That is also why they don't run APUs for cabin heat/air conditioning when parked overnight. An APU would save fuel relative to letting the engine run overnight, and could also be used to keep the coolant and oil up to temperature. But, it's added weight.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
I have not driven in a while, but years ago, when a number of states stopped allowing trucks to run the main engine while stopped, they all started running APU's. If that has changed, it is extremely recent, and a TON of money was spent on APU's to not be used. What do they do in "no idle" states?
Or are you only talking about one or two trucks like a guy that runs 100 miles at a time? (There is a permit process to run over weight, so maybe someone was pulling you leg?)
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
In reply to ProDarwin :
I wonder if a turbine engine would be lighter enough than a Diesel engine.... Hmm. It could run on the same fuel, at least.
New problem: Emissions controls on a turbine
GE built turbine locomotives for Union Pacific in the 50s & 60s. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific_GTELs
Chrysler also built and let the public drive a turbine powered car. Most were crushed when the scraped the project. Supposedly by order of the government, but I don't know the inside story. Urban legend says they were required to crush all of them , but a few "accidently" got missed.
In reply to 03Panther :
Engineering prototypes/testbeds almost always are crushed, except for one or two things notable enough to keep in a museum. To you it's an amazing pice of history, to Chrysler in 1963 or whenever it was, it's just old junk taking up space.
If "the government made them crush all of them", that is probably a really emotionally charged way to say "Chrysler has to pay taxes on assets and they didn't want to pay the taxes on a couple dozen cars that would do nothing but collect dust in a warehouse somewhere"
Usually when amazing bits of development history surface, it turns out to be after it was on its way to the scrapyard and some engineer accidentally put it in the trunk of his car before it got there.
03Panther said:
That is also why they don't run APUs for cabin heat/air conditioning when parked overnight. An APU would save fuel relative to letting the engine run overnight, and could also be used to keep the coolant and oil up to temperature. But, it's added weight.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
I have not driven in a while, but years ago, when a number of states stopped allowing trucks to run the main engine while stopped, they all started running APU's. If that has changed, it is extremely recent, and a TON of money was spent on APU's to not be used. What do they do in "no idle" states?
That's exactly what I'm talking about, way back on page one or whatever. The APUs aren't a viable option unless an outside force mandates them.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
In reply to ProDarwin :
I wonder if a turbine engine would be lighter enough than a Diesel engine.... Hmm. It could run on the same fuel, at least.
New problem: Emissions controls on a turbine
Volvo built a turbine electric a whole bunch of years ago. Constant speed turbine running a generator, full electric propulsion. It went nowhere, as I recall, but it always struck me as a reasonable idea. As so often happens, my idea of reasonable doesn't fit with the rest of the world.
Volvo ecc
ProDarwin said:
^I think its hilarious that this is even used as an example. What % of drivers in the US actually do a coast to coast blitz? 0.01%?
I've done that once in my life. Not in my own car, and I will never do it again. There is no way that would be part of my criteria for a car purchase.
I feel like my daily schedule is pretty normal, but apparently not. I could drive an EV for all daily use with only 110v charging and the only impact it would have on me is I would spend less time at gas stations. I've made one trip, maybe 2 (depending on the EV chosen) in the past 2 years that would require me to charge during the trip.
Well, I understand that I'm a bit odd, but I've done it at least 10 times - Los Angeles to Ontario, and each time I picked a different route. One year I went up to Vancouver and across Canada. Did Rt 66 a few times.
My point was exactly how hilarious it is. I used the wildest possible example to show how I would still prefer an EV.
More jammy retro goodness.
Yes!
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
Appleseed said:
In reply to ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) :
I dont think it's more of "Are are EVs Feasible?" because they are. It's more of how long will it take electric to surpass fuel it terms of practically. If the mass banning of ICE by 2035 is a reality, rural citizens have to be accounted for. I'm hoping the next 14 years of development are mind blowing.
Te LAST 14 years of development have been mind blowing, and this was without as big of an incentive. More people WANT EVs now that they see that they aren't awful lead-acid battery DC motor things like they used to be. There's a lot of money to be made if they can come to market with a good product.
I like Teslas not because of the cars themselves, I think they're kinda awful, but I like the IDEA of what is actually possible today, and what the future holds when established automakers get geared up. It's kind of like when Audi started doing well in stage rally with the Quattro. The cars themselves were awful, and Audi could barely figure out how to empty sand from a boot with directions on the heel as far as building a competitve rally car... but the makes who DID understand rally soon came up with their own all wheel drive cars and instantly dominated.
THAT is what I am looking forward to. Serious EVs from companies like GM and Ford and the like. The Bolt looks VERY interesting and I wish I'd known about it sooner..
Plus, if people flock to EVs all on their own, mandates like this become fairly well pointless. I do agree that an all-or-nothing mandate is a bit silly since there are still many valid reasons to have an ICE vehicle, but if it turns out that, say, 90% of all new-vehicle sales are EV by 2035, why bother halting their sale?
Nobody said they were banning their production. Just the sale in certain states. States that already have a sizable percentage of EV's.
What will actually kill the ICE is money. Below a certain volume car makers lose money. They might be willing to do that for various reasons like prestige or marketing. But those bean counters really don't like money losers. With bonuses based on profits neither does top management.
RevolverRob said:
In reply to frenchyd :
Anyone who wants to buy an EV should do so. Many people can use them as effectively as they do their ICE cars. Some folks (quite a few actually) cannot.
Again, I am not suggesting we halt development of the technology or infrastructure, at all.
when I bought my Abarth, I was actually looking to buy a 500e. My 12 mile commute (one way!) would see me recharging that car once a week. The problem was actually FCA itself, they never offered the car in NJ and there are no techs in this state certified to work on them. If it broke, I would need to trailer it down to MD to have it worked on.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
That's exactly what I'm talking about, way back on page one or whatever. The APUs aren't a viable option unless an outside force mandates them.
Well, it was the outside force that was effectively mandating them in the first place with the hard weight limit.
Regulation has a lot of unexpected effects.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
In reply to 03Panther :
Engineering prototypes/testbeds almost always are crushed, except for one or two things notable enough to keep in a museum. To you it's an amazing pice of history, to Chrysler in 1963 or whenever it was, it's just old junk taking up space.
If "the government made them crush all of them", that is probably a really emotionally charged way to say "Chrysler has to pay taxes on assets and they didn't want to pay the taxes on a couple dozen cars that would do nothing but collect dust in a warehouse somewhere"
Usually when amazing bits of development history surface, it turns out to be after it was on its way to the scrapyard and some engineer accidentally put it in the trunk of his car before it got there.
I think, not 100% sure, that it was more an insurance/liability issue, also probably somewhat to protect any propritary technology. If memory serves, the Federal Government at the time could have cared less. The auto manufacturers had their own reasons for wanting protypes out of public circulation.
All too true about the history vs. junk taking up space thing. It is the same for old warships. So many types and classes that today we view as valuable pieces of history were, at the time, unneeded liabilities to their Navies. It's actually kind of remarkable how many did survive, particularly in the post-WWII era. So many incredible ship classes dissaperaed without a single example being preserved, much less in their origional configuration. Planes and land vehiccles are different, they take up less space and are easier to preserve.
In reply to Oldboy Speedwell :
Pretty, example of an incredible driving car, but I'd miss the glorious sound from that Lampredi designed twin-cam 4. IMHO that is the heart and soul of any old Alfa of that era, and the best reason for ownig one. Without it, I fear most of the "Alfa Magic" would be gone.
In reply to ProDarwin :
Perhaps more than you think. I did 4 1000+ mile road trips last year alone. 2 the year before.
kb58
SuperDork
1/19/21 1:07 p.m.
From a big picture perspective, I can't see how hydrogen (assuming produced via electrical means) is is more efficient and cheaper than electric. I mean, each time energy changes form, there are efficiency loses. So starting with electricity (never mind source efficiencies) it's sent to a plant that presumably splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. Then there's distributing it, storing it, and getting it into cars, rather than just feeding the electrical energy straight into the car. In addition, having a hydrogen and electric car to drive X miles, I wonder how the cost in fuel works out.
Many years ago we quizzed a Nissan engineer on the ""well-to-pump" efficiency issue of hydrogen versus gas and he was really evasive.
STM317
UberDork
1/19/21 1:49 p.m.
In reply to kb58 :
In this theoretical hydrogen environment, the hydrogen is made from completely "green" energy sources like hydroelectric, wind, or solar so the reduced efficiency is not as big of a deal.
There are cubic dollars being spent on hydrogen production and fuel cell development right now. If (when?) it comes to fruition, the first places it's likely to be used are trains, buses, or stationary power generation. Instances with fixed locations or routes where limited fueling infrastructure is easier to overcome.
kb58
SuperDork
1/19/21 2:18 p.m.
STM317 said:
In reply to kb58 :
In this theoretical hydrogen environment, the hydrogen is made from completely "green" energy sources like hydroelectric, wind, or solar so the reduced efficiency is not as big of a deal.
Hah, but my point is independent of how the electricity is generated. I'm saying, how can taking that "green" electricity and making hydrogen with it, distributing it, storing it, and modifying service stations to provide it, and then putting it in the car, be more efficient that just putting that same electricity straight into the car, and avoid the whole hydrogen supply chain.
Everyone always picks some subset of the big picture and says, "see, this is the best way", and either purposely or accidentally ignores the big picture. That said, maybe I'm missing something myself.
I'd rather convert harvested CO2 into a hydrocarbon. That infrastructure already exists and its handling issues are known, and fairly simple in comparison to hydrogen.
We still need great giant gouts of electricity to make either one happen.
STM317
UberDork
1/19/21 2:52 p.m.
kb58 said:
STM317 said:
In reply to kb58 :
In this theoretical hydrogen environment, the hydrogen is made from completely "green" energy sources like hydroelectric, wind, or solar so the reduced efficiency is not as big of a deal.
Hah, but my point is independent of how the electricity is generated. I'm saying, how can taking that "green" electricity and making hydrogen with it, distributing it, storing it, and modifying service stations to provide it, and then putting it in the car, be more efficient that just putting that same electricity straight into the car, and avoid the whole hydrogen supply chain.
Everyone always picks some subset of the big picture and says, "see, this is the best way", and either purposely or accidentally ignores the big picture. That said, maybe I'm missing something myself.
I think for traditional transportation cases like personal vehicles, you're right. Thats why the second part of my post (that you chose not to mention) is there. If you've got a commuter rail line with a hydrogen station or two, there may not be any distribution needs at all. All you have to do is store a liquid fuel, which is what everybody is already used to. It's not like it loses efficiency just sitting there. If you've got a hydroelectric dam cranking out energy, do you store excess in a battery, or as a liquid fuel? What if you could choose?
My point was that there are cases where hydrogen can work, and even some where they work better than a battery (refilling a tank is faster than charging a battery, batteries don't lose weight as they discharge, but fuel tanks do, etc). With the investments that major companies have made in hydrogen in the last ~24 months, I think hydrogen has become a lot less 'vapor-ware' or science fiction. I don't think it's going to be the singular answer for moving people or goods moving forward, but I don't think BEVs will be either. I think hydrogen will be a part of the equation that gets us to a more carbon neutral society.
mikedd969 said:
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
In reply to 03Panther :
Engineering prototypes/testbeds almost always are crushed, except for one or two things notable enough to keep in a museum. To you it's an amazing pice of history, to Chrysler in 1963 or whenever it was, it's just old junk taking up space.
If "the government made them crush all of them", that is probably a really emotionally charged way to say "Chrysler has to pay taxes on assets and they didn't want to pay the taxes on a couple dozen cars that would do nothing but collect dust in a warehouse somewhere"
Usually when amazing bits of development history surface, it turns out to be after it was on its way to the scrapyard and some engineer accidentally put it in the trunk of his car before it got there.
I think, not 100% sure, that it was more an insurance/liability issue, also probably somewhat to protect any propritary technology. If memory serves, the Federal Government at the time could have cared less. The auto manufacturers had their own reasons for wanting protypes out of public circulation.
All too true about the history vs. junk taking up space thing. It is the same for old warships. So many types and classes that today we view as valuable pieces of history were, at the time, unneeded liabilities to their Navies. It's actually kind of remarkable how many did survive, particularly in the post-WWII era. So many incredible ship classes dissaperaed without a single example being preserved, much less in their origional configuration. Planes and land vehiccles are different, they take up less space and are easier to preserve.
In reverse order, have you ever heard of the idle fleet in the James River In VA. After leaving that area, I heard they were getting rid of a lot of those ships, even. Don’t know. There was even a Russian cargo ship being mothballed there. I can’t actually say why it was, but that info is available.
Ralph Nader and his influence was what “we” heard at the time for the demise of the turbine car. I’ll leave it at that.
It was 68 if memory serves correctly, but I was kinda young. Old enough to be starting to get into cars, but not keeping up with a lot of government’s reasoning. It’s just what we heard at the time. It was in the 80’s before I heard that a couple “accidentally “ survived. Y’alls reasoning why from looking back, may be more correct than the things that were said at the time
There were other reasons to not keep turbines around too; the Chrysler turbine cars are efficient but that doesn't equate to fuel mileage, which at best they got like 20 per Jay Leno. You've also got rotating parts that get up to something wild, like 38,000 RPM; the Toyota Mirai has to have 15,000PSI connections to ferry liquid hydrogen to the fuel cell stack, so they're actually somewhat comparable both in the we (arguably) have a better technology already and they cannot be expected to be fixed by the average lay mechanic.
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
Some modern turbos spin up to 200,000rpm.
Rons
Reader
1/21/21 8:56 p.m.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
I'd rather convert harvested CO2 into a hydrocarbon. That infrastructure already exists and its handling issues are known, and fairly simple in comparison to hydrogen.
Yes. If we had a reasonably efficient way of using electricity to convert H2O and CO2 into gasoline (or even ethanol), then the existing automotive fleet could be made "carbon neutral" without having to change out any of the infrastructure.
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
Other than that magic stuff that comes out of the wall in so many houses, when did electricity become carbon neutral?
03Panther said:
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
Other than that magic stuff that comes out of the wall in so many houses, when did electricity become carbon neutral?
Nuclear power is the most obvious way.
