Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are getting carried away. There are any number of motor designs that use little or no rare earth stuff. Some simply do not use magnets where the rare earth metals are utilized. And some of the new solid state batteries utilize no rare earth metals.
Also China produces over half the rare earths but no where near all.
And various combinations of EV vans and busses can well approximate a train with the ability to split up and go local along the main route. Solves both the mass transit and local distribution in one system. Trains cannot do that.
Perhaps you are unaware that rail based transportation is the most efficient form of land transport. Science of Railway Locomotion
"At the same constant speed, on level ground, drawing the same load, any steel wheeled railway vehicle already in motion, will use only 5% (1/20) of the energy consumed by any large pneumatic tire road vehicle already in motion. Upon starting and initial acceleration, any steel wheeled railway vehicle will only use 10% (1/10) of the energy demanded by any large pneumatic tire road vehicle. Further, only in the case of railroads, Train Resistance, or Rolling Resistance, is inversely proportional to GCW (train weight). This means, the heavier the train, the more energy efficient it becomes."
. . .
If you wish to save 90-95% in energy expenditure, you should "get back on track."
Restating, for a fixed energy budget, you can move TWENTY TIMES as much with a steel wheel on steel rail based transport system, than upon a pneumatic tire on pavement vehicle, regardless of the motivating power (steam, petroleum, electricity).
As long as human population keeps growing and cities keep becoming more densely populated, the only form of transportation that can scale with that is the WAY OF STEEL.
EV's have all the problems of ICE's when it comes to efficiency, surface area, and inability to scale with population growth.
THE FUTURE, if the laws of Physics haven't been repealed, IS RAIL.
The advantage of ICE over EV is that the majority of automobile motors around the world are ICE. But since both minerals and oil aren't in finite quantities, the only advantage left for EV is the lack of tailpipe emission.
It just doesn't make any sense to replace one limited resource with another that is also limited, except that an ICE can run with the use of a variety fuels: propane, natural gas, biofuels, and possibly hydrogen). The EV motor can only run on electricity.
Not correct, an EV motor is 85-90% efficient compared to an ICE efficiency of about 30%. Also, using the grid is using about 60% (USA) energy is carbon based compared to 100% in an ICE. SO you end up burning 5 times more carbon propelling an ICE vehicle than an EV and that ratio s going higher due to EV's getting much more efficient and the grid growing less dependent on carbon based energy.
The fact that you are not burning millions of tons of poisonous burnt carbon in your garage, neighborhood and city is not an inconsequential factor.
Which economic advantages one has over the other? The carbon footprint for building both EV and ICE vehicles is similar, except that for the building of a battery for an electric vehicle, an additional carbon footprint is added. The metals needed to build a battery have to be mined.
Also as the minerals needed to build batteries, and even automobiles, become more scarce, would both batteries and vehicles be cheaper? Lest say that we run out of oil in the next five years, would the price of oil drop?
That is not nebulous at all. It takes about the same to build both an ICE and EV vehicle. But the EV's battery requires more minerals and plastics to be built than the fuel tank in an ICE vehicle. It is only after the ICE vehicle is driven that tailpipe emissions are emitted, and this is the point where an EV has an environmental advantage over an ICE vehicle, since it does not emit fumes.
Because the engine you have can't handle that variety of fuels.
The carbon footprint for building the vehicles are similar, but the operations of them are not. If you only built vehicles, but never used them then that would make sense which is basically what the Manhattan Institute article you posted presents it as. While that's true, it's also nonsensical because who is mass producing all these vehicles for them to never be operated?
What point are you getting at? That you shouldn't make ICE vehicles or EVs since there may be a depletion of these resources? Is there a real direction you want to head with this? I'm fine with making walking, biking, and mass transit the norm if that's where you're headed.
The EV doesn't need to constantly burn the minerals and plastics of its battery. It's a few to several hundred pounds, maybe topping a thousand pounds in some cases, of material that's meant to be used for a decade and can be re-used for another purpose or recycled. What you said was "And how nebulous does the argument get when you have to add "only after the battery has been installed on the vehicle and this vehicle is being driven" which is pretty pointless--there aren't that many people who buy a mass production EV and just never drive it. It's usually the expectation that a vehicle is driven.
And again, EVs have the overall emissions advantage by a good margin, but no tailpipe emissions itself is pretty good since I live in a densely trafficked city.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-22-2021 at 07:00 AM..
I agree. In this case we have lots of petroleum, including large national reserves. But the minerals needed to build batteries are mined mostly overseas. Do you think it makes any economic sense to switch from one non-renewable resource to another non-renewable resource that is not any more plentiful than the first?
Lest wait and see which one of the most powerful nations in the world switches its military from ICE to EV. I mean...EV is cheaper. Right?
Sure, some US military vehicles will be EV. It does help in some situations to not have to keep shipping fuel and the military is maybe the only part of the US that is still keen and can push through new nuclear reactors which you definitely can't put in your gas tank.
Having oil for our military to use is important, so I'm glad we're finding reasonable alternatives to oil for the much more frequent but less dire use of day-to-day commuting to non-military work.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-22-2021 at 06:47 AM..
I agree. In this case we have lots of petroleum, including large national reserves. But the minerals needed to build batteries are mined mostly overseas. Do you think it makes any economic sense to switch from one non-renewable resource to another non-renewable resource that is not any more plentiful than the first?
Lest wait and see which one of the most powerful nations in the world switches its military from ICE to EV. I mean...EV is cheaper. Right?
the US military is one of the worlds largest polluters. it woule be nice if politicians go emissions requirements applied to the military that would end up drastically reducing the US military's footprint around the world.
Perhaps you are unaware that rail based transportation is the most efficient form of land transport. Science of Railway Locomotion
"At the same constant speed, on level ground, drawing the same load, any steel wheeled railway vehicle already in motion, will use only 5% (1/20) of the energy consumed by any large pneumatic tire road vehicle already in motion. Upon starting and initial acceleration, any steel wheeled railway vehicle will only use 10% (1/10) of the energy demanded by any large pneumatic tire road vehicle. Further, only in the case of railroads, Train Resistance, or Rolling Resistance, is inversely proportional to GCW (train weight). This means, the heavier the train, the more energy efficient it becomes."
. . .
If you wish to save 90-95% in energy expenditure, you should "get back on track."
Restating, for a fixed energy budget, you can move TWENTY TIMES as much with a steel wheel on steel rail based transport system, than upon a pneumatic tire on pavement vehicle, regardless of the motivating power (steam, petroleum, electricity).
As long as human population keeps growing and cities keep becoming more densely populated, the only form of transportation that can scale with that is the WAY OF STEEL.
EV's have all the problems of ICE's when it comes to efficiency, surface area, and inability to scale with population growth.
THE FUTURE, if the laws of Physics haven't been repealed, IS RAIL.
I am well aware of the rolling resistance difference between rail and tires. I have been an engineer for around 60 years. Did lots of mechanism development and am very familiar with the dynamics. That question however has been answered for decades and will not change. Rail for longer distance point to point with relatively high loads. Tires for everything else. Flexibility overcomes the mildly higher efficiency.
You should also note that rolling efficiency is not the only parameter with vehicles. How about drag? Does not change the advantage of rail but it does wash its importance out.
I am well aware of the rolling resistance difference between rail and tires. I have been an engineer for around 60 years. Did lots of mechanism development and am very familiar with the dynamics. That question however has been answered for decades and will not change. Rail for longer distance point to point with relatively high loads. Tires for everything else. Flexibility overcomes the mildly higher efficiency.
You should also note that rolling efficiency is not the only parameter with vehicles. How about drag? Does not change the advantage of rail but it does wash its importance out.
I think trains can potentially have a slight advantage of drag in that they are generally run as closely linked traincars so that the exposed surface area for drag is less per train car than the equivalent number of trucks or other vehicles where such tightly packed and long convoys for various reasons aren't that common.
I think trains for more frequently used routes for passenger service and for very large and heavy loads of freight to specific transshipment points makes a good deal of sense.
For battery electric versions of trains, the train's disadvantage of lack of flexibility also means that it's easier to plan for placement of charging. The last few years have seen the launch of several battery electric trains and they seem promising. They can still feed off catenary or third rail for some segments while also charging their batteries, and the battery provides a useful backup to get to the next station/depot in case something goes wrong with the external power supply. It also allows some segments to be operated without having to put up electrification through the entire route which can run into larger installation and maintenance costs if an area along the route is a bit more remote for running a grid connection or more prone to disruptions to the catenary as well as avoiding putting up catenary in areas where there may be people who will fight it tooth and nail for aesthetic reasons. It's a pretty sweet system in that if you electrify in and around the stops, then that stopping and slowing down in that section means that the train maintains electrical contact for charging longer for every mile of electrification there rather than segments where the train are just passing through at top cruising speed and can also draw power for the initial tougher getting up to speed in the first place. That steel on steel low rolling resistance also does a good job of compensating for one of the largest drawbacks of EVs which is the energy density and the lugging around of potentially pretty heavy batteries.
I also remember reading that the closest limiting factor for high speed trains (that aren't maglevs) is the tension on the catenary which gets really intense. There may be something interesting if batteries or supercapacitors get to the kind of energy density where the top operating speed for high speed train routes are actually without catenary--of course, there may also be something like wireless power delivery though if it's at speeds well in excess of the top high speed rail routes, then I'd be curious as to how that would be managed.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-22-2021 at 11:17 AM..
I think trains can potentially have a slight advantage of drag in that they are generally run as closely linked traincars so that the exposed surface area for drag is less per train car than the equivalent number of trucks or other vehicles where such tightly packed and long convoys for various reasons aren't that common.
I think trains for more frequently used routes for passenger service and for very large and heavy loads of freight to specific transshipment points makes a good deal of sense.
Specialized EV vans/buses will be able to train up a few feet apart pretty close to the same as a train. In fact it may well be possible to have them touch. It is not really an EV thing. You could do the same with ICE vehicles. It is really a property of the automation systems allowing driverless operation.
I am well aware of the rolling resistance difference between rail and tires. I have been an engineer for around 60 years. Did lots of mechanism development and am very familiar with the dynamics. That question however has been answered for decades and will not change.
1. Rail for longer distance point to point with relatively high loads.
2. Tires for everything else. Flexibility overcomes the mildly higher efficiency.
3. You should also note that rolling efficiency is not the only parameter with vehicles. How about drag? Does not change the advantage of rail but it does wash its importance out.
Way back in time, was also electro-mechanical dual major ing-gun-neer. Worked for big Blue, too.
1. In America, the tax and regulatory system has pretty much eliminated other forms of rail. However, in less abusive climates, rail is doing quite well. See: Switzerland, and most European nations for examples of robust rail networks. Even China is vastly expanding its HSR network.
2. Tires for the "last mile" delivery, electric rail for EVERYTHING else.
3. Aerodynamic drag? In a TGV? at 300 kmh? or are you referring to automobiles? Or are you just throwing "it" at the wall to see if it will "Stick"?
. . . . https://www.goeuro.com/buses/switzerland
Switzerland’s public transport system is recognised as one of the finest in the world, thanks to its dense network of road, bus and train lines. There aren’t any long-distance buses in Switzerland, as trains tend to provide more capacity, are faster, more reliable and also CHEAPER. Buses serve more as feeder routes that link train stations with out of the way destinations.
In Zürich, citizens use public transport at a rate double the average of other major European cities.
The country believes in public transportation and when ridership flattens, rather than cutting service, as is often the case in the U.S., the government encourages increased use by investing large sums to improve it. SBB, the Swiss railroad continually introduces new, faster equipment and more frequent service. Half-hourly departures are now available on most Intercity lines, late-night and early-morning trains have been added, and tilting trains - faster around curves - have lowered travel times.
. . . . .
Frankly, if we could get government out of the way, America could recover its prosperity with rapid changeover to electric rail. One simple remedy - zero taxation
Here's an idea - offer a ZERO TAX liability to any company that is exclusively involved in building, installing, operating or maintaining electric traction rail mass transit. Instead of taxpayer funding with all its partisan baggage and overhead, let's NOT TAKE TAXES from it. Imagine how much investment would flood in - no taxes, remember? And the only way the companies make a profit is by moving the most passengers for the least cost, as soon as possible. Which is exactly what we need!But you will never, ever see government surrender power or taxes...
And so China and the rest of the world will bypass America, in efficiency and prosperity, while our bunglers and scoundrels fight partisan battles over taxing and bribing.
Specialized EV vans/buses will be able to train up a few feet apart pretty close to the same as a train. In fact it may well be possible to have them touch. It is not really an EV thing. You could do the same with ICE vehicles. It is really a property of the automation systems allowing driverless operation.
Right, that's true and I suspect the technology will get there eventually. It is easier with the way rail works to do so than with road on asphalt in terms of being able to control things. I'm not painting it as an EV thing, but as a rail versus road vehicle thing though road vehicles could eventually manage something similar in a safe and economical manner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
