September 16, 2014
On Tuesday, Terry Hershner made history as the first person to ride an electric motorcycle over 1000 miles in 24 hours, following his historic win about two weeks ago in the Vetter Fuel Economy challenge. Both events shatter preconceived notions of electric vehicle capabilities, by breaking into territory where only gasoline powered motorcycles have gone before.
On Monday, Hershner departed at 1:00 PM from the ChargePoint headquarters in Campbell, CA, with 66,581 miles reading on the odometer of his highly modified 2012 Zero S electric motorcycle. He rode south reaching the US-Mexico border, south of San Diego, at about Midnight. From there he immediately rode north again, returning to ChargePoints headquarters at about Noon (23 hours later) on Tuesday, with the odometer reading 67,628 miles.
Yes, that's a 2012 model electric motorcycle with almost 68,000 miles on the clock. Key data for the ride is 1046.7 miles, 22 hours 57 minutes, 126.883 kilowatt-hours of electricity to carry 950 pounds at speeds of 70-80 mph that distance, or 121 watt-hours per mile (including charger losses) at 75 mph average. Using the widely accepted conversion factor saying 34.02 kilowatt-hours equals 1 gallon of gasoline, Hershner consumed the energy equivalent of 3.7 gallons of gasoline to ride 1046.7 miles.
This ride had two purposes, one of which was to kick off National Drive Electric Week, a week-long series of events celebrating electric vehicles. There are NDEW events being held all across the U.S., so visit the NDEW website to find one near you.
The other purpose was to complete a 1000+ mile motorcycle ride within 24 hours, qualifing Terry Hershner for the SaddleSore 1000, a certification awarded by the Iron Butt Association. This was the real purpose of this ride, to prove to the Iron Butt Association (IBA) leadership that electric motorcycles can successfully complete ultra-long-distance motorcycle rides. IBA's members are hard-core motorcyclists who love taking long distance rides. The commonly accepted wisdom is that only gasoline powered vehicles can do this, because electric vehicles have to be confined to urban areas. Hershner has proved otherwise.
To achieve this Hershner made major modifications to his motorcycle. Stock the bike carried a 9 kilowatt-hour battery pack and had a 60ish mile range at highway speeds. Modified, it carried a 21 kilowatt-hour battery pack, and a charging system running at up to 24 kilowatts, and the bike was wrapped in an extremely aerodynamic fairing designed by famed motorcycle designer Craig Vetter. The combination results in over 200 miles riding range per charge, at highway speeds, and a sub-1-hour recharge time.
At the end of August, Hershner demonstrated the 200 miles of riding range while winning the Vetter Fuel Economy Challenge in Utah. That event, sponsored by Craig Vetter, seeks to encourage development of highly efficient motorcycles that are capable of real-world tasks like grocery store runs. Hershner was the first electric motorcycle rider to win a Vetter Fuel Economy event. The event covered over 170 miles of riding at speeds up to 80 miles per hour starting at the Nevada-Utah border, and ending in Tooele Utah. After the event he rode another 30+ miles into Salt Lake City to find a charging station, in total covering 207 miles at highway speeds in one charge.
By the time elctric bikes are feasible for long distance touring I will be too old to enjoy one. Dave
Quote from: TexasDave on September 17, 2014, 07:14:21 PM
.......By the time elctric bikes are feasible for long distance touring I will be too old to enjoy one. Dave
Dave, There's not much to enjoy in my opinion. There is no doubt they are the future and technological marvels but they offer very little of what I enjoy about riding, they satisfy only a few of the senses. I have in the past criticised modern bikes for much the same reason. These things take it to the next level, it's like riding a sewing machine.
I was at a show a few weeks back and there was a stand there with them. They were running a competition over the course of the show, with only one winner, for a test ride on one. While my Son was filling out entry forms, I was talking to the agent. Much to my amazement and after only about 10 mins of talking about motorbikes and riding, he offered me a ride on one. My Son was still filling out entry forms as I rode off.
It was a novelty for about 15 minutes then I thought, OK, done that, and took it back. It was sort of like a fairground ride that had broken free of the carousal and done a runner.
The bike had 3 modes to tame the instant torque, the acceleration in the absence of any noise was very deceptive. This one was not a "big" bike and topped out at 120 kph but got there pretty quickly.
Some may find the sensation, or lack of it, enjoyable, but to an old school rider like me, it's all about angry noise, clutches and gearboxes.
Take all that away and you've seriously diminished the fun factor. Remember the clutchless FJR's? Reckon you would still find a few on showroom floors somewhere under a blanket of dust or being used a loaner. I know my local shop had one literally for years, couldn't give it away.
Dave, I think you should be grateful you'll be too old to "enjoy" one.
Funnily enough, it felt
exactly like I imagined it would feel.
Some people might like the sensation of gliding through the countryside with nothing but the wind and without all that racket from a petrol engine, feeling it
adds to the experience, but not for me.
Not too far into the future, people will start out on these things and not know any different.
Noel
Usual disclaimer: The views expressed in the above post are..... blah, blah, blah... and do not claim to represent... blah, blah, blah. ..no animals or electric bikes were hurt in the making of this.... blah, blah.....
Quote from: TexasDave link=topic=12576.msg124957#msg124957By the time elctric bikes are feasible for long distance touring I will be too old to enjoy one. Dave
I dunno Dave, it goes about as far on a refuel as an FJ and it will evidently cover ground in nearly Mike-Ramos fashion, and the guy has already ridden it further than the average mileage accumulated by FJs on this board - it sounds to me like it's already feasible for touring.
I'll have to ride one to see how Id like one, but DC motors make torque at 0 rpm that is limited only by the current capability of the battery and wiring - theoretically infinite as long as the wires & battery are up to it. I imagine it would pull off the line with effortless thrust that would shame even the torquiest FJ. No having to fool with a fuel air mixture to fool it into combusting at cold temps, no pinging a idle speed in hot weather, no loss of performance or carb setting suitability as you climb the mountain, and much less wasting of all that energy as noise and heat, it mostly goes into making you go. I like the idea. I like riding my FJ, but not because of all the noise made by all the loose rattly bits bouncing around against each other. And not because of the hot oil smell from it having to run pointlessly while I sit in traffic, running at 1,000 rpm and cooking itself to an early ruin just so i can go whenever traffic goes. (Really, it's like leaving your oven on all day so you can make breakfast, then a snack, then lunch, then supper.)
200 miles on a charge is getting up there, to get closer to being a touring machine..Thats about as far as I go on the FJ on a tank of fuel.......................but there is always the wait time to recharge before you can continue...........It's not like you can just refill the fuel and head out on the road again..........
For those touring at a very relaxed pace, and if one did not mind sitting around for an hour every 200 miles, you could probably make it work if you planned your route very carefully...........(you would need a place to plug it in every 200 miles)
I would still have "Range Anxiety" with a 200 mile range................There is definately not a network of public charging stations throughout the country at 150-200 mile intervals...........And if you're touring the country like some do, you'll be out of juice in the worse possible places.........
You can find a gas station almost anywhere within 50-100 miles anywhere in the US.........
I certainly applaud Terry Herschner's accomplishments, and the technology has definately come a long way in a short amount of time, but it still has a long way to go to make anything more than a local commute feasable......
All this aside however, I'm with Noel...............
To me, riding a motorcycle, and the romance and draw of the experience, involves the sound and feel of the engine..............
I thoroughly enjoy the "Angry" sound the engine makes as I roll on the throttle, accelerating up through the gears heading for the next corner......................and blipping the throttle, matching the downshift revs as I brake for that corner...............and the next one, and the next one.........
Dammit! Why am I stuck at work, and not out riding? :dash2:
I also favor the WAY a motorcycle engine makes it's power..................The further up the rev range you go, the more thrust is makes (like entering the Kookaloo zone)..............Having all your thrust instantly at zero, and petering out the faster it goes (like all electric motors) does not appeal to me, or the way I like to ride..............But as they say "To each, His own".
On a side note:
I'm not sure if anyone else watched the coverage of the "Formula E" race coverage from China that aired last weekend.............I did.
It was boring as F**K!
Aside from the last lap/last corner crash, there was no action whatsoever.......................No passing........Just a single file parade of cars, with the only sounds being the gear whine from the transmissions, and some random tire squealing entering the corners..........
The race was 25 laps.....................The cars only covered 12-14 laps, at which time the driver enters the pit garage, then switches to a second car to finish the race distance.............
They have a long way to go to make this kind of racing interesting to me......................
Pikes Peak however, that's a different story.................The electrics there, racing against the mountain and the clock.........That interests me!
Quote from: ribbert on September 17, 2014, 09:06:29 PM
Some may find the sensation, or lack of it, enjoyable, but to an old school rider like me, it's all about angry noise, clutches and gearboxes.
Take all that away and you've seriously diminished the fun factor. Remember the clutchless FJR's? Reckon you would still find a few on showroom floors somewhere under a blanket of dust or being used a loaner. I know my local shop had one literally for years, couldn't give it away.
Clutchless motorcycle. Isn't that a scooter? The FJR is definitely not aimed at the scooter crowd. Yet they can produce something as practical and impressive as the FZ-09.
Seriously, you sometimes have to wonder what the heck the manufacturers are thinking (smoking?).
Who are they talking to to come up with these ideas? Or are they just trying to show off some high tech?
The tech and performance of electrical motorcycles can be impressive but it's still far from being practical. The challenges are huge; convenience (charging), range, and price. It's going to take some serious breakthroughs to make it appeal to the average rider.
Quote from: FJ_Hooligan on September 18, 2014, 03:38:40 PM
The tech and performance of electrical motorcycles can be impressive but it's still far from being practical. The challenges are huge; convenience (charging), range, and price. It's going to take some serious breakthroughs to make it appeal to the average rider.
I can easily imagine that at the beginning of the 20th century, the equestrians said the same thing about the early motorcycles.
"if you build it they will come" There were cars before there were gas stations.
Electric vehicle "service stations" could be "swap stations" were depleted standardized batteries are exchanged for charged ones in less time than it now takes to fill a gas tank.
The thrill of having 100% torque on tap at 1 RPM could replace that of the roar and the fury of the internal combustion engine for future generations.
Things change. How many of you have a bike with a kick starter?
Ironic that my '84 was the first motorcycle I have ever owned that did not have a kick starter.
I remember I was kind of leery about the lack of that feature....for about 5 minutes before my test ride.
Electric/fuel cell development is the future. It is as plain as day in my view.
These same arguments have been made for the fuel cell powered vehicle. The only thing holding it back is a distribution system for INCREDIBLY EXPLOSIVE Hydrogen. Nothing that can't be overcome.
The early development of autos did not rely on quantum leaps of technology to make them practical. They had the fortunate circumstance of developing in parallel with industrialization, an increasing population and a fuel distribution system that was already in place to supply communities with lamp oil (remember they used to burn off gasoline as a waste product).
Where's the incentive for GE to build a bunch of electrical recharging stations no farther than 30 miles apart? I like taking breaks, but having to wait hour(s) to refuel? Yeah! The instant gratification seeking American public is going to be willing to do that.
I also don't see "service stations" stocking up on $6000 to $10000 batteries to trade out. Hell, half the time I can't get the snot nosed punk at the register to turn on the fuel pump. And you know the swap labor isn't going to be free.
Then there's the whole issue of crash damage. Do I really want to be surrounded with Lithium or any of the other exotic materials required in these batteries in a crash? Not me! Heck, my son has to charge his Li-Po battery for his RC in a fireproof bag.
I'm holding out for wind power...
Quote from: Pat Conlon on September 18, 2014, 05:04:49 PM
Ironic that my '84 was the first motorcycle I have ever owned that did not have a kick starter.
I remember I was kind of leery about the lack of that feature....for about 5 minutes before my test ride.
My first was in '82. Motorcycle batteries have gotten much better in the last few years, but I've been stranded by sudden catastrophic battery failure enough times in the last 30 years to still be somewhat wary of stopping for coffee out in the middle of nowhere for fear that it might happen. One of the reasons I no longer trust DieEasy batteries anymore.
Call it a Flat Earth attitude, but when I was a child "they" promised that I would be travelling by personal rocket pack or flying car by now.
Maybe I'm a little cynical... :-)
Quote from: Pat Conlon on September 18, 2014, 04:48:33 PM
I can easily imagine that at the beginning of the 20th century, the equestrians said the same thing about the early motorcycles.
I have an old motoring magazine that has a full page advertisement with a side by side comparison of a "motor lorry" vs a horse and cart. They are literally trying to sell the advantages of motorised transport for industry and prove it is more practical than horses. They compare cost, load carrying, time and distance covered charts etc.
It's hard to imagine the world didn't embrace this great invention on it's obvious merits but needed to be convinced, like Vegemite.
Noel
That's very cool Noel, what year was the article?
I bet the argument for motorized (load carrying) lorries was a much easier sell, than convincing a horse owner to buy a single passenger motorized cycle.
Can you imagine the horrible road conditions those early bikers had to deal with?
Amazing if you think about where we would be with electric technology if we had put the same effort in to development of electrics, that we put into IC engines over the last 100 years.
We will get there. I am 61 years young and I will live to see electrics with 200+ mile range and quick charge (or hydrogen refuel) capability before I die.
It's all good and long, long over due,
Quote from: FJ_Hooligan on September 18, 2014, 05:28:00 PM
Call it a Flat Earth attitude, but when I was a child "they" promised that I would be travelling by personal rocket pack or flying car by now.
I think "they" realized that most people have a hard enough time navigating a vehicle through two dimensions - adding a third would prove to be catastrophic.
Zwartie
I suspect that having dodged the "peak oil" bullet with fracking/oil shale, the petro-financial Powers That Be will be able to keep the transportation electo-genie in the bottle and maintain a fossil-fuel based world economy for several more decades.
If we're still around then my guess is that the Rockefellers et.al will morph over to dominate the new technology and shift their economic power base when it is most advantageous for them to do so. But we'll be burning gasoline a long time before that happens.
Now, about those ice caps....
Quote from: Burns on September 18, 2014, 09:51:08 PM
I suspect that having dodged the "peak oil" bullet with fracking/oil shale, the petro-financial Powers That Be will be able to keep the transportation electo-genie in the bottle and maintain a fossil-fuel based world economy for several more decades.
If we're still around then my guess is that the Rockefellers et.al will morph over to dominate the new technology and shift their economic power base when it is most advantageous for them to do so. But we'll be burning gasoline a long time before that happens.
Now, about those ice caps....
Loosen up that tinfoil helmet there.
There is no conspiracy keeping EV down. What does it is the crappy low energy density of our battery tech. As soon as there is an insta-charge battery the size and weight of a gas tank that can take you as far as a gas tank does, we will all plug in.
Loosen up that tinfoil helmet there.
There is no conspiracy keeping EV down. What does it is the crappy low energy density of our battery tech. As soon as there is an insta-charge battery the size and weight of a gas tank that can take you as far as a gas tank does, we will all plug in.
[/quote]
"conspiracy" is a meaningless concept in this (and most) contexts. Money is the prime mover. As long as fossil fuels can be produced in sufficient quantity and priced low enough to make competitors cost prohibitive the money for developing alternative technologies will be limited. As to the political power of the petro-financial sector you might research the history of Iran and the BP/CIA involvement there.
Riders of the next generation will flock to electric bikes, ease of maintenace etc. they will pass us effortlessly on our old "combustion engined" bikes, make fun of us, develop phrases like "dino riders" or "BMW riders" all the same stuff we said when we first got into riding and saw guys on a 1950's bike?!
Me, I love the sound of an air cooled bike, bangs, rattlles, and shakes. I dislike fuel injection too, I remember my first bike with C.V carbs... I thought that would be a flash in the can. But people love what they are used to. Digital media has been around for awhile now, and people are still shooting super8, 16mm etc.
cheers, Gareth
Quote from: mr blackstock on September 19, 2014, 07:29:28 PM
....... Digital media has been around for awhile now, and people are still shooting super8, 16mm etc.
cheers, Gareth
Gareth, you're scaring me, you don't live that far from me and you're telling me the locals still use film camera, movies at that.
Noel
Quote from: Pat Conlon on September 18, 2014, 06:04:07 PM
That's very cool Noel, what year was the article?
Not sure, but it I remember it was later than you would think, I'll try and find it and post it.
Noel
Would people still bother to build things like this if all you needed was a bigger electric motor and a few more batteries and would it be as exciting to watch with a "whirring" sound track.
Sort of Ken Block meets Monster Jam
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/bj-baldwin-trophy-truck-recoil-2-baja-1000-2014-09-17 (http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/bj-baldwin-trophy-truck-recoil-2-baja-1000-2014-09-17)
(scroll down to the video)
Long live the internal combustion engine!
Noel
Quote from: Burns on September 19, 2014, 10:47:20 AM
Money is the prime mover. As long as fossil fuels can be produced in sufficient quantity and priced low enough to make competitors cost prohibitive the money for developing alternative technologies will be limited. As to the political power of the petro-financial sector you might research the history of Iran and the BP/CIA involvement there.
Battery tech is necessary for far more than transportation, and money for R&D comes from a lot of places where fossil fuels are not a competitor. It's also important to note that the US military has a great interest in batteries for things other than vehicles, and when they want something they fund the research pretty well. There is no lack of money. Batteries are limited by physics and chemistry. Barring a major scientific breakthrough, our batteries suck.
Battery tech is necessary for far more than transportation, and money for R&D comes from a lot of places where fossil fuels are not a competitor. It's also important to note that the US military has a great interest in batteries for things other than vehicles, and when they want something they fund the research pretty well. There is no lack of money. Batteries are limited by physics and chemistry. Barring a major scientific breakthrough, our batteries suck.
[/quote]
===================================================================================
"cost effective" and "U.S. military" are terms that border on mutually exclusive. The recent experience with jet fighters suggests that DOD operates more as a contractor profit-center than an innovator.
I do not accept your assumption that physics and chemistry bar the development of suitable batteries, or for that matter that batteries are the only route to electric powered transportation. But I do recall the history of the EV-1 and how battery technology was "parked" when the cutting edge patents for bought by TEXACO.
Of course there is a lot more to transitioning from a fossil-fuel based economy to a more sustainable alternative than battery technology but ignoring the economic reality of the power of vested interests in the status quo is its own "tin foil hat" kind of thinking.
Quote from: ribbert on September 20, 2014, 08:11:13 AM
Quote from: mr blackstock on September 19, 2014, 07:29:28 PM
....... Digital media has been around for awhile now, and people are still shooting super8, 16mm etc.
cheers, Gareth
Gareth, you're scaring me, you don't live that far from me and you're telling me the locals still use film camera, movies at that.
... I shoot 16mm film, yet not so funny when one realises we ride 20 year old plus bikes :biggrin:
Quote"cost effective" and "U.S. military" are terms that border on mutually exclusive.
Yes, but what does cost effectiveness have to do with it? What I said was that if the DOD wants something, they will toss money at it, which is kind of the opposite of cost effectiveness. And they do want good batteries. So, there is funding. Military wanting stuff gave us the Internet.
QuoteI do not accept your assumption that physics and chemistry bar the development of suitable batteries, or for that matter that batteries are the only route to electric powered transportation.
Why do you think this is an assumption? Look at the absolute best batteries we have - they are still large, heavy, and cumbersome compared to chemical fuels. Batteries are certainly not the only way for electric transportation to exist, streetcars have been around for about 100 years, but for untethered transportation that's about it. Unless you are sitting on some great discovery in energy storage the world is not aware of.
QuoteBut I do recall the history of the EV-1 and how battery technology was "parked" when the cutting edge patents for bought by TEXACO.
It's un-parked now. BASF bought Ovonics two years ago. Where are those quantum leaps in battery tech?
QuoteOf course there is a lot more to transitioning from a fossil-fuel based economy to a more sustainable alternative than battery technology but ignoring the economic reality of the power of vested interests in the status quo is its own "tin foil hat" kind of thinking.
The reality is that there are competing interests, and not just "the man" who wants to keep us down.
Yes, but what does cost effectiveness have to do with it? What I said was that if the DOD wants something, they will toss money at it, which is kind of the opposite of cost effectiveness. And they do want good batteries. So, there is funding. Military wanting stuff gave us the Internet.
Cost effectiveness has everything to do with it. The military can/does fund things that will always be beyond the reach of the general public.
=========================================================================================
QuoteWhy do you think this [that physics and chemistry bar the development of suitable batteries]is an assumption?
because you are saying that the way it is now is the way it will remain. Nothing in technology is static and I see no basis for assuming that the ultimate level of battery technology has been reached.
QuoteBASF bought Ovonics two years ago. Where are those quantum leaps in battery tech?
TESLA is one place and TWO YEARS is not much compared to THIRTY YEARS
[ The reality is that there are competing interests, and not just "the man" who wants to keep us down.
That is a straw-man argument as I'm sure you are aware. Of course there are competing interests but the petro-financial sector is the 300 pound gorilla in this game. It's interests are not to "keep us down" but to maximize profits and it's not going to sit idly by while trillions of dollars of its assets are rendered unmarketable.
since you mentioned streetcars I assume you are aware of the GM-Standard Oil-Firestone coalition that virtually destroyed that form of mass-transportation.
Old songs just get new verses.
QuoteCost effectiveness has everything to do with it. The military can/does fund things that will always be beyond the reach of the general public.
Yeah, all those medical advances never make it to civilian hospitals. And clearly we are not using something developed from a DOD-funded project to post right now...
Quote
because you are saying that the way it is now is the way it will remain. Nothing in technology is static and I see no basis for assuming that the ultimate level of battery technology has been reached.
First, I did not say it will remain this way. I said it will remain this way until there is some major scientific breakthrough. Second, I don't think the ultimate level has been reached. However, battery tech has had only minor incremental improvements for a long time, and it's unlikely that the current path is going to make them comparable to chemical fuels any time soon. The guys at Zero Motorcycle certainly seem to think this way, what reason do you have to distrust people who are actually making and selling an electric bike?
Technology isn't static, but some things move slower than others. One of the problems for batteries is charge time, and that is a thing that is limited by physics of how we do it. You can only have wires so big and only so much current running through them.
Quote
TESLA is one place and TWO YEARS is not much compared to THIRTY YEARS
Tesla what? Their batteries still weigh 1200 pounds, have charge times in hours and will get bricked if you forget to plug it in for too long. And it's not two years - it's two years plus supposedly revolutionary tech they already have. No idea what thirty years you are comparing that to.
Quote
That is a straw-man argument as I'm sure you are aware. Of course there are competing interests but the petro-financial sector is the 300 pound gorilla in this game. It's interests are not to "keep us down" but to maximize profits and it's not going to sit idly by while trillions of dollars of its assets are rendered unmarketable.
since you mentioned streetcars I assume you are aware of the GM-Standard Oil-Firestone coalition that virtually destroyed that form of mass-transportation.
Old songs just get new verses.
I note that you don't actually mention what these other magical non-battery means of untethered electric transportation might be. You need a way to store energy, and you need a way to convert it to electricity. There isn't much of anything that doesn't burn some kind of fuel, since fission reactors are kinda cumbersome, and fusion isn't here yet.
The oil industry assets won't be unmarketable even if we go 100% electric. Oil is a lot more than fuel. "I want to say one word to you. Just one word. Plastics. " :D
luckily humanity is not limited to my personal imagination, but I can easily envision a transportation system in which the road itself is electrified and vehicles need carry only enough storage capacity to make the short hops onto them. Those roads would of course recharge the car during the trip.
If I let my imagination run a bit I'd get to mag-lev vehicles with bullet-train performance.
Those vehicles would probably be made of plastic, but since we won't be burning them the demand for their petroleum raw material will be drastically reduced from current levels and that great cash cow will have been put out to pasture.
The technological breakthrough in that scenario is not better batteries but cheap production of electricity.
My favorite candidate is geo-thermal. Iceland is 100% energy independent because of their geo-thermal electric production.
But, to close the original loop, I doubt that the economic powers that be will allow any such thing to happen in my life time.
Just my opinion.
Quote from: Burns on September 20, 2014, 05:47:05 PM
luckily humanity is not limited to my personal imagination, but I can easily envision a transportation system in which the road itself is electrified and vehicles need carry only enough storage capacity to make the short hops onto them. Those roads would of course recharge the car during the trip.
If I let my imagination run a bit I'd get to mag-lev vehicles with bullet-train performance.
Those vehicles would probably be made of plastic, but since we won't be burning them the demand for their petroleum raw material will be drastically reduced from current levels and that great cash cow will have been put out to pasture.
The technological breakthrough in that scenario is not better batteries but cheap production of electricity.
So, fancy streetcars. With all the limitations thereof, such as having to stick to the rails, whatever form the rails take. And a technological and infrastructural change on par with Mr. Fusion. If you're gonna go that deep into sci-fi, might as well leap straight to magic.
Quote
My favorite candidate is geo-thermal. Iceland is 100% energy independent because of their geo-thermal electric production.
You might note that Iceland has no magic streetcars. Also, Iceland is unique in it's geographic and geological position, and what they do isn't very easily replicated elsewhere. Not everybody is an island on top of a volcano. Actually, pretty much nobody is.
Quote
But, to close the original loop, I doubt that the economic powers that be will allow any such thing to happen in my life time.
Yep. It's not that your pie in the sky plan is unfeasible at current levels of technology, it's the powers.
All IMHO: What you really need is just enough batteries to power a maximum acceleration, for whatever time it takes your bike to get from zero to "ludicrous speed." You need just enough fuel cell power to maintain a high cruising speed, with any surplus power going into the batteries. Fuel cells can run on hydrogen (gasp! ) which you can crack from water at home using wind or solar power. Fuel cells also run on Natural Gas, maybe not so well, but LNG or CNG is cheap, available, and in the USA, it's locally produced. The bike is still an electric bike, with any level of performance that you may want, but as a hybrid, now it has range, rapid refueling (or swap in a full cylinder, as the propane industry does now), and low fuel costs. My US$0.02 worth.
Google Corporate now runs on Natural Gas fuel cells, with no outside electrical power at all. This solution is not Science Fiction anymore.
Cheers,
Red
Actually my "dream list" uses existing technologies for the most part. There is no "magic" in electrifying a road way and mag-lev trains are running something like 200 mph in several places on earth right now. Yellowstone is a super-volcano that could be tapped for a big chunk of the needed power and the Earth is hot everywhere if you dig deep enough (need some tech to dig the hole but then its just add water.
I don't see any of that getting funded of course.
But the oil depletion allowance will sail through Congress every time.
Quote from: red on September 20, 2014, 08:36:52 PM
All IMHO: What you really need is just enough batteries to power a maximum acceleration, for whatever time it takes your bike to get from zero to "ludicrous speed." You need just enough fuel cell power to maintain a high cruising speed, with any surplus power going into the batteries.
Charge time. Batteries take time to charge, and after a couple of theses speed bursts you will have to wait a bit.
Quote from: red on September 20, 2014, 08:36:52 PM
Fuel cells can run on hydrogen (gasp! ) which you can crack from water at home using wind or solar power.
Two things. One: getting hydrogen from water needs a lot of power. Two: The Earth-shattering kaboom. Hydrogen is hard to handle safely in quantity. Ever head of the Hindenburg?
Quote from: red on September 20, 2014, 08:36:52 PM
Fuel cells also run on Natural Gas, maybe not so well, but LNG or CNG is cheap, available, and in the USA, it's locally produced. The bike is still an electric bike, with any level of performance that you may want, but as a hybrid, now it has range, rapid refueling (or swap in a full cylinder, as the propane industry does now), and low fuel costs. My US$0.02 worth.
Google Corporate now runs on Natural Gas fuel cells, with no outside electrical power at all. This solution is not Science Fiction anymore.
Cheers,
Red
Natural gas is still a fossil fuel.
Quote from: Burns on September 20, 2014, 09:18:41 PM
There is no "magic" in electrifying a road way
There is, if you want it to work reliably year round in all climates and not kill anything that tries to cross the road. Over here we have snow and road salt.
(1) re: magic
Do you know what the "E Trains" in Chicago are? They are essentially a network of electrified rights-of-way. They run quite dependably in one of the snowiest cities in the US.
(2)re: " "get to no"
you originally took the position "As soon as there is an insta-charge battery the size and weight of a gas tank that can take you as far as a gas tank does, we will all plug in. " but when a fuel-cell alternative was raised your response was "it is still a fossil fuel" which of course is totally irrelevant.
You always seem to get to "no" no matter what the issue.
I often count myself among the contrarians and welcome counter-point as an energizing element to a conversation, However, in your case, I think you have simply run out of gas.
Quote from: Burns on September 21, 2014, 10:21:59 AM
(1) re: magic
Do you know what the "E Trains" in Chicago are? They are essentially a network of electrified rights-of-way. They run quite dependably in one of the snowiest cities in the US.
Never heard of an "E train". Have been on the El. Matter of fact, have a good friend working train maintenance in NYC subway.
The Chicago elevated trains are
trains. They have rails, including a third rail, like all electric subways everywhere. Nobody in their right mind crosses the tracks because the 600 volts on the third rail will fry you. You were talking about "the road itself is electrified".
Once again - electric transportation is possible, proven and real. I don't argue with that. In the form of trains, trolleys, and trolley buses it works great the world over. An "electrified roadway" that works in any climate and doesn't kill any living thing crossing it is science fiction.
In theory, you could use induction, but the building and maintenance costs would be insane. Also, the safety of the magnetic fields needed to power a vehicle is not certain.
Quote from: Burns on September 21, 2014, 10:21:59 AM
(2)re: " "get to no"
you originally took the position "As soon as there is an insta-charge battery the size and weight of a gas tank that can take you as far as a gas tank does, we will all plug in. " but when a fuel-cell alternative was raised your response was "it is still a fossil fuel" which of course is totally irrelevant.
You always seem to get to "no" no matter what the issue.
I often count myself among the contrarians and welcome counter-point as an energizing element to a conversation, However, in your case, I think you have simply run out of gas.
It's you who keeps talking about abandoning fossil fuels. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, and so does not fit with your plan. Not mine.
Fuel cells for vehicles have been "almost ready" for decades, but it never actually seems to happen. I'm guessing it's the size and weight.
Quote from: JPaganel on September 21, 2014, 09:12:18 AM
Quote from: red on September 20, 2014, 08:36:52 PM
All IMHO: What you really need is just enough batteries to power a maximum acceleration, for whatever time it takes your bike to get from zero to "ludicrous speed." You need just enough fuel cell power to maintain a high cruising speed, with any surplus power going into the batteries.
Charge time. Batteries take time to charge, and after a couple of theses speed bursts you will have to wait a bit.
NO! Bad plan, man! Fuel cells can charge batteries at any time when you are not making a maximum acceleration, that is, while cruising, stopping, or idling. That is the beauty of a good hybrid design. Now it would be true, you could shut down the fuel cells any time you are heading for a charging station (such as home or work) when you have enough power in the batteries to get there. A GPS app could even do that for you.
Quote from: JPaganel on September 21, 2014, 09:12:18 AMQuote from: red on September 20, 2014, 08:36:52 PMFuel cells can run on hydrogen (gasp! ) which you can crack from water at home using wind or solar power.
Two things. One: getting hydrogen from water needs a lot of power. Two: The Earth-shattering kaboom. Hydrogen is hard to handle safely in quantity. Ever head of the Hindenburg?
One: You can crack hydrogen from water with wind power or solar power. Sure, cracking hydrogen using house power is a losing deal, and it would be a very stupid approach. You would not worry about wasting water if you had a waterfall outside the house, would you? Wind power and solar power are waterfalls of free energy that we need to stop ignoring. Check out "Artificial Photosynthesis" if you want to see sunlight+water become hydrogen now, in one step, with no moving parts.
Two: Dirigibles flew all over the world, from the early days of World War I. Even aeroplanes with incendiary bullets were not very successful in bringing them down in WW-I. The Hindenburg crash was an aircraft fire, not an explosion, as is obvious in the film of the disaster. Of the 97 souls aboard, only about one-third were killed. In a modern airliner crash, that result would be called a miracle. There was no Earth-shattering kaboom. It is now believed that the Hindenburg was brought down by a bomb, not by some accident. Gasoline (and most fuels) will explode; we just need to learn how to handle them safely. I'd like to see anybody trying to pollute the Gulf of Mexico with hydrogen; that would be impossible.
:biggrin:
Quote from: JPaganel on September 21, 2014, 09:12:18 AMQuote from: red on September 20, 2014, 08:36:52 PM
Fuel cells also run on Natural Gas, maybe not so well, but LNG or CNG is cheap, available, and in the USA, it's locally produced. The bike is still an electric bike, with any level of performance that you may want, but as a hybrid, now it has range, rapid refueling (or swap in a full cylinder, as the propane industry does now), and low fuel costs. My US$0.02 worth.
Google Corporate now runs on Natural Gas fuel cells, with no outside electrical power at all. This solution is not Science Fiction anymore.
Cheers,
Red
Natural gas is still a fossil fuel.
Sure, and so what? Once people see fuel cells working cheaply on Natural Gas, they might be more willing to see them work for free, on hydrogen that was cracked by Sun or wind power.
Cheers,
Red
Quote from: JPaganel on September 21, 2014, 11:21:52 AMFuel cells for vehicles have been "almost ready" for decades, but it never actually seems to happen. I'm guessing it's the size and weight.
Yeah, probably just a matter of size and weight. I expect that will change soon; a commercially available fuel cell
to power your entire house is about the size of a refrigerator or washing machine now. This works:
(http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2007/08/perth_fuel_cell_bus.jpg)
Cheers,
Red
Quote from: red on September 21, 2014, 11:29:16 AM
NO! Bad plan, man! Fuel cells can charge batteries at any time when you are not making a maximum acceleration, that is, while cruising, stopping, or idling. That is the beauty of a good hybrid design. Now it would be true, you could shut down the fuel cells any time you are heading for a charging station (such as home or work) when you have enough power in the batteries to get there. A GPS app could even do that for you.
Maybe. I can't say for sure how well this would work without actually crunching some numbers, and since we don't have any specs for the batteries or the fuel cells in question, it's pretty much all guesswork.
Quote from: red on September 21, 2014, 11:29:16 AM
One: You can crack hydrogen from water with wind power or solar power. Sure, cracking hydrogen using house power is a losing deal, and it would be a very stupid approach. You would not worry about wasting water if you had a waterfall outside the house, would you? Wind power and solar power are waterfalls of free energy that we need to stop ignoring. Check out "Artificial Photosynthesis" if you want to sunlight+water become hydrogen in one step, with no moving parts.
I live in the city. I have no room on my property for a windmill big enough to be useful. Windmills are highly dependent on placement. Out on the open plains, or on the coast somewhere they work a lot better.
Solar... I keep seeing myself needing to shovel the roof in addition to the shoveling I already do, and it just doesn't seem all that appealing.
Artificial photosynthesis sounds cool, but they haven't got it stable. Now, regular photosynthesis has possibilities. There is supposed to be some bacteria, or algae, that pretty much produces diesel fuel. IIRC, works in the lab, they are working on scaling it up.
Quote from: red on September 21, 2014, 11:29:16 AM
Two: Dirigibles flew all over the world, from the early days of World War I. Even aeroplanes with incendiary bullets were not very successful in bringing them down in WW-I. The Hindenburg crash was an aircraft fire, not an explosion, as is obvious in the film of the disaster. Of the 97 souls aboard, only about one-third were killed. In a modern airliner crash, that result would be called a miracle. There was no Earth-shattering kaboom. It is now believed that the Hindenburg was brought down by a bomb, not by some accident.
Sabotage was actually the very first proposed cause. It has been dismissed as no evidence of a bomb was ever found. The latest thinking on the subject is that it was a leak combined with an electric spark of some sort.
Quote from: red on September 21, 2014, 11:29:16 AM
Gasoline (and most fuels) will explode; we just need to learn how to handle them safely. I'd like to see anybody trying to pollute the Gulf of Mexico with hydrogen; that would be impossible.
:biggrin:
Gasoline doesn't explode. Gasoline vapor does. Fortunately, you can smell it, and minimizing vaporization is pretty easy - just cap the can tight. Hydrogen is an odorless gas, under high pressure. You expect the average schmoe who can't figure out his turn signals to be safe with it? :sarcastic:
Quote from: red on September 21, 2014, 11:29:16 AM
QuoteNatural gas is still a fossil fuel.
Sure, and so what?
Ask Burns. He's the one talking about going electric to get away from fossil fuels.
Quote from: red on September 21, 2014, 11:29:16 AM
Two: Dirigibles flew all over the world, from the early days of World War I. Even aeroplanes with incendiary bullets were not very successful in bringing them down in WW-I. The Hindenburg crash was an aircraft fire, not an explosion, as is obvious in the film of the disaster. Of the 97 souls aboard, only about one-third were killed. In a modern airliner crash, that result would be called a miracle. There was no Earth-shattering kaboom. It is now believed that the Hindenburg was brought down by a bomb, not by some accident.
It is interesting to note that majority of the deaths from the Hindenburg was due to the burning diesel fuel (used for the engines) and not from the burning of the hydrogen. The hydrogen flared straight up, the diesel fuel covered the ground.
Hydrogen is the key to the future.
Quote from: JPaganel on September 21, 2014, 12:21:40 PMArtificial photosynthesis sounds cool, but they haven't got it stable.
Funny, this does not look unstable to me. Scroll forward to 2 minutes, 57 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBLGIVm-B2A#t=2m57s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBLGIVm-B2A#t=2m57s)
Cheers,
Red
Quote from: red on September 21, 2014, 03:34:37 PM
Funny, this does not look unstable to me. Scroll forward to 2 minutes, 57 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBLGIVm-B2A#t=2m57s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBLGIVm-B2A#t=2m57s)
Cheers,
Red
That's because you are seeing a few seconds of a lab experiment. As I understand it, when it's scaled up, there are some issues with longevity of the setup.
" my guess is that the Rockefellers et.al will morph over to dominate the new technology and shift their economic power base when it is most advantageous for them to do so"
My crystal ball seems to be onto something. Check this out:
http://www.newsmax.com/US/rockefeller-climate-change-campaign/2014/09/22/id/596004/?ns_mail_uid=83726319&ns_mail_job=1587022_09222014&s=al&dkt_nbr=ebpjqhgj (http://www.newsmax.com/US/rockefeller-climate-change-campaign/2014/09/22/id/596004/?ns_mail_uid=83726319&ns_mail_job=1587022_09222014&s=al&dkt_nbr=ebpjqhgj)
The article was silent as to what specifically they are (soberly) putting their money into....
Quote from: Pat Conlon on September 22, 2014, 12:17:54 PM
The article was silent as to what specifically they are (soberly) putting their money into....
reckon they are hedging their bets?