Heavy-Duty Battery Systems

Favor hablar inglés.

As in "In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli."?

No disrespect, it is very much spoken in English!!!!!

"The question over the single power source is central to the concept, since hybrids do not form part of the research being instigated, as this would be contrary to the investigation.

This forms the basis of my interest in seeking "constructive" contributions via the CR4 Forum, if that is possible!

To assist further in anyone's understanding of the enquiry, the point of the research is to determine whether, despite the current information available (which suggests that "pure battery powered" vehicles of large size are currently not viable) are indeed potentially achievable and within "commercial cost-effective reach" by combining new battery technology, currently available drive-transmission technology and other contributary engineering disciplines."

What, exactly is your motivation here??? Have you read a few books on the subject? Done internet research?

I'm really unclear why you think we should contribute anything to your quest. You have laid down some onerous "rules" for the forum with your admonition of constructive comments only. It seems to me that if anyone disagrees with you, you cry foul.

I, for one, think you may have been sniffing some Brown's gas along the way, and I'm still suspicious of your motivations and your insistence that you lay down the ground rules for this discussion.

What makes you any more of an expert than any of the rest of us????

Anxiously awaiting your constructive explaination of your "research"

I hope that we as taxpayers didn't have to fund such pompousness.

Wouldn't surprise me if we did. Take away all the fluff and what do you really have.

None of the OP's posts give any demonstrable evidence that he knows anything about battery technology. Almost looks like a pfishing expedition.

There I go again, with those negative vibes................

Could you explain why you're so committed to battery-only vehicle solution? For one thing, have you considered the massively extended charging cycle that is likely to be required.

Also how much carrying capacity are we talking here?

In answer to your question, the research is directed at looking at a vehicle capable of carrying up to 50 persons or loads in excess of 2.5 tonnes, with an endurance of more than 5 hours continuous running. Speed is a factor, along with other operational expediencies, but the principal direction is the former criteria.

The question over the single power source is central to the concept, since hybrids do not form part of the research being instigated, as this would be contrary to the investigation.

This forms the basis of my interest in seeking "constructive" contributions via the CR4 Forum, if that is possible!

To assist further in anyone's understanding of the enquiry, the point of the research is to determine whether, despite the current information available (which suggests that "pure battery powered" vehicles of large size are currently not viable) are indeed potentially achievable and within "commercial cost-effective reach" by combining new battery technology, currently available drive-transmission technology and other contributary engineering disciplines.

Let us not forget, that without forward thinking, nothing would be ever achieved for the good of the environment or everyday persons.

In my research to date, numerous arguments have already been raised which demonstrate that the requirement for such concepts are limited, however, simply being the proverbial "Ostrich with his head in the sand", does not mean that the idea should be ignored or de-bunked. Equally, counter arguments towards continuing to use existing technology are flawed and alternative forms of power generation for automotive applications need to be explored and encouraged.

"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." -- Orville Wright

So "Coach" or "Omnibus" / "Autobus" would have answered the question.

Why bother with batteries...let's go back to trams and trolleybuses in towns, saving fossil fuels for rural use....

Well, I'm not sure anyone who is pushing the state-of-the-art would be willing to share their work product with you.

I think it comes down to practicality.($) I don't have any figures on power density, but I'll wager that if you want to haul 50,000# on a truck for any distance, you'll need 20,000# of batteries to do it.

It's really all about $'s.

Thank you, rcf-jr.

Your suggestion is welcome, and your sentiments are valid - believe me I have encountered all sorts of cranks and cranky ideas during the research process, most of which would be better seen in Star Trek.

Yet the CR4 forum seemed an ideal place for some constructive discussion at the end of the research process in the possibility that something may have been overlooked and should be duly considered, but perhaps I have been misinformed about the concept of the forum

Please don't be discouraged. This is a growing Forum and there are new serious players coming on board every day. If you decide to hang around, you will be another good mind to tap into. So let me say, have a great day and see you back here in the future for some serious discussions.

MoronicBumble,

Again thank you for your constructive input.

The products you mentioned have already been referred to in the research; however your insight into the Chinese developments are most interesting. I have covered a number of worldwide studies, many of which fall short of the concept requirement; however, all suggestions are constructive in closing stages of the research I am undertaking.

Again your reference to speed and time is very relevant, and this is one of the key issues against a pure "battery powered" large vehicle - the weight penalty of the power cells. However, with further ongoing development that I am aware of, newer, lighter and more durable batteries are due to become available; but like everything in Engineering, things take time and sometimes do not move until a genuine requirement exist (which is a bit like the chicken and egg scenario).

Many thanks for your contribution, it is much appreciated.

The hunt is on for new battery materials since the consensus is that there is not enough Lithium in the world to manufacture batteries for vehicles to replace the current fleet.

No-one's mentioned how the medical supplies would be affected.

A blog on batteries that I follow - http://thisweekinbatteries.blogspot.com/

The author, Venkat Srinivasan, is a researcher at LBNL working on the Advanced Transportation Technologies program (BATT).

Interesting guy.

Russ

Thanks for the advice. Next time I will indeed search through past discussions before posting a point for discussion or question, and I can understand the frustration some may be showing because the subject may well have arisen several times previously.

As many of you will notice I am relatively new to the forum, thus some have the advantage of knowing what came before, and I apologise for this.

This particular exercise as, however highlighted to me the basis of the CR4 Forum in more ways than one.

Thanks to all genuine contributors.

"The LiFe technology reawakening in China and Russia is not new technology"

I believe you may have meant to refer to the NiFe batteries - nickel iron batteries have been around since early 1900's - they were not invented by Thomas Edison as often wrongly claimed, but he certainly took that technology to another level and made the batteries commercially viable. They were the main power source for the hundreds of forklift vehicles throughout most of the century due to their ruggedness and consistent performance

Exide was the company that bought out Thomas Edison Battery Company in the early 70's and within a couple years had shut down the business in North America, clearing the way for their lead acid line. The speculation is that the company's directors viewed the NiFe's as a distinct threat to their product offering and decided it was time to shut them down, clearing the way for lead acid dominance for the balance of the century and well into this one.

The Russians and Chinese are both producing these batteries currently, however, and they can be purchased for export to whatever country you may want them sent.

Not suitable for heavy vehicles huh!

Check this out. About 3 Minutes and 30 seconds into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMVGLxXmpgA

My last issue of Plumbing and Mechanical featured an article about a plumbing shop in the Denver area I believe that was purchasing electric vehicles for service trucks.

I sorry but I can't find that issue, it has already been thrown out.

As it turns out most plumbers only drive about 20 or 30 miles a day on service calls, but I hope they considered the weight of iron pipe fittings!

It was a queer looking truck, and one that would attract attention for sure - which is a good thing!

Found it.

http://www.precisionplumbing.com/guarantee/precision-news/81-boulder-service-company-drives-green-with-fleet-of-electric-vehicles.html

Here is a better link to the company that makes them.

http://boulderev.com/

Was it this one?

I feel for you. Our low's gonna be +37F tonight. We have frost warnings.

No, this one.

That's even uglier that the Ford van.

Do you get "ugly pay" if you have to drive one?

google fork lift trucks

That thing is so ugly I am sure there is at least one red-blooded, red-neck, Dodge diesel driving plumber that is looking for another job!

I don't know what has got into designers.

How about the asymmetrical car - there is something wrong with the back window. I get nauseated when I look at it.

In my day cheap, foreign-built imports were ugly, so your neighbors knew you were either a cheap jerk or having financial problems.

Now you can go out and by a KIA that is better looking than a Jaguar. The world has been turned upside down.

From what I remember reading, Edison was selling his NiFe batteries as having about half the weight as Lead-Acid batteries at the time for the same amount of stored energy, thus the vehicles could go further and/or carry more than with the Lead-Acid. There has been a lot of work done on Lead-Acid batteries so current ones may have the same or better energy density, and I am sure they have less internal losses without being recharged.

Evidently Detroit-Electric and Baker-Electric sold vehicles using the Edison NiFe batteries.

On some of the random web sites I have seen, there were cars, buses, and commercial trucks that ran on them. Rail Road switch engines, telephone central office batteries, railroad switching equipment, plus rural residences used them for power.

Typical distances for the electric vehicles had about 50 to 100 miles on a charge, but the speeds expected in those days were in the 10 to 30 MPH range rather than 40 to 80 MPH. So for the time, the distances available were reasonable for comerical vehicles on the available roads.

Also, there is evidently a US based manufacturer of NiFe batteries in Montanna these days.

The price of Ni has gone WAY up the last few years, so the odds of NiFe batteries coming down in price is pretty low, at least in the short term.