2021 Climate Change

[Dashmellow]

I still can't seem to find the video I came across earlier in the day but here are a couple of photos of EV excavators powered with external cables or hydraulics.



A Mini excavator.

It's the Catterpiller 300.9D VPS (Versatile Power System) which can work using its 13-horsepower Yanmar diesel engine, or electricity, when connected to its remote hydraulic power unit. Caterpillar says the new machine can be run with the power unit when a job requires low noise or zero emissions.

 

[kamkar]

Big brother.

The boss on a leash. ( a 17000 KW leash )

Bagger 293 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The problem here are not the machines, but more what they are used to dig out of the earth for us to burn.

 

[Dashmellow]

Also interesting:

Wacker Neuson is quietly building an entire line of electric loaders, excavators and more

The EV construction equipment industry is already much farther along than I previously thought.

 

[Dashmellow]

Big brother.

The boss on a leash. ( 17000 KW )

The problem here are not the machines, but more what they are used to dig out of the earth for us to burn.

Yikes!

 

[kamkar]

TBH i have always preferred gas forklifts over diesel ones, even if the gas ones are of course also the small ones.

 

[SawMaster]

There is zero chance that whatever changes we make about how humans live on this planet that we will no longer need heavy construction equipment unless we go back to living like primitives. Electric and alternative energy heavy trucking and construction vehicles will be a requirement.

No offense intended but with your logic it seems we would still be riding around in horse & buggies and riding on steam trains, Phil.

No need to get that extreme, but same as the approach to off-grid powering of homes the first step really needs to be reducing the usage of the resource. The less portable/mobile power you need the easier it is to supply it, and the fewer any associated problems will become on their own.

The US is awful about building something new in place of an old building which requires machines to demo and remove the old, machines to haul off the debris, machines to build the new... I'm sure you get the picture. Very wasteful of energy and resources when as usually can be done the old building simply refurbished instead, and it currently adds greenhouse gasses. This is just one of our bad habits regards energy use which is the core problem of greenhouse gasses.

If we halve the need for energy, we halve the emitted greenhouse gasses leaving less of a problem to deal with

It will absolutely need lifestyle changes but we needn't go back to horse-and-buggy to do it. We need only to identify where we're currently using energy and fuels wastefully when alternative methods are available and feasible then switch methods. One of our biggest problems here in the US is personal vehicles being used in places where mass-transportation is feasible, but neither our people or our infrastructure is ready for that amount of change. Most people here mostly just transport themselves and perhaps something small they carry to and from work, which certainly doesn't take a car to do for the entire trip but that's how it gets done It entirely possible to make a system where we can get folks to and from their jobs using mass-transit for most of the trip, but unless something is there to push that change people will just keep driving their cars all that distance.

EV's do not reduce the need to make cars, the need to build and upgrade roads, and the need to maintain those roads, the need to make and distribute large amounts iof consumable parts for those cars, but mass transit does. And that still leaves you with a car for the times when you really need it

Much the same for other things like adding infrastructure so more can be built in cities, when those cities can simply say "Sorry but we can't supply enough water (or power or whatever) for that kind of thing here. You should either use an existing site when it becomes available or put that project elsewhere". Once again entirely possible and feasible without losing much if anything at all in the end overall, but people won't do it

This kind of lifestyle change is what I speak of- the possible and feasible as of right now. Living more with the world around us instead of trying to change it to suit us better in things we may want but don't really need. Doing better with what we have instead of adding to it and creating a bigger problem in so doing. These are bigger examples but adding up smaller examples gives a big result too.

We do need to change how we live if we're going to expect human life to be viable in the long run on this planet. Switching away from fossil fuels alone will not take us to where we want to go- it's just a small part of the big picture but indeed an important part. Just don't expect much from it till we get the rest right too. Reduce the problem first and the necessary solutions reduce themselves automatically.

Phil

 

[Nigel]

Switching away from fossil fuels alone will not take us to where we want to go- it's just a small part of the big picture but indeed an important part. Just don't expect much from it till we get the rest right too. Reduce the problem first and the necessary solutions reduce themselves automatically.

As far as climate change is concerned, the fossil fuels are most of the problem, and the easiest part of the problem to sort. Fertilisers for agriculture are also a big problem, but with enough zero CO2 fuel you can make fertilizers which are net zero. There are other things that need to be sorted eventually, but they are less important, and if we stop burning fossil fuels quickly then we will have considerably longer to sort out the rest.

Of course reducing energy use is good, and with USA emitting more CO2 per person than anyone else by a long way, it should be relatively easy for you to do so, but it will take a long time, too long, and you have already made a fair amount of progress, more progress than most, so it is probably getting more difficult as the easy things are ticked off:

The EV construction equipment industry is already much farther along than I previously thought.

For some things, lithium batteries are the best power source, started with phones (essential items for construction workers), then powered hand tools (very few non-lithium drills in use today), then to small machinery like lawn mowers and strimmers (lithium power is definitely preferable for those), no reason why the diggers and dump trucks shouldn't follow.

Elon Musk said that “Getting a range of 500km is quite easy, and trivial to be frank; achieving a Tesla Semi electric truck with 800km range will be easy, and eventually Tesla will achieve 1,000km range for long-haul trucking". These trucks will have the same abilities as regular 40 metric tonne diesel trucks but the electric motors can supply much greater torque than their diesel counterparts.

Clearly they can be built, but that doesn't mean they are the best solution. Lithium batteries do have some issues, such as if you completely discharge them every day, as a long haul truck is likely to do, then they have a short lifespan, a small fraction of what you get from a Tesla car which typically stays in the mid part of its charge range nearly all the time. There are also the size and weight issues, they do not have a great energy density, and on an HGV space and weight matter, most roads have a maximum weight limit for trucks, any weight in the battery reduces the load you can carry and that seriously affects profits.

Same goes for rail transport, overhead power lines make good sense on heavily used lines where they will quickly repay the investment, but they don't make economic sense everywhere, and lithium batteries are quite likely not the cheapest alternative.

I am however interested in seeing how Maersk will go green, after all those big container ships, they need a lot of power to get from A to B

That is likely to be what develops the real alternatives to lithium, in shipping there is a huge amount of money to be made from a slightly cheaper alternative, they can afford to invest.

On page 9 there is a table of things they are looking into, from biofuel to nuclear:

https://www.nordicenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Session-2-Anne-Sophie-Vinther-Hansen.pdf

Ammonia fuel seems quite likely, it is very easy to store as a liquid and has a good energy density, and can be produced by wind turbines through electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen followed by combining the hydrogen with nitrogen from the air to give NH3, when burned the nitrogen returns to the air and the hydrogen combines with oxygen to give water, which is what you started with.

More work and trials need to be done on it, and there is not much time left to get it working and installed.

 

[Dashmellow]

No need to get that extreme, but same as the approach to off-grid powering of homes the first step really needs to be reducing the usage of the resource. The less portable/mobile power you need the easier it is to supply it, and the fewer any associated problems will become on their own.

The US is awful about building something new in place of an old building which requires machines to demo and remove the old, machines to haul off the debris, machines to build the new... I'm sure you get the picture. Very wasteful of energy and resources when as usually can be done the old building simply refurbished instead, and it currently adds greenhouse gasses. This is just one of our bad habits regards energy use which is the core problem of greenhouse gasses.

If we halve the need for energy, we halve the emitted greenhouse gasses leaving less of a problem to deal with

It will absolutely need lifestyle changes but we needn't go back to horse-and-buggy to do it. We need only to identify where we're currently using energy and fuels wastefully when alternative methods are available and feasible then switch methods. One of our biggest problems here in the US is personal vehicles being used in places where mass-transportation is feasible, but neither our people or our infrastructure is ready for that amount of change. Most people here mostly just transport themselves and perhaps something small they carry to and from work, which certainly doesn't take a car to do for the entire trip but that's how it gets done It entirely possible to make a system where we can get folks to and from their jobs using mass-transit for most of the trip, but unless something is there to push that change people will just keep driving their cars all that distance.

EV's do not reduce the need to make cars, the need to build and upgrade roads, and the need to maintain those roads, the need to make and distribute large amounts iof consumable parts for those cars, but mass transit does. And that still leaves you with a car for the times when you really need it

Much the same for other things like adding infrastructure so more can be built in cities, when those cities can simply say "Sorry but we can't supply enough water (or power or whatever) for that kind of thing here. You should either use an existing site when it becomes available or put that project elsewhere". Once again entirely possible and feasible without losing much if anything at all in the end overall, but people won't do it

This kind of lifestyle change is what I speak of- the possible and feasible as of right now. Living more with the world around us instead of trying to change it to suit us better in things we may want but don't really need. Doing better with what we have instead of adding to it and creating a bigger problem in so doing. These are bigger examples but adding up smaller examples gives a big result too.

We do need to change how we live if we're going to expect human life to be viable in the long run on this planet. Switching away from fossil fuels alone will not take us to where we want to go- it's just a small part of the big picture but indeed an important part. Just don't expect much from it till we get the rest right too. Reduce the problem first and the necessary solutions reduce themselves automatically.

Phil

While much of what you say here is valid the fact is that virtually none of it applies to the everyday real word of heavy construction equipment.

A perfect example is your comment:

One of our biggest problems here in the US is personal vehicles being used in places where mass-transportation is feasible, but neither our people or our infrastructure is ready for that amount of change. Most people here mostly just transport themselves and perhaps something small they carry to and from work, which certainly doesn't take a car to do for the entire trip but that's how it gets done It entirely possible to make a system where we can get folks to and from their jobs using mass-transit for most of the trip, but unless something is there to push that change people will just keep driving their cars all that distance.

What on earth does this have to do with heavy construction equipment where only a single individual is required (or able) to operate the machine to engage in a specific task? Obviously, the answer is that for all your verbosity the answer is nothing. You are kind of dancing around the issue here.

While what you say is true that we need to switch to alternate methods for energy and fuels, that is exactly what this new class of EV construction equipment is designed to do.

Earlier you focused your comments about EV construction equipment on you career as a carpenter in the construction industry but this is a rather narrow and insular perspective on the situation. The world of heavy construction equipment is far larger than that. Mining, earth moving and large scale construction projects like skyscrapers, bridges and highways are but a few examples that are far removed from the provincial world of the kind of localized construction projects you are apparently talking about. Human civilization is not about to abandon modern progress as you seem to suggest.

And heavy duty construction equipment happens to be in widespread use in many other fields than construction.

For example, as I've often mentioned I live in a small rural town in Vermont with a population of about 2,000 within an area of 40 square miles. We have approximately seventy-eight miles of roads; sixty miles of which are dirt/gravel roads, often in rough terrain. The Highway Department operates seven trucks and seven pieces of large equipment along with some smaller machines, traveling over 100,000 fleet miles a year. Every day of the year our road crew is out here operating huge dump trucks, pay-loaders, graders, backhoes, tractors and other equipment in the maintenance and repair of these roads. Just last night we had another snow storm and so today this equipment is out on the roads plowing, sanding and clearing the roads. Last night's storm was modest in the scheme of things but just two and a half weeks ago we got hit with nearly three feet of snow. The crew brought out the really big equipment for that one and the clean-up took several days, all in all.

Vermont has 255 municipalities. This includes 237 towns, nine cities, five unincorporated large towns and several gores. Every single one of these municipalities has a fleet of heavy construction equipment which they use for similar purposes and none of it is used for standard construction or excavation jobs. And this equipment is typically driven for many miles in the course of their work compared to when such equipment is delivered to a construction site on a flatbed truck. This is the same all across the nation for thousands upon thousands of towns and cities, small and large.

Each piece of diesel powered heavy construction equipment spews more pollutants and carbon emissions in a day than a typical gas powered automobile emits in more than a month!

There is no viable alternative transportation system in a vast rural area like Vermont other than using cars and trucks on paved or dirt/gravel roads. (we do have railroads but these are mostly used for interstate travel and commerce) There is no alternative to the need for large diesel powered heavy equipment!

If we are to address climate change and still continue to have a viable economy and working society we will need all vehicles to run on alternative power systems and electric power is the way forward, especially for heavy pollution and carbon sources like heavy equipment.

 

[Nigel]

Talking of construction, if you are at a new site and don't have an electrical power connection yet, no you don't need those big diesel generators to charge your electric excavators:

A hydrogen fuel cell will supply zero-carbon electricity and heat to the team building the world’s longest power interconnector in what’s claimed as a global first for the construction industry by contractor Siemens Energy.

The hydrogen system will deliver off-grid clean energy to construction operations at the UK onshore end of the 765km, 1.4GW Viking Link interconnector with Denmark, removing the need for temporary diesel generators during work to build a converter station for the giant subsea line.

http://viking-link.com/news/constru...ational-grid-s-viking-link-construction-site/

Despite all the challenges that 2020 has brought, a staggering 50GW of green-hydrogen electrolysis projects were announced last year, out of a current global total of 80GW, as more and more countries announce ambitious clean-hydrogen strategies to help them
decarbonise transport, heating and heavy industry.

What’s the future for green ammonia?

• Energy storage – ammonia is easily stored in bulk as a liquid at modest pressures (10-15 bar) or refrigerated to -33°C. This makes it an ideal chemical store for renewable energy. There is an existing distribution network, in which ammonia is stored in large refrigerated tanks and transported around the world by pipes, road tankers and ships.

• Zero-carbon fuel – ammonia can be burnt in an engine or used in a fuel cell to produce electricity. When used, ammonia’s only by-products are water and nitrogen. The maritime industry is likely to be an early adopter, replacing the use of fuel oil in marine engines.

• Hydrogen carrier – there are applications where hydrogen gas is used (e.g. in PEM fuel cells), however hydrogen is difficult and expensive to store in bulk (needing cryogenic tanks or high-pressure cylinders). Ammonia is easier and cheaper to store, and transport and it can be readily “cracked” and purified to give hydrogen gas when required.

Green ammonia | Royal Society

The production of green ammonia could offer options in the transition to net-zero carbon dioxide emissions.

royalsociety.org

 

[SawMaster]

With all due respect Dashmellow, I know far more than you regards construction equipment and it's usage than you likely ever will. I personally know many equipment operators, I've worked right next to them and in conjunction with them building huge chemical plants and factories of various sorts, skyscrapers, hospitals, hotels, churches, schools and so much more. I know what actually happens in the field and how things are done there, even if my more recent career has been involved in other aspects of the business. On top of that I have also operated some of that equipment myself. Your hands-on knowledge here is far less than mine

I can say with absolute certainty that for a lot of this equipment and a lot of places where it's used, the idea of operating it with an electrical cable attached would get you laughed at by those whose living involves using that equipment. And with more jobs than ever running 24-hour schedules there's no time available for charging, nor would a company want to raise it;'s expenses by adding enough equipment to it's fleet so that there would always be a fully-charged machine ready to use. And nobody is going to swap out a battery in a mud-pit which describes many jobsites.

It's sometimes feasible and sometimes not. Same as eliminating the use of fossil fuels it's only a partial answer. What is needed is a fuel which is as easily dealt with in the field as what is being used for fuel now, and that does not yet exist. Gaseous fuels require transport trucks with pressurized tanks which simply cannot get to some of this equipment, and extreme care must be used to avoid leakage (spillage) in fueling. No big deal if you spill a little diesel pouring from a can as it's hard to ignite, but one spark near a leaking gas-fuel connection and you've got a very dangerous situation indeed. Easy to carry fuel cans walking through mud where no truck can navigate. On smaller machines and in cleaner more solid environments it can be great- just not always. And it's often inefficient and costly of time to move the equipment to a place where it can be fueled; time is BIG money in the business of operating construction equipment.

It's money which is going to make the decisions here and whatever the alternatives are they will have to be close to today's costs or they will not be used. Money runs economies and governments and businesses, and while they may all want to avoid climate change in the upcoming decades they have to focus on doing business today or there will not be a business for them later on.

Phil

 

[Nigel]

What is needed is a fuel which is as easily dealt with in the field as what is being used for fuel now, and that does not yet exist.

Yes, operating with a cord attached is only going to work for the biggest machinery that is not very mobile.

Assuming there are some breaks in the 24 hour schedule for shift changes or meals then most EVs seem to be able to take an 80% charge in about half an hour, and if your battery is 20% over the required capacity then that amounts to a full charge in 30 minutes. I reckon recharging your mobile equipment in place via cable is normally going to be easier and cheaper than carrying cans of liquid fuel, you don't need a link to the electricity grid, you only need a cable to a conveniently sited distribution/generator unit, and that can be powered by fuel cells, really no different to towing a fuel bowser to site and using that to refill the plant via fuel pipe, except that it will be able to refill multiple units simultaneously and electric cables are normally easier to use than liquid fuel pipes. If you can get a link to the grid then your fuel will be a lot cheaper.

For smaller equipment, I know for certain that the lithium powered strimmer I used recently was much quicker to change the battery than to refill the tank of a 2 stroke equivalent with fuel and oil. The battery didn't last quite as long, but it was a much nicer device to use, very easy to start, and battery changes were very quick and easy, no messing with funnels and mixing bottles.
https://www.stihl.com/STIHL-power-t...022/All-cordless-power-tools-in-overview.aspx

 

[jokiin]

I can say with absolute certainty that for a lot of this equipment and a lot of places where it's used, the idea of operating it with an electrical cable attached would get you laughed at by those whose living involves using that equipment. And with more jobs than ever running 24-hour schedules there's no time available for charging, nor would a company want to raise it;'s expenses by adding enough equipment to it's fleet so that there would always be a fully-charged machine ready to use. And nobody is going to swap out a battery in a mud-pit which describes many jobsites.


Phil

possibly much the same as electric cars, there's some people that they work for without issue as their usage needs are easily covered by the range/recharge time etc, for others it might be practical as a second vehicle, and for some it's just not feasible at all

 

[Dashmellow]

With all due respect Dashmellow, I know far more than you regards construction equipment and it's usage than you likely ever will. I personally know many equipment operators, I've worked right next to them and in conjunction with them building huge chemical plants and factories of various sorts, skyscrapers, hospitals, hotels, churches, schools and so much more. I know what actually happens in the field and how things are done there, even if my more recent career has been involved in other aspects of the business. On top of that I have also operated some of that equipment myself. Your hands-on knowledge here is far less than mine

I can say with absolute certainty that for a lot of this equipment and a lot of places where it's used, the idea of operating it with an electrical cable attached would get you laughed at by those whose living involves using that equipment. And with more jobs than ever running 24-hour schedules there's no time available for charging, nor would a company want to raise it;'s expenses by adding enough equipment to it's fleet so that there would always be a fully-charged machine ready to use. And nobody is going to swap out a battery in a mud-pit which describes many jobsites.

It's sometimes feasible and sometimes not. Same as eliminating the use of fossil fuels it's only a partial answer. What is needed is a fuel which is as easily dealt with in the field as what is being used for fuel now, and that does not yet exist. Gaseous fuels require transport trucks with pressurized tanks which simply cannot get to some of this equipment, and extreme care must be used to avoid leakage (spillage) in fueling. No big deal if you spill a little diesel pouring from a can as it's hard to ignite, but one spark near a leaking gas-fuel connection and you've got a very dangerous situation indeed. Easy to carry fuel cans walking through mud where no truck can navigate. On smaller machines and in cleaner more solid environments it can be great- just not always. And it's often inefficient and costly of time to move the equipment to a place where it can be fueled; time is BIG money in the business of operating construction equipment.

It's money which is going to make the decisions here and whatever the alternatives are they will have to be close to today's costs or they will not be used. Money runs economies and governments and businesses, and while they may all want to avoid climate change in the upcoming decades they have to focus on doing business today or there will not be a business for them later on.

Phil

I agree with much of what you have to say here but as you might expect I have a few comments in response, and to @Nigel too. Unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment to do that.

In the meantime, check this out! It kind of goes along with what I've been trying to say here. Despite the nay-saying, there must be a reason these major corporations are investing in heavy duty large scale lithium battery powered industrial vehicles. This locomotive runs on giant lithium-ion battery packs.

This pilot project already exists and has been undergoing testing.

 

[jokiin]

Despite the nay-saying, there must be a reason these major corporations are investing in heavy duty large scale lithium battery powered industrial vehicles.

I think we're still a long while off from being able to use electric everywhere but no doubt there are situations where it can be implemented sooner rather than later and that's likely a good thing, I know last time I was in Shenzhen they had banned ICE commercial vehicles from the CBD and had replaced 16,000 diesel buses with electric buses, the difference is pollution (both air and noise) was remarkable

 

[Nigel]

In the meantime, check this out! It kind of goes along with what I've been trying to say here. Despite the nay-saying, there must be a reason these major corporations are investing in heavy duty large scale lithium battery powered industrial vehicles. This locomotive runs on giant lithium-ion battery packs.

Hybrid vehicles were last decade, they are not acceptable this decade, a 10-15% saving is not compatible with the UN Climate Change agenda. Whoever decided to build that has not been listening!

Now if it was partnered by a fuel cell locomotive running on Hydrogen or Ammonia instead of the diesel then it would have a use in the energy recovery role, although the battery capacity seems excessive for regenerative braking and could probably be built into the fuel cell locomotive itself more effectively.

 

[Nigel]

and had replaced 16,000 diesel buses with electric buses, the difference is pollution (both air and noise) was remarkable

Wish they would do that here, the diesel noise in the city is most unpleasant, we seem to have particularly noisy diesel busses, or maybe they are just poorly noise insulated, certainly wouldn't pass the car noise emissions standards.

I think we're still a long while off from being able to use electric everywhere

We don't really need everywhere, just doing the cities and major transport links will give a high percentage of reductions, a small amount of CO2 emissions is not a problem, nature will remove a small amount for us.

 

[jokiin]

Wish they would do that here, the diesel noise in the city is most unpleasant, we seem to have particularly noisy diesel busses, or maybe they are just poorly noise insulated, certainly wouldn't pass the car noise emissions standards.


We don't really need everywhere, just doing the cities and major transport links will give a high percentage of reductions, a small amount of CO2 emissions is not a problem, nature will remove a small amount for us.

the difference electric buses have made is massive, no going back, I'm sure it doesn't represent a lot of the actual number of vehicles on the road but it has made a big impact on the end result

 

[SawMaster]

Proterra is a local company here, and they're doing OK with these busses Not a huge name yet; they chose controlled company growth rather than taking a chance on overextending themselves and possibly losing everything. Haven't ridden one yet but they're in use here on some longer routes.

Phil

 

[kamkar]

I am not getting why they would make a battery train, though i am well aware putting up wires over the tracks are not free, and also have its challenges.

The light rail in my birth town, well the people ordering / building it apparently forgot there is something called winter in Denmark, so come the first frost the trains was not able to run due to frost on the power wires.
That have been fixed now by buying the winter package's for the trains as that work well in more northerly Scandinavian countries, places have actual winter VS what we get here nowadays.

But it is a good example of the prevailing incompetence we struggle with here, cuz that level of stupid is not the first time it happened.

We are also getting electric busses here, well at least in the 2 biggest towns here, and battery ones which i kind of like VS what you see in Russian dashcam videos with buses riding a power wire above.
Though, some places it might be a good idea ti put a wire up so when the bus drive there it can charge meanwhile, not least on the inter city bus lines.

 

[Nigel]

I am not getting why they would make a battery train, though i am well aware putting up wires over the tracks are not free, and also have its challenges.

From my local station, there is a big railway that goes to London with trains probably every 6 minutes, and that should obviously have wires but actually only the last 100Km into London has wires and the current trains switch from electric to diesel-electric when they leave the wired section. The rest doesn't have wires because nobody has invested in them yet, it is a big investment for 460Km of railway. We also have a railway that runs 100Km north, has one train every half hour, normally with just 2 coaches, installing wires on that is never going to be a good investment, a diesel engine is much cheaper, and in future a fuel cell engine. It is probably too far for batteries to make sense, and it never stops long enough for a full charge, but it depends on costs, electricity is probably going to be cheaper than fuel cell fuel but battery replacement cost may mean that using electricity to make hydrogen at the train depot makes sense once electrolysers become cheap. We have a third railway that runs about 20Km, very flat, with trains every 20 minutes, again 2 coaches. That could easily use batteries with current battery technology, overhead wires would still be expensive to install for the small amount of traffic but with the shorter distance is more feasible.