Organisations unable to ever fully adopt electric vehicles
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
But you did seem to be suggesting that they were being forced to go EV.
Ah, I thought the ban on internal combustion engines coming in a few years' time applied right across the board and, if so, was a bit impractical.I'll go back to the Lounge. I cause less upset in there.
bristolracer said:
Not everything has to go electric
Just a significant amount of personal and commercial transport, there will always be exceptions.
Half the developing world will still be using ICE for many years after we have gone electric.
unlikely as you can buy an EV in india for £1200 and a damn decent one in China for £4k, and both will be a lot cheaper to runJust a significant amount of personal and commercial transport, there will always be exceptions.
Half the developing world will still be using ICE for many years after we have gone electric.
and OP, no electricity no pumps to get your fossil fuel
shouldbworking said:
It's going to be a bold or stupid military that adopts ev early. You're advertising to the enemy that your vehicles will be heavier, with reduced range, that your supply chain will be compromised by needing to haul heavier equipment with much less energy dense fuel.
Lets take the MTB example? Do you know how a modern MTB works? They use a massive, in-efficient, compromised, desiel engine or gas turbine to make power, that is then fed into a huge, and massively in-efficient transmission, to enable that engine spinning at thousands of rpm to drive some tracks spinning between zero and 100 rpm. Just the transmission losses are gigantic. And of course, huge losses means huge cooling requirements, which also means large "holes" in your protection system to get the heat out. Moving to a direct coupled electric motor has none of those problems (which is why very large heavy vehicles are generally already using electric traction (look at the 400 tonne mine trucks for example). And of course, your electric motor is bi-directional, so you can slow your 65 tonne MTB using the same system instead of using the friction brakes (massive in use servicing reduction!)So you can, at a first guess, make your MTB only consume something like 25% of the total energy you put into the vehicle when it was driven by a heat engine (probably 15% or less if we are talking about turbine driven MTB's like the Abrams etc). So straight away, if you can generate your lecy externally to the MTB with even the same efficiency that you could burn your fuel, then you are already winning. Add some renewables into the mix, and your fuel logistics chain can be significantly streamlined.
So your statements that somehow an electric MTB is of reduced capability, performance and has a larger logistics penalty is simply not true i'm afraid.......
Interesting subject as I work for a company which supplies ICE, Hybrid and full electric aircraft refuellers. I also work in the defence team and have had a lot of interest from the military on electric and hybrid offering. Personally, the military are not there yet with full electric in certain areas and I am not sure it will be. Hybrid though, yes but again still needs some resupply issues ironing out. Infact for a overseas military customer they asked us to submit a tender. I was also working in Afghanistan for 5 years responsible for the resupply of mainly US bases of fuel. The biggest user out there was the airforce and we are way down the line to replace the jet engine, even if you look at SAF products. Kandahar airbase used on average 70,000ltrs of fuel a day to power the generators on that base....a base which had at the time around 5-6000 people. All the fuel came from mainly UAE countries as Pakistan and other nearby countries fuel specs was garbage.
We looked into alternative fuels/power but on that scale its not viable. But fly over the small civilian compounds in Afghanistan and you see solar panels everywhere!
We looked into alternative fuels/power but on that scale its not viable. But fly over the small civilian compounds in Afghanistan and you see solar panels everywhere!
This thread is hilarious.
Pretty sure the armed forces could accomplish the feat of securing either a few local wind turbines and/or some high capacity 3 phase generators which they can run on diesel... Ironically for the OP, in the scenario they describe, I expect that in an effort to maintain some sort of order the armed forces would in fact be the first organisations to restore their own power supply one way or another - and no doubt use it to support the emergency services operation too, all of whom are also a priority to maintain order. Same as if the system collapsed for ICE fuel distribution... the organisations that needed it most would secure what was available, at least after an initial period of 'holy f
k' disorganisation.
However, I doth my cap OP. These forums are rife with bizarre speculated scenarios where EV's will fail.. The end of electricity itself is at least an unusually ambitious and amusing attempt
Pretty sure the armed forces could accomplish the feat of securing either a few local wind turbines and/or some high capacity 3 phase generators which they can run on diesel... Ironically for the OP, in the scenario they describe, I expect that in an effort to maintain some sort of order the armed forces would in fact be the first organisations to restore their own power supply one way or another - and no doubt use it to support the emergency services operation too, all of whom are also a priority to maintain order. Same as if the system collapsed for ICE fuel distribution... the organisations that needed it most would secure what was available, at least after an initial period of 'holy f
k' disorganisation.However, I doth my cap OP. These forums are rife with bizarre speculated scenarios where EV's will fail.. The end of electricity itself is at least an unusually ambitious and amusing attempt
Cold said:
You joke, but there are lots of electricity powered solutions in development for spaceflightSpinlaunch for launching satellites will be powered by electric motors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dYwzC2qaDQ
For launching humans, an electric carrier aircraft like Virgin Galactic are using combined with ion engines is an electric-powered solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
Max_Torque said:
Lets take the MTB example? Do you know how a modern MTB works? They use a massive, in-efficient, compromised, desiel engine or gas turbine to make power, that is then fed into a huge, and massively in-efficient transmission, to enable that engine spinning at thousands of rpm to drive some tracks spinning between zero and 100 rpm. Just the transmission losses are gigantic. And of course, huge losses means huge cooling requirements, which also means large "holes" in your protection system to get the heat out. Moving to a direct coupled electric motor has none of those problems (which is why very large heavy vehicles are generally already using electric traction (look at the 400 tonne mine trucks for example). And of course, your electric motor is bi-directional, so you can slow your 65 tonne MTB using the same system instead of using the friction brakes (massive in use servicing reduction!)
So you can, at a first guess, make your MTB only consume something like 25% of the total energy you put into the vehicle when it was driven by a heat engine (probably 15% or less if we are talking about turbine driven MTB's like the Abrams etc). So straight away, if you can generate your lecy externally to the MTB with even the same efficiency that you could burn your fuel, then you are already winning. Add some renewables into the mix, and your fuel logistics chain can be significantly streamlined.
So your statements that somehow an electric MTB is of reduced capability, performance and has a larger logistics penalty is simply not true i'm afraid.......
It's not completely untrue just because you've chosen to omit them. So you can, at a first guess, make your MTB only consume something like 25% of the total energy you put into the vehicle when it was driven by a heat engine (probably 15% or less if we are talking about turbine driven MTB's like the Abrams etc). So straight away, if you can generate your lecy externally to the MTB with even the same efficiency that you could burn your fuel, then you are already winning. Add some renewables into the mix, and your fuel logistics chain can be significantly streamlined.
So your statements that somehow an electric MTB is of reduced capability, performance and has a larger logistics penalty is simply not true i'm afraid.......
Turnaround time is somewhat relevant on front line machinery which means refuelling speeds and number of locations must be factored in.
The ubiquity of electricity in developed nations for private cars is a huge benefit however, you have the reverse scenario in the less developed nations where we like to host our combat needs. One also has to consider the other difference which is the importance of greater flexibility and the highly variable dynamics.
There are going to be clear benefits to using batteries to power something like an MTB but at the same time that doesn't mean there aren't potentially significant downsides. For example, you're suddenly tethering your vehicle to your own supply lines. Think back to how MTBs have been used historically beyond basic coastal patrols of controlled waters and you suddenly appreciate the upside of using a fuel that is ubiquitous in developed nations in a way that electricity isn't. Mooring up at your preferred Pacific island that isn't under your full control and stepping ashore with an extension cable and three pin plug to start a quick three day refuel isn't quite as beneficial as fuelling from someone else's fuel stores etc. Nor is having to have twice as many MTBs for patrol work to compensate for refuel times like Formula E v Formula 1.
Fuel efficiency isn't the only efficiency in town so you can't just dismiss the discussions of others by just ignoring the realities that don't fit.
Evanivitch said:
Max, I'm going to assume you meant MBT 
I was just thinking there's plenty of electric MTB's on sale these days, go to any off-road park there's often as many e-bikes are there are normal ones 
The military is very keen on electric and hybrid propulsion. It's quieter, improved efficiency means lower logistic burden, etc. The US even have stats on the cost of diesel in human lives due to losses on fuel convoys.
DonkeyApple said:
It's not completely untrue just because you've chosen to omit them.
Turnaround time is somewhat relevant on front line machinery which means refuelling speeds and number of locations must be factored in.
The ubiquity of electricity in developed nations for private cars is a huge benefit however, you have the reverse scenario in the less developed nations where we like to host our combat needs. One also has to consider the other difference which is the importance of greater flexibility and the highly variable dynamics.
There are going to be clear benefits to using batteries to power something like an MTB but at the same time that doesn't mean there aren't potentially significant downsides. For example, you're suddenly tethering your vehicle to your own supply lines. Think back to how MTBs have been used historically beyond basic coastal patrols of controlled waters and you suddenly appreciate the upside of using a fuel that is ubiquitous in developed nations in a way that electricity isn't. Mooring up at your preferred Pacific island that isn't under your full control and stepping ashore with an extension cable and three pin plug to start a quick three day refuel isn't quite as beneficial as fuelling from someone else's fuel stores etc. Nor is having to have twice as many MTBs for patrol work to compensate for refuel times like Formula E v Formula 1.
Fuel efficiency isn't the only efficiency in town so you can't just dismiss the discussions of others by just ignoring the realities that don't fit.
Not sure how we've started talking about torpedo boats Turnaround time is somewhat relevant on front line machinery which means refuelling speeds and number of locations must be factored in.
The ubiquity of electricity in developed nations for private cars is a huge benefit however, you have the reverse scenario in the less developed nations where we like to host our combat needs. One also has to consider the other difference which is the importance of greater flexibility and the highly variable dynamics.
There are going to be clear benefits to using batteries to power something like an MTB but at the same time that doesn't mean there aren't potentially significant downsides. For example, you're suddenly tethering your vehicle to your own supply lines. Think back to how MTBs have been used historically beyond basic coastal patrols of controlled waters and you suddenly appreciate the upside of using a fuel that is ubiquitous in developed nations in a way that electricity isn't. Mooring up at your preferred Pacific island that isn't under your full control and stepping ashore with an extension cable and three pin plug to start a quick three day refuel isn't quite as beneficial as fuelling from someone else's fuel stores etc. Nor is having to have twice as many MTBs for patrol work to compensate for refuel times like Formula E v Formula 1.
Fuel efficiency isn't the only efficiency in town so you can't just dismiss the discussions of others by just ignoring the realities that don't fit.
RizzoTheRat said:
The military is very keen on electric and hybrid propulsion. It's quieter, improved efficiency means lower logistic burden, etc.
And fortunately the British army are already investing quite heavily, with electric Hybrid versions of the MAN SV (logistics), Foxhound (Patrol) and Jackal (recce) vehicles already in test. As well as the Sur-Ron motorcycles.And the Type 45 have been electric drive hybrid for a while, but less said about that the better...
DonkeyApple said:
It's not completely untrue just because you've chosen to omit them.
Turnaround time is somewhat relevant on front line machinery which means refuelling speeds and number of locations must be factored in.
The ubiquity of electricity in developed nations for private cars is a huge benefit however, you have the reverse scenario in the less developed nations where we like to host our combat needs. One also has to consider the other difference which is the importance of greater flexibility and the highly variable dynamics.
There are going to be clear benefits to using batteries to power something like an MTB but at the same time that doesn't mean there aren't potentially significant downsides. For example, you're suddenly tethering your vehicle to your own supply lines. Think back to how MTBs have been used historically beyond basic coastal patrols of controlled waters and you suddenly appreciate the upside of using a fuel that is ubiquitous in developed nations in a way that electricity isn't. Mooring up at your preferred Pacific island that isn't under your full control and stepping ashore with an extension cable and three pin plug to start a quick three day refuel isn't quite as beneficial as fuelling from someone else's fuel stores etc. Nor is having to have twice as many MTBs for patrol work to compensate for refuel times like Formula E v Formula 1.
Fuel efficiency isn't the only efficiency in town so you can't just dismiss the discussions of others by just ignoring the realities that don't fit.
no first world country that can afford to design a new MTB is going to be doing invasions of the Pacific any time soon! The political will for mass infantry deaths is zero. Drones, missiles and flag waving are the new "fighting". Turnaround time is somewhat relevant on front line machinery which means refuelling speeds and number of locations must be factored in.
The ubiquity of electricity in developed nations for private cars is a huge benefit however, you have the reverse scenario in the less developed nations where we like to host our combat needs. One also has to consider the other difference which is the importance of greater flexibility and the highly variable dynamics.
There are going to be clear benefits to using batteries to power something like an MTB but at the same time that doesn't mean there aren't potentially significant downsides. For example, you're suddenly tethering your vehicle to your own supply lines. Think back to how MTBs have been used historically beyond basic coastal patrols of controlled waters and you suddenly appreciate the upside of using a fuel that is ubiquitous in developed nations in a way that electricity isn't. Mooring up at your preferred Pacific island that isn't under your full control and stepping ashore with an extension cable and three pin plug to start a quick three day refuel isn't quite as beneficial as fuelling from someone else's fuel stores etc. Nor is having to have twice as many MTBs for patrol work to compensate for refuel times like Formula E v Formula 1.
Fuel efficiency isn't the only efficiency in town so you can't just dismiss the discussions of others by just ignoring the realities that don't fit.
The biggest issue with old school tank battles was that the tanks could outpace the infantry, the logistics, and spent more time broken down than working! Those days are long gone......
DonkeyApple said:
You're not going to be getting many sane military leaders demanding that being kind to the environment and running good marketing PR takes prece sent over being able to win a fight any more than they currently demand the uniforms be made by Armani because it's important to look fabulous when running across open ground hoping to kill someone before they kill you.
UK military procurement strategic goals said:
NET ZERO EMISSIONS ACROSS OUR
OPERATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
NET ZERO EMISSIONS ACROSS
MILITARY CAPABILITIES
Max_Torque - Interesting perspective on the MBT front, there are positives in some areas but my view is the negatives far outweigh them at present. Reduced thermal / noise signatures is great, but when you've got no capacity to charge your EV, it doesn't mean a thing.OPERATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
NET ZERO EMISSIONS ACROSS
MILITARY CAPABILITIES
Generators available to units at the front line are more akin to the stuff in the ebay generator restoration thread, and even if they weren't, the generator doesn't run on fairy dust.
My view, equipment the size of the last mile resupply efforts / robotic platoon vehicles are about the right point to be focusing on EV. Genuine benefit if it works, representative data to inform larger scale efforts.
Max_Torque said:
no first world country that can afford to design a new MTB is going to be doing invasions of the Pacific any time soon! The political will for mass infantry deaths is zero. Drones, missiles and flag waving are the new "fighting".
The biggest issue with old school tank battles was that the tanks could outpace the infantry, the logistics, and spent more time broken down than working! Those days are long gone......
Wires crossed here.The biggest issue with old school tank battles was that the tanks could outpace the infantry, the logistics, and spent more time broken down than working! Those days are long gone......
Max means MBT = Main Battle Tank
Max has said MTB, which means Mountain Bike or Motor Tropedo Boat.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff