Enviro-Green Tech: The Good? (not the Bad and the Ugly)

[ERD50]

A 2016 Update on my OP - Wrightspeed

I last posted about Wrightspeed, and their plan to replace the ICE diesel in garbage truck sized vehicles with a series hybrid consisting of a constant speed turbine charging the battery packs when needed, with electric motors providing the drive (and regen braking - a big deal in stop-go garbage/delivery trucks).

I checked a few months ago, and little news. I thought this might be dying on the vine. But some stuff popped up recently:

Mack To Demo Garbage Truck With Wrightspeed Turbine Plug-In Hybrid Powertrain - Forbes

New Zealand Adopts Wrightspeed Jet And Battery Power For Buses - Forbes

(you might need to get through the Forbes "Welcome screen" before these links will work)

Wrightspeed has been testing its system for several years now with a variety of companies including FedEx and plans to enter regular production by early autumn of 2016. Earlier this year, Wrightspeed announced a deal to supply powertrains to NZ Bus in New Zealand.

So he has at least got a few more trials going. I hope this pans out, I think there is a lot of potential in this approach (see details in item #3 of my OP).

-ERD50

 

[jazz4cash]

This quote from the Forbes article looks flat out wrong...

"These vehicles are typically powered by big diesel engines that make a lot of noise and pollution while getting anywhere from 3 to 6 mpg and accumulating as much as 100,000 miles per year."

The mpg figure looks ok but the annual mileage is way off. That will significantly impact the payback period.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Totoro]

Now the legal responsibility in all cases rests on one person - the driver.

No it doesn't. If the gas pedal gets stuck the manufacturer is to blame, as an example. There already is a shared legal responsibility.

To minimize legal claims and protect civilians we have safety tests and standards that need to be passed, but ultimately the manufacturer is still responsible for delivering a working product.

If the car becomes self-driving that feature becomes the manufacturers problem, as it is an integral part of the product now.

I don't see the legal issues, it is a matter of shifting the demarcation line which already is there.

Likewise, quite a few people talk about how a machine cannot make a good decision between crashing into one vehicle with two small children or a wall. I'd argue in practice a human frequently can't do it either in that split-second of horror when you realize a crash is inevitable. Not to mention there will be fewer of those crashes to begin with.

 

[ERD50]

This quote from the Forbes article looks flat out wrong...

"These vehicles are typically powered by big diesel engines that make a lot of noise and pollution while getting anywhere from 3 to 6 mpg and accumulating as much as 100,000 miles per year."

The mpg figure looks ok but the annual mileage is way off. That will significantly impact the payback period.

I'll look closer, but that looks like an error on Forbes part. In an interview, Ian Wright said:

https://chargedevs.com/features/qa-...ed-on-tesla-gas-turbines-and-electric-trucks/

We can save the most fuel. The average full-size garbage truck is doing about a thousand stops a day, and they’re hard stops – they’re triggering the ABS on most of the stops. They’re doing about 130 miles a day. They’re doing 2.8 miles per gallon. Putting our powertrain in there, we can save them about $35,000 a year in fuel per chassis, and another $8,000 in maintenance for the truck.

Assuming that's 5 days/week and 52 weeks/year operation:

130 x 5 x 52 = 33,800 annual miles

He is marketing this as an alternative to an engine/drive-train replacement when that is needed. So the payback only needs to be based on the delta between his retrofit, and a new/rebuilt diesel engine/drive-train.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Move self driving car pro/con to another thread please?

Could we move self driving car pro/con discussion to another thread please? While self-driving cars could have some green benefits, the pros/cons and legal issues are really very specific to that subject, and become very involved and detailed.

I feel those discussions are kind of watering down the intent of this thread, which is to focus on awareness of a variety of potentially green technologies that may have real merit, along with some general discussion of their ability to actually see the light of day.

Thanks!

-ERD50

 

[cooch96]

I'm personally highest about 3D scanners and printers as a great way to recycle broken parts. Honestly, I feel like I might just see a Star Trek replicator in my lifetime.

I'm also very hopeful about 4th generation nuclear power plants that can burn off nuclear waste. I feel like the biggest obstacle is getting around the generational nuclear phobia. I think it'd be good marketing to sell future power plants as "nuclear waste processing and removal sites." The MWs of electricity produced by processing the nuclear waste would be simply the happy byproduct.

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3043099/this-nuclear-reactor-eats-nuclear-waste

If the grid is wholly powered by nuclear, hydro, and wind, then plug in electric commuter cars and electrically heated buildings start making a lot more sense, right?

 

[travelover]

I last posted about Wrightspeed, and their plan to replace the ICE diesel in garbage truck sized vehicles with a series hybrid consisting of a constant speed turbine charging the battery packs when needed, with electric motors providing the drive (and regen braking - a big deal in stop-go garbage/delivery trucks).........

I don't recall if I mentioned this, but before I retired from MegaMotors we were working with Eaton on simple system that captured stopping energy with a hydraulic pump, stored it in a small tank and released it through a hydraulic motor to relaunch the vehicle (like a garbage or delivery truck). It was pretty simple, cheap and compact. Not sure what happened to the project.

EDIT: Oops, I guess it didn't work out. http://www.oemoffhighway.com/news/11149917/eaton-discontinues-hydraulic-launch-assist-system

 

[ERD50]

I don't recall if I mentioned this, but before I retired from MegaMotors we were working with Eaton on simple system that captured stopping energy with a hydraulic pump, stored it in a small tank and released it through a hydraulic motor to relaunch the vehicle (like a garbage or delivery truck). It was pretty simple, cheap and compact. Not sure what happened to the project.

EDIT: Oops, I guess it didn't work out. Eaton discontinues Hydraulic Launch Assist system | OEM Off-Highway

I remember following the Eaton hydraulic hybrid system. It sounded good - I think it was less expensive and less finicky than batteries (like the Prius hybrid). I think FedEx did a trial with them. Not many details in that release, but it just sounds like they think CNG is a better path?

As you know, even though the Eaton system used hydraulics to run the pump/engine, the energy storage medium was gas (plain air, or maybe Nitrogen? - hydraulic oil is non-compressible). The gas would be compressed by pumping oil into that reservoir on braking, and the compressed gas would force the oil back through the pump to assist with acceleration. Sounds good, too bad it didn't work out.

-ERD50

 

[travelover]

...........As you know, even though the Eaton system used hydraulics to run the pump/engine, the energy storage medium was gas (plain air, or maybe Nitrogen? - hydraulic oil is non-compressible). The gas would be compressed by pumping oil into that reservoir on braking, and the compressed gas would force the oil back through the pump to assist with acceleration. .........-ERD50

No..wait - you mean you can't compress a liquid?

 

[Koolau]

Too lazy to redo my research on the subject, but I did find references to the following idea which I thought of perhaps 35 years ago(?) when turbocharging for cars first became "popular" - especially in racing situations. As you know, turbocharging is now available in a number of off-the-shelf cars as well as retrofitting for, er, uh, "hot rodding". IIRC the main advantage of turbocharging is increasing power for the same size engine (or, alternately, allowing the use of a smaller, lighter engine.) As such, it's not all that green. If there is much saving of fuel, it would be reducing the overall weight of the engine rather than any significant increase of fuel efficiency of the Otto cycle. I could be wrong on this - feel free to correct me if so.

In any case, I once fantasied the rough equivalent of the 6-stroke engine, but using a turbo arrangement to recapture waste exhaust heat to drive an alternator or other electricity producing device. I even fantasiced the addition of water injection for such a device to take advantage of the expansion (and cooling effect) much as described in the 6 stoke engine. Don't recall (maybe 2 years back) whether the water injection angle was looked at, but the use of a turbo to produce electrical energy has been looked at by major car companies or their research partners as best I recall.

I see such an approach as a much less sophisticated (read "cheaper" and easily bolted-onto current technology) approach than the 6 stroke engine. Whether there has been any progress, I'm too lazy to look again. Still, in concept, the idea would work. Naturally, YMMV (heh, heh.)

 

[ERD50]

...

In any case, I once fantasied the rough equivalent of the 6-stroke engine, but using a turbo arrangement to recapture waste exhaust heat to drive an alternator or other electricity producing device. I even fantasiced the addition of water injection for such a device to take advantage of the expansion (and cooling effect) much as described in the 6 stoke engine. ...

I think the problem there is that if you try to capture the energy in the exhaust flow, you just put too much restriction on the engine, and it can't 'breathe'.

A turbo charger must be a low enough restriction that the benefits outweigh that restriction (or they wouldn't use them!). But I don't think you can go much further before the restriction becomes a limit. Maybe one of the 'car-guys' can fill us in.

The water injection is interesting, but wouldn't the expansion also push back into the engine, effectively causing more restriction? And carrying water always has some downsides (weight, space, freezing temps).

Interesting idea though.

-ERD50

 

[Koolau]

I think the problem there is that if you try to capture the energy in the exhaust flow, you just put too much restriction on the engine, and it can't 'breathe'.

A turbo charger must be a low enough restriction that the benefits outweigh that restriction (or they wouldn't use them!). But I don't think you can go much further before the restriction becomes a limit. Maybe one of the 'car-guys' can fill us in.

The water injection is interesting, but wouldn't the expansion also push back into the engine, effectively causing more restriction? And carrying water always has some downsides (weight, space, freezing temps).

Interesting idea though.

-ERD50

Since TC's work with Otto cycle engines without (significant) back pressure issues, it should be possible to match back pressure to electrical output. Now, whether that turns out to be practical may be the problem. I ran across several citations suggesting that turbo generation IS possible and possibly practical. This is the only one I could lay my hands on in short order. Oddly enough, I had also dreamed up this particular concept back when I first heard about the problems of turbo lag at low speeds. It occurred to me that one could use an electrically powered turbo at low speeds and then reverse the process to produce electricity with the turbo when one would normally "waste-gate" the excess pressure produced by the turbo (variable speeds of the turbo seem to be a much bigger problem to (have) solved than back pressure.)

By the way, I have no practical "invention" skills (couldn't make you a toaster!) but I have always stared at clouds or counted ceiling tile holes and "thought up" inventions. For instance, while the "modern day" snow mobile has been around since the 1960s (and tracked snow-mobile-like vehicles have been known almost since cars were invented) I "thought up" the snow mobile at age about 6 when I first saw a home made go cart. It occurred to me that a rubber belt with paddles - similar to the old steam powered paddle wheelers could be adapted to make a go cart into a snow mobile - though I don't claim credit for the name, heh, heh.

How practical all this cloud-fantasy stuff has been over the years, I can't say. I recall solving several thorny problems at w*rk and home by a similar process. I don't smoke a pipe, so no formula in the smoke cloud for me. Just clouds or any self-diversion seems to free my mind to think creatively. Never made a dime from it, but it is an enjoyable pastime as well as problem-solver as needed.

As usual, YMMV.

Here is the citation I "refound":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_turbocharger

 

[jazz4cash]

I'll look closer, but that looks like an error on Forbes part. In an interview, Ian Wright said:



https://chargedevs.com/features/qa-...ed-on-tesla-gas-turbines-and-electric-trucks/







Assuming that's 5 days/week and 52 weeks/year operation:



130 x 5 x 52 = 33,800 annual miles



He is marketing this as an alternative to an engine/drive-train replacement when that is needed. So the payback only needs to be based on the delta between his retrofit, and a new/rebuilt diesel engine/drive-train.



-ERD50

That all looks spot-on. The retrofit project will be a push but that's the best way to shake out all the pros and cons. Sometimes unexpected benefits show up that can push the technology over the top. It's a brutal application.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[GravitySucks]

I don't recall if I mentioned this, but before I retired from MegaMotors we were working with Eaton on simple system that captured stopping energy with a hydraulic pump, stored it in a small tank and released it through a hydraulic motor to relaunch the vehicle (like a garbage or delivery truck). It was pretty simple, cheap and compact. Not sure what happened to the project.

EDIT: Oops, I guess it didn't work out. http://www.oemoffhighway.com/news/11149917/eaton-discontinues-hydraulic-launch-assist-system

Shame it didn't work out. I remember reading of something similar for buses. Wonder if the tech was unfeasible, or the market just too small to bother?

 

[target2019]

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=95264
US Navy ship receives biofuel from Italian tanker. Surprising ingredient is beef fat.

 

[jazz4cash]

Shame it didn't work out. I remember reading of something similar for buses. Wonder if the tech was unfeasible, or the market just too small to bother?

I think it worked ok but not enough benefit to make it worthwhile. The goal was to compete with fully automatic transmissions at a lower price. We had a customer that tried one but basically no one wanted to drive it and it was regulated to backup duty. I saw a UPS truck with that system yesterday. Most of their other trucks are stick shift so I guess it was more acceptable.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[ERD50]

Since TC's work with Otto cycle engines without (significant) back pressure issues, it should be possible to match back pressure to electrical output. ....
Here is the citation I "refound":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_turbocharger

Interesting, but not a whole lot of content there, and I didn't find much more with another search.

I have heard of electric motors driving the supercharger - that makes sense in a way, the motor can reduce the turbo lag, and would be flexible to match different conditions. But it still isn't clear that there would be that much energy to capture, and it looks like what they capture is just used for the supercharger, it doesn't propel the car in any way like a 'traditional' hybrid.

Sounds like their comparison of engine size with a trad hybrid is just the fact that with the supercharger, you can make the engine smaller for same power?

-ERD50

 

[Koolau]

Interesting, but not a whole lot of content there, and I didn't find much more with another search.

I have heard of electric motors driving the supercharger - that makes sense in a way, the motor can reduce the turbo lag, and would be flexible to match different conditions. But it still isn't clear that there would be that much energy to capture, and it looks like what they capture is just used for the supercharger, it doesn't propel the car in any way like a 'traditional' hybrid.

Sounds like their comparison of engine size with a trad hybrid is just the fact that with the supercharger, you can make the engine smaller for same power?

-ERD50

Clearly, the hot exhaust gasses offer the most opportunity for energy retrieval. If they can spin a turbo, the turbo can run an alternator or generator. Only question is really whether it's a practical source of additional energy (to cover cost, make up for back-pressure losses, can replace the otherwise HP robbing alternator, etc.) Don't know the answers, but I'm guessing it could work and be practical at the right fuel price point. But, YMMV