You are retired and own a diesel-electric RV. According to the weather channel there will be a big front coming through next week and the wind turbines feeding I-75 will run the cost of freeway electricity down to 3 cents/kW-hr.
It won't cost $30 in energy to get from Ohio to Florida. You start planning and packing . . .
Bret Cahill
150 years ago people were putting sails on Conestoga wagons and calling them "prairie schooners."
tart
With road bed electrification you could move directly into the wind, although, to be sure, it would be better if the wind was behind you.
Regenerative braking on hills is another advantage of ground transportation coming directly from the grid. The energy is sent just across the median to the traffic going uphill.
Bret Cahill
Nobody in the real world puts on the brakes going down hills, down mountains like coming out of Reno/Tahoe maybe, but hills, never unless there is a highway cop next to them.
-- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Where do you idiots come from? There is this little thing called "quantity" and the wind simply doesn't have enough of it. You could make the trip from Ohio to Florida all right, just like you did in the
19th century using windmills (now referred to in the media and left- libs as "turbines" to sound modern) to fill the watering troughs along the way for your horse. But run your RV let alone a bunch of them? Gimme a break.Moron.
Some are proposing building millions of 1 MW+ wind turbines, enough to make a significant contribution to the grid. This energy, however, will be wasted if it cannot be stored so utilities might learn from SW Airlines and offer special deals, low energy prices on windy days.
This appeals to the bargain hunter [hunter gatherer] instinct.
Leave home 3 days early and you may save a bundle powering yer RV.
Bret Cahill
nd
nt just
Speaking of the real world, did you ever get any numbers on the amount of mechanical energy converted to useless low temperature heat by compression braking?
Bret Cahill
What in the world are you babbling about?
-- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
If you openly admit you cannot comprehend let alone do simple energy calculations on the amount of mechanical energy wasted by heavy trucks braking down hill, why do you make yourself look foolish by posting to a thread on energy?
Are you really this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling our legs?
Bret Cahill
What are you babbling about?
Can you calculate the amount of energy wasted that flows around a tea pot?
Take your (prescribed) drugs.
-- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
and
If you cannot conduct elementary physics calculations either get a Pell grant and enroll in an accedited university or start posting to alt.harliquinromance.
Energy "flows" around a tea pot?
What does that have to do with the energy savings from roadbed electrification?
Are you really a nonfunctional or are you just pulling our legs?
Bret Cahill
and
Yet more meaningless babble.
Yeah, hot air, much like your postings.
What do your random babblings and incomplete sentences have to do with ANYTHING in the real world?
-- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
If you openly admit you are too ignorant to do any calculations on the amount of mechanical energy wasted by braking why don't you post to threads that are on some subject that you can unnerstand?
Maybe you could comment on a Harliquin romance novel or sumthin'.
Bret Cahill
That was before they discovered that prariries have as many broken axles as axles. Which is why the 21st Century technology people work on Satellites, GPS, Digital-Terrain Mapping, Drones, Cruise Missiles, cell phones, fiber optics, self-assembling robots, self-replicating machines, solar sails, pv cells, biodiesel, gas turbine engines, CD, DVD, HDTV, Holograms, Lasers, Masers, Microwave ovens, Microwave cooling, On-Line Banking, On-Line Shopping, On-Line Publishing, light sticks, compact fourescent lighting, and autonomous vehilces, rather than idiots and their History.
If braking prevents the vehicle from crashing, is the energy truely "wasted" or has it served a usefull purpose?
And in any case, before any energy calculations with any meaning in the real world can be made, one would have to quantify the energy used for braking.
I would suppose that one could equip trucks with sensors for fuel flow, speed, weight and manifold pressure and come up with something, but since that isn't done, you are just arm waving.
-- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Are you arguning that regenerative braking can not prevent crashes?
Are you _really_ this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling our legs?
Can you provide _any_ numbers on _anything_?
Why would that need to be done?
All you need to know is the potential energy of the vehicle at the top of the mountain, mgh, and the wind drag to calculate the mechanical energy wasted with conventional [nonregenerative] braking
Again, are you _really_ this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling our legs?
Bret Cahill
Obviously not; just trying to get you to define what the hell you are talking about.
Such as for what specifically?
All you've posted is generalized arm waving.
To get real numbers.
And that would be totally useless information for the purposes of either establishing policy or system design.
Which truck and which mountain and with which load are you going to use?
As an aside, the total energy "wasted" by nonregerative braking of trucks is likely many orders of magnitudes less than that lost by going
85 to 95 in the boondocks instead of 70.If saving energy were your real concern, you would be pushing for mandatory governers on trucks.
Are you capable of rational discourse or is arm waving and childish ad hominems the limit of your ability?
-- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Then why did you try to change the issue to preventing crashes?
If you agree that regenerative braking is as safe as conventional braking and if you agree friction and compression braking converts valuable mechanical energy to useless heat energy while regenerative braking converts valuable mechanical energy to valuable electrical energy, then how is friction and compression braking _not_ wasting valuable mechanical energy?
At this point it would be a major accomplishment if we could see you could calculate the potential energy in kilowatt hours of an 80,000 pound truck descending 4,000 feet.
Do that and then we won't think you are a _complete_ moron.
. . .
But it's a lot easier to get "real numbers."
All you need to know is the potential energy of the vehicle at the top of the mountain, mgh, and the wind drag to calculate the mechanical energy wasted with conventional [nonregenerative] braking.
The energy saved using regenerative braking instead of friction braking is useless information?
The energy savings are entered in the spread sheet that determines policy and design.
A load and grade weighted average to determine total nationwide fuel savings.
Braking in stop and go traffic also needs to be included.
Right now we'ld be happy with some back of envelope calculations, something you have yet to provide on any matter.
Where does the term "likely" fit into the spread sheet?
Do you have any clue as to what percentage of fuel is burned on the freeway?
Bret Cahill
Is English your native language?
That is a trivial and pointless calculation.
Which vehicle with what load, and which mountain?
Define that and you have one data point.
It seems you are finally getting a glimpse of a clue.
To come up with any sort of meaningfull average, you need to know for some statistically vailid period:
The total energy used.
The total energy "wasted".
Once you know that, you can decide whether or not such "waste" is of any significance.
The energy "wasted" by one particular truck going down one particular hill is meaningless.
See above about getting totals.
Who is "we"?
A "back of envelope calculation" for a truck going from LA to Chicago says the "waste" due to braking is trivial compared to the total requirments.
It is called reality, a phrase you don't seem to understand.
Fuel usage figures for trucks are easily found (much more easily than how much time is spent going down hills between LA and Chicago) and fuel usage goes up significantly with speed.
It is trivially obvious that going 90 uses a lot more fuel than going
The term "likely" comes from a back of envelope calculation of which you seem to be so fond that shows such speeds "wastes" at least an order of magnitude more fuel than braking and if there were hard numbers for any of this, it is likely to be several orders of magnitude.
Yeah, for trucks, which is what you've been going on about, most of it.
Trucks don't haul cargo from the Port of Long Beach to Pheonix, San Diego, Fresno, or much less Chicago, over surface streets.
Trucking distribution centers and truck stops are generally located close to freeways for reasons that should be obivious.
-- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.