for a commercial fleet the capital cost is irrelevent, they get a good deal from the maker, they will keep the vehicles for years and it's a tax right-off anyway.

 

[mheslep]

...Also for a commercial fleet the capital cost is irrelevent,

No, not true, especially not for early EVs.

 

[mheslep]

Re the prognosis for commercial EV truck fleets, this is interesting. Chrysler recently released an 'electrification' plan. First out of the shoot is not another me too electric sedan, but an HEV and the PHEV version of the Dodge RAM truck of all things.

http://earth2tech.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/chrysler-electrification-nov409.gif

Now they don't show a pure BEV, no ICE tag along in the truck path forward, which is a mistake in my view. The ICE is only needed as range extender, and many of this commercial fleet trucks have a known fixed range requirement, inside the range of the battery. So the hybrid ICE with all its overhead is unnecessary cost, and someone will then make a BEV truck for less.

 

[mheslep]

FPL and Duke Power are replacing their entire car and truck fleet (10,000) with EV's starting next year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090924-705557.html" .
This makes since 1) they don't need long distance, 2) on a cost per mile basis the EVs are at least break even today, and can only become more cost effective in the future.

There seem to be a dozen or so bucket truck vendors, who all buy their chassis from either GM, Ford, or International. I'll be curious to see which one steps up w/ an EV chassis and one of them will, as they're not going to give a foreign make an entry into the truck market.

I saw one of Dominion Virginia Power's hybrid bucket trucks on the road today. Altec is the integrator, International builds the chassis. Hybrid's are half way to a pure EV, so I expect International will end up making the FPL trucks above too.

http://www.dom.com/about/environment/images/hybrid_truck.jpg
http://www.automotive-fleet.com/Channel/Leasing/News/Story/2009/04/Dominion-Virginia-Power-Shows-Off-Biodiesel-Hybrid-Trucks.aspx?interstitial=1

 

[mgb_phys]

I think it's going to be a while before you see plugin trucks like that.
According to the specs the electric drive is only 60hp compared to the 300hp motor.
It doesn't list the battery capacity but even with a total hybrid weight of 400lbs it's not going to have a huge range.
The min use of the hybrid is probably power for the hydraulics so you don't need to run the engine when working.

 

[mheslep]

I think it's going to be a while before you see plugin trucks like that.
According to the specs the electric drive is only 60hp compared to the 300hp motor.
It doesn't list the battery capacity but even with a total hybrid weight of 400lbs it's not going to have a huge range.
The min use of the hybrid is probably power for the hydraulics so you don't need to run the engine when working.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2396343&postcount=129" Florida Power & Light is ordering plug-in bucket trucks starting next year. Of course the hybrid truck's electric system provide's only partial power - that's the nature of the hybrid. The point is some major mfn's have stepped up to electrifying truck size drive trains, and have already developed some know-how. In my view, the reason why EV is a particularly good fit for these fleets is that the range requirement is limited - they know before they leave the depot where they're going on the call.

A quick run of the numbers shows me that a pure plug-in EV (no ICE) 120 mile range truck breaks even at ~42 cents / mile with a diesel truck getting 9 mpg. That includes the cost of the battery ($800/kWh) and electricity (at retail) versus today's cost of diesel ($3.9/gal). Also, the electric drive train should eventually be cheaper than the ICE+radiator+fuel system+transmission+exhaust system+lubrication system. Finally, a power company like FPL may write off the electricity to charge batteries, if so then the EV is a clear win for them already, and tomorrow the price of diesel is only going up.

 

[mgb_phys]

it was more the power requirements than the economics.
For a small in-town delivery truck, like a US post van then plugin is a no-brainer.

But that's a 30,000lb truck with a 300hp motor. To do that on plugin is not going to be practical with todays batteries.

Assuming capital cost isn't a factor for utilities, the battery pack for a tesla is pretty state of the art =53KWh at 400kg
If the diesel truck gets 9mpg and gas is about 34Kwh/ga - diesel a bit better, that's 4kwh/mi
So assuming the ICE is 50% efficent and the electric is 100% it should do twice that.
Even then the tesla battery pack is only going to get it about 20miles.

I think for 10ton trucks hydrocarbon fuels are going to be around for a while.

 

[mheslep]

it was more the power requirements than the economics.
For a small in-town delivery truck, like a US post van then plugin is a no-brainer.

But that's a 30,000lb truck with a 300hp motor. To do that on plugin is not going to be practical with todays batteries.

I don't follow? Electric motors have been built to thousands of HP. Batteries can be stacked into the megawatt range.

Assuming capital cost isn't a factor for utilities, the battery pack for a tesla is pretty state of the art =53KWh at 400kg

Actually Tesla's battery is old tech. It was literally made by aggregating thousands of small lithium cobalt batteries - laptop batteries. Renault, Nissan, Chevy are using different, newer chemistries, mostly LiFePO.

If the diesel truck gets 9mpg and gas is about 34Kwh/ga - diesel a bit better, that's 4kwh/mi
So assuming the ICE is 50% efficent and the electric is 100% it should do twice that.
Even then the tesla battery pack is only going to get it about 20miles

I've not seen any 50% efficient ICE's, but anyway the Tesla has had several internal and external reports showing it gets ~4 miles / kWh at 60 mph. Above I was assuming the EV version of this 10 ton truck to be 4x worse than that, say 1 mile per kWh. Thus a range of 120 miles requires a 120 kWh battery, $100k cost, ~850kg (~9% vehicle weight), at 3000 deep charge cycles for the battery + electricity at 12 cents / kWh gives me 43 cents / mile.

I think for 10ton trucks hydrocarbon fuels are going to be around for a while.

For long haul, cross country vehicles, I agree. For around town fleet vehicles like these, that need no distributed infrastructure, I think you'll drive past more than one within a couple years.

BTW, I had occasion last week to see a prototype Army combat vehicle: tracked 30 tons plus, serial hybrid, i.e. only electric motors attached to the tracks. It accelerates faster off the line than the US Army's gas turbine main battle tank.

 

[Nebula815]

One thing on electric vehicles, what are you going to do to power them? For example, if we start plugging in millions of electric vehicles into the electric grid, we're going to need to ramp up the power supply a whole lot aren't we? Which right now means a lot more coal plants?

 

[mgb_phys]

I don't follow? Electric motors have been built to thousands of HP. Batteries can be stacked into the megawatt range.

But not fitted on a regular vehicle.

Tesla has had several internal and external reports showing it gets ~4 miles / kWh at 60 mph.

That's for a lightweight aerodynamic sportscar I was trying to estimate the power demand of the truck based on mpg - obviously just a ballpark figure.

For long haul, cross country vehicles, I agree. For around town fleet vehicles like these, that need no distributed infrastructure, I think you'll drive past more than one within a couple years.[quote/]
My bet would be first for vehicles that do a lot of stop start and operate where you don't want noise = dustbin trucks, or where you need a lot of power while stationary = cranes, hoist trucks

BTW, I had occasion last week to see a prototype Army combat vehicle: tracked 30 tons plus, serial hybrid, i.e. only electric motors attached to the tracks.

Leibherr make a hybrid 350ton haul truck! It makes the transmission a lot simpler, but it doesn't have batteries!
Quite a few underground mine cars (10-20ton tractors) are now electric, the big saving is in ventilation - it takes a lot of air flow to remove diesel exhaust from a deep mine. There's also a lower fire risk.
But they typically only run at 10km/h on worling levels so range and power is not as much of a problem.
The main drawback is the charge time - mines run 24x7 so you have to have extra trucks sitting there recharging.

 

[mheslep]

But not fitted on a regular vehicle.

What's your point? Electric motor power density reaches 4kw/kg (2.4 HP/lb), no combustion engine I've seen short of a gas turbine reaches that power density. So let's be clear: power density is not a problem with this class of batteries and motors. Energy density is difficult problem #1, which manifests itself as range limitation in EVs. We agree that battery weight and up front capital cost limits range (for now), but even so I've shown a couple hundred miles is feasible on heavy trucks. That, IMO, is sufficient for a certain class of trucks, because the overall cost per mile is so appealing.

For long haul, cross country vehicles, I agree. For around town fleet vehicles like these, that need no distributed infrastructure, I think you'll drive past more than one within a couple years.

My bet would be first for vehicles that do a lot of stop start and operate where you don't want noise = dustbin trucks, or where you need a lot of power while stationary = cranes, hoist trucks

Good points.

Leibherr make a hybrid 350ton haul truck! It makes the transmission a lot simpler, but it doesn't have batteries!

Eh?

Quite a few underground mine cars (10-20ton tractors) are now electric, the big saving is in ventilation - it takes a lot of air flow to remove diesel exhaust from a deep mine. There's also a lower fire risk.
But they typically only run at 10km/h on worling levels so range and power is not as much of a problem.
The main drawback is the charge time - mines run 24x7 so you have to have extra trucks sitting there recharging.

Charge time is difficult problem #2 for EVs (for some needs, like 24x7 operations). It shows up in other industries too - warehouse electric forklifts and airport ground equipment. The solution for some in those industries is battery exchange - it's been done for years. One EV 'system' company (Better Place) is basing their entire business model around battery exchange.

 

[mgb_phys]

What's your point? Electric motor power density reaches 4kw/kg (2.4 HP/lb),

My point was about energy density. From a rough estimate it didn't seem that a 120 mi range was feasible

Eh?

I see your battle tank and raise you a haul truck!

warehouse electric forklifts and airport ground equipment. The solution for some in those industries is battery exchange - it's been done for years.

I think there is a general lack of working space/personnel underground.
interestingly they don't consider electric as a safety feature, they deliberately run trucks with very small onboard diesel tanks - the main fire risk is the tyres.

 

[mheslep]

I see your battle tank and raise you a haul truck!

Ah. See your haul truck and raise you this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Muskie" r. Why do they go electric? Fuel load would be too heavy for a 24x7 walking excavator.

 

[mgb_phys]

Why do they go electric?

Because if they go the rampage and start destroying the puny humans you can pull the plug ;-)

http://www.landliving.com/image/Excavator_1.jpg

 

[mheslep]

One thing on electric vehicles, what are you going to do to power them? For example, if we start plugging in millions of electric vehicles into the electric grid, we're going to need to ramp up the power supply a whole lot aren't we? Which right now means a lot more coal plants?

No.

ScienceDaily (Dec. 14, 2006) — If all the cars and light trucks in the nation switched from oil to electrons, idle capacity in the existing electric power system could generate most of the electricity consumed by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of the country's 220 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061211221149.htm

 

[mheslep]

Because if they go the rampage and start destroying the puny humans you can pull the plug ;-)

I've never seen one of those bucket excavators outside of books. My 4 year old's 'Big Machines' book says they're not used in the US - wrong type of geology.