This is ai_vin's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following ai_vin's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
ai_vin
Recent Activity
We've not been sitting on our hands you know. As you can see; http://www.caa.ca/evstations/ we've already got quite the network of charging stations but I'd like to see more Level 3 chargers on intercity routes, and E-highways for the trucks. At the very least the railways should be electrified like they are in Europe.
"Results of A study..." is rarely worth much. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw Real conclusions come from compiling multiple independent studies.
There's another way of reducing diesel emissions - propane or natural gas injection. The gaseous fuel is introduced into each cylinder of the engine during the intake stroke. During the compression stroke of the piston, the pressure and temperature of the mixture are increased in the conventional manner. Near the end of the compression stroke, a smaller than normal quantity of diesel fuel from the engine's existing diesel fuel injection system is injected into the cylinder. The diesel ignites due to compression and in turn ignites the mixture of gaseous-fuel and intake air, which in turn, accelerates the flame front of the Diesel Fuel, enhancing the combustion process which reduces particulates. In addition, because less diesel is used and propane burns cooler, lower combustion temperatures produce fewer NOX.
A battery/FC hybrid semi is one solution. Another would be to electrify the highways; http://www.citylab.com/tech/2014/09/los-angeles-is-building-an-e-highway/380914/ A battery/FC/cable trybrid semi would have all the bases covered.
Google maps says the Indio to Mecca/Oasis routes are about 21/22 miles. Batteries can handle that far cheaper than FCs. If you must have hydrogen powered buses, save them for the cross country Greyhound buses.
sd, the orange EV has a top speed of 25mph so it is limited of moving freight around the port or to warehouses within the port's home city. This new truck is a class 8 which can travel at highway speeds. Drayage does imply short haul but typically means any trip completed in a single work shift. Hours of Service (HOS) rules for daily driving in Canada state: You’re limited to 13 hours of Driving time in a day or a work shift. This rule is pretty straightforward. In a day and a work shift you cannot log more than 13 hours as “Driving.” In order to drive again you must be Off-Duty for 8 consecutive hours. Off duty includes Off-Duty and Sleeper. You cannot Drive once you have 14 hours of on-duty time in a day or work shift. On-Duty includes “Driving” and “On-Duty Not Driving.” You can still log On-Duty Not Driving after 14 hours on-duty, but you cannot log “Driving.” In order to drive again you must be Off-Duty for 8 consecutive hours. Off duty includes Off-Duty and Sleeper. No Driving after 16 hours of time has elapsed between the conclusion of the most recent period of 8 or more consecutive hours of off-duty time and the beginning of the next period of 8 or more consecutive hours of off-duty time. This is referred to as the “16 hour” rule. It’s a ticking clock, which starts once you mark yourself on-duty. 16 hours from that point you cannot longer log Driving. You need 8 consecutive hours Off-Duty in order to drive again. You need to log at least 10 hours of off-duty time in a day. In the US the same rules state: You can drive a maximum of 11 hours after 10 consecutive hours off duty. You must take a 30-minute break, at a time of your choosing, within the previous 8 hours. This means before 8 hours, in real time, has past you need to take a 30-minute break. The 8-hour clock starts again once you complete your break. You cannot drive beyond the 14th hour after coming on duty, following 10 consecutive hours off duty. This works like the 16-hour rule in Canada, but it’s 14 hours and 10 hours Off-Duty. This differs from Canada, in that; your 10 hours must include 8 consecutive hours of Sleeper Birth time. http://lenduboistrucking.com/blog/trucking-hours-of-service-basics/ At highway speeds (55mph) a 11 hour shift can mean over 600 miles of driving. This new truck has a 200 mile range and can refill quickly.
Darn, sd that website says they supply "fleets" - not private owners like me. This is the same problem I have with VIA motors' electrified pickup. Also 5000 lb isn't enough for my needs, like CE88 says it's fairly low for a 1/2 ton. The Tesla model X pulls that much.
Payload and towing capacity, please? Any article about a pickup truck without that info is useless. Payload and towing capacity is the reason you buy a pickup. Period.
OK, so how far can this plane fly? What's so great about speed if you have to land at the same airfield you took off from? You're literally "going nowhere fast."
I was just going to say that myself SJC. Also in the news today, the keystone xl and dakota access pipelines, the ones he claimed would be using American steel, won't be because his rule only applies to new pipeline plans and these two are old pipeline plans.
ICEVs will be around for another 40+ years and USA need a safe source of fossil fuel to be free of imports from unfriendly nations. Ah, but what about exports TO unfriendly nations? ;) As long as Trump is President America will be the "unfriendly"est nation of all.
@GdB No, it's not a "tail wind" - it's a "cross wind." The shape of the truck acts like a wing or sail that produces "lift" as well as drag and side forces. Cross wind when added to forward speed gives you an apparent wind at different yaw angles. The right yaw angle can produce more forward lift than rearward drag while any side forces are handled by the tires on the road. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forces_on_sails
the new SuperTruck I vehicle achieved 13 mpg This duplicates the efforts, and results, of other "supertruck" projects I've seen over the years.
From the looks of the pictures it seems the CF parts take up more space than the steel parts. That's not always an option when designing a car. It's even less of an option if you're thinking of simply replacing the part in a current car.
That wouldn't work because there is NO effort to keep ethanol out of gasoline here. Quite the opposite: "Since December 2010 federal regulations have required that gasoline in Canada contain 5% renewable fuel content overall" and every pump I've filled up at these last 6 years has had the label "May contain up to 10% ethanol" on it. The problem then is two fold: What fuel grade ethanol we can produce gets spread out to all the gasoline supply leaving little left for higher ratios. And because Canadian driver see themselves as doing something "ECO" collectively there less call for individuals to go that extra step and those that want to have already found their extra step in propane/CNG or BEV/hybrid cars, so there's little market demand for E85. That one station I mentioned? It doesn't cater to environmentalists. It's located in the rich end of town where young punks with too much allowance drive souped-up streetracers.
Another idea: Bi-fuel - E85 and propane or CNG. All have 100+ octane numbers and could be run in the same high compression engine. In Canada propane/autogas and CNG is more available than E85, there's only one E85 station that I'm sure of vs ~40 CNG stations listed on a website I found vs almost 450 autogas stations. Using E85 would be best for the environment but falling back on propane would be cheaper and still better than gasoline or diesel.
This might be a way to get around the lack of E85 pumps; http://eco-fueling.com/fuel-technology/
@Trees Good to know, just wish E85 was more available in Canada. I know of one station that sells it in West Vancouver and I think there's a station somewhere in Ontario. ---- Going to need a very big aux tank when I drive cross-country pulling my trailer.
@ SJC I too was once a supporter of using bio DME for trucks but I since gone off the idea. When used as a diesel fuel, DME provides reduced PM and NOx emissions, but increased CO and HC. However preliminary studies in the 1990s concluded that it should be possible to achieve ULEV emissions using a properly designed DME-based fuel injection system with an HSDI engine and an oxidation catalytic converter. Other factors are more problematic. It has a lower energy density AND specific energy than diesel so we'd be burning more of it. Plus: The physical properties of DME (density, viscosity, lubricity, etc.) are so different from the diesel fuel that the entire fuel system must be redesigned. While it seems clear that DME, like perhaps some other alternative fuels, would be able to produce much larger emissions reductions than it is possible with diesel fuel, the emission benefit comes at a price of a specific level of complexity of the fuel storage and injection system, including the need to carry a pressurized fuel tank onboard the vehicle. Furthermore, it is not clear that the apparently inherent emission advantage of DME can offset the fuel’s lack of established supply and fueling infrastructure. From today’s perspective, the DME fuel is more likely to be used in certain niche applications, rather than provide a wide-scale alternative to liquid diesel fuels. Lately I've been looking into renewable diesel. So far it looks good.
The cellulosic ethanol allows greenhouse gas emission savings of up to 95% 95% of 20% is still 19%. This is a big improvement but with climate change upon us we need to go a lot farther.
@ Dr. Strange Love The distillation unit in a refinery (even a bio-refinery) always produces a range of chemicals. [It can be tuned somewhat to get a peak of production in that range but you'll always get some of the other stuff.] If they don't find a use for all the produced chemicals they are just throwing money away. That's all they are doing here, finding more uses for the chemicals they get out of the GTL Fischer-Tropsch process.
I find it interesting that they use the term "splash blended." Splash blending is inherently less accurate than other methods so you can never be sure of ratio in your tank. And some fuel pairs, like biodiesel/petro-diesel don't mix very well so stirring is needed.
Now is not the time to rest on our laurels. The previous GHG requirements were far too low for what is needed and what could have been done. The proof of that is how easily they have been met.
First it was VW, then it was Dodge and it's new 3.0 litre Ecodiesel, and now they are going after Renault? When will it stop?
43% lower GHG for ethanol vs gasoline. Guess what? For biodiesel it is 75%