The report on the Callide C4 damage (nearly three years ago now) has been released.
CS Energy releases technical report into 2021 Unit C4 incident - CS Energy
Regards
Paul
Printable View
The report on the Callide C4 damage (nearly three years ago now) has been released.
CS Energy releases technical report into 2021 Unit C4 incident - CS Energy
Regards
Paul
I must admit that I do like the sound of a sporty petrol engine, but it wouldn't stop me buying an EV. Apparently I'm not alone in that "like", because I saw an ad for an EV yesterday on the TV, and I'm sure I heard an engine sound when the "sporty" version was on the screen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
There are additional issues that worry people, me included. Firstly, and this also applies to some modern ICE cars, what is the longevity of these machines? It costs a lot to buy one, but at what point does it become worthless, or at least start to require big $ spends to keep it on the road? This, of course, also applies to anything else where single components like computers cost more than the vehicle is worth. I know the theory that third party companies will make replacements, but I also know that this doesn't always happen - a friend had to write off a John Deere tractor after a small engine bay fire (itself due to poor design of fuel lines) because the electronics got toasted and they cost more than was economical to repair. I've also seen the lengths that some companies go to in order to prevent third party products being used. Then, of course, there's the problem that it requires enough market volume to warrant a third party even bothering! I have read that in the US, an EV drops 60% of its value in the first three years. Unfortunately it's hard to compare that to anything else, given that we're only just recovering from the post-covid shortages where 3-year-old cars cost more than new ones, because you couldn't actually buy a new car!
Depending on the individual, another big issue is design. There are some very attractive EV's out there, but also some seriously unattractive ones!
I think the amount of tech can also be off-putting, though that also applies to some modern ICE cars. I picked my (ICE) car up from a service yesterday, and they'd upgraded the firmware. I no longer had a speedo on the dashboard, only on the HUD (which after a year I still haven't really got accustomed to using), and various other "features" were set differently from how I left them. When added to the raft of features disabled for the Australian market (but still in the manual, so you get excited and then find you can't use them) or designed for other markets where the rules, roads and driving styles are very different from Australia, there's a certain desire to return to a car that has simple buttons and does what you tell it, rather than you having to fight the steering wheel to avoid an enormous pot-hole because the car is trying to "lane assist"......
On the other hand, I do like the EV mode on my wife's hybrid - you can sneak up on people in carparks!
Due to thermodynamics H as a transport fuel is unlikely to be much more efficient than it is today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
OTOH Batteries as a technology are likely to have some way to go.
Existing batteries are already used in delivery vans, light trucks, mining machinery and even trains.
The one thing that existing batteries still cannot do easily is compete with long distance haulage trucks although the Tesla Semi is already producing some surprising long range performances. The weak link with long range electric road haulage is the need for specialised very high wattage (ie 750kW) re-charging systems but these are on par with the cost and amount of tech required for H transport but once built won't need to continually require fuel delivered to them.
Interesting article heR bout how Pepsi in the US is using electric Trucks to haul up to 22.5 tons of product
Pepsi Reveals Everything About The Tesla Semi Trucks | NextBigFuture.com
In the same article there's also a list of other large electric trucks undergoing testing.
That was fascinating to watch; clearly explaining the cascading failure events. What I don’t understand though is why the DC interconnector wasn’t immediately re-closed to restore DC power from Station battery to C4; that would have allowed the emergency generator supply interconnector breakers to close restoring critical AC power to the C4 auxilliaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
The animation showed the DC interconnector being a big-arsed hand operated switch; do you think that is an accurate representation? Certainly if I opened a hand switch and the lights went out I’d be somewhat tempted to close it again rather sharpish…. with it being DC I wouldn’t have to worry about phase alignment…
A friend has quoted 100l/100kms. Same ball park.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
One "solution" might be that B-doubles become B-two and a half's, towing a smallish battery trailer, which they drop off every 500 kms and replace with a fully charged one.
But how do you recharge a B-battery trailer out the back of woop-woop, with a diesel generator?
And I don't think hydrogen is sufficiently compact or safe for long distance haulage. Doesn't liquefy like LPG, doesn't dissolve like acetylene, not compact like diesel.
But we might seem an entirely different solution. Long distance haulage might revert to ships and trains which are cost effective when they do not have to compete with heavily subsidised semis.
GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
The transport issue might not be as dire as you imagine. We used to get our H2 delivered from Brisbane (200Km). Now it comes from Orange (not the fruit :rolleyes: ) which is about 800Km. In the future I could envisage H2 plants cropping up all over the place.
Transportation may becomes less of an issue than moving petrol and diesel around all over the country. Large Depots could conceivably have their own H2 making plants. You only require electricity and water for the raw materials. A lot easier in some regards than an oil refinery.
Regards
Paul
ChiefQuote:
Originally Posted by Chief Tiff
I only viewed the link after I had posted. I don't think it is the final appraisal of the sequence of events. There is still a further investigation to occur and, of course, the animation is a little sanitised and probably doesn't convey the sheer terror of the moment. However, I agree with you that it was a pretty good explanation and there were at least two levels of emergency back up that failed them. The first being the C4 battery itself (wasn't connected yet, which was very unfortunate but they could not have two batteries in parallel) and the second being the Emergency Diesel Generator that ran but couldn't be connected to the unit. Both these are usually designed to keep essential auxiliaries running during times of crisis.
As to reversing the throw of that isolator connecting the standby DC charger from C4, I would need to know more about what indication there might have been in the switch room. Were the people doing the switching aware that everything had gone pear shaped? The people switching should have been in communication with the control room, the control screens went blank and for some while they would not have known where they were except the alarm screen was still working and it had just gone ballistic. Perhaps the people switching were waiting for the DC charger to "pick up" the load and were unaware that it was incapable of doing this.
I am not sure how or when the reality dawned on them as to what what had happened. The alarms would have alerted them to being in deep excrement. It would have been truly frightening. If we lose even a single screen here, we freak out: The loss of all screens except the alarm screen would have been a nightmare. Clearly they realised they had lost control of the unit except it hadn't tripped, which was the fundamental problem, as they initiated a site evacuation and I think the other units were all tripped manually. This enabled everybody to exit except for a skeleton crew of operators to supervise the safe shutdown of the remaining units and another couple to ponder the C4 dilemma. I am guessing the numbers there from what we would do.
The surprising thing is that this was the third battery charger to be upgraded and returned to service. They had already replaced two chargers and this situation did not arise before. Something must have been done differently. For example, was the time between running the two chargers in parallel (station and C4) and opening off the station charger isolator longer? Did that allow the C4 charger voltage to decay too low and consequently fail when it was required to pick up the charging regime? Was anybody aware that could potentially happen.
I guess there is still more to come out of the investigations. There is also a question, and this was not raised in the animation at all, as to whether Powerlink was asked to disconnect their circuit breaker in the switchyard. That may have prevented the generator motoring at 50MW for some of the time. Clearly there would have been extensive damage still with the bearings wiped and significant rubbing and other heat related distortion, but not as bad as eventuated.
My impression is that this system was a so-called UPS (uninterruptible power supply), but I have seen in the past at other places that it is far from uninterruptible. So still some questions, but a very informative video.
Regards
Paul
It probably varies with route and driving style, and they drink more at higher speeds - I've seen figures as poor as 160l/100km quoted. The guy I was talking to has several trucks and we were discussing a brand new one he's just got specifically for long distance hauling of (if I remember correctly) bitumen. The conversation also included the fact that the new truck had a tare weight of 3tonne or so less than his Western Star, which means he can carry 3T more load, which makes $x more per trip and pays the loan off y months earlier. I don't remember the details, but he'd gone through it quite thoroughly!Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
I've always thought that a return to trains for long distance work would be the best solution, but there's so much money tied up in the haulage industry that it's another issue where there would be a lot of resistance to change on that scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Re Callide C4
From an outsider with no knowledge of the industry one thing struck me immediately as I watched the animation. It stated the ACS (which I assume is a last ditch type of failsafe mechanism) had been damaged in a previous incident and was inoperable. Then nothing further was mentioned about this switch. If this damage to the ACS was known, why it had not been repaired or replaced prior to the maintenance on C4 DC system being completed. Am I correct in thinking that had this ACS operated at the time the destruction of the generator may have been averted?
Your thoughts from those more knowledgeable?
Twosheds
Humm . . . . if electrical power is being generated to make H, why not put it straight into a swappable battery?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
People make out that making H is a doddle and this is indeed the case making small amounts on a lab bench. Making it to scale is a different proposition, the large H plant in Melb can only make enough H for 6 regular cars, or about one truck a day. To scale that up to say 6000 cars a day requires a very large plant
Check out this large battery swapping operation for Sandvik underground mining equipment
https://youtu.be/GAJpXij-PEs?si=1Su31DshUXpe5lmP
Technology enabling electrification journey
Here's a 620kWh swappable battery, semi development in Sydney - 90 ton haulage.
This is already being used for local/regional deliveries
https://youtu.be/9eYLtPSf7PY?si=5zGFKVrG6R0IE_i7
I thought it was answered in the video.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
they didn't want do disconnect from the grid and cause an overspeed event from all the left over steam? I also wonder if in that last few minutes no one really knew what the machine was doing and so making the call to disconnect from the grid. As you could imagine 5 minutes of that big orange thing clanging and grinding away would be scary as hell in the PCR
HABQuote:
Originally Posted by havabeer69
I think they did answer. I was watching the link at work as one of our managers sent us the link for information. It has some extra significance for us at Millmerran as our holding company is the IG (Intergen) mentioned in the JV (Joint Venture). It is a financial involvement as CS Energy operate the plant on behalf of IG. I do have to be mindful that some information is sensitive and consequently I am only divulging details you can find on the net and within those links. Also my role at Millmerran has no involvement with Callide. While I was watching I got called away to attend an ash crusher blockage on the other unit (not mine) and missed that part as a result. I may also have interpreted, not necessarily correctly, some other information I had.
At this point I should reiterate that it would have been the most horrendous situation I can imagine and my heart goes out to the operators who remained to deal with the catastrophe during those 34minutes. Also, I would remind everybody that hindsight is a wonderful thing. There are no doubt things that could have been done differently. Who has seen "Sully?" The movie about landing a plane on the Hudson river.
Just before I continue, there are another couple of articles available. This is a press conference held on 13 Feb 2024:
CS Energy press conference - C4 tech findings - 13 Feb 2024.m4a (dropbox.com)
and this is a more detailed report, on which the animated video is based. The timeline is quite interesting.
CSE C4 TURBINE REPORT FINAL.pdf
HAB has touched on the ever-present bad dream of all operators, which is a turbine overspeed. Although a physically large lump of machinery, a turbo generator spins very easily and not much energy, in the form of steam, is required to get it moving. The usual technique of disconnecting a machine from the grid is to reduce load until the machine is making either no load or very little load (a small amount is being consumed by the unit's own auxiliaries) and an alarm is created "Generator Motoring." At that point it will either trip automatically or it can be tripped manually. Before that happens it is important that the steam valves shut. There may be two pairs of stop and control valves or four pairs of valves. If the generator continues to make power and the "Motoring" alarm doesn't initiate it means one or more valves are leaking steam. Under those conditions you must not disconnect from the grid via the GCB (Generator Circuit Breaker). If you do, the turbine is no longer physically held by the grid at 3000rpm and it will overspeed.
In the case of C4, loss of AC and hydraulic power would cause the stop and control v/vs to slam shut. Back in the control room they couldn't be sure if the v/vs had shut because they had lost all indication with the screens being down. This was referred to in the press conference as being "black." Consequently they were hesitant in asking Power Link to disconnect them from the switchyard.
Even if they could ascertain it was safe to disconnect from the grid, they had lost all remote control and would have had to go to the GCB locally and tripped it manually. That would have been really scary and very, very inadvisable.
The incident would not have occurred if when the Battery Chargers were separated, the voltage on C4 was higher than the station charger. I guess that when the two previous chargers were replaced (C3 and the Station) the relevant battery had the higher voltage and the incident slipped by. In this incident "all the holes in the cheese lined up."
Regards
Paul
yeah to help clear up millers post
putting the generator onto the "grid" acts like a huge big electric handbrake on the generator/turbine so if you need to make more mega watts, you need to over come the big electric force so the answer is more steam pressure.
the problem is, if you suddenly take the grid handbrake away BUT all that steam pressure is still available for use (stop and throttle valves not closed) it will just full send the turbine, there's no brake or anything you can apply either. 90tons of steel with blades already spinning at speeds like mach2 is just free to launch its self. It's actually quite a real danger and there are other mechanical safety devices in place to top this happening.
Makes a lot of sense, Bob. Possibly, they could also be connected to the grid during peak demand periods.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
PS: Swappable batteries are a better idea than my battery trailer. Just like swapping BBQ bottles, only faster.
HABQuote:
Originally Posted by havabeer69
Thanks. I like your analogy and in fact I often use automotive analogies to describe what is happening in both the boiler and the turbine.
Absolutely, but if the DCS control has been removed maybe not. At Bayswater there were both mechanical and electrical overspeed trips, but at Callide, with both electrical and mechanical systems out of service the operators had an unenviable dilemma. The steam valves were shut as it happens, but they could not really tell for sure.
I hope to retire before I ever find myself in that position.
Regards
Paul
PS: I am not sure the blades reach twice the speed of sound or else we would have a continuous sonic boom occurring, but the tip speed is awfully bloody fast and possibly just under the speed of sound. It is why the 660MW units at Vales Point and Bayswater have two LP cylinders. Otherwise, the blades with just a single cylinder would have to be too long, be rotating too fast and be exerting significantly increased centrifugal forces. As it is when turbines overspeed their longest blades (LP cylinder) may let go. The 60Hz units as seen in the US tend to be longer (in the case of the generator) and slimmer as they run at what would be above (3600rpm) the overspeed trip point of the Australian units.
You may have heard that there were some significant events in Vic. On the 14th Feb. Apart from a pretty serious fire, a storm hit much of the state. Some of the casualties included 5 or 6 hv transmission towers near Geelong. When they went down, 2 500kv lines to the Latrobe Valley tripped, followed by all 4 units at loy yang A. As a result, power prices peaked at $16k/Mhw. And stayed there for about 4 hours...
My Amber tarrif is attached.. Attachment 535518
As I was watching I was able to switch from charging battery to exporting and managed to earn a few dollars as well as supporting the grid.:U
What I don't understand is why only loy yang a tripped. I believe aemo did a fair bit of load shedding. ( as did the storm itself, with up to 500k households off grid, including 20k or so still off.)
I've heard that for those who must have engine noise there are things available to provide that. I just hope that they are only audible within the vehicle itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
EVs are far simpler than ICEVs and there is not much servicing required. Who knows whether or not they will last longer, but I'm sure that they could be made to last longer. However, it is important to remember that we are in a huge state of transition that has only recently begun, and as that progresses the current EVs for sale are going to be replaced by more mature versions. Hence why at the moment the value plummets in the first 3 years – I believe that should be expected, particularly as new battery tech emerges, because everyone wants the latest battery tech. Tesla are apparently offering (for vehicles purchased in 2023) to swap out the batteries for their new-tech "game changing" batteries that they claim will be available in 2024.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
It occurred to me quite some time ago that people who are hard of hearing are going to have the bejesus frightened out of them by close range EVs that "suddenly" appear behind them, particularly at <30kmh when there is hardly any road noise. All pedestrians are going to have to be far more vigilant. Depending upon pedestrians' reactions to EVs as they become more prevalent, it wouldn't surprise me to see a compulsory low speed noise emission somehow incorporated – perhaps when the car knows it is in a <=50 kph zone, and if it detects that there are mammals around. Think of undercover carparks – ICEVs are easy to hear at 5 kph or indeed motionless idling, but an EV is damn near impossible even at 20 kph (apart from possible tyre squeal on smooth concrete).Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
Sporty Hyundai 5N EV pipes simulated engine sounds into the cabin, but also does 0-100 in 3.8 seconds :oo:
There is no compulsory reuqirement for low speed pedestrian warning sound in Australia YET, but I've heard that this may be coming. My BYD Atto 3 already emits a droning sound through external speaker at low speed, which at least wakes up the people ambling along in front of it gawking at their mobile phone....
Checkout the first few minutes of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L10GF-vBwqs
It even has simulated paddle gear changes...even though the car itself has no gearbox, just a reduction gear.
Some EVs have external speakers and a variety of user selectable modes/sounds dependent on speed and directions. From a V12, high speed turbine, farts, or a for reversing, a forklift type Beep, Beep, Beep. On Tesla's lower end models, external sounds were only available as an add on accessory "Boom Box" but last time I looked on were no longer available although I believe the wiring is still in there for an external speaker. As far as I know it's also no longer in the software but would be a doddle for it to be reinstated with a software update.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
To be more specific, it's the drive train that is simpler in that it has fewer parts, and far fewer parts that need servicing. in terms of electronics and software EVs are considered more complicated.Quote:
EVs are far simpler than ICEVs and there is not much servicing required. Who knows whether or not they will last longer, but I'm sure that they could be made to last longer. However, it is important to remember that we are in a huge state of transition that has only recently begun, and as that progresses the current EVs for sale are going to be replaced by more mature versions. Hence why at the moment the value plummets in the first 3 years – I believe that should be expected, particularly as new battery tech emerges, because everyone wants the latest battery tech. Tesla are apparently offering (for vehicles purchased in 2023) to swap out the batteries for their new-tech "game changing" batteries that they claim will be available in 2024.
From a previous post
Quote:
A German Taxi driver has driven a 2014 Tesla model S for more 1.6 million km [EDIT by now its almost 2 million].
During this time he has had the battery replaced twice. Once at 290,000 km under warranty, and once at about 1,000,000 km
He had the single electric drive motor replaced 3 times by 680,000 km when known motor faults were being worked on, and a fourth one at 1,000,000.
Replacing a EVs motor is also quite a bit easier than most ICE motors
Multi motor units put less load on each motor so should fare even better.
The lack of noise issue makes me pay much more attention than I would driving an ICE car.
At home I almost always back my car into my drive/carport so that I exit my driveway forwards so I can see if any pedestrians are walking on the footpath. I also a tend to reverse into parking spaces as my Tesla's has 3 rear facing cameras (it has a total of 8 camera) provide an excellent 270º view of the rear (even at night) and are auto shown on the drivers screen when reverse is engaged. There are 3 fwd facing cameras but they are located almost in the same plane as the driver and are not automatically shown on the drivers screen when moving fwd. What is really needed is a camera right at the front of the vehicle such as the Cybertruck has. This would also show a driver what is below the drivers line of vision over the bonnet when moving at say <20km/h. Most newer including mine use ultra sonic sensors for this short range stuff but I don't think that's as useful as a camera.
Perhaps they could attach a microphone to this: "HEY! EYES UP!". :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr Brush
It might be more appropriate to have a the sound of a Wankel Rotary engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
Yes, I should have specified that I meant the drivetrain.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
The current Mazda 3 (in at least the Astina model) gives bird's eye view of the whole car and surroundings when required – it's excellent for parking and reversing. It looks like there is a camera 5m above the car. It can be called up at will but there is probably a maximum speed to allow this.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
Agreed re front camera view. Actually, both cameras and ultrasonic sensors are required (for when the driver is not watching the screen).
I won't be really happy until I can have this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NgSZ8sjDgU
It would be fairly easy to implement on a phone app, playing on internal car speakers via Android Auto. Leave windows slightly open so the outside world can benefit? The app could vary the tone of the sound according to speed using GPS vehicle speed data from the phone.
Even better......WHERE'S MY PERSONAL JETPACK ????
The lack of audible sound, apart from road tyre noise, from a BEV or Fuel cell vehicle was an emerging issue when I left NSW government employment 9 years ago and BEVs were as common as hen's teeth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Brush
Now that BEV's represent a significant and growing number of registered vehicles, the issue is becoming critical -- especially for those who are visually impaired.
Personally I support the requirement that all BEVs and fuel cell vehicles emit an auditory warning at all speeds.
So do I - which is why I left the low speed sound generator on my BYD enabled. Ironically, in a recent OTA software update, BYD made it possible for users to turn the pedestrian warning sound OFF........presumably because it isn't yet compulsory. Even before that, some BYD owners were unplugging the speaker to kill the warning sound. Self-entitlement is alive and well in the EV community it seems, with no consideration for others at all.
The Rav4 has a similar system, it's very useful but also relates to what I was saying about the life of these modern vehicles (EV or ICE). The front camera on the Rav4 is very exposed to stone chips, birdstrike etc. My wife collected a stone on hers, and Toyota quoted nearly $1500 to replace it. Whilst it might be possible to find/bodge an aftermarket replacement, that would be beyond the skills of many, assuming that Toyota haven't hard-coded a recognition code into it to make sure only genuine parts are used. It doesn't take too many specialised parts failures to render a modern car uneconomical to keep on the road, or to reduce its resale value dramatically.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
You get 5 or so years of warranty, which doesn't cover "damage" (i.e. a busted camera!), and after that you're on your own. Those computers, sensors, touchscreen control systems etc. don't come cheap! How long will they last when left in the Australian sun?
On a related note, I was talking to a mechanic the other day (a "factory" trained and employed guy). We were discussing the touchscreen controls in modern vehicles. Apparently they have/had an issue where the control systems would shut down when they got too hot, much like an iPhone that has been left in the sun. This caused dramas in QLD because people had their sunroof open, overheated the controls, and were then faced with a sudden rainstorm - with the control system locked due to being overly hot, and therefore unable to close the sunroof.......
Sounds like a very efficient cooling system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
Warb,Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
I'm pretty sure that the Sydney-Melbourne rail line doesn't have the capacity to handle the volume of freight this would entail. I do know that the current [Sydney-Melbourne] rail connection struggles with achieving a 20% mode share -- and that mode share was based on pre-2005 freight volumes. Given that, prior to Covid, the volume of interstate freight was growing at about 1.05 x GDP, the daily interstate road volumes are [in 2024] probably sitting at around 150 to 200,000 tonnes per day. Placing all that freight on rail, plus that is already carried by rail, would equate to about 210,000 tonnes per day.
Note that back in about 2005 interstate [SYD-MLB] road volumes were sitting at about 110,000 tonnes per average weekday, with Thursday nights being the largest volume day.
At an average of 25 tonnes per rail waggon -- freight being mostly volume, not mass, limited -- 210,000 tonnes would require around 8,400 rail cars. The rail passing loops between Sydney and Melbourne are designed for 1500 m long trains -- equivalent to about 70 rail waggons. So you would be looking at around 120 trains per day, concentrated into about 12 [night] hours or around one train every 6 minutes or so. A 1500m long train every 6 minutes is approximately 8x the number of trains that CP rail moves on the single track through Canmore each day.
So at a minimum, the rail line between Sydney and Melbourne would need:
probably 4 tracks between the cities, including straightening the curves between Douglas Park and Junee ;
relief tracks on every grade steeper than about 1.8% -- much of the line between Sydney and Junee has a grade steeper than 1.8%;
re-signalling -- to cater for the more frequent trains;
full electrification
All up the Sydney-Melbourne cost would likely be in excess of AUD $100 Billion -- not counting the costs of the rail-road interchange at either end of the route. And you don't really get the outcome you require (almost all freight on rail) till almost all the budget has been spent and the intermodal terminals in both Sydney and Melbourne constructed.
.
.
Sydney - Brisbane, via the coast, would probably cost four times as much -- say AUD $400 billion or more -- because of the massive amount of reconstruction, tunnelling and line straightening required along much of the route.
.
.
To provide you with a sense of the scale of the infrastructure required each end, below is a picture of the Folkestone road-rail terminal which handles about the same amount of freight that travels the Sydney-Melbourne route. Except that the Folkestone platforms are about half the length of what would be required at the Sydney end of a Syd-Mlb rail link
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/AG6Y7N/aer...one-AG6Y7N.jpg
Whilst I have no doubt that everything you have said is correct, have you calculated how much it would cost to replace all the trucks that currently carry that freight with (for example) Tesla semis? The US price is suggested to be US$180,000 each, which if it follows the usual pattern will be doubled by the time it gets to Australia, and I seem to recall they have less load capacity than a standard semi (but I could be wrong) meaning you'd need more than a 1:1 replacement ratio. Then we have to have charging stations, plus the required infrastructure to actually power those charging stations, road maintenance/improvements etc..Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
The problem is that the more money we plough in to one solution, in this case electric trucks, the harder it is to justify a change to another system further down the line (no pun intended!). I've commented previously on the lack of overall planning of the conversion away from fossil fuels, and this seems to be a case in point.
firstly, US spec semis are significantly lighter (around 37 tonnes) than those used in Australia (45.5 tonnes for a 6 axle semi operating on an inter-capital route, and 68 tonnes for a 9 axle B-Double operating on the same routes). The much higher mass allowances in Australia will have a very significant impact on the Tesla semi's "quoted" 500 mile range -- probably requiring as many as 3 battery recharge locations between Sydney and Melbourne, and 4 or 5 between Sydney and Brisbane. The two heaviest volume interstate routes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
at USD $180,000 (including the trailer?) the Tesla is "very cheap" compared to the AUD cost ($485,000, plus "Government charges") of this 2nd hand sleeper cab Kenworth prime mover. (ref Prime Mover Trucks over $400,000 for sale in Australia - trucksales.com.au )
https://trucksales.pxcrush.net/cars/...c_size=720,480
You are not wrong. The load capacity of a US spec tesla semi is 82,000 lbs, or about 37 tonnes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
The replacement ratio, Tesla semis to B-Doubles, is more like 2:1 -- but to a certain extent who cares?
The core workforce issue is the lack of drivers for the existing ICE truck fleet (which for the eastern inter-capital routes is around 75% B-Doubles). Many of the drivers used to be Vietnam veterans, but with that cohort largely retired replacing them is increasingly difficult.
People generally don't, and really shouldn't be expected to, want to drive overnight between the eastern seaboard capital cities, spending 6 nights per week driving between Sydney and Melbourne or Sydney and Brisbane and trying to sleep in a foreign bed every second day.
any upgrades on the highways -- Hume and Pacific -- between the eastern capitals (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane) would only be to cater for light vehicle volumes -- future HV road maintenance needs for those highways was factored into the initial cost of construction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
Hey, I don't disagree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
I'm merely pointing out the likely cost involved of the required freight rail upgrades, to which should be added the cost of connecting Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne-Adelaide with very high speed rail (~ 450km/h) so as to avoid the need for most interstate air travel. From memory the very high speed rail cost is in the order of AUD $500 million per km.
.
.
as a nation we need to decide if we are prepared to spend around 1/10 of our annual GDP every year for the next ten years to upgrade just three of the interstate rail routes. When considering that, be aware that the current tax to GDP ratio is around 25%, and also be aware of the inflationary impact of so much government spending.
Having worked inside government, I remain sceptical. I suspect that the Australian tax paying population is still around 10 years away from being prepared to make that level of commitment to address climate change.
I don't know what the Tesla semi will cost in Australia, but normally we can more or less double the US price for most things (at least that is my experience). On that basis, the Tesla might cost around AU$500,000 which is roughly in line with many prime movers over here (according to my friend who has just bought another one).Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
It seems to me that for long distances, bulk movement of goods or people is always going to be a far more efficient mechanism than a scatter-gun approach of thousands of small carriers. Unfortunately the problem with such a system is that it needs to be created, at great expense, with an overall plan that not only includes the long-distance portion but also the "local" distribution or collection at each end. We have never managed to achieve this - even now we create systems of public transport that can shunt large volumes of people to and from a city centre, but then simply dump them a station with no way to get from the station to their homes, hence stations with huge car-parks!
We are now faced with the need to move away from fossil fuel, which gives us the opportunity to "start again" (especially for long haul transport). Sadly I have no doubt that you are correct, and that we will get it wrong once again. Moving to an age of AI and automation, with the chance to create a system where shipping containers (or equivalent) of various sizes can be loaded at source and then automatically placed on a train to arrive hundreds or thousands of kilometres across the country in minimal time and with minimal human "work", we will choose to continue using trucks because that's what we've always done.
The reality is that the government (civil service) is totally incapable of carrying out such a process and would likely spend decades and billions just trying to figure out what colour the trains should be.....
As soon as I saw the word "plan" in your post......my heart sank :(
Whenever I park my EV in the sun I usually use a windscreen shade and always leave "Cabin Overheat Protection" (COP) mode on. This runs the ventilation fan (no AC) which equilibrates the Cabin temp with whatever the outside air temp is. COP works extremely well and even yesterday when I had to park the cark outside for a couple of hours where it was 43º, the cabin T did not go above 44º. If I were not to use COP, under those conditions the cabin Temp would get up to >65º+. The COP fan consumes less than 100W so it uses very little of the total battery capacityQuote:
Originally Posted by Warb
COP also means that 5 minutes before I need to get back into the car and I remotely turn on the AC, it just takes a few minute to get the cabin T down to 20º so I get into a nice precooked vehicle. Getting the cabin T from 44 down to 20º using the AC does use more battery energy but it and it would be a lot more if COP was not used.
If I do this at home while the vehicle is plugged in the power for COP or any cabin pre-cooling effectively comes from the mains/solar.
as a public servant who used to do that sort of big picture strategic planning such a system already exists with the Channel Tunnel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
The Folkestone truck-onto-train terminal was my model. (Info on the corresponding site in Calais was mostly in French so largely inaccessible to yours truly.)
The operation would be:
1. pick up a load from a Sydney / Central Coast / Newcastle / Wollongong manufacturer;
2. drive the BEV semi to a "Folkstone-style" terminal located in the vicinity of Douglas Park / Campbelltown area;
3. load the whole BEV semi onto an inter-capital shuttle train -- the semi driver stays and sleeps in Sydney;
4. the 1500m long shuttle train departs the terminal bound for Melbourne;
5. shuttle train arrives at a similar "Folkestone-style" terminal, in Melbourne's outer northern suburbs where a Melbourne based driver hops into the vehicle and drives the BEV semi to the final destination in the Melbourne / Geelong region.
The advantage of this schema are that:
the semi drivers are based in their respective capital cities and sleep in their own beds each night,
the semi doesn't require a sleeper cab, so a less expensive truck compared to the sleeper cabs fitted to current ICE semis,
a BEV semi should be able to make the local pick-up / deliveries on a single battery charge.
of course, the schema outlines presupposes that the two terminals either end of the route are first constructed and the rail line upgraded to the required quad track(?) standard.
The next question is: "why have we always done it that way?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
Economists have a concept called the "free loader principle" and accountants, lawyers, historians and economists have a maxim: "Follow the dollars." So why have we always done it that way? The answer is deceptively simple; because road transport has been massively subsidised. In Australia, it is commonly cheaper to ship stuff by road rather than on a ship or train. Crazy! Coastal shipping has almost disappeared, apart from Bass Strait.
Fact 1: Sea transport has to pay for the costs of creation, maintenance and operation of wharfing and terminal facilities,
Fact 2: Rail transport has to pay the costs of the rails and maintenance:
Fact 3: Road transport does not have to pay for access to the roads, the costs of the wear & tear and damage that they do to the roads. They make a very minor contribution through registration fees and fuel tax. The emphasis is on very nominal.
Engineers have had a detailed understanding of the issue for at least 50 years and economists for about 30 years. But the political ramifications make resolution extremely difficult or impossible. Think of the political connections of the big players in the transport industry, the legion of owner-drivers, the supermarkets and other major transport users. Too hard!
Indeed. But they might get photographed planting a tree. That'll help.....Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Hi GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
I will take issue with this statement.
As far as I am aware, road freight operators -- i.e. the trucking industry -- already pay more in fuel excise than is spent on road construction and maintenance.
I no longer have access to the actual data, but from memory, fuel excise raises around 3x what is spent building and maintaining the National Highways and Roads Of National Party Importance -- the actual acronym was Roads Of National Importance, but RONPI was closer to what the acronym really stood for. (MR92 -- the only Main Road in NSW where, in the mid 2000s, the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), east of Nerriga, was less than the road number -- comes to mind as the archetypal RONPI.)
In broad terms, about 10% of the fuel excise raised is rebated to the mining industry because, although the industry pays the fuel excise, most of their vehicles operate off-road on mining sites and, prior to sometime in the 1990s, were exempt from paying the excise.
an amount less than about 1% is rebated to REFER operators to compensate for the diesel used to keep the refrigerated boxes cool.
About 40% is used to build and maintain the road network -- noting that the number of heavy goods vehicles is used to determine how thick a road pavement needs to be, while the number of light (<4.5 tonne) vehicles determines the number of lanes required,
and the balance, about 40%, goes into General Revenue where it mostly offsets the externalities (health impacts) of vehicles using the road network.
If you have a more up to break down of the fuel excise can you please share it.
The slow demise of Fuel excise as a revenue source due to the uptake of BEVs is the primary reason that government is looking to introduce a system of road user charging -- aka a universal toll based on the weight of the vehicle and how far it is driven each year.
This ABS page, in the total fuel used graph, suggests that passenger vehicles use more total fuel than haulage, whilst I have no doubt that trucks do far more damage. The road on which I live has been destroyed in the last year by truck+dog combos shifting material to a site a few kms up the road, and whilst the rains have caused havoc on many roads, this damage clearly started only days after the trucks arrived.
The page reports that diesel trucks used 12479megalitres of fuel. This number seems to be about half the total volume of diesel used (data from other sources), presumably the rest is used in off-road activities such as mining and farming.
The downloadable PDF file from Infrastructure Partnerships Australia here suggests that the states spend $5.5billion a year, and local governments spend an additional $1.5billion a year on road maintenance.
Fuel excise is, I believe, 49.6c/l. The haulage diesel (12479ml) therefore supplies $6.19billion dollars, against the $7billion estimated to be spent on road maintenance. This does not include any deduction for the fuel tax rebate, which I believe runs at around 17c/l.
Passenger cars, in total, pay roughly 20% more fuel excise than haulage, but could be said to do significantly less damage to the roads.
The elephant in the room is the fact that only around half the fuel excise raised from road vehicles is actually spent on road maintenance.
You are welcome, Ian.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
The basic statistics that you quote are accurate with on exception. Each year the total spend on road building and maintenance is roughly 40% of the collections from fuel excise and registration fees. The other 60% just goes to consolidated revenue. With the move to electric vehicles, the demise in fuel excise will cause a big hole in government revenue which must be plugged.
The exception is that heavy transport causes exponentially more wear on roads than light vehicles - that is simple engineering - and their excise payments do not approach the level of wear that they cause. Economists call this free loading.
I will look us some references and come back with a more detailed response - give me 24 hours.
Hi Ian
I think I am about to catalyse you into doing a bit of research to refute/confirm/extend what I am about to say. Please note, I am dealing with averages and nothing is average. I now drive about 5,000 kms per year, when I was 20 I drove 20,000+ kms, and the Australian average is 11,000.
In this analysis I will compare a nominal private car against a semi-trailer
Excise Payments
The average private passenger vehicle travels 11,100 kilometres and has a fuel consumption of 11.1 litres per 100 kilometres.
The average articulated vehicle travels 78,300 kilometres and has a fuel consumption of 53.1 litres per 100 kilometres.
Source: Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, 12 Months ended 30 June 2020 | Australian Bureau of Statistics
Average fuel use per annum by vehicle type:
* Private car = 11100 / 100 * 11.1 = 1,232 litres
* Articulated vehicle = 78300 / 100 * 53.1 = 41,577 litres
Ratio: = 41577 / 1232 = 33.7
Summary: An average articulated vehicle will use 34 times more fuel than an average passenger car in a year.
Road Wear and Tear
I studied transport economics 50 years ago and I based the first part of my reply on a paper by an (unknown) assistant professor at the University of Tennesse (I think - and not an economic powerhouse). Our professor had noted an egineering concept regarding wear and abrasion rates and asked - "Does that apply to roads?" His engineering colleagues answered "probably yes" and were otherwise disinterested. He then wrote a peer reviewed paper that hypothesised the fourth power rule in relation to road wear and tear.
Measure
Private Articulated Units Car Vehicle Gross Vehicle Mass 2 42 tonnes Number of Axles 2 6 number Mean Axel Load 1 7 tonnes Road Wear per Axle 1 2,401 ratio (1) Road Wear per Kilometre 2 14,406 ratio (2) Annual Milage 11,100 78,300 kilometres Annual Road Wear 22,200 1,127,989,800 ratio (3) Standardised Road Wear 1 50,810 ratio (4)
Ratio (1) Mean Axle Load Raised to Fourth Power
(2) Road Wear per Axle Times Number of Axles (3) Road Wear per Kilometre Times Annual Milage (4) Relative to Private Car Road Wear
Bottom Line: The average semi-trailer causes 50,000 more wear to roads than the average private car. Or 7,000 times more wear per kilometre.
Quantifying the Costs
It is hard to quantify car registraion fees as they vary so much and in some sates include Compulsory Third Party Insurance - a guestimate is $600.
Our average motorist in a year will pay excise of 48.8 cents per litre on 1,232 litres totalling $601, which, when added to Registration fees gives a annual motorists contribution of $1,201.
Forty percent is then spent on road construction and maintenance = $480.
This is effectively a measure of the average road wear caused annually by the average private car.
Our semi-trailer also pays 48.8 cents per litre on diesel, but gets a rebate of 20.8 cents meaning his actual excise charge is 28.0 cents per litre. On his annual usage of 41,577 he pays $11,974.
Thus, the average semi-trailer pays about 20 times more excise than a private motorist in a year.
But the cause 50,000 times more wear to the roads.
Equity Argument
One estimate of the annual costs of the wear on public roads by a private car is $480.
Therefore, the costs of wear by a semi-trailer are about 50,000 x 480 = $24,000,000. Yet they pay less than $12,000 excise.
The poor old taxpayer is effectively subsidising every "average" semi-trailer by about $24 million each and every year.
And that is the reason for the demise of coastal shipping and the decline in railways. It is far easier for politicians to do nothing, rather than mount a complex argument. Vested interests are major advertisers, so guess which argument the media and shock jocks will support.