Interesting solution for ev trucks
Discussion
Wikipedia said:
As of 2004, Great Britain had 7,845 miles (12,625 km) of trunk roads, of which 2,161 miles (3,478 km) were motorways.
Highways England said:
The strategic road network (SRN) ... 4,300 miles of motorways and major A roads ... carrying a third of all traffic and two-thirds of all freight.
Putting overhead lines in on one lane of both directions of at least the SRN, and potentially all trunk roads (maybe a few exclusions) would seem to be a very large but manageable engineering project.It would also enable full electrification of heavy deliveries in quite a practical way, as the goods vehicles could retain high battery charge states for the majority of the route taken.
This is potentially a very good solution, but there are some major engineering and cost challenges which require solution (and cash frankly).
What is surprising is just how much power the big HGVs (44 tonnes) require to get up inclines. This is why we come across then going very slowly up long inclines on motorways. If you have a number of such HGVs on a stretch with an incline, the amount of power starts to really add up very quickly.
The test site in Germany which Siemens and Scania did is on the flat and quite short. I understand why they chose that site
Plans are afoot for a test site in the UK sometime soon.
What is surprising is just how much power the big HGVs (44 tonnes) require to get up inclines. This is why we come across then going very slowly up long inclines on motorways. If you have a number of such HGVs on a stretch with an incline, the amount of power starts to really add up very quickly.
The test site in Germany which Siemens and Scania did is on the flat and quite short. I understand why they chose that site
Plans are afoot for a test site in the UK sometime soon.
911newbie said:
This is potentially a very good solution, but there are some major engineering and cost challenges which require solution (and cash frankly).
What is surprising is just how much power the big HGVs (44 tonnes) require to get up inclines. This is why we come across then going very slowly up long inclines on motorways. If you have a number of such HGVs on a stretch with an incline, the amount of power starts to really add up very quickly.
The test site in Germany which Siemens and Scania did is on the flat and quite short. I understand why they chose that site
Plans are afoot for a test site in the UK sometime soon.
I think for the moment diesel electric hybids would be the best solution, a bit of data communication down the powerline telling the trucks when the load becomes unfeasible and the trucks can fire up the diesel motor for some assistance, and the trucks can still maintain long range/quick refilling.What is surprising is just how much power the big HGVs (44 tonnes) require to get up inclines. This is why we come across then going very slowly up long inclines on motorways. If you have a number of such HGVs on a stretch with an incline, the amount of power starts to really add up very quickly.
The test site in Germany which Siemens and Scania did is on the flat and quite short. I understand why they chose that site
Plans are afoot for a test site in the UK sometime soon.
Also means you can get by with a much smaller lighter battery.
911newbie said:
What is surprising is just how much power the big HGVs (44 tonnes) require to get up inclines. This is why we come across then going very slowly up long inclines on motorways. If you have a number of such HGVs on a stretch with an incline, the amount of power starts to really add up very quickly.
Guess you could set the overhead power to supply enough to each truck for "steady state" 56mph so they retain whatever charge % they have, they can dig into the battery to get up the inclines, and regenerate some on the downhill bits and still take on overhead power to regain.I wonder what the actual power consumption on the flat for a fully laden 44 tonne truck is?
OldGermanHeaps said:
I think for the moment diesel electric hybids would be the best solution, a bit of data communication down the powerline telling the trucks when the load becomes unfeasible and the trucks can fire up the diesel motor for some assistance, and the trucks can still maintain long range/quick refilling.
Also means you can get by with a much smaller lighter battery.
Best leave comms off the powerline, despite how tempting it can be at the start. Too much scope for interference, no matter what frequency band you reserve for comms.Also means you can get by with a much smaller lighter battery.
Diesel is best for this job for sure, and diesel-battery probably second best after that. But the whole point is to get rid of the diesel. So for high energy density hydrogen is a possibility, but for now I expect the vehicle OEMs will stick with large battery packs.
I think Mercedes is trying out a H2 fuel cell-battery HGV, and it might have been DAF as well... if memory serves.
Right now no one knows for sure if hydrogen will dominate, or be part of the picture.
My bet is the day of single fuel has gone.
Aerospace and I think small maritime will be using hydrogen, so perhaps the infrastructrue costs of getting a supply chain up and running can be shared round.
Knock_knock said:
Guess you could set the overhead power to supply enough to each truck for "steady state" 56mph so they retain whatever charge % they have, they can dig into the battery to get up the inclines, and regenerate some on the downhill bits and still take on overhead power to regain.
I wonder what the actual power consumption on the flat for a fully laden 44 tonne truck is?
I expect the first phase will miss out on some of the more complicated aspects, like splitting overhead power for simultaneous traction and recharge, for simplicity's sake. (If that's what you meant)I wonder what the actual power consumption on the flat for a fully laden 44 tonne truck is?
For sure battery assist up inclines could work, but what about vehicles entering the system with low SoC. (Perhaps they will simply have to park up and recharge for a bit).
In the end I expect there will have to be some communication between vehicles and the overhead power system. We can't have an undefined and uncontrolled number of requests for large power, all from what is likely to be a tightly constrained system (the local grid). What power is availble will have to be split up amongst users fairly somewhow.
But ski-lift type queues of stationary vehicles waiting for power to come on stream to climb an incline are not a good idea, even if they are in the layby.
It's not easy is it.
911newbie said:
I expect the first phase will miss out on some of the more complicated aspects, like splitting overhead power for simultaneous traction and recharge, for simplicity's sake. (If that's what you meant)
For sure battery assist up inclines could work, but what about vehicles entering the system with low SoC. (Perhaps they will simply have to park up and recharge for a bit).
In the end I expect there will have to be some communication between vehicles and the overhead power system. We can't have an undefined and uncontrolled number of requests for large power, all from what is likely to be a tightly constrained system (the local grid). What power is availble will have to be split up amongst users fairly somewhow.
But ski-lift type queues of stationary vehicles waiting for power to come on stream to climb an incline are not a good idea, even if they are in the layby.
It's not easy is it.
I'm not sure how easy or otherwise it is. If a truck is 25m in length, and if you have two trucks lengths between each at 56mph, that's only 14 trucks per km. If each is drawing 4kw from the overhead it doesn't seem like a massive grid level issue when considered as an installation over a number of years.For sure battery assist up inclines could work, but what about vehicles entering the system with low SoC. (Perhaps they will simply have to park up and recharge for a bit).
In the end I expect there will have to be some communication between vehicles and the overhead power system. We can't have an undefined and uncontrolled number of requests for large power, all from what is likely to be a tightly constrained system (the local grid). What power is availble will have to be split up amongst users fairly somewhow.
But ski-lift type queues of stationary vehicles waiting for power to come on stream to climb an incline are not a good idea, even if they are in the layby.
It's not easy is it.
In my "model" the truck is entering the SRN with 70% SOC, or about 150 miles range, and leaves the SRN some hours later at the same SOC despite having travelled a significant distance. The truck gets billed for the electricity of course, and the charge rate is adjusted according to speed, so congested roads which require less power get a lower charge rate.
Then the final leg is covered using internal batteries, before a recharge taking place, and the process repeating.
ZesPak said:
The Spruce Goose said:
Would stop 10 mile elephant racing.
Not really tbh, they need the flexibility of a truck so they still would have a fairly significant battery.Knock_knock said:
I'm not sure how easy or otherwise it is. If a truck is 25m in length, and if you have two trucks lengths between each at 56mph, that's only 14 trucks per km. If each is drawing 4kw from the overhead it doesn't seem like a massive grid level issue when considered as an installation over a number of years.
In my "model" the truck is entering the SRN with 70% SOC, or about 150 miles range, and leaves the SRN some hours later at the same SOC despite having travelled a significant distance. The truck gets billed for the electricity of course, and the charge rate is adjusted according to speed, so congested roads which require less power get a lower charge rate.
Then the final leg is covered using internal batteries, before a recharge taking place, and the process repeating.
I think your model for the trucks is pretty much right. Mind you some will enter with feck all battery left, and others with near 100% SoC.In my "model" the truck is entering the SRN with 70% SOC, or about 150 miles range, and leaves the SRN some hours later at the same SOC despite having travelled a significant distance. The truck gets billed for the electricity of course, and the charge rate is adjusted according to speed, so congested roads which require less power get a lower charge rate.
Then the final leg is covered using internal batteries, before a recharge taking place, and the process repeating.
Your power demand is too low though. The 44 tonne trucks use nigh on 500 kW power, or at least have engines/motors capable of that.
I'm going to guess that the HGVs you see going pretty slowly up inclines on motorways are pulling 100% of available power, ie 500 kW ish.
So if they are using only overhead power that could end up being an absolutely huge power demand. If your 14 HGVs/km is right that might be something like 7 MW for a one km long incline.
Some parts of the local grid just don't have that going spare.
Pulling some energy from their batteries, and some from overhead might be possible, but for sure it'll be difficult, ie expensive.
And the whole point of having this overhead system is to boost the range of the HGVs, so gobbling up energy stored in the battery sort of defeats this purpose.
I'm still not sure if and how we can recharge the on board battery from downhill regen plus overheard at the same time.
I'm more certain the trucks will not be allowed to put power back on to the overhead system.
Some info on the large Volvo truck -
https://www.volvotrucks.co.uk/en-gb/trucks/trucks/...
490 kW max continuous power.
The current diesel engines in most 44 tonne HGVs also have max power in that region.
It's an interesting solution but the chap hits the nail on the head during his introduction which is that you're effectively reinventing the train, as in you'd be building tracks in the sky and creating vast steel infrastructure to combat the relatively short term problems of Li batteries.
The more likely solution for mobile engines that need to run for hours on end is looking to be hydrogen. While green hydrogen doesn't yet exist commercially and while it has no use in private transport, it is potentially a viable solution for heavy haulage as it would get you to near zero emissions while the infrastructure requirements are much lower and the near constant use of the machinery makes leakage etc less of an issue.
For the UK you have the issue of hydrogen tanks in the Chunnel but that's the same level of risk as giant Li battery packs in the Chunnel. If anything goes wrong with either solutions the Chunnel is gone.
Quite a few very heavy industrial polluters are now investing in electrolysis for the tax offsets and while the vast bulk of the green hydrogen is intended for simply transporting electricity from a cheap destination to a high cost one and the balance is destined for blending with natural gas, it would mean that there would be potential supply for the haulage industry should prices come down low enough over the next decade.
The true reality is that nothing beats diesel for efficiency and cost and for some time the only economic solution is to stay with that fuel in many markets especially in the UK where a solution such as overhead charging is only viable on motorways yet significant mileage is done away from this network due to our road infrastructure.
As a solution, it seems more viable in countries such as the US where the bulk of a truck journey is on freeways between conurbations.
The more likely solution for mobile engines that need to run for hours on end is looking to be hydrogen. While green hydrogen doesn't yet exist commercially and while it has no use in private transport, it is potentially a viable solution for heavy haulage as it would get you to near zero emissions while the infrastructure requirements are much lower and the near constant use of the machinery makes leakage etc less of an issue.
For the UK you have the issue of hydrogen tanks in the Chunnel but that's the same level of risk as giant Li battery packs in the Chunnel. If anything goes wrong with either solutions the Chunnel is gone.
Quite a few very heavy industrial polluters are now investing in electrolysis for the tax offsets and while the vast bulk of the green hydrogen is intended for simply transporting electricity from a cheap destination to a high cost one and the balance is destined for blending with natural gas, it would mean that there would be potential supply for the haulage industry should prices come down low enough over the next decade.
The true reality is that nothing beats diesel for efficiency and cost and for some time the only economic solution is to stay with that fuel in many markets especially in the UK where a solution such as overhead charging is only viable on motorways yet significant mileage is done away from this network due to our road infrastructure.
As a solution, it seems more viable in countries such as the US where the bulk of a truck journey is on freeways between conurbations.
DonkeyApple said:
It's an interesting solution but the chap hits the nail on the head during his introduction which is that you're effectively reinventing the train, as in you'd be building tracks in the sky and creating vast steel infrastructure to combat the relatively short term problems of Li batteries.
The more likely solution for mobile engines that need to run for hours on end is looking to be hydrogen. While green hydrogen doesn't yet exist commercially and while it has no use in private transport, it is potentially a viable solution for heavy haulage as it would get you to near zero emissions while the infrastructure requirements are much lower and the near constant use of the machinery makes leakage etc less of an issue.
For the UK you have the issue of hydrogen tanks in the Chunnel but that's the same level of risk as giant Li battery packs in the Chunnel. If anything goes wrong with either solutions the Chunnel is gone.
Quite a few very heavy industrial polluters are now investing in electrolysis for the tax offsets and while the vast bulk of the green hydrogen is intended for simply transporting electricity from a cheap destination to a high cost one and the balance is destined for blending with natural gas, it would mean that there would be potential supply for the haulage industry should prices come down low enough over the next decade.
The true reality is that nothing beats diesel for efficiency and cost and for some time the only economic solution is to stay with that fuel in many markets especially in the UK where a solution such as overhead charging is only viable on motorways yet significant mileage is done away from this network due to our road infrastructure.
As a solution, it seems more viable in countries such as the US where the bulk of a truck journey is on freeways between conurbations.
Yes, rail is just so much better at moving heavy stuff than road. Looking like it was the worst mistake ever to rip up our post war network of provincial rail tracks. Ultimately we may end up putting much of that back in (if that's possible).The more likely solution for mobile engines that need to run for hours on end is looking to be hydrogen. While green hydrogen doesn't yet exist commercially and while it has no use in private transport, it is potentially a viable solution for heavy haulage as it would get you to near zero emissions while the infrastructure requirements are much lower and the near constant use of the machinery makes leakage etc less of an issue.
For the UK you have the issue of hydrogen tanks in the Chunnel but that's the same level of risk as giant Li battery packs in the Chunnel. If anything goes wrong with either solutions the Chunnel is gone.
Quite a few very heavy industrial polluters are now investing in electrolysis for the tax offsets and while the vast bulk of the green hydrogen is intended for simply transporting electricity from a cheap destination to a high cost one and the balance is destined for blending with natural gas, it would mean that there would be potential supply for the haulage industry should prices come down low enough over the next decade.
The true reality is that nothing beats diesel for efficiency and cost and for some time the only economic solution is to stay with that fuel in many markets especially in the UK where a solution such as overhead charging is only viable on motorways yet significant mileage is done away from this network due to our road infrastructure.
As a solution, it seems more viable in countries such as the US where the bulk of a truck journey is on freeways between conurbations.
You're bang on with diesel as a fuel, it's amazingly good. If only it wasn't toxic for the planet ....
One point for clarity's sake, diesel is very energy dense and therfore good as a fuel, but when run through an ICE the efficiency is crap, as in the amount of energy released for propulsion vs the total amountof energy relased from combustion.
Advertised best figure is 35% efficiency, but more like 20% at full throttle, high load, low speed, ie much of the actual use of the vehicle.
And worst of all it is 0% efficient when engines are idling.
I had a look at efficiency for a work vehicle operating at an airport, and efficiency was in single percents, because i) ICE engines are inefficient anyway, and ii) for a substantial fraciton of the work cycle the engine was idling doing no useful work at all except keeping the operator warm.
Running a 200 kW engine, at low speed, for perhaps 1 kW of heat.... so so wrong.
I doubt we'll ever get batteries that have comparable energy denisty to diesel/petrol. Breaking bonds simply releases much more energy than ions moving in an electrolyte. So Lithium or whatever, it's not a short term problem.
Aviation is pretty much going towards hydrogen, at least for short-medium rnage flights. Transatlantic etc will be burning bio derived fuels for a generation or more probably.
Certainly hydrogen is in the picture for Maritime, though the big ships will probably switch to ammonia. Wartsilla is making good progress with the ammonia ICE conversion technology. Nobody wants to cut out and then throw away cathedral engines from bulkers or tankers etc. Work boats, ferries, some aquaculture etc will be switching to hydrogen (probably h2-battery hybrids) in the coming years.
So hydrogen will become more available as private money goes into infrastructure, and hopefully is shared across sectors. I expect hydrogen will be part of the picture, for the medium term anyway.
A pain in the derrier it might be, but the other options are worse or won't work.
Yup. Re the efficiency aspect, I wasn't so much focussing on the eco aspect but monetary efficiency. The diesel ICE may be quite inefficient but we now have an efficient network for fuel distribution that means goods can be moved at the stop of a hat with extremely efficient logistics and therefor savings.
The problem with alternatives is that not just do they cost more but the transport logistics become more inefficient so those costs rise.
This may be why hydrogen, despite it being hugely more expensive than diesel may transpire to be the only viable alternative for some years as it's the only viable way to store energy, move energy and to fit in with the existing logistics.
No car driver will be able to afford hydrogen, nor would any sane driver use it as it is created from the electricity that they need in the first instance! But for heavy plant it may be the best solution. However, it'll still be years before any green hydrogen exists and decades before the volumes are remotely feasible for transport as opposed to simply transporting electricity from Australia or Chile to the U.K./EU. At the moment the whole thing is just a tax offset wheeze by seriously dirty industries which are trapped in Western taxation zones and with no intention whatsoever to produce enough to power a major transport solution.
Weening haulage off diesel is a huge task where the only solutions at present mean a reduction in logistical efficiency, huge infrastructure spend and an overall significant rise in the cost of transporting goods.
The problem with alternatives is that not just do they cost more but the transport logistics become more inefficient so those costs rise.
This may be why hydrogen, despite it being hugely more expensive than diesel may transpire to be the only viable alternative for some years as it's the only viable way to store energy, move energy and to fit in with the existing logistics.
No car driver will be able to afford hydrogen, nor would any sane driver use it as it is created from the electricity that they need in the first instance! But for heavy plant it may be the best solution. However, it'll still be years before any green hydrogen exists and decades before the volumes are remotely feasible for transport as opposed to simply transporting electricity from Australia or Chile to the U.K./EU. At the moment the whole thing is just a tax offset wheeze by seriously dirty industries which are trapped in Western taxation zones and with no intention whatsoever to produce enough to power a major transport solution.
Weening haulage off diesel is a huge task where the only solutions at present mean a reduction in logistical efficiency, huge infrastructure spend and an overall significant rise in the cost of transporting goods.
The solution that has been obvious for years is to switch to using liquid methanol road fuel, synthesised (by catalysis, not just dumping energy into it) from CO2 sequestered from the atmosphere. There are pilot plants working now, and lots of work on reducing the energy footprint. Net zero CO2 forever; other tailpipe emissions are catchable / scrubbable.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff