Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumClose Look: Walmart's Turbine Powered Hybrid Concept Truck
I'm not a fan of Walmart, but they are a force within the trucking sector that can change the offerings of the manufacturers. So it is good news that they've been working with energy efficiency experts to redesign our heavy transport vehicle fleet - they save money and their effort results in real, substantive carbon carbon emission reductions across the entire sector.
The one-of-a-kind prototype offers a whole package of firsts. The tractor has very advanced aerodynamics and is powered by a prototype advanced turbine-powered, range-extending series hybrid powertrain.
The trailer is made almost exclusively with carbon fiber, saving around 4,000 pounds which can then be used to carry more freight.
http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2014/04/close-look-walmarts-turbine-powered.html
packman
(16,296 posts)will go towards that pay increase for all their "associates" , he said as he scanned the sky for flying pigs.
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)that Carbon Fiber is extremely expensive. Unless they just buy the company that makes it. But yes, in the life of the truck and trailer they will save some money for the Walton's to tuck away with the rest that they are sitting on. Or, maybe build another billion dollar museum in no where Arkansas that few will see just like the museum one of the daughters built in By Walmart headquarters in Arkansas.
pam4water
(2,916 posts)monopoly strangle hold on the economy. With their lawyers Walmart will probably be able to extent the pattern times even longer. They will probably also lock up similar energy saving technologies in courts for years.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)They operate the largest trucking fleet in the world, and that means that the manufacturers are willing to build something different especially for them since it guarantees they will sell enough units to make it worth investing in the new product lines.
That, in turn, means that smaller operations will have access to new technologies in trucks that they'd otherwise never be able to get or afford.
I get that Walmart sucks, but I've heard that sometimes even a dark cloud has a silver lining. Or do you think that just because Walmart is involved it is better root against radical increases in trucking fuel efficiency and decreases in particulate pollution?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I feel like a lot less of a dick if I happen to shop there. These are things we should be rooting for, despite other issues that can be worked on independently.
nikto
(3,284 posts)As soon as they Union-Ize.
pam4water
(2,916 posts)many times do you need to the fooled to wise up?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'd like to know more about this micro turbine. Air bearings? Fascinating.
Game changer right there.
sdfernando
(4,947 posts)Back in the early 1960s Chrysler toyed with the idea of a turbine powered car. They even produced a few prototypes before abandoning the project. One of the reasons if I recall, was that turbine engines don't handle changing speeds as well as internal combustion engines do. They are great for steady speed but not very good with stop & go traffic. Perfect for cruising in a plane, not so great for Los Angeles freeway traffic.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)with batteries.
Should solve that issue completely.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The turbine sounds interesting, I look forward to hearing more about it. The drive train is a 'series hybrid' which means an electric motor drive powered by batteries which are fed by an engine (turbine) driven generator.
If anyone comes across some firm statistics on the efficiency of the system, please post the information.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)At full blast they are the most efficient engine in any vehicle, but most land vehicles rarely use all of their power all of the time. Thus conventional Diesels and Gasoline beats gas turbines when it comes to idle or when they are stuck in traffic going 25 mph.
On the other hand a gas turbine with an electric drive system "solves" this problem by having the gas turbine go full blast when it is on, any extra power produced goes to charge the batteries, and when the batteries are charged, the turbine shuts off. Thus the advantage of the gas turbine are used to its max.
The downside is you are looking at a truck with two engines in it (an electric and a gas turbine) and all of the weight that brings with it. In the hybrid automobiles this has been a problem, they do NOT get the fuel economy they could do to the weight of the two engines and the batteries (and have a harder time meeting the EPA fuel economy number then do conventional cars).
On the other hand an electric drive has several inherent advantages. First electric drive can provide more power to the wheel then conventional power cars. This was one of the reasons why the Railroad replaced steam with diesel locomotives. Diesel Locomotives are Diesel engines acting as generators of electricity that provide the power for the electric engines that drive the actual wheels of a Diesel Locomotive (in reality Diesel locomotive should be called Diesel-electric locomotives).
The big issue is the life span of most tractor trailers on the road. Here is a 1998 report on trucking, the report was on using natural gas to replace diesel, the report final decision was the only advantage was reduction in oil consumption, but Green house gases would NOT be reduced nor save energy. On the other hand the report is a great source on data about large trucks and the trucking industry:
Other sources indicate much higher annual mileages -- up to 250,000 mi/y for some trucks in the chosen category -- which would make their total fuel consumption much higher (9). Thus, this is an important class of vehicles to examine for possible reductions in fuel use and emissions
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/102.pdf
From the same report (remember this is 1999, but I have NOT seen much improvements since the 1970s, when I saw a HUGE improvements in Trucks:
Table 3. Sources of Truck Power Demand
Source
...........................................Full Load,,,,,,,,,,,,Partial Load
..........................................(80,000 lb).........(65,000 lb
Aerodynamic losses.............. 45%.................... 49%
Wheel losses.........................35........................ 31
Drivetrain losses....................13.........................13
Accessory loads........................7..........................7
TOTAL................................... 100%.................. 100%
While aerodynamics is by far the #1 cause of loss of energy (under 50%), drive-train, wheel losses and accessory loads actually exceed aerodynamics (Those three exceed 50% of energy losses).
In 2002 a study found heavy trucks used 80% of all energy used by Medium and Heavy Trucks (Pickups are in the light Truck Category, so are Hummers)
http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub37730.pdf
On page 1-19 of the above report, is an interesting chart. Oil use by Automobiles is about the same in 2012 as it was in 1970 (about 4 million barrels of oil a day). Light trucks have gone from under 1 million barrels of oil per day in 1970, to almost equal cars at about 4 million barrels a day in 2012. Heavy trucks have gone from 3/4 of million barrel per day in 1970, to almost 3 million barrels a day in 2012. Off road has gone from 1/2 million barrels a day to 1 million barrels a day (and I suspect this is affected by Jeeps, which was in 1970 the principal "off road" vehicles, but today classified as SUVs and thus light trucks, while the All Terrain Vehicles took over the role of going off road). Marine has gone from 1/3 million barrels a day in 1970 to over 2/3 miillion barrels of oil a day. Railroads seem to have held onto about 2/4 of a million barrels a day, i.e. the a slight drop in oil usage betwee 1970 and in 2012. Air has gone from 2/3 million barrels a day to over 1 million barrels a day.
Please note the above is my observation of that chart, the exact numbers will be different, but it was an interesting graph.
Actual Numbers were on the next chart, here they are, in thousdans barrels of oil a day:
Year.....Cars.....Light... ...Light ....Motorcycles...Buses....Class....Class....Heavy.... Highway....Total
........................Trucks...vehicle........................................3-6........7-8......Trucks.....Subtotal....Transportation
..................................subtotal.......................................Trucks...Trucks
1970..4,424......803.......5,227..........4..................62........140........598......738........6,031............7,333
2010..4,395...4,193.......8,588........28..................90.........557....2,375...2,933.....11,639..........13,548
Year........Air......Water........Pipeline.....Rail.........Nonhighway.....Total
............................................................................subtotal.........Transportation
1970.....625........381...............43.........253........1,302................7,333
2010..1,040........626................3..........240.........1,909.............13,548
Thus 61% of oil usage in the US is in cars and light trucks, which basically means personal transportation to and from work, school and other activities.
On page 2-4 of the above report, it indicates that renewable sources of electricity DECLINED from 14,4 % of all electricity produced in 1973 to 12.5% in 2012. This mostly reflects that the percentage of electrical power provided by Renewal resources have decline since 1970 for the following reasons
1. very few hydro electrical plants came on line and thus the electricity from hydro-electrical plants, even as the total INCREASED, it was small compared to the other plants that came on line (mostly Nuclear in the 1970s).
2. The other renewables sources of energy are still minor compared to hydro-electrical generation
3. Nuclear went from providing 4.6 % to 20.9% of all electricity produced in the US
On Page 2-14 of the report is an interesting fact. While they are a 1/3 more cars then they are light truck and in miles driven, Cars put 50% more miles on the road in a year. Remember the above table, where Light Trucks use just under what Cars use.
On page 3-11 another chart compares the AGE of cars in 1970 with the age of cars in 2001. Only 2.9% of all cars were older then 15 years old in 1970, today that percentage is 16.1%. For comparison, on page 3-12 are the age of trucks, 15.3 of all trucks were 15 years or older in 1970, in 2001 it was 17.3%, roughly the same. We are retaining and keeping cars that we would have junked in 1970.
On Page 3-18 a chart shows the "Medium Life" of a HEAVY Trucks, today it is 28 years, in 1970 it was 20 years.
On page 4-19 shows a chart of MPG affected by speed, In 1997, the last year given, peak MPG was 50-55 mph. Please note this was an EPA test, using EPA equipment. Thus EPA testing procedure was followed. While the EPA test was valid of comparison purposes in the 1970 (People even then complained that they did not get what the EPA claimed, but what you would get was NEVER the purpose of the test, the test was to be standard so that you could say with confidence that a car with 20 mpg would get better mileage then a car with an EPA of 19 mpg, the test was NEVER intended to show what people would get).
Anyway, as computers took over more and more of the functions of the car in the 1980s, car makers started to program the computer to do the best under the EPA test condition, one of which was a speed of 50 mph. Thus under the EPA test the car would get its best fuel economy at 50 mpg, which is what the chart on Page 4-19 shows. No one drives the way of the EPA test and with the policy to gear the computer for the EPA test, in many ways the EPA test is no longer valid. You can get better mileage, but that requires you to understand the computers driving your car are geared for 50 mpg. It is so bad that in EPA tests Automatics Which since the 1980s are computer computer controlled) are getting close to Manual transmission, while in real life the difference in actual fuel economy is as large as it has ever been.
Just a warning about the chart on page 4-19, interesting, but understand the limitations of the EPA tests and the efforts to work around the EPA test the auto companies have been doing since the EPA test became the only mileage Auto Companies can use in the US.
On page 8-1. shows a summary of the studies of people and their vehicles:
Table 8.2
Vehicles per capita, 2010............................. 0.777
Vehicles per licensed driver, 2010................ 1.14
Vehicles per household, 2010........................1.79 .
Table 8.3
Average household transportation expense, 2010.......... 16.0%
Table 8.5 Share of households owning 3 or more vehicles
1960...... 2.5%
1970...... 5.5%
1980.....17.5%
1990.... 17.3%
2000.....18.3%
2010.... 19.5%
Figure 8.1 Average occupancy rates by vehicle type, 2009 (please note later on a actual chart show home to work is only 1.2 people per vehicle, it is the other uses of vehicles that increase the average above 1.2)
Pickup Truck.....1.49
Car...................1.55
Sports Utility....1.90
Van..................2.35
Table 8.10 Average annual miles per household vehicle, 2009........ 11,300
Table 8.16 Share of workers who car pooled, 2010............................ 10.4%
Table 8.21 Long-distance trips in the United States, 2001
Person-trips ..................................................................................2,554 million
Off the people surveyed, they said 61 % of their trips were then less the 6 miles, but that fell to 42.9 if the trip was to work (see page 8-15 of the report)
One-vehicle household drives 29.0 miles a day with a total of 10,600 miles per year, and drives a 9.0 year old car.
Two-vehicle household, drives the first car 43.6 miles per day. 15,900 per year and averages 7.6 year old.
The second car is driven 21.4 miles per day, and 7,800 miles per year and averages 9.0 years of age
page 8-18 of the report.
On page 8-20 it is reported, 76 % of people drive alone to work, another 10.4% car pool
2.7% use a bus, less .1% use a Streetcar, 1.6% uses a subway. .5% uses a Railroad
.2% use a motorcycle, .5% use a bicycle. 2.8% walk to work and 4.1$ work at home.
Sorry, about the above, but the report was interesting and I got caught up reading it. The numbers show we are NOT prepared for any real reduction in the supply of oil and if that does not worry you, it should.
jmowreader
(50,567 posts)You can legally haul 4000 pounds more freight, which translates to more income. Hopefully those trailers aren't going to be outrageously expensive.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The real issue is NOT that the vehicle is more efficient on fuel, but does its efficiency overcome its increase cost to produce? Hybrid cars are roughly a 1/3 or more then a conventional cars, and according to people who have studied the numbers, the improvements in fuel economy will NOT pay for themselves. i.e. People are losing more money on Hybrid then they would if they purchased a conventional car.
Now, many people want the latest gimmick and/or what to show they want to address the problem of global warming by buying a hybrid or electric car. That has value to them, the problem is such noble ideas have no value to the bean counters running most corporations today. They have to look at the numbers, and replacing their existing fleet with these models may NOT make economic sense.
Now, most project vehicles, like this truck, is more an attempt to show what can be done with what. Small parts of this will be looked into and added to other vehicles, but I do not think the gas turbine-electric drive combination will be one of them, for the bean counters will do the math and determine it is not cost effective.
See page 5-19 of the following report:
http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub37730.pdf
It shows large trucks can haul 54,000 pounds or 28 tons and still meet the federal Interstate restriction of being under 80,000 gvw (40 tons). You need special permits to go over 40 tons GVW (which includes the truck, fuel and driver in addition to the cargo).
Most trucks are BELOW 40 tons GVW, for most bulk cargo (oil. coal wheat, corn, etc which tends to be the heaviest) tends to be ship by rail or barge). The shipments to where these bulk items are shipped by rail or barge is done by truck, but mostly medium trucks in terms of grain, through you can have over 80,000 pound monster trucks in some coal strip mining hauling the coal to the rail-head.
Walmart has a lot of goods that are boxed to protect them from damage, such goods take up a lot of space, but no where near the weight of bulk items like coal, oil or wheat. I doubt a Walmart truck ever goes over 80,000 pounds GVW, mostly based on what is being carried. Thus the two extra tons is NOT that significant for Walmart. It may be for coal trucks, but I live in an area of coal mining that then hauls the coal out by truck, those tend to be large dump trucks when fully loaded is going to be under 80,000 GVW. Tractor trailers are NOT used in my area for hauling coal, mostly because they are not as off road as dump trucks and if loaded may exceed 80,000 pounds and no one wants to risk getting the ticker for being that heavy.
Now, the two ton will affect the fuel used by the Tractor Trailer, but then we are into the cost-benefit analysis. i.e. will a truck that is two ton lighter then its competitors save enough fuel to justify the extra cost of the material used to save that two tons?
The cheap and most cost effective ways to cut fuel cost were adopted in the 1970s, they tended to be very cheap and pay for themselves within a year (the huge flap you see on many tractor trailers today, was such a device, it break the wind before it hit the trailer behind the tractor. it was cheap less then a couple of hundred dollars, but also effective in that it clearly saved fuel on a long haul truck job.
In many ways, the Walmart design take that wind flap to the extreme, but at a huge increase in cost. I doubt if it is worth the extra price of the parts. Only time will tell if I am right or wrong.
jmowreader
(50,567 posts)Those two extra tons could prove highly significant - if a skid of merchandise weighs 500 pounds, that extra 4000 pounds would allow the DC to put eight more of them on the same truck. IIRC coal trucks that are tractor-trailers are permitted to 132,000 pounds.
The biggest problem this rig has: NO RESALE VALUE! The most coveted used tractor on the market is a retired Walmart truck because Walmart is fanatical about maintenance and they only hire the best drivers. Plus, they sell them with 500k miles on the clock. I cannot imagine anyone in the market for a used truck wanting a truck with no passenger seat that only runs on natural gas...very few people want to be 150 miles from a truck stop that sells CNG with only 100 miles' worth of fuel in the tanks. OTOH, a truck with that basic shape, but with a diesel engine in it (think "cabover with 232" wheelbase so you don't get the shit beat out of you, with the steer axle in front of the pedals where it belongs instead of under your ass" and a cab wide enough for a passenger seat so you'd have a place for your Qualcomm, load documents or team driver, and that got...oh, 12mpg...would find a following.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Repairs. Damage to those carbon panels will be very expensive to repair.
Handling when empty. Especially in high winds. I've seen trailers that were totally empty do some really crazy shit in high winds, shave 4,000lbs off, and it can only get worse.
Still, there are always teething problems. Maybe the negatives will be outweighed. I do expect they will run these trucks more than 500k miles before retiring them.
Also, the turbine will run multiple fuels.
jmowreader
(50,567 posts)I wonder if there's some way to use a wing on top of the trailer to add a few thousand pounds of downforce when you're deadheading. You can read trailer weight off the suspension airbags, like this gauge does...
http://www.digital-auto-gauges.com/products/Load-Weight-Gauge-for-Trucks.html
nikto
(3,284 posts)Add a little extra armor, a few "cutting wings" out the sides,
and you've got a difference-maker.
What does the Walton family know that we don't?
packman
(16,296 posts)But, if the Walton's could only just get zombies as sales people think of the savings.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Microturbine
http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_movies/MTengineAnimation.wmv
Air bearings
http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_movies/Lube_Job_0001.wmv
Environmental report
http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_movies/CapstoneTurbine_256k.wmv
Youtube search for capstone micro turbines shows a wide range of applications. To appreciate the niche this product fills outside of transportation, you might want to investigate 'microgrids'.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=capstone+microturbine+
bayareaboy
(793 posts)Maybe they want to buy a Wankel, I have one over by the chicken coop. They both were really together till they found out they really don't work.