Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Net metering restored in Nevada

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
    That is a possibility but think of the cost to install that type of infrastructure. The vehicles will need to be as long as a train with hundreds of cars instead of the thousands of typical 18 wheeler containers
    Why? There are several demo systems (both catenary and wireless) that do not require vehicles as long as a train. I think Long Beach, CA and northern Germany already have test roads in place.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
      Why? There are several demo systems (both catenary and wireless) that do not require vehicles as long as a train. I think Long Beach, CA and northern Germany already have test roads in place.
      Related keywords: catenary, ehighway. Here are a couple pages with some recent info on the long beach pilot project (which seems to have been in the works for five or so years now; I don't know if it's operational yet):

      aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/technology-research/clean-fuels-program/clean-fuels-program-advisory-group---september-1-2016/zero_emission_hd_truck_bchoe.pdf

      ttnews.com/articles/catenary-system-poised-one-year-test-near-california-ports
      17kw. I like science, but I'm no expert.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
        Why? There are several demo systems (both catenary and wireless) that do not require vehicles as long as a train. I think Long Beach, CA and northern Germany already have test roads in place.
        Do you have any idea of the millions of tons of goods that are shipped by trucks each day? Those demo systems are toys compared to what will be needed here for the entire US.

        You can't compare the population and land mass of the US to any European country. There is too much of a logistics difference to show any similarity.

        Comment


        • #19
          Man, every single discussion on this board seems to spin way off the original topic. I guess I shouldn't reply once it gets this far from the original topic, but here's one last tidbit.

          Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
          Those demo systems are toys compared to what will be needed here for the entire US.
          The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles emit a lot of smog, and some days it sits in the local air basin, building up to levels well above the legal limit; see e.g.
          presstelegram.com/environment-and-nature/20160810/southern-california-air-can-be-deadly-study-says-ports-remain-biggest-fixed-sources-of-pollution
          If hybrid trucks can use overhead wires to recharge on the go, and thereby reduce emissions and the number of days per month with unhealthy air in LA, that's significant in and of itself.

          17kw. I like science, but I'm no expert.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
            Man, every single discussion on this board seems to spin way off the original topic. I guess I shouldn't reply once it gets this far from the original topic, but here's one last tidbit.



            The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles emit a lot of smog, and some days it sits in the local air basin, building up to levels well above the legal limit; see e.g.
            presstelegram.com/environment-and-nature/20160810/southern-california-air-can-be-deadly-study-says-ports-remain-biggest-fixed-sources-of-pollution
            If hybrid trucks can use overhead wires to recharge on the go, and thereby reduce emissions and the number of days per month with unhealthy air in LA, that's significant in and of itself.
            Every little bit of pollution control will help clean up our air. If a port can install electric cargo movers instead of diesel driven movers I will vote for that.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
              Man, every single discussion on this board seems to spin way off the original topic. I guess I shouldn't reply once it gets this far from the original topic, but here's one last tidbit.



              The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles emit a lot of smog, and some days it sits in the local air basin, building up to levels well above the legal limit; see e.g.
              presstelegram.com/environment-and-nature/20160810/southern-california-air-can-be-deadly-study-says-ports-remain-biggest-fixed-sources-of-pollution
              If hybrid trucks can use overhead wires to recharge on the go, and thereby reduce emissions and the number of days per month with unhealthy air in LA, that's significant in and of itself.
              I think the article is doing disservice to air pollution cause- it just spins the facts using sensational wording, it's hard to get to the meat of the info somewhere in the middle: "The numbers of deaths and illnesses were then estimated through computer analysis that took into account epidemiological studies linking various health effects to air pollution exposure" Basically someone pretty much made up these data using computer and pushed result to media instead of peer reviewed environment .

              Trucks are only part of the sources the same article states ships themselves, cranes etc are diesel powered and produce a lot of exhaust.

              The article mentions 85% reduction in pollutants due to ports environmental efforts. Now it would be scientific to ask a question if those efforts actually affected death rates and by how much but that would be too common sense.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
                Do you have any idea of the millions of tons of goods that are shipped by trucks each day? Those demo systems are toys compared to what will be needed here for the entire US.
                Of course. Demos merely demonstrate that something can work (and identify problems before anyone attempts to scale it up.)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by max2k View Post
                  The article mentions 85% reduction in pollutants due to ports environmental efforts. Now it would be scientific to ask a question if those efforts actually affected death rates and by how much but that would be too common sense.
                  The study referred to by the article is ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27509145

                  Another study, "Assessing air quality and health benefits of the Clean Truck Program in the Alameda corridor, CA" (see scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16499385662035711114 ), looks into the question you raised.
                  17kw. I like science, but I'm no expert.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
                    Of course. Demos merely demonstrate that something can work (and identify problems before anyone attempts to scale it up.)
                    Scaling up does not work for every type of technology. But maybe something will come of those experiments.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

                      The study referred to by the article is ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27509145

                      Another study, "Assessing air quality and health benefits of the Clean Truck Program in the Alameda corridor, CA" (see scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16499385662035711114 ), looks into the question you raised.
                      Dan, you need to take this more critically: "In this paper, vehicle microscopic simulation and emission models were combined with an air pollutant dispersion model and a health assessment tool to quantify some social costs resulting from urban freight transportation in the Alameda corridor that links the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to downtown Los Angeles." and then: "Results show that the health costs from particulate matter (PM) emitted by drayage trucks exceeded 440 million dollars in 2005. However, these costs decreased by 36%, 90%, and 96% after accounting for the requirements of the 2008, 2010, and 2012 CTP deadlines." Decrease by 96% means health benefits costs decreased 25 times from 2005 to 2012. Does this sound right to you? IMO it's too good to be true but I'm lazy enough to go out and prove this because you'd just find another BS source stating other crazy improvements. It all sounds too political and as JPM once said study usually finds results expected by the client. Given some funding I can prove you the opposite which will be just as far from reality. Unfortunately abstract modeling is often too flexible to the degree their results don't correspond to any portion of reality. Especially when government is ordering studies to justify its own policies.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by SunEagle View Post

                        Do you have any idea of the millions of tons of goods that are shipped by trucks each day? Those demo systems are toys compared to what will be needed here for the entire US.

                        You can't compare the population and land mass of the US to any European country. There is too much of a logistics difference to show any similarity.
                        Well, I have some idea. I get it by looking at the road around me when on the interstate, particularly weekdays and noticing how much of the traffic is big rigs. Moving most of those loads to what is currently the shoulder and the rightmost lane and then powering the electric drives in the prime movers of single or double trailers from a rail or overhead line, while expensive, probably wouldn't involve much more infrastructure expense than a major highway rebuild/resurface that takes place over most sections of the interstate every 10-15 years anyway. And with less truck traffic on the other lanes, they might even last a bit longer between resurfacing/roadbed reconstruction. All this wouldn't be cheap, but maybe not as costly as starting from scratch.

                        Basically, I'd suggest such a move would involve dedicating 2 or more lanes to driverless trucks powered by grid electricity via dedicated lines/rails for intercity and on board battery storage for local deliveries.

                        Look, this whole thread is more of Dan's usual kind of "you could just do this and voila', problem solved" simplistic nonsense/crap that folks like Dan are masters at dreaming up, and remind me of the (usually) drunken B.S. session stuff we'd dream up as students. The wiser of us (and not necessarily me) knew the devil is in the details. This kind of stuff belongs on the cover of Popular Science from the '70's, or some junk science forum.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
                          Look, this whole thread is more of Dan's usual kind of "you could just do this and voila', problem solved"
                          Hey, I just wanted to post about Nevada's net metering. If folks want to talk about electric trucks and reduced pollution, though, fine.
                          Last edited by DanKegel; 09-13-2017, 11:03 PM.
                          17kw. I like science, but I'm no expert.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by max2k View Post
                            " Decrease by 96% means health benefits costs decreased 25 times from 2005 to 2012. Does this sound right to you?
                            If emissions of the four pollutants in question decreased by 96%, and we're talking about the health costs from those four pollutants emitted by those trucks, then yes, it seems reasonable. They got rid of a lot of really old trucks, and the new ones are quite clean.

                            Are you saying they measured emissions wrong?
                            17kw. I like science, but I'm no expert.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

                              If emissions of the four pollutants in question decreased by 96%, and we're talking about the health costs from those four pollutants emitted by those trucks, then yes, it seems reasonable. They got rid of a lot of really old trucks, and the new ones are quite clean.

                              Are you saying they measured emissions wrong?
                              Dan we've been through this before- are you just bored since you're suddenly mixing up $ with ppms? I'm not wasting my time in this thread anymore unless something more serious shows up.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

                                Hey, I just wanted to post about Nevada's net metering. If folks want to talk about electric trucks and reduced pollution, though, fine.
                                Typical and latest example of the Dan pattern: You stir up the pot with some useless or greenwashing junk that's mostly old news available anywhere, if news at all, get some folks spooled up about something they have an opinion about, but nothing of consequence that is only marginally related to the sign over the door, if at all, get some blather generation, then either walk away, or say "who me ? - I didn't cause the problem here - why attack me ? - when called out for your juvenile behavior and tactics.

                                I've separated people from employment for that type of disruptive and wastefully useless behavior in the workplace.

                                Feels good huh to be an agent of chaos huh ?

                                Your behavior around here is mostly like a pimple on the "nose" of progress. Besides, it's also inconsiderate and rude.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X