What if Highways Were Electric? Germany Is Testing the Idea. (nytimes.com) 185
An electrified highway is theoretically the most efficient way to eliminate truck emissions. But the political obstacles are daunting. From a report: Traton is among the backers of the so-called eHighway south of Frankfurt, a group that also includes Siemens and Autobahn GmbH, the government agency that oversees German highways. There are also short segments of electrified road in the states of Schleswig-Holstein and Baden-Wurttemberg. The technology has been tried in Sweden and, in 2017, on a one-mile stretch near the Port of Los Angeles.
So far the sections of highway equipped with overhead cable in Germany are short -- about three miles long in both directions near Frankfurt. Their purpose is to test how the system performs in everyday use by real trucking companies hauling real goods. By the end of the year more than 20 trucks will be using the systems in Germany. Enter Mr. Schmieder, who learned to drive a truck in the German army, and his employer, a trucking firm called Schanz Spedition in the small town of Ober-Ramstadt, in a hilly, thickly forested region about a 35-mile drive from Frankfurt.
If the eHighway is ever going to be rolled out on a large scale, it has to work for companies like Schanz, a family-owned firm managed by Christine Hemmel and Kerstin Seibert, sisters who are great-granddaughters of the founder. Their father, Hans Adam Schanz, though technically retired, was at the wheel of a forklift maneuvering pallets into the back of a truck recently as Mr. Schmieder climbed into the cab for his second run of the day hauling paint to a distribution center in Frankfurt.
So far the sections of highway equipped with overhead cable in Germany are short -- about three miles long in both directions near Frankfurt. Their purpose is to test how the system performs in everyday use by real trucking companies hauling real goods. By the end of the year more than 20 trucks will be using the systems in Germany. Enter Mr. Schmieder, who learned to drive a truck in the German army, and his employer, a trucking firm called Schanz Spedition in the small town of Ober-Ramstadt, in a hilly, thickly forested region about a 35-mile drive from Frankfurt.
If the eHighway is ever going to be rolled out on a large scale, it has to work for companies like Schanz, a family-owned firm managed by Christine Hemmel and Kerstin Seibert, sisters who are great-granddaughters of the founder. Their father, Hans Adam Schanz, though technically retired, was at the wheel of a forklift maneuvering pallets into the back of a truck recently as Mr. Schmieder climbed into the cab for his second run of the day hauling paint to a distribution center in Frankfurt.
NOT the "most efficient way" to move freight. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:NOT the "most efficient way" to move freight. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The main issue with that is bringing the lines to every single supermarket in all major cities... Essentially, the rail is great, but loading and unloading stuff on a train takes time, and you don't have granularity in the final distribution. That's why most of the transport is still on rubber. I am sure there's ways to solve both problems, but "increase the rail network capacity" alone does not fix all the usability issues. Maybe some form of standardized small size containerization as used on air transpor
Re:NOT the "most efficient way" to move freight. (Score:5, Informative)
Made me curious what the breakdown actually is.
US Ton-Miles of Freight (billions), 2018:
16 Air
2034 Truck
1730 Railroad
492 Domestic water
979 Pipeline
https://www.bts.gov/content/us... [bts.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
The car companies that killed passenger rail kept the freight rail to their factories...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:NOT the "most efficient way" to move freight. (Score:4)
while those trucks would love to stop paying for diesel (especially at today's prices)
Can you explain this? I really don't understand it - people keep bitching about gas prices (not the same as diesel granted but following similar trends), but we're still paying like 25% less than we were about a decade ago, without adjusting for inflation, and with additional taxes in most states. Certainly it's quite a bit more than we were paying around April 2020 when demand dropped like concrete in Lake Michigan, but to compare today's prices against a period of minimal demand and holler about it - just really seems like people like to bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
If roads already go everywhere you need the trucks to go why not just add the overhead wires everywhere the roads are? You state that this is less efficient than using rail but then admit that rail can't go everywhere that trucks need to go. There is an efficiency loss in unloading/loading rail cars to transports and vise-versa.
If you just retrofit the roads with overhead electrical then the roads can still be used by "cars, bikes, pedestrians, [electric trucks] you name it, to a certain extent even at the
Re: (Score:2)
The most efficient way is to separate cargo from truck. You want the cargo to keep moving not the truck. So it is logical to place truck depots at driving range distance 4 hours. So you drive truck and trailer to depot, drop off trailer, another truck and driver pick up trailer take to next depot. You stop have lunch, rest, jump into another truck or the same truck charged, pick up trailer drive to home depot.
Drivers always come home. Shift work is required, to keep the trailer moving but the trailer should
Re:NOT the "most efficient way" to move freight. (Score:5, Informative)
> Subways are, but not railways
No shit. Railways are more than 60% electified since a century in countries like Switzerland, Sweden or Italy.
The Trans-Siberian (10000 km, for God's sake) is totally electrified. Both the Southern and the Northern (Baikal-Amur) variants.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Correction: railways are 100%, not 60% electrified in Switzerland.
And electrified railways would've worked beautifully in a country like USA, just like they do in Russia, India or elsewhere. The reason why it didn't happen was not technical, but political.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: NOT the "most efficient way" to move freight. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the Russians have this figured out.
Their trains are dual-power.
They can use diesel to generate electricity if needed, but they also have a pantograph to use overhead lines where it is available.
This solves the issue of electrifying rarely used sections and also gives them a backup if the overhead lines are not working.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Russians have this figured out.
Their trains are dual-power.
They can use diesel to generate electricity if needed, but they also have a pantograph to use overhead lines where it is available.
This solves the issue of electrifying rarely used sections and also gives them a backup if the overhead lines are not working.
Kind of like hybrids are to cars. Makes sense to me.
Re:NOT the "most efficient way" to move freight. (Score:5, Informative)
Battery powered semis are an economic impossibility because of weight constraints. That's why you're not seeing Tesla making a peep about their vapourware semi truck any more.
You'd need entirely new road infrastructure with entirely novel road materials to make them possible without destroying the road in a very short order because they're overweight (tractor at both axles) even when empty. And even if you magically manage to spread battery weight into the trailer to remove the fact that such a vehicle is overweight at tractor axles, your effective payload would be a couple of tons total before again becoming overweight.
We can more or less bypass this in sedans and small sized trucks because they're nowhere near axle weight limits when powered by ICE. So we just reinforce the structure carrying the vehicle on the wheels and put heavy batteries on board. It's going to stress road a lot more than a comparable ICE sedan, but it's still within weight limits.
Semis? They're already operating at the edge of weight constraints with ICE. There's simply no weight budget left for massive batteries and hauling meaningful amounts of cargo that isn't high volume extremely low weight stuff like styrofoam.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The specific energy of diesel is about 44.8 MJ/kg. Efficiency of a diesel motor in a semi-truck tractor is around 40 %. So that is an effective efficiency of around 18 MJ/kg for diesel.
EV battery packs are something like 1 MJ/kg.
A 60 gallon semi truck fuel tank weighs something like 400 lbs. Equivalent battery pack (after correcting for ICE efficiency) is about 18 times heavier, so that is 7200 lbs.
It does seem like long-haul trucking with EV's is a non-starter. Some semis carry much more than 60 gallons of
Re: (Score:3)
Battery powered semis are an economic impossibility because of weight constraints. That's why you're not seeing Tesla making a peep about their vapourware semi truck any more.
Nope. We're not hearing Tesla talk about the Semi because they are being quiet right now, not because the Semi is impossible.
Tesla's new 4680 cells in a structural pack will be a game-changer. Tesla is doing the final work to get ready for mass production of the 4680 cells; once they can make those at scale they will start shipping S
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree rail is a better solution, for political reasons it's not possible everywhere. However the problems you note are actually not so bad.
The variable demand isn't too difficult to fix, you just need some basic communication system that will probably be required for metering anyway. When demand exceeds delivery capability you ask some vehicles to reduce the charge rate or stop altogether. Demand is highly predictable so this is very manageable.
The trucks have big batteries anyway, so if they can ch
Re: (Score:2)
One minor fly in the ointment (Score:2, Interesting)
At the depot you can't have overhead wires otherwise unloading the freight/containers becomes a high risk (and tension) exercise so you need a last mile diesel loco. Which is why a lot of freight here in the UK is still moved by diesel loco even though a lot of the network is wired though we have bought some hybrids locos recently though obviously they cost more.
Re: (Score:2)
... so you need a last mile diesel loco.
Why can't it be electric?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One minor fly in the ointment (Score:4, Informative)
For surface level rail, they really are, unless you have bottomless pockets and also want a never-ending supply of electrocuted wildlife. The reason subways can use a third rail is because they're small (compared to freight rail mileage), largely underground, largely elevated when above-ground, and universally single-tracked and fenced off in the surface-level stretches.
You could engineer a design that had both a pantograph and third-rail capability, but see "pockets, bottomless" above. Remember also that you'd have to retrofit all your hauling cars to accommodate this.
Your best bet is a dual-mode locomotive like GE's P32AC-DM which Amtrak uses, but that wouldn't be fully electric.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Overhead cables mean you can't use container cranes. You can transport using electric most of the way but generally they'll use a diesel shunter to get to the unloading section.
I meant why can't the last mile be done using battery power? Having a battery to get them to where the cables are makes much more sense than diesel.
Re:One minor fly in the ointment (Score:5, Informative)
At the depot you can't have overhead wires otherwise unloading the freight/containers becomes a high risk (and tension) exercise so you need a last mile diesel loco. Which is why a lot of freight here in the UK is still moved by diesel loco even though a lot of the network is wired though we have bought some hybrids locos recently though obviously they cost more.
Not really. A usual way (speaking from Sweden, with 95% or so of rail tonnage is hauled electrically) is having section of overhead wire that can be switched off (and secured in off-mode). For unloading from the top (timber, gantry cranes at interchange terminals) you can simply have a wireless section where the cars are located, but overhead wire where the engine usually stops.
Re: (Score:2)
"you can simply have a wireless section where the cars are located, but overhead wire where the engine usually stops."
That isn't going to work if the loco is at the front is it.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know trains could not reverse
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, thats right, they just do a 3 point turn when they get to the unloading dock. Of course you faff about uncoupling the loco, running it around to the back to push - assuming there's a runaround line - push the train along then when thats done do the same in reverse, all taking a lot of time and blocking the line until its done. Or you could just use a diesel loco and not have to bother.
Re: (Score:2)
Reversing a multi-km freight train requires an awful lot of extra track and patience.
The easier alternative is to have the train stop and the locomotive go on a separate track back to the other end. Again, that requires lots of extra track and patience.
Neither of these solutions work for trains with locomotives in the middle or at both ends. Then you need to split the train, which requires extra drivers and patience.
Anyway, it's great that everyone yells "just use rail" to replace lorries, but the reality i
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the country. ...
It is hardly imaginable that in Germany trucks do more tons * km than rail. Sounds completely impossible, and completely ridiculous.
However in Thailand, railways are pretty underdeveloped.
No idea about USA
Re:One minor fly in the ointment (Score:4, Interesting)
More than 70% of freight in Germany goes by road:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/... [europa.eu]
From:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/... [europa.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
About 10 times as much freight is moved by trucks on roads than by trains on railways in Germany.
But don't take my word for it, take it from the horse's mouth, the German Federal Statistical Office: https://www.destatis.de/DE/The... [destatis.de]
It's not surprising since lot of the German politicians were so big on the "LKW Maut", don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, loading and unloading of trains is usually done in a railway station.
Perhaps you want to look at a picture made from air on one of them.
Hint: the train stops. The engine is decoupled. The locomotive drives away, and picks up another train, and brings hime elsewhere. Meanwhile a "tuck" engine is attached to the other side of the train. Some switches are hit to re-arrange the tracking/the rails in the railway station. And the freshly added locomotive is pushing the train into the loading/unloading area.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan has been running trains with small batteries to cover short sections where electrification is not possible.
Re:One minor fly in the ointment (Score:4, Informative)
"At the depot you can't have overhead wires otherwise unloading the freight/containers becomes a high risk (and tension) exercise so you need a last mile diesel loco."
The trucks are electric, the power lines are just to top the batteries off on the road.
Try to keep up.
Re: (Score:3)
He's talking about overhead wire for the electric train locomotive. Try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
"He's talking about overhead wire for the electric train locomotive. "
The ones invented by Siemens 142 years ago and installed almost everywhere?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with overhead wires in a freight loading yard should be obvious: to remove a container from a flatcar, you have to maneuver a large metallic structure into a narrow space between the container and the high-voltage overhead wire. Repeat this enough times, and someone's guaranteed to hit the wire.
Re: (Score:2)
We now have trains with enough battery to get into and out of such stations. Try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can’t you have a section of wire in the loading area be switched so you can turn it off when unloading? Or have no wires and use a use a diesel to push the freight stack in and out? Or have enough battery storage on the electric engine to pull in and out and remove the wires just on the loading dock?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The SECOND most efficient way. Electrified railroads (metal wheels/metal rails) have a much lower friction coefficient than rubber tires on road, "
That efficiency is paid for by a stopping distance of a mile for a train.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually with trains you know a few miles ahead when you plan to stop, so that shouldn't be a huge problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The SECOND most efficient way. Electrified railroads (metal wheels/metal rails) have a much lower friction coefficient than rubber tires on road, and the rails provide a natural return path for the current, so only one overhead wire is needed, not two.
Depends on where you want to move freight. Railroads are great when you only need to move products to where the rails are. Not every town fits that description.
Though Europe could learn a lot from America in how to use railway for freight. And I mean just by doing more of it, not by their arse backwards way of prioritising it over people.
Re: (Score:2)
Though Europe could learn a lot from America in how to use railway for freight.
That is probably one of the most ridiculous statements ever made.
And I mean just by doing more of it
And how would we actually do more of it? Hu? There is lots of free capacity and no real demand.
I guess you are simply not aware that most rail fright is at night. So you do not see much of it.
The only difference between US and European rail fright is: the trains in the US are longer.
Re: (Score:2)
That is probably one of the most ridiculous statements ever made.
If you think that then you clearly have never looked up the percentage of total freight per ton moved by the USA vs EU. Look I like to shit on the USA as much as the next person, but anyone who has ever looked at rail freight knows the USA is far better at it than the EU, by a factor of 2.
And how would we actually do more of it? Hu? There is lots of free capacity and no real demand.
How do you achieve any goal as a policy? You think wind farms create themselves? No government policy, subsidy, and infrastructure investment combined with careful planning.
I guess you are simply not aware that most rail fright is at night. So you do not see much of it.
Indeed. What little of it we have moves by night.
Re: (Score:2)
The rail routes have been engineered and built to take this into consideration. It's costly up front, but over the lifetime of its use, far more energy is conserved because those tracks routed around or through hills rather than being laid over them as roads are. The energy burden is delegated to the rubber-wheeled vehicles traveling up those hills over the lifetime of the road.
Re: NOT the "most efficient way" to move freight. (Score:2)
These engineering considerations mean that some places just aren't accessible by rail, period. Not inaccessible economically that can be "fixed" with subsidies, not inaccessible politically because nimby, just plain inaccessible and require the use of trucks with rubber tires for the last mile (or hundred).
Running overhead wires on highways also has its limits, and more safety concerns given the occasional idiot not securing his load or piling it too high or deciding to dump his load at highway speeds while
This is old news (Score:2)
These tests have been running for a couple of years already.
Climate Band Aid (Score:2)
If roads were made electric, fine but roads are still made from fossil fuel and aggregates. Car tyres still made from fossil fuel. 1 tyre = 7 gallons of oil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Car tires are made from rubber, and silicon rubber. Not from oil. Rubber grows in trees, btw.
Re: (Score:2)
"Today [nationalgeographic.com] tires consist of about 19 percent natural rubber and 24 percent synthetic rubber, which is a plastic polymer"
Seriously dude, use google
for charging (Score:3)
If they make it powerful enough that the trucks can charge batteries so that the trucks can charge whilst driving, you would only need sections of the highway to be electrified. Solves the range issues for long hauls
Well duh (Score:2)
I don't think anyone is suggesting putting catenary along every single road!
Re: (Score:2)
The current system is designed to work with any onboard power storage, not just batteries. I believe the current trucks are Overhead Contact Line +ICE, but they can be OCL+Battery, OCL+Fuel-cell and probably others. So there might not be any batteries to charge. They all have some small onboard batteries to cope with emergency disconnects etc.
It might be that only OCL+ICE is viable for the short to mid term, as only that will have the range to get to places the ehighway doesn't yet reach.
Electric FREAKIN' roads? (Score:5, Interesting)
There is just one technology that has been proven to lower CO2 emissions to near zero on long haul trucks and aircraft. Battery electric vehicles may work for short distance travel but going long distances takes something with greater energy density. Batteries are physically incapable of reaching the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels, so we will continue to burn hydrocarbon fuels. The technology that has proven successful to replace hydrocarbons from petroleum is producing hydrocarbons from CO2 from the air, hydrogen from the water, and energy from low CO2 energy sources. Germans invented the technology to produce hydrocarbons, so they know how to do this, or at a minimum know the technology exists. I have to wonder if they don't want to use this technology because the last time Germans used it was to fuel war machines against their neighboring nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
More recent scandals on emissions from German made cars may be a policy problem too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
These net carbon neutral hydrocarbons are often called "e-fuels" because they can be produced from any source of electricity. There are more efficient means to produce hydrocarbon fuels that combine thermal energy with electrical energy to fuel the chemical process. The costs of operating these fuel synthesis systems go down the more they are run. This is because the largest costs are in capital and labor. There is an energy source available to us, and this includes Germans, which can produce heat and electricity, and shares this feature of lower costs from running all the time because of the largest costs being capital and labor. That energy source is nuclear power.
The only way to get aircraft to zero carbon any time soon is with e-fuels. This is likely also true for long haul trucking. Trains can be made electric, and ships can run on nuclear power, which are options to get those to near zero carbon. But if we can make hydrocarbon fuels suited for aircraft, and at a cost low enough to compete with petroleum fuels, then we solved the CO2 emissions problems for all forms of transport that burn hydrocarbons.
If people want to try other means to lower CO2 emissions, and lower costs, for transport by road and rail then I see no problem with that. What is vital to bringing CO2 emissions down are e-fuels because of how amazing hydrocarbons are as transportation fuel. Germany should be putting as much effort into e-fuels as any other technology to lowering CO2 emissions. The chemistry to produce hydrocarbon fuels was discovered in Germany a century ago. The process to safely get heat and electricity from nuclear power was developed over 50 years ago. Both technologies have a lot of room for optimization, and would pair nicely to bring low cost and low CO2 fuels to market. Unlike so many other technologies being considered to replace fossil fuels and internal combustion engines this is a known working technology. Work done by the US Navy shows the costs of e-fuels can be brought to be lower than fossil fuels shipped over long distances to ships at sea or remote military bases. This makes e-fuels one panic over petroleum prices away from viability.
I believe e-fuels to be nearly inevitable to replace fossil fuels. Maybe some other technology will come along that is better. It's not likely to be electric FREAKIN' roads.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the point that you’re making, but it isn’t getting to the source of the hydrocarbons we would need to burn that is the challenge. It is the fact that, once burnt, those hydrocarbons are released in the form of greenhouse gases. Even methylox, the fuel being touted as the replacement for kerosene (RP-1) for space launches, produces c
Re:Electric FREAKIN' roads? (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason Blindseer is posting this is because the nuclear industry wants to open up a new source of revenue for its unaffordable technology. The problem with batteries is that they store energy, so are very well suited to intermittent energy sources. Anything that promotes batteries also pushes the prices down which makes grid scale batteries cheaper and nuclear look even less attractive.
If only batteries weren't getting more energy dense and cheaper so far, there would be a big market for hydrogen fuel. Luckily hydrogen fuel will probably end up being a niche thing, and not produced in large enough volume to save the nuclear industry. What is produced will be via renewable energy, at extremely low cost when excess power is available.
Electric roads are an easy and affordable option. Pantographs are very old and mature technology that have proven safe and effective. Compare those against pressurised hydrogen fuel, with many of the same disadvantages as other liquid fuels but even harder to handle... It's obvious which will be the winner.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear power is not inherently expensive. It used to be cheap, and in some countries (like South Korea) it's still cheap.
Nuclear power is expensive in the US due to regulatory issues that can be changed quickly if we want. Specifically, it is illegal in the US for nuclear power to be cheaper than other forms of energy [rootsofprogress.org]. This is due to the idea of "ALARA" ("As Low As Reasonably Achievable" risk level). The "reasonably achievable" risk level is defined as the level that can be achieved with nuclear power havi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The very fact that it's a choice between safety and cost is why nuclear is dying.
By the way, Fukushima killed people. When you factor in the number of deaths from Chernobyl, Fukushima and accidents in supporting industries (spent fuel storage, mining etc.) nuclear has around 2x the death rate per Wh as wind or solar.
Re: (Score:3)
The very fact that it's a choice between safety and cost is why nuclear is dying.
By the way, Fukushima killed people. When you factor in the number of deaths from Chernobyl, Fukushima and accidents in supporting industries (spent fuel storage, mining etc.) nuclear has around 2x the death rate per Wh as wind or solar.
Note: The long term cost of Fukushima is now pegged at 750 billion. That's just about impossible for most people to even comprehend.
So sometimes we end up with no safety and mind boggling costs.
And you can bet that the "Nuc is cheap but for those pesky regulators!" crowd doesn't take any adverse situation into account.
Re: (Score:3)
When you factor in the number of deaths from Chernobyl, Fukushima and accidents in supporting industries (spent fuel storage, mining etc.) nuclear has around 2x the death rate per Wh as wind or solar.
That is false. Nuclear is 5 times safer than solar and almost twice as safe as wind. [fool.com]
Re: (Score:2)
People died due to the evacuation that was necessary because the reactors melted down, and the reactor containment buildings exploded.
Chernobyl is a great example of why we don't want cheap nuclear power. The RBMK was designed to be cheap to produce in the USSR, but the compromises made to get the cost down included things like lack of a containment building (which was deemed unnecessary due to an explosion or meltdown being extremely low, much like many of the new modular reactor designers are claiming). W
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That number includes all the deaths during construction.
Re: (Score:2)
People died due to the evacuation that was necessary because the reactors melted down, and the reactor containment buildings exploded.
Two points. First, it was not necessary.
https://www.world-nuclear-news... [world-nuclear-news.org]
Second, what are the names of the dead? If we know people died then we know their names. If you can't name them then how do we know anyone died?
Chernobyl is a great example of why we don't want cheap nuclear power.
No, it's an example of how a socialist nation kills people.
The RBMK was designed to be cheap to produce in the USSR, but the compromises made to get the cost down included things like lack of a containment building (which was deemed unnecessary due to an explosion or meltdown being extremely low, much like many of the new modular reactor designers are claiming).
The chances of a meltdown with a molten salt reactor isn't low, it is impossible. How do you have a meltdown with a core that is already melted? And who says there is no containment? Three is still a containment structure with mol
Re: (Score:2)
The evacuation was necessary for several reasons.
Firstly nobody knew how bad it was or how bad it could get, so not evacuating would have been irresponsible. If it had got worse there would have been even more liability.
Secondly the areas evacuated became uninhabitable. While parts of them were safe, parts were not, especially for children. They tried time and time again to decontaminate them and failed. You have to remember that these were areas where children would play, where animals lives, where crops w
Re: (Score:3)
So far, your argument is 'I feel' because "if it had".
Re: (Score:2)
Get rid of this regulatory system, and institute a new system that recognizes the reality that nuclear power plants (even really old ones) have never killed a single person ever except for Chernobyl in the Soviet Union, and it will once again be possible to build and run nuclear power affordably.
You might want to do some reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
At 9:01pm, on the night of January 3, 1961, SL-1 underwent a steam explosion and meltdown, killing its three operators.
Re: (Score:2)
I can hardly imagine that any "regulation cost" of building a nuclear plant is above 1% of the damn construction cost itself
I don't know why people always come up with this stupid bullshit. Why the funk would some paper work cost more than the steel, the concrete and the workers and engineers building up the plant?
It does not make any sense at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Soft costs such as regulatory compliance are typically 30% of the overall project budget. [thebalancesmb.com] But even more than that, the need to redesign in much more complicated and expensive ways, in order to reduce risks that were miniscule to begin with, is what drives nuclear costs so high in the US nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power is not inherently expensive.
But it has to be government insured. Price Anderson protects the industry after a major accident. But even it is probably not enough - It's only 13 billion.
Pro-Nuclear group, Japan Center for Economic Research, is now putting the long term costs of Japan's Oopsie at Fukushima accident as about $750 billion https://thebulletin.org/2020/0... [thebulletin.org]
Ya know, a hundred billion here, a hundred billion there, after a while, you're talking a good bit of money.
If we'd just eliminate regulation, it would be cheap a
Re: (Score:2)
Global shipping could be a niche for hydrogen.
For car and local transports, I doubt it.
Currently hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline (and on gasoline 90% of the price are taxes) - speaking about Germany.
pressurised hydrogen fuel, with many of the same disadvantages as other liquid fuels but even harder to handle /. myth. While hydrogen can diffuse through metal, or other containers: in practice that is not really a problem.
That is actually a
Re: (Score:2)
At least read your own links.
The process required at least 60 kg of coal per kg of synthetic butter.
Yeah I'm going to use fuel to manufacture fuel and come out ahead. How are you extracting more energy than you put in?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Electric FREAKIN' roads? (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't a case of a free market choosing the best tool for the job
That's because the "free market" is poor at choosing the best tool. The only thing the free market is good at choosing is the most profitable outcome for those providing the capital. The free market doesn't give a shit if the pollution emitted by ICE vehicles causes crop failures decades in the future, or if it kills people now, since those costs aren't passed along to the manufacturer or end user.
Re: (Score:2)
There is just one technology that has been proven to lower CO2 emissions to near zero on long haul trucks and aircraft.
Yeah, wind power. Since your beloved nuclear has greater lifetime CO2 emissions per kWh than wind, I know you must be talking about wind. Kind of like the wind you blow continually, putting one in mind of a tale told by an idiot. And that idiot is you.
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries are physically incapable of reaching the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels,
Not currently but we can get close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Pairing lithium and ambient oxygen can theoretically lead to electrochemical cells with the highest possible specific energy. Indeed, the theoretical specific energy of a non-aqueous Li–air battery, in the charged state with Li2O2 product and excluding the oxygen mass, is ~40.1 MJ/kg. This is comparable to the theoretical specific energy of gasoline, ~46.8 MJ/kg.
The theoretical limit is out of our reach but we should be able to obtain half of that given time. Also, since ICE is so inefficient, an EV with these batteries of this capacity would be on par with a ICE car. There are engineering challenges in the way but your assertion has proven to be false because you are unable to utilize most of the energy in hydrocarbon fuels.
ugh.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The electrification is not for charging, but for driving.
And ordinary cars do not really need charging on a highway. They charge at home or at the destination.
The point is: a big truck needs to much energy, so a big battery is a burden. You can make the battery significantly smaller if you only need to use it for a few miles and have an electrified high way.
Poor solution, and not gonna happen anyway. (Score:5, Informative)
An electrified highway is theoretically the most efficient way to eliminate truck emissions.
Um, no. For long-distance transport, the best option is rail. Trucks pick up cargo from the rail terminal and transport it the last, small distance. Rail is already widely electrified, and electrification is relatively simple (as compared to highways).
Unfortunately, Germany has let rail their network rot. Trains are old, tracks are in poor condition. Even the supposedly prioritized passenger rail is in lousy condition.
Note that Germany, together with Italy, agreed to put cargo on rail through Switzerland (for which Switzerland built them a nice rail tunnel [rail-guru.com]). Literally millions of trucks driving through the Alps every year - beyond stupid- and this is the solution. They were supposed to be ready when the tunnel opened, years ago, but neither country is anywhere close. Last I heard, the Germans had finished their rail terminal, but didn't have any useful rai lines actually leading to it. Italy isn't even that far. Truck traffic has hardly been touched.
If they can't even maintain their existing freight system, what are the realistic chances of electrifying the highways? And why would you want to do that anyway, when it is clearly the inferior solution?
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, MOST countries are letting their cargo rail systems rot.
The US has a few trunk lines that are well maintained and funded, but the realities of capitalism mean that unless we legally concentrate business and industry in small areas, rail simply doesn't serve them adequately.
Re: (Score:3)
For long-distance transport, the best option is rail. Trucks pick up cargo from the rail terminal and transport it the last, small distance.
That is actually what this electrification is about.
Unfortunately, Germany has let rail their network rot. Trains are old, tracks are in poor condition.
Sorry, no idea how you come to that idea. Germany's railway is probably the best in the world.
Even the supposedly prioritized passenger rail is in lousy condition.
That is utter nonsense. Perhaps you want to use a train
Re: (Score:2)
We're gonna rock down to... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not even for transporting goods (Score:2)
It is a novel idea, but I seriously doubt it will ever be cost effective.
For transporting goods, ships and railways are a lot better and cheaper, not to mention already existing. Last mile transportation by truck, sure, but then batteries (or perhaps even hydrogen) would suffice. The cost of building and maintaining these highways would be tremendous, not to mention there would be a significant cost to each car to be able to use it. And most of the time you'll be parked (and then you could just plug it in),
hmmm.. railroads (Score:2)
then you attach trucks together and you get a container train... geniuses !
Re: (Score:2)
Potholes? In German highways?
That's not really a problem, you can't drive more then 30 on them anyway because every other mile there's a construction site.