Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Climate Change and Environmental Issues "Greener" Trucking - Or Something Else ?

I read the cites, Mechanical One. I just don't seem to have your fecund imagination for what they mean in secret code.

If you don't want to discuss your own topic, then just say so.

If you are unable to discuss your own topics,

Expanding on that waste heat part of the topic for a moment, there really is a lot which can be done with all that heat.

For instance, if you use a high output air pump which engages every time there is a need for braking instead of electromotive brakes, it would fill a very strong air tank which could then later reverse back through that air pump which would then act as a MOTOR used to add a power assist to the drivetrain and the waste heat would maintain the air pressure in the tank because, as we all know, when there is a sharp drop in temp coefficient on a high pressure air tank the pressure DROPS.

So there's that just for starters. Air tanks do not lend a very significant weight source to a vehicle, especially when one considers that semi trucks already HAVE an air tank for the air brake system, so it is conceivable that one could just simply convert the already existing air tank to a unit with stronger cladding for more pressure, and add the waste heat to it to maintain the pressure.

And since semi trucks already HAVE the AIR PUMP which pressurizes the air brake tank, all we're really doing is an upgrade to a better air pump, which can also act as a motor assist.

There's also something to be said for electric braking as an assist, something which has been suggested as a backup to air brakes for decades but which met with stiff resistance from the trucking industry despite being a tried and true mature technology from the train business.

But an upgrade to the air system in which the air pump offers braking power as well as compressed air power assist would already provide a substantial improvement as is.

The diesel engine which powers the truck would be somewhat smaller and lighter too. In fact the powertrain itself would be smaller and lighter because the engine would merely be powering a generator instead of transmitting it's power through a gearbox, drive shaft (net power loss) and differential axle gears.

So one has to include the loss of the gearbox, drive shaft and differentials in any weight calculations. Much of that loss would be offset and neutralized by addition of the generator and the drive motor or motors, plus the addition of the air pumps used in place of electromotive braking.

I actually don't know if it's better to use wheelmotors or a single inline drive motor. The negative talk about wheelmotors is that they add "unsprung weight" to the chassis, but again one must balance that against the fact that with a wheelmotor unit you no longer are using a driveshaft differential gear unit.

The humungous 100 ton diesel-electric quarry trucks that we've all seen do use wheelmotors, so it might be a good idea to investigate the idea of scaling down that technology since it is already very mature and tested under severe service conditions in quarries around the world.

I honestly think that the biggest resistance to diesel-electric taking over the trucking industry has simply been a bunch of stubborn people who insist on adhering to the status quo because it represents a comfort zone.

Cool stuff! The whole compressed gas energy storage concept is beautiful in many aspects. As presented above, using it for regenerative braking has many potential advantages over the primitive "turn the energy of stopping into heat and dump it" technology, with its many wear parts; and electric regeneration, which has to be dialed down into a low conversion rate to be smoothly controlled. As was pointed out, air systems are light (empty tank) and they are also naturally cushioned.

The air powered commuter car concept packages the air system into a stand alone, solar fueled vehicle. Tremendous weight savings can be achieved when the fuel is compressed air stored in a carbon fiber tank and the propulsion occurs through low tech and lightweight air motors at the wheels. Refueling is simply recharging the tank with compressed air, which can be produced by solar photo voltaic systems during the day and stored indefinitely (the chief drawback to PV energy production is storage, and batteries are problematic because of conversion and transmission losses, toxic components and weight). I don't have a verifiable number at hand, but something like 90% of the energy in gasoline is used up in conversion efficiency losses and in moving the dead weight of the vehicle (3500#), just to transport an average of 200 pounds of human and cargo (passenger car example). Conservation of vehicle weight and improvement of the energy conversion equation, combined with renewable solar energy sourcing... wow!

I agree that we have problems in developing new ways of thinking that are illogical. Resistance to new ideas is almost always a barrier and humanity seeks to maintain the status quo to the bitter end. I'm still not clear on the original motivation for this topic but it appears to be that the poster thinks that trucks shouldn't run more economically because it's just a conspiracy between the EPA and Big Trucking to put the little guys out of business (though that was never plainly stated, to my knowledge). That may be an effect of the rules, and I agree that those effects should be considered and mitigated somehow. But that can't be done if the details aren't daylighted and a rational plan made to influence the rule (besides regressive and hostile opposition).

Trucks should be more economical.
Small businesses should not be wiped out.

The discussion should investigate how to optimize those two conditions, in my opinion. They are not mutually exclusive.

Well that was the reason I posted that long and possibly boring sob story about my video equipment. Unlike the independent trucker I was not the victim of some mundane government regulation, but I was pointing out the fact that it was the market itself, responding to a valid need for advancement, that pushed me into the weeds.

Why are some industries so damned insistent on clinging to old outdated tech while other industries grapple with Moore's Law.
There's so many better ways to skin a cat.

If the IT business ran the way auto, trucking and Big Oil dictated, we'd all still be clanking away on 486 chips and connecting through a 14.4 modem, because some poor bastard out in the boonies feared being left behind.

If MY business ran that way we'd all be still staring at a 25 inch CRT screen or squinting at some washed out rear projection nightmare which is essentially a large plastic box with an old TV set stuffed behind a magnifier...oh great, now the pixels are the size of GOLF BALLS!

I could bitch and moan all day about how much I loved my old MC-301's with the Angie glass, or my beautiful JVC 110 with the ultra modern (at the time) hard drive.
God's sakes, the VTR on my JVC only has about fifteen hours on it because I bought that hard drive when I bought the camera, so it's an eight year old camera with a brand new tape mechanism in it!

And now that goddam camera just sits on the shelf.
I told my wife last night that it's probably not worth selling and I should just have her bury it with me when I go.

And it still ain't over yet, I have to go get yet another camera soon, an upgraded version of my plastic toy which has better features and nicer glass. Oh well at least it looks more like a real camera! (LOL)
I'll tell you what, the video images it makes rival still photography. Even the little plastic kiddie toy comes close!

Truckers don't wanna upgrade to greener tech? Screw em.
Sorry I just don't have much sympathy for Luddite thinking, not after I've had to continually adapt in order to stay relevant.

I just watched a multiple Emmy award winning news reel shot by an old school chum who is also in the business.
It's all news from the 1990's to PRE September 2001.

Excellent photography, very compelling stories and images, but it's all standard definition NTSC video, you know...ANALOG TELEVISION from the pre-HDTV days?

And it looks antiquated as all hell. Still beautiful, but then you look at his recent stuff, and it's night and day.
The old stuff looks smeary, colors are washed out, you can almost see the scanning lines in the raster, and it's all 4:3 aspect ratio (square picture).
The new stuff looks almost like film cinematography, vivid color, achingly lush, bright and contrasty with a lot of latitude, lifelike, clean and clear.
The old NTSC TV system we used to have was 1930's technology.
About time we moved on don't you think?

That's how I see the typical over the road truck... a romantic antique but it's time to step into the future.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go protest downtown because the phone company wants me to get rid of my rotary dial phone.

Dammit.

I didn't "create" anything. Just cited what's going on in the trucking industry, lt ! Don't like it ? Why not hit on the ATA ? Or the USDEPA ? (good luck on that one, BTW) !!

If, OTOH, you want to take this thread to some destination of your own, the I'm not aboard. >Mech

CS,

Those trucks may be a "romantic antique" to you but I suggest you take a long look at how your "possibles" get to where you're accustomed to finding them.

The "bottom line" of this thread is - and remains - the impact of OA-proposed "fuel efficiency/air quality regs impact upon our economy. Any increase in the "cost of transportation" has to be passed on to the consumer. For decades our freight system has been predicated upon a "cost/benefit" ratio - with the independent trucker being the "horse" in the team. Recent regs cited pretty well kill all the horses - except for union ones - so consumers haven't any "options" on their essential purchases. >Mech

CS,

Did you pay $100K+ for your computer ? >Mech

You don't seem to be aboard now.

It's your topic, back up your points, don't expect me to go chasing all over hell trying to support something that you haven't even clearly stated.

PFTWCST

Everyone knows if one trucker consumes 30 % more fuel than another, that would not increase his operating costs and so there would be no costs to pass on to customers and, ultimately, consumers.

When those Wal*Marts of the world come around and ask what a trucker is doing to reduce pollution and fuel consumption, they can just take a hike. The Free Market will push them out since hardly anyone will be willing to knuckle under to their ridiculous demands.

And all those companies dumping millions of dollars on new servers and software just because some control freaks are saying they won't do business with them unless they upgrade the speed, reliability and security of their data, the can take a hike as well or expect to have the costs passed on to them.

It all started with mine and railroad safety, moved along to seatbelts and clean water and air . . . It's endless