[dbs]

I'd respond to this, but it would give me 4 for the day, so I won't.
I will pass on the birthday wishes, thank you.

It's alright Bob no one is counting.

BBQ was / is the order of the day for Mrs Bob

[MarkJerling]

If the electric range matches the compulsory rest breaks for drivers the battery change process would work as non punitive enforcement of rest breaks. Road safety benefits for all.

Big truck companies can arrange to change prime movers with fresh drivers for urgent loads while the driver rests and the battery is charged.

There's a large disconnect between mandated rest times and what would be needed to make electric trucks work. For instance: While a typical electric truck will need re-charging every 200 miles the current requirements for rest breaks (here) is 30 minutes after 5.5 hours of driving. That would equate to somewhere between 350 and 500 miles of distance. Factor in the minimum 90 minute stop to charge the electric truck, after max. 200 miles and you can see how the economies simply does not stack up.

Drivers can work a max of 13 hours after which they must take a break of min. 10 hours. and after 70 hours of accumulated work time drivers need 24 hours rest. Even with those rest times, there's a large difference in operational time and standing time between the two technologies.

At the moment, it can work for depot to end user type work but electric simply cannot work for long distance haulage for the reasons stated earlier. Or put another way, not unless we want to see freight prices triple.

[Parallax]

There's a large disconnect between mandated rest times and what would be needed to make electric trucks work. For instance: While a typical electric truck will need re-charging every 200 miles the current requirements for rest breaks (here) is 30 minutes after 5.5 hours of driving. That would equate to somewhere between 350 and 500 miles of distance. Factor in the minimum 90 minute stop to charge the electric truck, after max. 200 miles and you can see how the economies simply does not stack up.

Drivers can work a max of 13 hours after which they must take a break of min. 10 hours. and after 70 hours of accumulated work time drivers need 24 hours rest. Even with those rest times, there's a large difference in operational time and standing time between the two technologies.

At the moment, it can work for depot to end user type work but electric simply cannot work for long distance haulage for the reasons stated earlier. Or put another way, not unless we want to see freight prices triple.

There's a reason diesel engines were invented.

[MarkJerling]

There's a reason diesel engines were invented.

Exactly. Diesel remains, by a long way, the most cost effective way to haul freight. Electric cars are great, but to do the work of a long-haul truck, you need good ol' Diesel!

Here's an article that explains it rather nicely: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-tesla-batteries-perform-much-work-diesel-peter-quigley/

[MarkJerling]

It's Mrs Bob's birthday, she turned one of those even 10 numbers, and she's not too happy about it.
I told her she is only one day older than yesterday and the alternative would not be good.
My treat for lunch out today.

Tell her I say: Happy 50th!

[lesmore49]

There's a large disconnect between mandated rest times and what would be needed to make electric trucks work. For instance: While a typical electric truck will need re-charging every 200 miles the current requirements for rest breaks (here) is 30 minutes after 5.5 hours of driving. That would equate to somewhere between 350 and 500 miles of distance. Factor in the minimum 90 minute stop to charge the electric truck, after max. 200 miles and you can see how the economies simply does not stack up.

Drivers can work a max of 13 hours after which they must take a break of min. 10 hours. and after 70 hours of accumulated work time drivers need 24 hours rest. Even with those rest times, there's a large difference in operational time and standing time between the two technologies.

At the moment, it can work for depot to end user type work but electric simply cannot work for long distance haulage for the reasons stated earlier. Or put another way, not unless we want to see freight prices triple.

Exactly.

[lesmore49]

There's a reason diesel engines were invented.

Rudolf Diesel was on to something, of that there is no doubt.

[lesmore49]

Some say hydrogen vehicles maybe the future, not pure electric vehicles.

ROSS CLARK: Electric cars are the future. But why aren't we backing the real green caars? | Daily Mail Online

[StiffLegged]

Some say hydrogen vehicles maybe the future, not pure electric vehicles.

ROSS CLARK: Electric cars are the future. But why aren't we backing the real green caars? | Daily Mail Online

Another bout of hand-waving from Ross Clark there: the only concession to realism in that article is the brief mention of producing hydrogen from electrolysis which means you need large amounts of electric power to make your fuel. The sheer handiness of fossil fuel is you get it out of the ground and burn it (to put things crudely), while other sources need batteries, energy-intensive production and immense infrastructure to use them while the actual carbon footprint is little better than that nasty greenhousy fossil fuel. And no-one wants to go back to living in caves or mud huts.

Oy vey...

[FantasticMrFox]

Another bout of hand-waving from Ross Clark there: the only concession to realism in that article is the brief mention of producing hydrogen from electrolysis which means you need large amounts of electric power to make your fuel. The sheer handiness of fossil fuel is you get it out of the ground and burn it (to put things crudely), while other sources need batteries, energy-intensive production and immense infrastructure to use them while the actual carbon footprint is little better than that nasty greenhousy fossil fuel. And no-one wants to go back to living in caves or mud huts.

Oy vey...

Even factoring in production and all other phases of a car's life cycle, electric cars still have a considerably smaller carbon footprint than fossil fuelled vehicles:

Science Learning Hub - The environmental footprint of electric versus fossil cars

BBC - Electric car emissions myth 'busted'

In the end, electric vehicles will only be one piece in the overall puzzle of how to make transportation more sustainable and less damaging to the environment and climate - we'll also need more public transportation, more people being willing to cycle rather than have engines push them around for the shortest of trips and commutes and so on. Individual transportation will always be necessary for people living in rural areas, but in the cities there's really no need hauling one's butt to work in a pick-up truck every day. European cities are progressively investing more and more in cycling infrastructure, restricting vehicular traffic in the city centres, and most people are extremely happy with it! Air quality improves, noise is down ...

This image illustrates perfectly the ridiculous amount of space that cars are hogging in cities as compared to pedestrians, bicycles etc.:



I also don't really see how electric cars will have us live in caves again ...

[savoche]

Some say hydrogen vehicles maybe the future, not pure electric vehicles.

ROSS CLARK: Electric cars are the future. But why aren't we backing the real green caars? | Daily Mail Online

Another bout of hand-waving from Ross Clark there: the only concession to realism in that article is the brief mention of producing hydrogen from electrolysis which means you need large amounts of electric power to make your fuel. The sheer handiness of fossil fuel is you get it out of the ground and burn it (to put things crudely), while other sources need batteries, energy-intensive production and immense infrastructure to use them while the actual carbon footprint is little better than that nasty greenhousy fossil fuel. And no-one wants to go back to living in caves or mud huts.

Oy vey...

Add to that the hazard and difficulty of distributing and storing hydrogen, and the lack of an infrastructure for doing so. The fuel cells are still expensive to make, too (even though some claim they're able to make them without platinum now - or soon...).

Still, a mix of electric and hydrogen might be a viable solution for long haul trucks. At least Daimler seems to think so.

As for fossil fuel, it is a limited resource and should be treated as such. The way we've burnt a lot of it to propel highly inefficient one-ton lumps of steel along to transport (most of the time) a single person is bordering on insanity.

[Racer X 69]

The sheer handiness of fossil fuel is you get it out of the ground and burn it (to put things crudely),...

Well it isn't quite that simple.

To get diesel fuel requires a little bit of refining.

To get gasoline (petrol or benzine for you more classic types), even more refining and blending is required.

This all takes energy, and chemistry.

[FantasticMrFox]

This all takes energy, and chemistry.

And sometimes it spills, and half the Gulf of Mexico gets polluted. And it needs to get shipped around the world, and sometimes one of those ships first draws giant genitalia into the Red Sea, then gets stuck and blocks a significant portion of global logistics

[robtcorl]

I say bring back Steam!
Kind of excited, just found out this morning that UP Big Boy #4014 will pass nearby on Aug. 29. Got to find a good spot to get some shots with my non-k3 device.
UP: Steam Schedule

[Parallax]

Some say hydrogen vehicles maybe the future, not pure electric vehicles.

I believe that myself. Fuel cells are to conventional batteries what LEDs are to fluorescent lights. fluorescent lights were an improvement over incandescent. They were the savior of the planet. Incandescent bulbs in common room lighting wattages became illegal. Then LED technology took off. I'm not sure you can buy a compact fluorescent any more. Fuel cells may not displace batteries as fast as LEDs did fluorescent but it will happen.