I have been reading the posts on here all the time. I read about the cost to run. I have never read about anyone who have tried RV BUS that run on Electric motors A/C or DC Powertrain. I also been looking at electric cars with the new batteries at 200 to 900 AH. Would that be possible....
Hi! Im begining to convert a vw bus into electric to tow behind my big bus. As for the electric buses, any I have seen were very, very slow and required a HUGE battery bank. They arent practicle for me from what I have seen. I would much rather run the big bus off veggie oil and the little one off electric, but that's just me.
Check out www.isecorp.com (http://www.isecorp.com) and also google "Siemens ELFA" for info on electric bus conversions. This is not an endorsement for the Siemens ELFA system and I have no affiliation with them other than I am a customer. I did have the ELFA system in a boat for the past 9 years running as a diesel electric hybrid.
The system is really neat in that it can use any AC power from 220 volt single phase to 670 volt three phase. The main source of power for our boat propulsion system was a variable speed 670 volt 3 phase generator coupled to a small Cummins diesel. I also tied our house generator (220 volt 1 phase) into the system as a backup so should the Cummins fail, I could still get home.
The down side to the Siemens system is cost, it is scary expensive. The upside is the components have a 50,000 hour mean time before failure so once you pay the upfront cost, service and maintenance virtually zero.
They are doing hybrid diesel/electric buses similiar to hybrid cars, but this really only makes sense from an MPG aspect for transit buses and commuter coaches that start and stop a lot. Hybrid transit buses typically see about 20% better mileage in the city. Financially, hybrid transit buses cost more over the life of the bus because it costs an extra $200,000 for the bus upfront. Government owned transit systems are mostly doing hybrid buses to be politically correct. They do cut emissions somewhat also.
For our use I don't think hybrid would save hardly anything in fuel since we are mostly on the highway. A Toyota Prius gets worse MPG on the highway than in the city. A former co-worker of mine would drive his Prius on city streets instead of the highway to get an extra 5 MPG. (He was cheap and could easily afford the extra fuel if he wanted to.)
I understand about cost. The town where I live use electric buses with feul back up it is new and we would to pay more for it. I drove for Greyhound and those buses would only get from 6 to 9 miles per gallon tops I know we are carrying people just our families but we do carry our homes with us. That alone would the weight very close to a big truck and feul right now is about 60 cent per mile at best. Where would you save money. I did hear from a RVer who told me that he made money from having company names on the side of his RV. The cost of parking in parks and paying to dump tanks you could end up with about 90 cent per mile in cost........
I came across an article where some research company took a 3 year old FORD TAURUS and put in an electric motor. They tested this thing close to a year on a dynamometer simulating every temperature and driving condition one can imagine. This car succeeded in every test and the motor was more powerful than the V6 gasoline engine that the car came with. It never failed once and everyone involved was amazed and they felt that they really had something here.
So, they decided to take it out for a ride outside the test pod. They pulled it out and the thing konked out and they couldn't get it to go. They looked at the motor and systems and nothing burnt up or failed but all of the hard work and testing along with the costs and time involved seemed to be for nothing. Upon further examination, it was found that the extension cord wasn't long enough.
Yes I did make this up but you can see the point here. They say that the new CHEVROLET "DOLT" is no good.
Quote from: belfert on March 29, 2011, 04:00:14 AM
Government owned transit systems are mostly doing hybrid buses to be politically correct.
Dont believe everything the MTC and the Minnesota Government tells you. Ive seen first hand how Minnesota Metro Transit took care of their equipment. We found Buses with less than 40K miles with blown motors in absolutely deplorable condition. As the Buses came with history reports, reading some of them were real eye rollers. If anyone in private industry were even half as negligent and felonious at running a Bus company they would be in prison. And that is not a joke. Emergency escape windows welded shut from the outside, emergency roof hatches blocked shut, air brake canisters blocked off/bypassed, cracked windows, bald tires, worn brake shoes, etc..
Im sure they can make a hybrid Bus look good by hiding the real costs in other equipment. They been practicing how to do that for the last 4 or 5 decades.
Buses and big trucks are extremely fuel efficient compared to a car. My bus that gets an average of 5mpg at 34,750lbs when pulling my car, would equate to my Mercedes 300 turbo Diesel getting over 43mpg-but yet I average 25mpg with my car. I just read a report of a Winnabagel motorhome that weighs 36,000lbs getting 8.1mpg-like my car getting over 73mpg. At the top end is the 80,000lb trucks now getting in the 7.5 mpg range. That's like my 4,000lb car getting 150mpg! Just to make a point about fuel usage. Good Luck, TomC
Quote from: artvonne on March 29, 2011, 09:26:28 AM
Im sure they can make a hybrid Bus look good by hiding the real costs in other equipment. They been practicing how to do that for the last 4 or 5 decades.
I don't think they look good to anybody but the greenies until the price comes down. Right now the up front capital cost is so high that they would have to drive them for many decades to have a lower total per mile cost than a conventional bus.
There have been many taxpayer comments asking why they are spending an extra $200,000 per bus when they don't save anywhere close to $20,000 a year in operating costs. Transit buses have typically been replaced on a 12 year cycle. Will the batteries last that long? My co-worker just replaced the battery in his 2001 Prius for $3,100 at 150,000 miles.
Folks, let's be real here. OK, say that a BusConvert has a bus that's 30,000 lb. He wants to go on a trip of 400 miles today. How big would a battery to allow this be? Answer, about the same size as a supermarket. Little "overinflated golf-carts" get maybe 75 miles (and the last part of that with parlously puny power) on all the batteries that can be stuffed into them. If a Chevy "Dolt" or a Nissan "Lead" is 4000 pounds and it goes 75 miles, you'd expect to see that same battery move a 30K# bus about 10. The idea of an electric bus is a total joke.
dont forget at what speed your 10 miles.... my guess is 3mph, at 65 probably 500 ft ;D
I've said it any number of times and I'll say it many more times. When they can come up with a cordless vacuum cleaner that doesn't run out of juice after 10 minutes, then I may be convinced that there will be an electic car or bus that can run as dependable and cost effective as a diesel or gasoline counterpart.
We owned two Golf Cars, put new batteries in the one, charged it dilligently. Most will tell you they are really only good for about two trips around a golf course. If you pulled full power out of it and drove it full speed, I doubt many could clear 10 miles. They get much better range with more stop and go. But its certainly not free, and far from zero emission.
If you drove to someones house and wanted to plug in, lets say you did that 5 days a week for a month and charged 4 hours each day. When they opened thier mail and saw the electric bill jump 200 KWH they would kindly tell you to stay away. Why do you think all the Golf courses went to gas powered cars?
But lets look at this realistically. Lets install an electric motor onto the drive axle input. How many HP? I think you would need a motor of about 175 HP with at least 5,000 lb ft of starting torque. Man that would be a HUGE motor, and no doubt quite heavy. But the original motor and gearbox are gone, so you have some weight savings.
We now need batteries to drive it. If your planning to drive out of town on a trip, lets try to give it 300 miles range. If we say 60 mph, we have a time of use in 300 miles, of 5 hours.
1 HP = 745 watts. Lets assume the Bus requires 125 HP to maintain 60 mph. There will be some loss between batteries and the motor etc., lets just say 20% to give some cushion. We have 125 HP, times 745 watts per HP, plus 20%. times 5 hours. Im getting 558 KWH.
Lets use Trojan T-105 batteries, rated at 225 AH. Each one can deliver 1350 watt hours, or 1.3 KWH. To leave some cushion, lets up the 558 KWK to 600. Your going to need 460 batteries.
These weigh 62 pounds each, bot counting the rack and cables. Well hey, thats ONLY 28,615 pounds of batteries.
Wanna charge them now? How long you wanna wait? You will lose about 10% in charging, so lets say you have a 300 amp charger. 600 KWH, whats the motor voltage? Lets say 120 volt? Beats me, never saw a motor that big. 120 volts 300 amps, we get 36000 watts. Wow, thats a bada$$ charger. Youll need to charge back 600 KWH, plus 10%, 660 KWH, youll need to charge for 18.33 hours before you can leave. And you'll get an electric bill for about 700 KWH. At $0.09 KWH, thats about $63 plus tax and service, probably eat a $100 bill? At 10 mpg on diesel, and at $4 gal, it would cost $120.
Discounting the cost of owning and maintaining 460 batteries environmental impact of the batteries in mining for lead and recycling, back at the power plant they will burn that amount of energy in coal to produce it. 3413 btu per KWH. Just an FYI, T-105's are about $115 each, so about $52K worth of batteries. Thats probably the cheapest source of battery power you could buy.
1 pound coal = 8,100 btu. 1 pound coal = 2.3 KWH. Youll burn 304 pounds of coal. Not quite the non polluting highly efficient vehicle the greenies would like you to think it is.
The only economic advantage to any electric vehicle is dynamic regenerative (thank you Sean) braking and being able to salvage some of the lost energy used in slowing down.
The only reason that trains use diesel-electric is that it makes a better high torque transmission. If it were possible to connect the engine directly to the driven wheels, it would probably be more efficient.
So, hybrids may prove out for city commuters and perhaps local, light weight delivery, but not much else.
There may come a day, and I do believe that we should be spending money or R&D toward that end, but we are a long way away.
There are a few hybrid motorhomes available. Never priced one versus a straight diesel, but I imagine they cost a fair bit more. I can't see the average motorhome owner ever seeing any financial benefit unless they drive in the city all the time. Most motorhomes are driven out on the highway where hybrid does little to boost MPG.
That darn Prius. Ya know, if ya yanked the motor and dropped in a 1979 VW rabbit diesel with a 5 speed, and set it up right, it could almost double the fuel economy. And imagine if it had a 1 liter intercooled turbo diesel. I bet 100 mpg could be reached easily.
Maybe in another 30 years.
I guess no one have seen a train which is diesel and it is electric. We have had trains as long as I been alive. What you have is a diesel engine that turn a generator for the power. I have talked to them about it I was told it make for better saving. I am not talking about electric only. A bus with a phase 3 motor A/C at 500 volts will have up to 400 horse power and that pull the bus. You could use a smaller engine which you could get up 15 miles per gallon of fuel and with battery pack you could have up 35 miles per charge. The diesel engine waste power with heat not saying the electric motor don't make heat just the electric motor don't lose power from the heat and with the electric phase 3 motor with regenerative braking could regain power.
Quote from: artvonne on March 29, 2011, 02:17:56 PM(snip) And imagine if it had a 1 liter intercooled turbo diesel. I bet 100 mpg could be reached easily.
I dunno, Art. The only reason that currently available 'hybrid" cars can show any benefit is to try to balance the inherent poor efficiency of the gasoline energy in ways that overcome the extra weight, mechanical complexity, and internal drag of the hybrid machinery. With a modern diesel, there's no "fat" to cut out by the hybrid complexities. My guess is that a hybrid diesel with a small diesel engine would give *lower* MPG in city and highway driving - and way lower on the highway.
Thinking of a diesel-electric bus as equivalent to a diesel-electric train is an attractive idea, but not necessarily logical. Firstly, diesel-electric propulsion is not done for economy reasons, a direct-coupled diesel being inherently more efficient than one which sends it's power through the extra (loss-making) electric generator / electric motor stages. Having said that, there is a small economy gain from the diesel engine operation itself, because in a diesel-electric the engine can operate over a much smaller speed range.
The reason why diesel-electric systems are used for trains is because they are so damn heavy - hundreds, if not thousands, of tons. The electric generator/motor is effectively doing the job that the clutch or torque converter does in a vehicle with a direct-connected engine - the 'electric' option being used on a locomotive because it would be impractical to build a conventional gearbox that could handle the amount of power and huge weight involved.
Jeremy
PS. 100mpg cars are nothing new. Almost 20 years ago my Dad had a string of Montegos with the 2 litre Perkins Prima diesel. The car was advertised as being capable of both 100mpg and 100mph. And it absolutely was (although not at the same time sadly). There are lots of diesel cars now that can achieve this (bearing in mind that our gallons are slightly bigger of course)
(https://busconversionmagazine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cars-data.com%2Fdesign%2Fassets%2Faustin%2Faustin-montego-estate_3312_1.jpg&hash=688a2485d95bffd65bea36ca549efa7f01a4d0bb)
Quote from: coconut990 on March 29, 2011, 02:58:08 PM
I guess no one have seen a train which is diesel and it is electric. .... What you have is a diesel engine that turn a generator for the power. I have talked to them about it I was told it make for better saving.
You can't really compare full-size trains with buses.
Diesel-electric locomotives are built that way because the electric motors deliver better tractive effort from a standing stop. It would be prohibitively large and expensive to try to build a mechanical drive system that would let you start a loaded train from a stop with the size diesel that is in a locomotive.
By contrast, light diesel rail cars such as the Budd RDC traditionally had mechanical drive systems, not all that different from a modern Allison, precisely because the fuel mileage was better in that application.
As a side benefit, electric traction motors allow you to use dynamic braking (not to be confused with regenerative braking) on long downhill runs, which helps prevent runaways. On some grades, dynamic braking even allows you to skip turning up the retainers, a huge savings of time and effort.
Quote
I am not talking about electric only. A bus with a phase 3 motor A/C at 500 volts will have up to 400 horse power and that pull the bus. You could use a smaller engine which you could get up 15 miles per gallon of fuel and with battery pack you could have up 35 miles per charge.
Really? I'd love to know where you are getting these numbers.
Quote
The diesel engine waste power with heat not saying the electric motor don't make heat just the electric motor don't lose power from the heat
Umm, sorry, but yes it does. Every watt dissipated as heat is a watt not used for propulsion; it doesn't matter whether that's an internal combustion engine, an electric motor, or a pair of oxen.
Quote
and with the electric phase 3 motor with regenerative braking could regain power.
OK, here you are correct. In fact, this is the major significant energy savings of hybrid propulsion. That being said, however, you need to have enough batteries to store the regenerated energy to be effective.
With today's technology, that translates only to stop-and-go driving. IOTW, you can make productive use of regenerative braking coming up to a stoplight when the light again turns green and you step on the go pedal. But there is no way you can use regenerative braking to, say, recover the energy expended climbing Donner Pass when you come back down the other side. The best you could do would be to have some kind of dynamic braking, just like a locomotive, where you can dissipate that energy directly as heat in order to prolong brake shoe life.
FWIW.
-Sean
http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com (http://ourodyssey.blogspot.com)
Mention of regenerative braking reminds me that I saw a feature on TV once where some transit buses here had compressed air regenerative braking systems fitted. These were conventional diesel buses with some sort of air motor assistance - the braking action (eg arriving at a bus stop) charged up an air cylinder, the energy in which then assisted the diesel engine as the bus accelerated away again.
Jeremy
Quote from: Jeremy on March 29, 2011, 06:15:46 PMMention of regenerative braking reminds me that I saw a feature on TV once where some transit buses here had compressed air regenerative braking systems fitted. These were conventional diesel buses with some sort of air motor assistance - the braking action (eg arriving at a bus stop) charged up an air cylinder, the energy in which then assisted the diesel engine as the bus accelerated away again. Jeremy
There was some work a while ago on flywheels being the energy storage mechanism. As the bus stopped, the energy spun up a bigga$$ flywheel; when the bus was accelerating, the energy was taken out of the flywheel with a clutch to the transmission. Once that oomph was gone, the flywheel would be released and the ordinary engine was engaged. Dunno if it really works -- has the same problem as hybrids, you're hauling big stuff that takes energy when you're not using it. But nothing about that takes away from the truth that -- for our purposes -- there's no practical technology today (or on the horizon) that allows us to even think about "an electric bus".
A year or two ago Interschola sold an electric Blue Bird school bus: http://www.interschola.com/displayitem.php?items_id=14272 (http://www.interschola.com/displayitem.php?items_id=14272)
I'm not sure why anyone would buy it for $2550, even if it had nice wheels. Maybe the buyer bought it for all the lead in its batteries - heck, you could probably get more than the selling price by scrapping it. Several things intrigued me about that bus:
1. Only 6337 miles in ten years? Looking at the amount of dust inside, I'm guessing it wasn't used at all for some of that time, but that's still not an impressive annual mileage. Darn, I ride my bike more than that!
2. What's with a six-gallon tank for a diesel generator? Was this some ante-Prius hybrid, or maybe it was for an emergency get-you-home engine after the batteries die twenty miles from the nearest charging outlet?
3. An unladen weight of almost 33,000 lbs!!! That's A LOT of batteries to make a TC2000 that heavy.
4. The motor's serial number is 0002. Would you want to use only the second of anything ever made?
5. Interschola says the transmission is Automatic. I hope that's a simple mistake, because I've never heard of an electric motor that needs an automatic transmission. Strange.
6. I suppose the nice Alcoa aluminum wheels are to save weight, maybe!? Don't the studs seem kinda short - I don't see much threads showing beyond them.
7. It has a 90,000 BTU heater. It would need a busload of batteries just to power that, unless it used the diesel generator to make power to run the heater! That seems like a strange way to keep the little sprogs warm in winter.
8. This bus came from Beaumont, out near Palm Springs, one of the California's hotter places. Why not carpet the roof with PV panels to help charge the batteries, and keep it slightly cooler in hot weather. Nah, that would be too sensible.
So, there are battery buses out there, but not what any of us would find very useful.
John
Quote from: Jeremy on March 29, 2011, 03:40:44 PMThe reason why diesel-electric systems are used for trains is because they are so damn heavy - hundreds, if not thousands, of tons. The electric generator/motor is effectively doing the job that the clutch or torque converter does in a vehicle with a direct-connected engine - the 'electric' option being used on a locomotive because it would be impractical to build a conventional gearbox that could handle the amount of power and huge weight involved.
Remember the Fell? http://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/paxfell.htm (http://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/paxfell.htm) This was a mainline diesel locomotive with a purely mechanical transmission, and it really didn't work very well (or sometimes even work at all). If Rube Goldberg had been a locomotive designer, he would have criticized this contraption for being too complicated. Six engines (four to power it, and two more to supercharge those four), a transmission that is almost incomprehensible, and apparently it was deafeningly loud.
That's why purely mechanical transmissions don't work on locomotives!
On the other hand, hydraulic transmissions have been used effectively in Germany and Britain for mainline locomotives.
John
Lots of naysayers on this site regarding electric vehicles...... yet alone electric buses. My advice would be to go to this site http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/ (http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/) They have very knowledgable people on the latest cutting edge batteries and people doing a lot of experimentation as well as tried and true works on electric vehicles. Good luck!
A couple of years ago I heard a radio programme which took the form of the audio diary of a couple of guys driving a milk float from Land's End to John o' Groats (ie., the full length of the UK). I don't know whether you have milk floats in the USA, but basically they are electric vehicles (for quietness) which deliver milk door-to-door early in the morning. Their maximum speed is probably 10-15mph.
Anyway, these two guys had a marvellous time on their adventure, traveling a few miles each day and meeting lots of interesting people as they begged the use of power sockets in which to plug the recharging lead for their vehicle. I don't remember how long the trip took, but obviously it was a number of weeks.
I'm not saying that an electric bus would necessarily have the performance of a milk float, but just pointing out that an electric bus could become a viable proposition if you radically change your traveling behaviour and expectations
Jeremy
(https://busconversionmagazine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gorillauk.com%2Fimg%2Fuploads%2F1223215823_2.jpg&hash=01557f4682d79884d8688deb5c12ce486245dcc8)
I suspect that electric school bus was only listed as an automatic because the choices are probably only automatic or manual. You don't need to shift so the automatic choice makes the most sense. The heater says it is 12 volt so it probably burns diesel to make heat. The size of the copper wire required to produce 90,000 BTU at 12 volt would make 4/0 look tiny. The diesel tank is likely for the heater.
Is the whole undercarriage filled with batteries?
Quote from: Jeremy on March 30, 2011, 02:29:31 AM(snip) I don't know whether you have milk floats in the USA, (snip)
I've never seen one in the US but I saw a number when I lived near a Midland Dairies depot in Wolverhampton -- if it was after 8 AM, they were usually being towed back to the depot by a team of horses. (Yes, there's lots of dirt out there younger than I am ...)
Quote from: happycamperbrat on March 29, 2011, 09:09:22 PM
Lots of naysayers on this site regarding electric vehicles...... yet alone electric buses. My advice would be to go to this site http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/ (http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/) They have very knowledgable people on the latest cutting edge batteries and people doing a lot of experimentation as well as tried and true works on electric vehicles. Good luck!
Not so much naysayers as pragmatists.
We, as Busnuts, all appreciate experimenting and developing new ideas; sometimes, the further out of the box, the better.
As long as you are talking about experiments, learning, trying new things, etc., then I think we are all behind you.
If your goals are environmental, experiential, pushing limits just for the sake of pushing them, go for it.
If, on the other hand, your goals are economy, especially on a limited budget, then I think you are kidding yourself.
Some of the experimenters on the diyelectriccar forum are claiming a 3-400 mile range which is great. They are mostly flatland and moderate temperatures.
I commuted for many years fifty miles each way, running 70-80 on the interstate in the Florida heat, air conditioner running full on. I doubt any of the available cars could do that.
The winter cold could be taken care of with gasoline or propane heat, but the batteries would suffer reduced output from the cold.
Something I learned in a quick perusal of the website suggested that your VW Bus might not be the best choice because of the large frontal area (They were talking about a Ford Ranger being too big, yours is considerably larger).
A recent newspaper article suggested that if all the people who worked in downtown Tampa and lived in the North Tampa suburbs drove a Nissan Leaf and plugged it in at 5:30 every evening, they would quickly overwhelm the power company.
Not nay-saying, just suggesting a lot of unemotional, practical thought go into the process.
Something more arrow dynamic then a brick is great! Always! And the smaller more expensive batteries can be used in a smaller car to make them very efficient.
But I chose the VW bus because of it's sturdy construction and weight holding capacity, as well as looks. I can use heavier lead acid batteries, or go with the more expensive lighter batteries. In this article it is said to be the a great platform for an ev http://www.didik.com/criticalev.htm (http://www.didik.com/criticalev.htm)
There is a company here in L.A. working on a electric/hydrogen fuel cell truck for local use. Big battery packs, using a 275kw motor directly coupled to a 2 spd rear axle. Very expensive, and much heavier (don't know yet, they are still building it). But-only water vapor for exhaust.
We have electric hybrid buses running-natural gas engines powering a battery pack powering the electric motor. Sometimes you here them go by with no engine running. They do accelerate quickly.
As Sean said, trains use Diesel/electric since the torque on an electric motor is at its' maximum at zero rpm. Budd did have some self powered passenger cars typically using 2-GM 6-110 (like an enlarged 6-71-before the 92 series was brought out) of 325hp apiece through a hydraulic transmission driving each set of wheel trucks, but they were relatively light weight compared to a freight train. When you see a freight train, the average freight car weighs about 70 tons loaded. If you have an average train of 100 cars, your looking at about 7000 tons or 14 million pounds powered by about 15,000hp. That would be the equivalent of a 35,000lb bus being powered by a 38hp engine! Next... Good Luck, TomC
Ok...Thanks to one of the previous posts... if it takes 460 batteries to power the 30000 +28000 lb bus 58000lbs total i guess (with batteries).... wonder how many batteries the train will need.... and how many box cars just for batteries?
Do you have a '49 Chev? We would love to see it.
Quote from: happycamperbrat on March 29, 2011, 09:09:22 PM
Lots of naysayers on this site regarding electric vehicles...... yet alone electric buses. My advice would be to go to this site http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/ (http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/) They have very knowledgable people on the latest cutting edge batteries and people doing a lot of experimentation as well as tried and true works on electric vehicles. Good luck!
I really think that if people would just study some books on physics, and honestly ask questions looking for honest answers, rather than bypassing (or ignoring) major physical laws and real enviromental impacts, their eyes would be opened. Too many electric car junkies talk they are green, but walk around the nasty battery pile at the scrap yards like it doesnt exist. And they pretend that electric power production coming into thier homes is zero emission, like that big nasty coal burner out in the boonies has some other purpose than powering their car. You really should put a bumper sticker on every electric battery powered car that uses line power to charge, thet says "powered by coal". Because they are.
About 70% of the power produced in the US is with coal, the remainder is Natural Gas and Nuclear. In all honestly and seriousness, you would burn far less coal building a steam powered coal fired car. And that is not a theory or some pie in the sky fantasy, it is an absolute fact.
Not where I live..... here 25% of our power is from coal. I did check into it the last time this came up. My brother works for the solar plant out here, but we also have geo thermal and wind too. Depending on which is in most use they switch us from one to another and back again..
Quote from: artvonne on March 30, 2011, 08:10:59 PM
Quote from: happycamperbrat on March 29, 2011, 09:09:22 PM
Lots of naysayers on this site regarding electric vehicles...... yet alone electric buses. My advice would be to go to this site http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/ (http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/) They have very knowledgable people on the latest cutting edge batteries and people doing a lot of experimentation as well as tried and true works on electric vehicles. Good luck!
I really think that if people would just study some books on physics, and honestly ask questions looking for honest answers, rather than bypassing (or ignoring) major physical laws and real enviromental impacts, their eyes would be opened. Too many electric car junkies talk they are green, but walk around the nasty battery pile at the scrap yards like it doesnt exist. And they pretend that electric power production coming into thier homes is zero emission, like that big nasty coal burner out in the boonies has some other purpose than powering their car. You really should put a bumper sticker on every electric battery powered car that uses line power to charge, thet says "powered by coal". Because they are.
About 70% of the power produced in the US is with coal, the remainder is Natural Gas and Nuclear. In all honestly and seriousness, you would burn far less coal building a steam powered coal fired car. And that is not a theory or some pie in the sky fantasy, it is an absolute fact.
Another reason for using diesel/electric is that the engine runs a the same rpm no matter what the speed or what the load. With a mechanical drive, no matter how many gears, the engine is going to vary from its most efficient rpm.
Thats really it, keeping the engine humming in the sweet spot and just controlthe load. Its not the very best from an efficiency standpoint, but its not real bad either.
Re: VW Bus. Back in my younger days when I once owned two camper Buses, a 69 and a 71, I met a guy who put a VW diesel in a camper and turbo intercooled it. Almost 40 mpg and some 500 mile range with more power and torque, and with real hot water heat to boot and it fit under the rear engine cover like it always belonged there. He put radiators on each side of the engine and ducted air through the snorkels and ran electric fans. I would do that in a heartbeat before I would ever load one down with a ton of car batteries.
Art, that would be my 2nd choice for sure! The gas engine mine has doesnt work, so Im trying to save the cash to buy the electric motor and all the gizmos that go with it. But in the mean time, I have seriously toyed with the idea of putting a diesel engine in it..... My big bus seems to be chewing up all my extra cash right now though lol, imagine that!
Quote from: artvonne on March 30, 2011, 08:10:59 PM
... you would burn far less coal building a steam powered coal fired car. And that is not a theory or some pie in the sky fantasy, it is an absolute fact.
Sorry, Art, but I have to disagree with this last statement. While you are absolutely correct that every electric car is, in reality, running on coal, the fact is that coal-fired power plants burn coal much, much more efficiently (and cleanly) than it can possibly be burned on a small scale at the point of use. Even when you account for transmission losses and conversion losses, generating electric power centrally and distributing it is still more efficient. You won't find coal being distributed to retail customers even for its most efficient application, heating, for this reason.
Quote from: happycamperbrat on March 30, 2011, 09:11:27 PM
Not where I live..... here 25% of our power is from coal. I did check into it the last time this came up. My brother works for the solar plant out here, but we also have geo thermal and wind too. Depending on which is in most use they switch us from one to another and back again..
We've discussed this before, methinks.
While I know you'd prefer to believe that your electric car will be charged entirely by green energy, that is wishful thinking.
Your power provider is connected to a grid. It doesn't matter how much wind, solar, or geothermal energy they have; every watt of it gets used. If they don't have enough demand to use it all locally, the excess gets sent someplace else.
When you plug your EV in, even if the power to charge it is coming from a nearby wind turbine, the fact is that those watts are now no longer available to sent to somebody 300 miles away, who was going to use it to run his air conditioner. That power now needs to come from someplace else, and that someplace else is a coal-fired plant.
ALL incremental electric power in the US comes from coal. When demand goes up, more coal is burned, and when demand goes down, less coal is burned. Nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal plants are
never "throttled down" based on demand -- they
always operate at the maximum output for the available conditions (sunlight, wind, etc.). Hydroelectric is the only exception -- it is throttled back during low demand to preserve pool levels. All utility managers use coal as the demand-sensitive resource.
So
every EV ever plugged in to the grid causes an increase in coal-fired demand -- no exceptions. The only way to charge an EV with a zero-coal footprint is to charge it "off grid."
I'm not saying your EV is not green -- if you design it properly, it may very well be. But if you plug it into the grid to charge, you are charging it with coal power, no ifs, ands, or buts.
FWIW.
-Sean
http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com (http://ourodyssey.blogspot.com)
Sean are you ever wrong about anything? LOL, right again! Im so glad to have found this forum! ;)
QuoteWhen you plug your EV in, even if the power to charge it is coming from a nearby wind turbine, the fact is that those watts are now no longer available to sent to somebody 300 miles away, who was going to use it to run his air conditioner. That power now needs to come from someplace else, and that someplace else is a coal-fired plant.
Quote from: happycamperbrat on March 31, 2011, 12:20:35 PM
Sean are you ever wrong about anything? ...
All the time... just ask my wife :)
-Sean
http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com (http://ourodyssey.blogspot.com)
Quote from: Sean on March 30, 2011, 11:14:05 PM
While you are absolutely correct that every electric car is, in reality, running on coal, the fact is that coal-fired power plants burn coal much, much more efficiently (and cleanly) than it can possibly be burned on a small scale at the point of use.
[/quote]
Your probably right, especially about the cleaner part. I know they have gone to great trouble to burn it as efficiently as they can. Its just all the conversion losses that take place as you go down the chain, and what those actual losses really are, and were having to trust their numbers. And your absolutely correct about the interconnected grid. I have heard it can take two weeks to bring a power plant online, the idea wind or solar will ever shut one down is simply unrealistic.
My point was that the power plant is burning coal to boil water to make steam to drive a turbine to drive a generator to make electricity, then running that electric power through transformers, losing efficiency all along the way to our home. Then Mr Electric car owner plugs in a big commercial battery charger, charging a big bank of batteries, and drives the batteries through some conversion into a motor, contributing more losses.
If you were going to create the same process, burning coal to make steam to drive a turbine to run a generator to make electricity to charge batteries to drive an electric motor, within your own vehicle, I absolutly agree, the power plant will win. But if you burned coal to drive a steam engine and powered the car directly with steam pressure, I bet you could beat it. But it would be a dirty affair.
I am under the impression that most of the peaking plants are natural gas? My understanding is the plants are only brought online when there is peak demand predicted. The peaking plants can sell electricity for up to 10 or 20 times the normal wholesale rate as the utilities get desperate on peak days.
Electric cars can be better if new ways are found to make electricity. Internal combustion cars have a fairly limited choice of fuels and they are going to pollute at least some amount. Some of the environmentalists don't like geothermal home heating/cooling because it uses electricity mostly generated by coal these days.
Nuclear is a dirty word right now, but nuclear can generate power without emitting CO2 and other pollutants. Nuclear can be expensive due to the cost to build a plant. New reactor designs are supposed to be far safer with less waste. Apparently they can even reuse some of the fuel from the older reactors.
I dont know..... but one day I imagine we will have solar stuff up in space powering everything we use on earth
Quote from: happycamperbrat on March 31, 2011, 03:21:41 PM
I dont know..... but one day I imagine we will have solar stuff up in space powering everything we use on earth
Arther C Clarke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke)) proposed exactly this idea decades ago. His idea was to send the energy to earth in the form of focused beams of microwaves. Technically sound no doubt, but imagine the reaction of the public to this idea...
Coal-powered cars - again, entirely possible. Either steam-powered (amateur development of steam-powered cars is a well-supported hobby), or via conventional petrol engines that have been adapted to be fueled by a coke-burning gasifier.
Taking a wider perspective, the best answer is of course not to travel in the first place - I bet many people on this board, for instance, already work from home at least some of the time. And that number is only going to grow as computer and communications technology continues to improve.
And 'genuine' environmental improvements can come in unexpected forms. I heard a radio program recently about some high-profile 'best new green technology' award which was won by a new type of temperature sensor for use inside the steam turbines of - wait for it - coal-powered power stations. Why would such an invention win an environmental award? Because it allowed a slightly more precise regulation of the turbine, leading to a very small (1% or so) fuel saving. But 1% in every turbine in every power station is an immense saving of resources & C02, and no doubt far more than could be achieved by the assorted wind / wave / solar schemes that had been entered in the same competition.
Jeremy
The bigger the engine, generator, heating plant, etc the more efficient it is. The most efficient Diesel engine in the world is the big 2 stroke engines that power ships. They have a 38" bore and 98" stroke (compared to 4.25 x 5.00 in a 71 series) and run as fast as 102 rpm. Look up worlds largest Diesel engine for an explanation.
Mark my words-as we see fuel prices going up, we'll see more Diesel vehicles. Virtually every American, Asian, European car manufacturer makes Diesels in their cars-mostly outside of the U.S. Good Luck, TomC
Quote from: TomC on March 31, 2011, 10:31:30 PM
Mark my words-as we see fuel prices going up, we'll see more Diesel vehicles. Virtually every American, Asian, European car manufacturer makes Diesels in their cars-mostly outside of the U.S. Good Luck, TomC
Which will spike the price of diesel and possibly make gasoline less expensive, and then everyone will shift back to gasoline making diesel cheap again. People are more like Sheep than I ever would have imagined.
Quote from: artvonne on April 01, 2011, 03:12:14 AMPeople are more like Sheep than I ever would have imagined.
Hey, what have you got against sheep? No more anti-sheep insults, please.
John
Except for cars and small trucks, the entire world runs on Diesel Fuel. Trucks, buses, trains, big ships, etc. Airplanes use highly refined (no water) kerosene-like half and half of gasoline and Diesel. Diesel is more expensive then gasoline because of the ultra low sulfur-15 parts per million-think of it as the Diesel version of unleaded gasoline. Good Luck, TomC
Here you go, Coconut:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170623136664&viewitem= (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170623136664&viewitem=)
2004 Fully Electric Shuttle Bus 4500 miles only
These Shuttle Buses are Fully Electric ..
50Hp DC motor and controller.
Air ride compressor
Wheel Chair lift
seats 18 Passangers
with only 4500
they where bought for $135.000 in 2004
they added a 12000W Generator LPG Hona GX670 with two tanks for to extend battery time .
bus runs for six hours before recharging
max speed is 25-30 m/hr
There was a school near us when I was a teenager. The City blew some $30Million in 1975 dollars building a state of the art hot water solar heating system. I dont believe the system worked longer than 4 or 5 years and they shut it down, it was costing more to maintain it than the savings it offset against the gas heating system, and they had to keep the gas system because the solar wasnt a reliable source, so they had to feed and maintain two systems.
Governments are increasingly spending our money on goofy research and purchases, and I dont often have a problem with it as long as it doesnt become really stupid or political. But some of the things they sponsor and support offer no real benefits other than simply wasting money. If battery powered electric vehicles offered any real savings, deleivery companies and businesses that needed to get people around would be all over it. Pizza delivery, technicians, mail trucks, why right there you would see it, why isnt the USPS running electric vehicles?
Because it costs more to buy, has limited range, greatly deminished cargo capacity, massive electric bills and expensive maintenence.
Only a well funded City would be stupid enough to pay $135K for an electric Bus that cant go over 25 mph and isnt worth $4500 6 years later. And only uneducated taxpayers would support it. What a waste.
but the electric busses are "green".... and us tree huggers like "green" (and spending other people's money)
Quote from: chev49 on May 01, 2011, 07:33:52 AM
but the electric busses are "green".... and us tree huggers like "green" (and spending other people's money)
All kidding aside, electric vehicles are the most UN-green vehicles we could ever put on the road. Even these hybrid cars, if the goal was truly to achieve superior fuel economy, the Prius would have a sub 1 liter turbo diesel and treehuggers would learn how to drive a manual gearbox. That car could likely exceed 80 mpg if economy was truly the goal those people claim they are after.
Much of this hubalu about electric vehicles is based on emotional symbolism. As stated by others, there will come a day where we will have all electric vehicles that are as dependable and powerful with the same range as gasoline and diesel is now. We're not here yet and "good intentions are not going to help. You could put lawnmower engines a BOEING 747 and claim it will use less fuel all in the name of good intentions but the thing won't move let alone fly.
Quote from: CrabbyMilton on May 01, 2011, 10:26:19 AM
As stated by others, there will come a day where we will have all electric vehicles that are as dependable and powerful with the same range as gasoline and diesel is now.
I just dont see anything like that happening, only small increases in efficiency are likely into the far distant future, its the law of diminishing returns.
And even so, you still have the issue of where the power will come from to charge all these electric cars, and the environmental impact of putting so many or so large of batteries into circulation. After whats happened in Japan, selling anyone on nuclear power is going to be a hard sell, and as we cant seem to explore our resources for Natural Gas any farther due to environmental impacts, and we cant rely on wind or solar enough to shut down or even slow down one single power plant, there will undoubtedly be construction of more coal plants to support them. Like it or not, plugging a million battery powered cars into the grid will overload the system, and there will be a greater environmental impact. And replacing all cars with electric would be impossible.
Nearly 30 years ago an editor at R&T drove a 5 passenger Peugeot powered by a sub 1 liter turbo diesel and recorded over 80 mpg. Imagine where we would be today if research had continued in that direction. If people didnt have thier undies so wound up over oil and not wasted so much of our time and tax dollars on BS electric car technology, and instead had focused on making the internal combustion engine and our cars more efficient, we wouldnt be where we are today.
I was looking at a Smart car, and was astonished the car would only got 45 mpg. My Mercedes 190 diesel did that well, seated 5, could roll at over 80 mph and had a useable trunk. And the 2.2 4 cyl diesel that preceded it would get almost 60 mpg! Were going backwards folks, not forward.
I agree with you there. The old VW Rabbit Diesel got well north of 50 mpg. I don't think the newer ones come close. A few years back, we looked at the Jeep Liberty Diesel and couldn't believe the lousy mileage it got.
The problem with these quick fixes, like more refinerees and coal plants etc. is that this is not renuable energy. The same problems we face now, we would again face on another day. Maybe we would be more equipped to deal with it then, or maybe not. I still like the idea of solar panels in space beaming down our energy to use whenever we need, as much as we need....
I am a member of SAE and have been for over 35 years. Each month I get the member magazine and I am blown away at the engine technology that is being developed (both gas and diesel). As this technology is put into production, I think you will see some pretty great MPG numbers.
The OEMs are really fighting an uphill battle. The emission requirements are ever increasing and that really eats away at the POTENTIAL fuel mileage that will be possible with the amazing technology that is in the development stage.
I, too, am concerned about electric vehicles. Again, the SAE magazine talks about some very good work being done, but you simply can't fight the laws of physics when it comes to energy storage. Even the next generation of batteries do not have huge gains in power density. There are applications for electric cars - such as commuting to work, but you are simply not going to drive to grandma's hose two states away in a pure electric car.
Jim
Quote from: rv_safetyman on May 01, 2011, 02:18:06 PM
Each month I get the member magazine and I am blown away at the engine technology that is being developed (both gas and diesel). The OEMs are really fighting an uphill battle. The emission requirements are ever increasing and that really eats away at the POTENTIAL fuel mileage that will be possible with the amazing technology that is in the development stage.
I, too, am concerned about electric vehicles, but you simply can't fight the laws of physics when it comes to energy storage. Even the next generation of batteries do not have huge gains in power density. There are applications for electric cars - such as commuting to work, but you are simply not going to drive to grandma's hose two states away in a pure electric car.
Jim
Good points, the EPA seems hell bent on making cars burn as much fuel as possible, either by directly screwing up engines, or chemically altering the fuel to make it lower BTU. Clean air is important, but there should be some balance with conservation and economy. I just never could understand how a car that got almost 60 mpg could be polluting so bad it needed to be modified until it only gets 25 mpg. Something is terribly wrong with that kind of thinking.
I do argue however that even for commuting, an electric car wastes a great deal of energy that is primarily coal based. If people had a small commuter car with a 500cc turbo diesel that delivered 80-100 mpg, there would be less pollution than from electric cars, but with virtually unliited range. And if instead of charging batteries at home we processed hydrogen directly at the power plants, that could be used as another alternative fuel source.
Just been reading about the use of micro gas turbines as the new way of producing electricity to power hybrid vehicles. The new Jaguar supercar is using them, and they offer many advantages over the hydrogen fuel cell approach - such as the fact that the gas turbine is not restricted to 'just' hydrogen, and can run on a whole range of fuels from CNG right through to diesel (as we know, aircraft engines run on fuel which is crude and cheap compared to what is required for a piston engine).
Anyway, give it another ten years of development and these things might be an ideal back-up power source for an electric bus after it's used it's batteries up.
(https://busconversionmagazine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bladonjets.com%2Fimages%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2Fbladon-jets-engine-front-and-pencil.png&hash=4e3abb71b882f44eb437cef9a2202b911490161a)
(https://busconversionmagazine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_VCcqOQLH7Q8%2FTKsCaBrfDJI%2FAAAAAAAAB8w%2FQKjOUAK5fxE%2Fs1600%2FJaguar%2BC-X75a.jpg&hash=a2016bbfcf7a7d1ab25aaf07ca79bd13290a4a2c)
Jeremy
looks like a great toad ;D
Quote from: Jeremy on May 06, 2011, 03:31:10 AM
Just been reading about the use of micro gas turbines as the new way of producing electricity to power hybrid vehicles.
Jeremy
One of, if the the biggest issues with Turbine engines in a motor vehicle, has been how to connect the engine to the drivetrain. Anytime power is converted to another source, there is energy loss, and this has always been the stumbling block thats kept the turbine out of cars. The Turbine has the capability to be the most efficient powerplant, far exceeding the diesel. But its found its greatest use in applications where the engine could run at more or less steady speed, such as driving helicopter tranmissions and aircraft propellors.
i am not sure how a gas turbine would work in a urban commuter scenario, you wouldnt want to be starting and stopping it, and they are not efficient at all when idling. But out on the road, I could see a gas turbine electric being very very miserly on fuel. And powerful when needed.
Like you say, give time its measure, someone will think of something. In the mean time...drill baby. Drill!
In a commuter scenario the turbine would continue to run at a steady speed and charge the batteries. Assuming the batteries needed charging, otherwise the turbine would presumably shut down completely.
It's not a totally new idea of course - Rover did a lot of work on gas-turbine cars in the 50s (they had been involved in development work on early aircraft jet engines during the war). The turbines were fitted in a variety of Rover road cars, and also powered BRM racers which competed in the Le Mans 24-hour etc. They had most of the bugs worked out and had been seriously thinking of putting the engine in production models, but in the end hadn't been able to fix the problem of excessive fuel consumption. I believe Chrysler did similar research and came to the same conclusion. Obviously back then the turbines were large units that were powering the car directly, not these tiny devices which are only intended to generate electricity to supplement batteries.
I sell a lot of model aircraft magazines as part of my business, and know that miniature gas turbine technology is well advanced in that field. There are specialist model engineering companies that sell complete turbine engines that look superficially similar - and are of a similar size - to that Jaguar one. The technology for a home-built hybrid bus might be closer than you imagine. (The Jaguar uses two turbines incidentally - add a few more and who knows?)
Jeremy