Electric trucks - how's that going to work?

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
181

switchlogic:

Carryfast:
Yes at 21 cents per kwh at present before they even start the scam v $2.5 per US Gallon containing 33 kwh absolutely terrifying.Forget about using the air con or heater. :unamused:

I know it’s a great sorrow in your life but sorry you don’t live in America.

Oh wait 21 cents per kwh = around 16p per kwh.
Now what about that road fuel duty and VAT at 20% helping to pay for our NHS.
So petrol 12p per kwh ‘including’ those taxes.
Fine add 40% for the petrol engine’s supposed ‘lower efficiency’ v electric that’s 17p per kwh still ‘including’ taxes.
Bearing in mind that if you use the EV’s heater or air con that’s also 16p per kwh ‘plus’ taxes while draining your batteries.
So economic meltdown as well as environmental meltdown all to supposedly reduce a gas that forms 0.04% of the atmosphere and which plants trade to give us Oxygen.Helped by a load of tax dodgers taking cash from the NHS.

Good luck with being allowed to use the heater let alone your on board electric cooking facilities after the ‘change’ to EV’s.At least before the place is turned into a barren, treeless, nuked desert. :unamused:

182

Carryfast:
The idea of using something along the lines of deep water type drilling rigs and just use hollow pipe sections, like used for drilling, sealed with a remote valve which can be opened at the bottom, is way better.
You’ve then got a 1-2,000 metre air filled tube which you can connect to an air turbine at the top then open it up to a free 100-200 bar air compressor in the form of the sea pressure at that depth as it fills.
Lift/Drain/Submerge repeat x as many rigs as you want.
Cable some of the power ashore use the rest to create hydrogen from sea water.

If that`s an original idea, I commend it.
Clever, but…
How much energy is created by this method when the tubes are filled by water, and how much energy to empty the tubes?
If you are correct, and there is a surplus: Great!
Effectively perpetual motion.
Nice clean idea.

Carryfast:
I’ll then go with hydrogen fuelled ICE.

Again good, IMHO (non Expert) because it`s a clean burn. Good. And a way of running old classic ICEs. I too love the animal sound of V8s.
But for everyday transport an electric motor fueled by a hydrogen cell is more likely.

183

Oh Carryfast, are you drinking in the afternoons again? Do we need to stage an intervention? Such an incoherent jumble isn’t befitting a man of your great intellectual standing. One of the Trucknet Intellegensia if you will. Along with the sadly passed Winseer

184

Spoiler Alert !

Where is the flaw in CF`s plan?
(To use energy in order to push an empty tube under water, in order to fill it with water, and recoup the energy)

185

Franglais:

Carryfast:
The idea of using something along the lines of deep water type drilling rigs and just use hollow pipe sections, like used for drilling, sealed with a remote valve which can be opened at the bottom, is way better.
You’ve then got a 1-2,000 metre air filled tube which you can connect to an air turbine at the top then open it up to a free 100-200 bar air compressor in the form of the sea pressure at that depth as it fills.
Lift/Drain/Submerge repeat x as many rigs as you want.
Cable some of the power ashore use the rest to create hydrogen from sea water.

If that`s an original idea, I commend it.
Clever, but…
How much energy is created by this method when the tubes are filled by water, and how much energy to empty the tubes?
If you are correct, and there is a surplus: Great!
Effectively perpetual motion.
Nice clean idea.

Carryfast:
I’ll then go with hydrogen fuelled ICE.

Again good, IMHO (non Expert) because it`s a clean burn. Good. And a way of running old classic ICEs. I too love the animal sound of V8s.
But for everyday transport an electric motor fueled by a hydrogen cell is more likely.

There is no energy needed to push out any water it just drains back as you lift and undo the pipe sections after it’s filled.Bonus points for a counter weight on the winch cable similar to how a lift works.Put a straw vertically in the sink and then lift it back out of the water.You’ll see that the water stays where it is in the sink the straw drains out so long as the bottom and top is open.

The air resevoir capacity is only governed by how large bore the pipe can be using the usual formula to deduce cubic capacity from the bore and length of the pipe and possibly multiple pipes so that at least one or more are always on the pressure and power cycle while others are lifted and then sent back down.
But it will always be the same free 1400 psi or more air compressor acting on it however big the bore is and however many pipes are filling and however much air they contain every time they are sent to the bottom and then opened up to the sea.A lot easier than deep sea drilling for oil. :bulb:

186

As perpetual motion isn’t possible, an additional power supply would be needed to make up the additional energy needed to raise the tubes. I’d propose either a biomass plant or nuclear power station on shore with cables running along the sea bed.

187

Franglais:
Spoiler Alert !

Where is the flaw in CF`s plan?
(To use energy in order to push an empty tube under water, in order to fill it with water, and recoup the energy)

Where do you get the idea that the pipe in question would need to be ‘pushed’ under water.Given the right measurements and weight it would have negative bouyancy and it will free fall.
You seem to have missed fill it with water coming in at massive pressure which means the air contained within it gets pushed out the other end at a similar pressure.

There are numerous other variations on the theme.But the fact is the sea can be used a massive air compressor if you can find a way to access the pressures at the right depth.

188

Carryfast:

Franglais:

Carryfast:
The idea of using something along the lines of deep water type drilling rigs and just use hollow pipe sections, like used for drilling, sealed with a remote valve which can be opened at the bottom, is way better.
You’ve then got a 1-2,000 metre air filled tube which you can connect to an air turbine at the top then open it up to a free 100-200 bar air compressor in the form of the sea pressure at that depth as it fills.
Lift/Drain/Submerge repeat x as many rigs as you want.
Cable some of the power ashore use the rest to create hydrogen from sea water.

If that`s an original idea, I commend it.
Clever, but…
How much energy is created by this method when the tubes are filled by water, and how much energy to empty the tubes?
If you are correct, and there is a surplus: Great!
Effectively perpetual motion.
Nice clean idea.

Carryfast:
I’ll then go with hydrogen fuelled ICE.

Again good, IMHO (non Expert) because it`s a clean burn. Good. And a way of running old classic ICEs. I too love the animal sound of V8s.
But for everyday transport an electric motor fueled by a hydrogen cell is more likely.

There is no energy needed to push out any water it just drains back as you lift and undo the pipe sections after it’s filled.Bonus points for a counter weight on the winch cable similar to how a lift works.Put a straw vertically in the sink and then lift it back out of the water.You’ll see that the water stays where it is in the sink the straw drains out so long as the bottom and top is open.

The air resevoir capacity is only governed by how large bore the pipe can be using the usual formula to deduce cubic capacity from the bore and length of the pipe and possibly multiple pipes so that at least one or more are always on the pressure and power cycle while others are lifted and then sent back down.
But it will always be the same free 1400 psi or more air compressor acting on it however big the bore is and however many pipes are filling and however much air they contain every time they are sent to the bottom and then opened up to the sea.A lot easier than deep sea drilling for oil. :bulb:

Let’s try again.
“The pipes are sent down again” ?
.
These pipes (filled with air) are displacing water. Remember Archimedes?
It takes energy to do so.
Or are you arguing that they are vessels so heavy that they sink under their weight?
Then how much energy will be required to raise this weight when they have no buoyancy? Much more than that provided by air (not at 1400psi, by the way since you have described a rigid tube or pipe) pushed out as water enters from the base.
.

189

Rich_T:
As perpetual motion isn’t possible, an additional power supply would be needed to make up the additional energy needed to raise the tubes. I’d propose either a biomass plant or nuclear power station on shore with cables running along the sea bed.

[emoji3]
I think CF would prefer a genset powe4ed by a ■■■■■■■ V8, but we could insist on biofuels I s’pose?

190

On one hand we are being told that perpetual motion isnt possible but it is, in as much as the tidal water and wind does move perpetually. The trick is in harnessing this “free” resource. We have to find an efficient way of using the tidal flow as it ebbs and flows in rivers and estuaries. The water levels also rise and fall ,some sort of pressure vessel could be used here . The waves can be used by a system of barrels moving pistons in relation to one another.

191

alamcculloch:
On one hand we are being told that perpetual motion isnt possible but it is, in as much as the tidal water and wind does move perpetually. The trick is in harnessing this “free” resource. We have to find an efficient way of using the tidal flow as it ebbs and flows in rivers and estuaries. The water levels also rise and fall ,some sort of pressure vessel could be used here . The waves can be used by a system of barrels moving pistons in relation to one another.

There is a laxness in using the term “perpetual motion”, mea culpa.
And Newton`s First Law says
“An object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion, at constant velocity unless acted upon by a force.”
So perpetual motion is theoretically possible, if we could isolate an object from all external forces.

Wave and wind power are “free” energy within the frame of the Earth and its resources because they are being provided by external forces: sunlight and gravity. They dont drain the Earth`s resources.

192

I can certainly see a future for wind and tidal as well as hydro (such as Kinlochleven and alongside the A82). We deliver a lot of kit to new windfarms and they’re by far one of the cleanest power producing options available, granted they aren’t as efficient in low wind conditions but even on a still day the ones local to us are still turning and on a windy day Scotland turbines can provide power to the whole of the UK.

193

Rich_T:
As perpetual motion isn’t possible, an additional power supply would be needed to make up the additional energy needed to raise the tubes. I’d propose either a biomass plant or nuclear power station on shore with cables running along the sea bed.

Using undersea water pressures to compress air and then using it to drive a generator, to produce the power needed, to electrolise hydrogen from seawater, ain’t perpetual motion.
That’s a limitless clean energy supply.

194

Franglais:
.
These pipes (filled with air) are displacing water. Remember Archimedes?
It takes energy to do so.
Or are you arguing that they are vessels so heavy that they sink under their weight?
Then how much energy will be required to raise this weight when they have no buoyancy? Much more than that provided by air (not at 1400psi, by the way since you have described a rigid tube or pipe) pushed out as water enters from the base.
.

Displacement and bouyancy is dependent on the weight v volume/bore/wall thickness of the pipe.
Negative buoyancy pipes are routinely made.
So we sink an air filled pipe to 1 km, preferably 2km, then open the bottom of it to the sea.Why isn’t it then being filled by the incoming water at 1,400 or 2,800 psi blowing the air that it contained out of the top at that same pressure ?.
Why can’t that amount of force provide enough surplus power to power the winches needed to lift the pipe ( sections ) out of the water.
Bonus points if a system of counterweighting can be provided like a lift also bearing in mind that ‘negative bouyancy’ isn’t the same thing as zero bouyancy.A submarine doesn’t generally sink like a rock to Davy Jones’ locker when its ballast tanks are opened.

Also bearing in mind that we are probably 75% there anyway with the technology used for deep sea oil drilling.

195

Carryfast:

Franglais:
.
These pipes (filled with air) are displacing water. Remember Archimedes?
It takes energy to do so.
Or are you arguing that they are vessels so heavy that they sink under their weight?
Then how much energy will be required to raise this weight when they have no buoyancy? Much more than that provided by air (not at 1400psi, by the way since you have described a rigid tube or pipe) pushed out as water enters from the base.
.

Displacement and bouyancy is dependent on the weight v volume/bore/wall thickness of the pipe.
Negative buoyancy pipes are routinely made.
So we sink an air filled pipe to 1 km, preferably 2km, then open the bottom of it to the sea.Why isn’t it then being filled by the incoming water at 1,400 or 2,800 psi blowing the air that it contained out of the top at that same pressure ?.
Why can’t that amount of force provide enough surplus power to power the winches needed to lift the pipe ( sections ) out of the water.
Bonus points if a system of counterweighting can be provided like a lift also bearing in mind that ‘negative bouyancy’ isn’t the same thing as zero bouyancy.A submarine doesn’t generally sink like a rock to Davy Jones’ locker when its ballast tanks are opened.

Also bearing in mind that we are probably 75% there anyway with the technology used for deep sea oil drilling.

An air filled pipe is lowered into the sea. When a valve on the bottom is opened, air is expelled through the top, by the water entering. (That is what I understand you to say?)
At 1km you are correct the water pressure is about 1,400psi (mixing our units so lets stick with metric units please? (Pedants point: I am not stating SI)

Now if we open a valve on the bottom all the air in the pipe is not instantly transformed into about 100atm. (100kg/cm.sq.)
It is a dynamic situation as air is being expelled and driving the turbine or whatever you have on top of the pipe.

But to show what we do have, lets seal the top of the pipe? The air inside will be compressed as the water entering through the bottom rises. We can examine this to see how much energy we have, can`t we?

Imagine (keeping numbers simple) a 1,000m of pipe with a cross section of 1m squared. As the water rises up our sealed column of air, compressing what is trapped in the top, it`s pressure increases. (Remember I am doing very rough back of envelope aprrox here) You end up with 1 cubic metre of air at 100atm.

To recharge the cylinder, after you have used the compressed air, you raise it out of the water, allowing the water to drain out of the bottom?
Now, you said the air filled pipe will sink under it`s weight? Since it is displacing 1,0000m x 1m of water it must weigh (Archimedes) 1,000 tons.
You need to get sufficient energy from that 1cubic metre of air to raise 1,000 tons through 1,000 metres, just to break even.

But you don`t even need to worry about all that detail, just look at where the energy comes from.
The energy is produced by water displacing/compressing gas.
A thousand tons of water gives you energy, and you shift a thousand tons to tube to harvest it.

Ed type sizes

196

Truckerian99:
Electric trucks are NOT going to happen. Firstly, the size and weight of the battery pack would eat so much of your capacity they will be financially crippling to the industry.

That depends on how far they ultimately have to go on a single charge. Probably only the distance from a local rail terminal, or between two short-haul hubs.

Secondly, the range would make them unviable (nights out on a 400km round trip because you’rd out of charge after 200km).

That just shows that nights-out will become unviable, and instead there would be a relay of two or three drivers covering shorter distances from their bases.

Thirdly, they are a con. You have to keep a fully electric car for over 75,000 miles to break even on carbon emissions, so they are NOT saving the planet and to cap it all if every car in JUST the UK swapped to electric tomorrow it would exhaust all of the planet’s known lithium reserves. Also yo put the hydrogen argument to bed, you would need four times the volume of hydrogen to match the power of diesel/petrol engines, so a 1600 litre tank on a unit, which would mean no tri-axles as you’d lise the space.

I suspect the real overarching agenda behind these schemes, is to reduce the degree of dependence on petrochemicals (not for climate reasons, but for national security and geopolitical reasons), and to provide a much greater night loading for more nuclear power stations.

It does not matter to them if long-distance road-haulage is abolished in the process, because there are many viable alternatives, and in the near future the automation of long-haul, arterial routes is very likely.

197

Franglais:

Carryfast:

Franglais:
.
These pipes (filled with air) are displacing water. Remember Archimedes?
It takes energy to do so.
Or are you arguing that they are vessels so heavy that they sink under their weight?
Then how much energy will be required to raise this weight when they have no buoyancy? Much more than that provided by air (not at 1400psi, by the way since you have described a rigid tube or pipe) pushed out as water enters from the base.
.

Displacement and bouyancy is dependent on the weight v volume/bore/wall thickness of the pipe.
Negative buoyancy pipes are routinely made.
So we sink an air filled pipe to 1 km, preferably 2km, then open the bottom of it to the sea.Why isn’t it then being filled by the incoming water at 1,400 or 2,800 psi blowing the air that it contained out of the top at that same pressure ?.
Why can’t that amount of force provide enough surplus power to power the winches needed to lift the pipe ( sections ) out of the water.
Bonus points if a system of counterweighting can be provided like a lift also bearing in mind that ‘negative bouyancy’ isn’t the same thing as zero bouyancy.A submarine doesn’t generally sink like a rock to Davy Jones’ locker when its ballast tanks are opened.

Also bearing in mind that we are probably 75% there anyway with the technology used for deep sea oil drilling.

An air filled pipe is lowered into the sea. When a valve on the bottom is opened, air is expelled through the top, by the water entering. (That is what I understand you to say?)
At 1km you are correct the water pressure is about 1,400psi (mixing our units so lets stick with metric units please? (Pedants point: I am not stating SI)

Now if we open a valve on the bottom all the air in the pipe is not instantly transformed into about 100atm. (100kg/cm.sq.)
It is a dynamic situation as air is being expelled and driving the turbine or whatever you have on top of the pipe.

But to show what we do have, lets seal the top of the pipe? The air inside will be compressed as the water entering through the bottom rises. We can examine this to see how much energy we have, can`t we?

Imagine (keeping numbers simple) a 1,000m of pipe with a cross section of 1m squared. As the water rises up our sealed column of air, compressing what is trapped in the top, it`s pressure increases. (Remember I am doing very rough back of envelope aprrox here) You end up with 1 cubic metre of air at 100atm.

To recharge the cylinder, after you have used the compressed air, you raise it out of the water, allowing the water to drain out of the bottom?
Now, you said the air filled pipe will sink under it`s weight? Since it is displacing 1,0000m x 1m of water it must weigh (Archimedes) 1,000 tons.
You need to get sufficient energy from that 1cubic metre of air to raise 1,000 tons through 1,000 metres, just to break even.

But you don`t even need to worry about all that detail, just look at where the energy comes from.
The energy is produced by water displacing/compressing gas.
A thousand tons of water gives you energy, and you shift a thousand tons to tube to harvest it.

Ed type sizes

As a guide to weight 10,000 feet of 5 inch pipe used in oil drilling weighs 177,000 lbs so where do you get 1000 tones from for 3-6000 feet of whatever bore and wall thickness sufficient to provide negative not zero bouyancy and a reasonable air capacity.

The bouyancy force only acts on the vertical cross section of the pipe it’s not floating horizontally.

You also seem to have missed the reference to counter weighting the winch mechanism like the principle used for lifts.

It’s obvious that immersion to 2km is better than 1 km.

1 m3 of air compressed to 200 bar contains 530 kj energy.

It’s obvious that a hydrogen rig would be a bit different to an oil rig.No one said it would be easy.My bet is that its doable and an economically viable way to produce hydrogen from seawater.

198

Carryfast:

Franglais:

Carryfast:

Franglais:
.
These pipes (filled with air) are displacing water. Remember Archimedes?
It takes energy to do so.
Or are you arguing that they are vessels so heavy that they sink under their weight?
Then how much energy will be required to raise this weight when they have no buoyancy? Much more than that provided by air (not at 1400psi, by the way since you have described a rigid tube or pipe) pushed out as water enters from the base.
.

Displacement and bouyancy is dependent on the weight v volume/bore/wall thickness of the pipe.
Negative buoyancy pipes are routinely made.
So we sink an air filled pipe to 1 km, preferably 2km, then open the bottom of it to the sea.Why isn’t it then being filled by the incoming water at 1,400 or 2,800 psi blowing the air that it contained out of the top at that same pressure ?.
Why can’t that amount of force provide enough surplus power to power the winches needed to lift the pipe ( sections ) out of the water.
Bonus points if a system of counterweighting can be provided like a lift also bearing in mind that ‘negative bouyancy’ isn’t the same thing as zero bouyancy.A submarine doesn’t generally sink like a rock to Davy Jones’ locker when its ballast tanks are opened.

Also bearing in mind that we are probably 75% there anyway with the technology used for deep sea oil drilling.

An air filled pipe is lowered into the sea. When a valve on the bottom is opened, air is expelled through the top, by the water entering. (That is what I understand you to say?)
At 1km you are correct the water pressure is about 1,400psi (mixing our units so lets stick with metric units please? (Pedants point: I am not stating SI)

Now if we open a valve on the bottom all the air in the pipe is not instantly transformed into about 100atm. (100kg/cm.sq.)
It is a dynamic situation as air is being expelled and driving the turbine or whatever you have on top of the pipe.

But to show what we do have, lets seal the top of the pipe? The air inside will be compressed as the water entering through the bottom rises. We can examine this to see how much energy we have, can`t we?

Imagine (keeping numbers simple) a 1,000m of pipe with a cross section of 1m squared. As the water rises up our sealed column of air, compressing what is trapped in the top, it`s pressure increases. (Remember I am doing very rough back of envelope aprrox here) You end up with 1 cubic metre of air at 100atm.

To recharge the cylinder, after you have used the compressed air, you raise it out of the water, allowing the water to drain out of the bottom?
Now, you said the air filled pipe will sink under it`s weight? Since it is displacing 1,0000m x 1m of water it must weigh (Archimedes) 1,000 tons.
You need to get sufficient energy from that 1cubic metre of air to raise 1,000 tons through 1,000 metres, just to break even.

But you don`t even need to worry about all that detail, just look at where the energy comes from.
The energy is produced by water displacing/compressing gas.
A thousand tons of water gives you energy, and you shift a thousand tons to tube to harvest it.

Ed type sizes

As a guide to weight 10,000 feet of 5 inch pipe used in oil drilling weighs 177,000 lbs so where do you get 1000 tones from for 3-6000 feet of whatever bore and wall thickness sufficient to provide negative not zero bouyancy and a reasonable air capacity.

The bouyancy force only acts on the vertical cross section of the pipe it’s not floating horizontally.

You also seem to have missed the reference to counter weighting the winch mechanism like the principle used for lifts.

It’s obvious that immersion to 2km is better than 1 km.

1 m3 of air compressed to 200 bar contains 530 kj energy.

It’s obvious that a hydrogen rig would be a bit different to an oil rig.No one said it would be easy.My bet is that its doable and an economically viable way to produce hydrogen from seawater.

Last post on this subject.
To sink under it’s own weight a vessel must weigh more than the liquid it displaces: Archimedes.
So to sink a 1,000m x 1m.sq. tube must weigh 1,000ton. 2,000m same cross section long must weigh 2,000ton.
If they weigh less they will float.
.
A vessel attached to a counterweight will have even less weight to enable it to sink.
.
Don’t say attach the counter weight only after the vessel has sunk, please!
Think it through. Please.

199

Well this thread certainly turned into a riviting page turner…

200

We aint done yet, not over til the fat lady sings.