@prrjim posted:

I have very little faith in batteries.

I keep my cars at least 10 years and the quality is such they run just fine.    I am hearing that these battery toy cars have batteries that last only about 5 years and the cost of replacement is about what the car is worth by then.

It all just does not make sense to me.

Jim,

I hear ya, but ...

I've had the same experience as you with power tool batteries yet I took a gamble anyway.

My 2009 Ford Escape Hybrid just turned 14 years old two weeks ago and has travelled beyond the moon (260,000 miles since I bought it, essentially new with only 500 miles on the odo).  For reference the chemistry of the high-voltage (traction) battery is Nickel Metal Hydride and not Li ion.

No battery problems, ever.  None.  And very, very, very few other problems either (knock on wood).

Whatever you think of Fords, and I may have a rare good one, it has been an exceedingly well made vehicle and has served me quite nicely the whole time.

It continues to do so.  It's long since paid for so I have no car payment, and we're now heading for 300,000.

Let's see exactly how far my battery can go ...

Mike

Mike,

That is great!

I have a friend who is on his second Ford Fusion Hybrid.    The first one was not a plug in and I can't remember what he siad about the battery in it.   He genenerally changes cars about every 5 years.    His second one that he has now is on about 3 1/2 to 4 years and he says the amount of charge on the battery is noticably less than when it was new.    He still likes the mileage he gets.    I don't think he is over 100 on it  yet.

Jim

My power tools are killer. I can't say  more than that. The lithium batteries are outstanding! Likewise for my RC cars. I used a nickel battery with my RC car when I started the hobby and it wasn't so great. Same for my first cordless drill. The new Li-po batteries are awesome. We actually are using the lithium battery power tools at work in an industrial setting with great success. The casing on the batteries has been the weak point.

Seeing a battery that size go up in flames would be impressive haha East Palestine might look like a candle compared to that.

@jhz563 posted:

Okay... hear me out ( just pretend I am not being delusional).  The state of CA wants to wage on war anything diesel powered, they don't want fossil fired power plants that could supply catenary for overhead power to every mile of rail in the state, and they can't admit it would take turning the entire mojave desert into a giant wind and solar farm to power their electrical needs and that doesn't work when it rains, and that their general infrastructure planning skills are horrendous.  (i.e. the route for CA high speed rail)

So when they have exhausted and outlawed all modern options, we finally see a resurgence of STEAM!  Technically they are external combustion since the fire is outside the cylinders. CA loves extra labor even when it could be modernized away so mu capability not required, just a 2 or 3 man crew in every locomotive.  The engines can all burn fryer grease or dried Kale.

So break out those plans from Porta and start building 5000 hp condensing, Kale fired, cab forwards locomotives!

i would like to see a ACE 3000 style locomotive in my lifetime

The fire danger is no joke.  I have a coworker who is an rc vehicle enthusiast.   He lost his garage and nearly his house to a battery fire, and he is an experienced maintenance professional who knows how to properly store and charge batteries.

The amount of battery storage to come close to 5000 Gallons worth of diesel fuel would create a huge fire.  And the collateral damage from a fire a locomotive charging station could cost millions.

There is an additional problem with electric vehicles though and it is that once they catch fire Li ion batteries are very difficult to extinguish.  This is because the fire liberates oxygen from the battery's burning components, which feeds the fire.  As a result water won't quench it, so a typical fire pumper, even if it gets to the scene quickly, can't really help.  The garage and house could indeed go up with the car, very easily.

Very interesting.  And one wonders when the home insurance industry catches on to this 'ubattquitous' trend?

I mean, there's all sorts of gimmicks and gadgets that the homeowner can invest in to reduce home damage risks and hold insurance premiums down.

And, what, pray tell, is in that bag for that EV parked in your attached garage??

In many areas, it's nigh unto impossible to obtain 'flood insurance'...an intuitively high risk concern for some grand home sites.  Once we've all  been mandated to have 4-wheeled ignition devices lurking in our garages, how will our benevolent leaders underwrite the home insurance industry to keep it..."affordable"...whatever THAT is nowadays!?!?  As they've now underwritten the health insurance industry???  And the banking industry???  And....???

Following the science, I continue sleeping well, my friend, sleeping well.

BTW...Good grief!  I just realized why they call battery application to this hobby "DEAD RAIL"!!!

@WBC posted:

Paints used to have lead in them.  This was before rutile. Not anymore, obviously.

OK, what's rutile?

OK, what is 'ubattquitous' ?

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

OK, what's rutile?

Rutile: "Finely powdered rutile is a brilliant white pigment and is used in paints, plastics, paper, foods, and other applications that call for a bright white color." ...Wickedpedia

@Arthur P. Bloom posted:

OK, what is 'ubattquitous' ?

Batteries everywhere in everything.

Hey, Merriam-Webster reports 370 new words added to our Inglush inventory in 2022.   

Frankly, I think it's a game unto itself, encouraged by the the makers of Scrabble®.  Just think, the official Scrabble Dictionary is out-of-date by nearly 400 words annually.  Talk about "planned obsolescence"!!

batt.

Remember, you heard it here first!

Clever.

My concern about batteries is the environmental affect it has when the materials are mined, and when the batteries are discarded.  From what I've read, and it might be biased, these 2 concerns outweigh any positive aspects of the use of batteries.

@Arthur P. Bloom posted:

OK, what is 'ubattquitous' ?

I believe the word he was looking for is “ubiquitous.” Meaning just about everywhere.

By the way, there is a complete safety analysis at the Federal Railroad Administration that was done in 2017 called

Assessment of Battery Technology for Rail Propulsion Application

They concluded that Lithium Ion was the safest.

John

@Craftech posted:

By the way, there is a complete safety analysis at the Federal Railroad Administration that was done in 2017 called

Assessment of Battery Technology for Rail Propulsion Application

They concluded that Lithium Ion was the safest.

John

"Safest" is pretty subjective here.  That much battery capacity put into locomotives that frequently haul hazardous materials is a recipe for disaster.

Even little everyday batteries used in your house can have disastrous results. (9-volt battery starts kitchen fire) Met a farmer whose machine shed/shop burned down due to a faulty Dewalt drill battery.  The whole building was lost and the insurance claim was millions to replace the machinery and structure.

@Rich Melvin posted:

I believe the word he was looking for is “ubiquitous.” Meaning just about everywhere.

@Frank Mulligan posted:

My concern about batteries is the environmental affect it has when the materials are mined, and when the batteries are discarded.  From what I've read, and it might be biased, these 2 concerns outweigh any positive aspects of the use of batteries.

This is true.  The industry is very young and has not yet faced the other side of sales: what to do with discarded media at the end of its useful life. My guess would be some sort of mass-scale recycling but that has yet to be worked out. However, to be fair, this is true for all batteries, not just lithium batteries. All batteries should be disposed of properly, and properly is not throwing batteries into the kitchen trash when they are EOL. 

Another issue is the amount of economically viable lithium available on Earth. While Earth as a whole has plenty of lithium for EV's, most of the lithium is in the Earth's mantle and not on the surface or near the surface. There will need to be new technologies for extraction from deep ocean brines.

https://www.popularmechanics.c...s-electric-vehicles/

Sodium based batteries may address supply, cost and toxicity issues down the road.

@H1000 posted:

"Safest" is pretty subjective here.  That much battery capacity put into locomotives that frequently haul hazardous materials is a recipe for disaster.

That's not what the 124 page study said.

Also, the requirement to mandate ECP brakes on hazmat trains was rescinded in 2017 after successful industry lobbying efforts by the industry which produced their own safety tests to present as evidence that they don't work.

John

@Landsteiner posted:

Sodium based batteries may address supply, cost and toxicity issues down the road.

Sodium ion batteries would address supply.  However, the issue with sodium is the atomic mass. The atomic mass for sodium is 23 while lithium is 6.  Thus, any battery that uses sodium will have nearly four times fewer sodium atoms than lithium atoms at the same battery mass with a corresponding reduction in energy density of the battery, but there are other technological and economic advantages. An example would be sodium ion batteries are much less impacted by low temperatures. Sodium ion batteries is an area of intense development. Unfortunately, China has a huge head start on sodium ion technology.  Sodium ion batteries have a place where capacity is of lesser importance where lithium would be wasted thereby saving lithium for situations requiring high capacity.

I enjoy getting free replacement Li batteries from Ridgid when my old ones wear out but they are not the answer for cars/trucks and the like.  Cracking water for hydrogen is the best answer for the future, at least as far as we can see into the future today.

@Bill DeBrooke posted:

I enjoy getting free replacement Li batteries from Ridgid when my old ones wear out but they are not the answer for cars/trucks and the like.  Cracking water for hydrogen is the best answer for the future, at least as far as we can see into the future today.

To my knowledge there is still no way to produce hydrogen that takes less energy than the hydrogen can produce. Lots of people trying though. Same with fusion energy though I understand there have been some microscopic breakthroughs.

Pete

@Craftech posted:

That's not what the 124 page study said.

Also, the requirement to mandate ECP brakes on hazmat trains was rescinded in 2017 after successful industry lobbying efforts by the industry which produced their own safety tests to present as evidence that they don't work.

John

Call me a skeptic but when government-funded agencies say something is the "safest" and 7 years later we have massive disasters like what happened in Ohio, their idea of "safest" doesn't meet my standards...

@Norton posted:

To my knowledge there is still no way to produce hydrogen that takes less energy than the hydrogen can produce. Lots of people trying though. Same with fusion energy though I understand there have been some microscopic breakthroughs.

Pete

This is true for all energy sources.

The radiant energy from the sun and geologic energy from the Earth were used to produce over a period of millions, even billion of years the oil, coal, and gas today. The energy added up put into making the oil, coal and gas is less than the energy received when used. It is true, human beings did not have to put in the energy to produce the oil, coal and gas. All what human beings had to do is poke a hole in the ground.

There is a source of hydrogen called "gold hydrogen". Gold hydrogen uses bacteria. The bacteria munches on oil and gas to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide. You have to give the bacteria an energy source such as the sun or feed media for them to perform the reaction. Again, the total energy given to the bacteria is greater than what you get out from the hydrogen.  However, this method takes less human input, but also have to figure out what to do with the carbon dioxide.

Green hydrogen uses renewables such as wind, solar, or hydro to produce the hydrogen. The ultimate source for the energy for those processes is the sun. However, again the energy that went in is less than the energy released.

Pink hydrogen is from nuclear fission of heavy elements such as uranium. The ultimate source for those heavy elements is the collision of neutron stars by means of the rapid neutron capture process (r-process). Again, the energy that went into making the heavy elements is less than the energy you get out.

In other words, there is no perpetual motion.

I think what you are saying the amount of energy humans have to put in making said fuel is less than the energy is released when said fuel is consumed.

@WBC posted:

This is true.  The industry is very young and has not yet faced the other side of sales: what to do with discarded media at the end of its useful life. My guess would be some sort of mass-scale recycling but that has yet to be worked out. However, to be fair, this is true for all batteries, not just lithium batteries. All batteries should be disposed of properly, and properly is not throwing batteries into the kitchen trash when they are EOL.

Well, unlike the blight of soda pop cans/bottles that some areas have resolved through significant (another subjective term of varying degree of encouragement to the wallet of the consumer) deposits, recycling of batteries is often punitive.

Years ago in the early days of trying to save Mother Earth from our ecological sins, signs were posted in several convenient...yet unlikely...locations.  "We recycle batteries!", they proudly said in the window of our local chain-type grocery store.  So we tried.  All those AA's and AAA's, C's, D's, 9volt's...accumulated in a nice sackful. 

Proudly took the weighty sack to the store one day.  Handed them to a customer service clerk.  She smilingly said, 'Why thank you!  That'll be $$, please!'

I'm supposed to pay for the funeral expenses of these??

Yepper.  She said that, unlike paper, plastics, bottles/cans, ...all those other things that archeologists millenia from now would delight in finding while mining Mt. Trashmore..., your minimal atonement for the sin of using disposable electrolytics is $$! 

Well, I joined the vast well-intentioned hoi polloi in relieving her of the sack full of batteries, walked toward the door, ...and found the perfect receptacle for it.  Free of charge.  Even with a big "THANK YOU" emblazoned on the side...

But, hey, years later...a couple months ago, in fact...I went to a BATTERY STORE (That's all they sell!) to rejuvenate a special and very handy product that required a unique battery that only existed in this very useful product...that has since been re-designed/replaced with a 'better' version...with another unique battery...that will someday.........oh, never mind.  While there, I noticed they had the same happy sign as in that grocery store window years earlier!  I asked about their policy for returning a sackful of cells.  Same response.  Open, extended, up-turned palm...a very popular American greeting.

The nice thing about that trashcan?  It politely appreciated your business...without muttering "Idiot!" under its breath as you...and your wounded wallet...departed.  You're welcome!!

Crazy.

Meanwhile, back at my happy place in the workshop and basement...

@H1000 posted:

Call me a skeptic but when government-funded agencies say something is the "safest" and 7 years later we have massive disasters like what happened in Ohio, their idea of "safest" doesn't meet my standards...

Because most of the rail cars were carrying non-hazardous materials, Norfolk Southern was not subject to laws that would have compelled them to notify Ohio officials of the train's contents.

They also burned the PVC and other chemicals that did spill spewing tons of toxic materials all over the neighborhood and into the air.  There are no safety tests that address loopholes and/or a lack of enforcement no matter who performs them.

And before the discussion veers off the OP, I don't see why Union Pacific shouldn't be allowed to try battery powered locos if they think it is good for business and good for the environment as they stated in their press releases that I linked.  They have invested a lot of money in it plus some government funding.  Let them test it out.  No?

John

@Craftech posted:

  There are no safety tests that address loopholes and/or a lack of enforcement no matter who performs them.

Which is why page 124 of that FRA study means very little.

@H1000 posted:

Which is why page 124 of that FRA study means very little.

I agree, since page 124 is a list of abbreviations and what they mean.

John

@dkdkrd posted:

Well, unlike the blight of soda pop cans/bottles that some areas have resolved through significant (another subjective term of varying degree of encouragement to the wallet of the consumer) deposits, recycling of batteries is often punitive.

That was a fun read.

In the county where I live there are hazardous waste collection points at several locations. I take all my used batteries, compact florescent bulbs, unused xylene, acetone, and other solvents, paints and general household chemicals there for disposal. They take them for free.

Purpose is to prevent the substances contained  in these items from leaching into the ground water.

@WBC posted:

I think what you are saying the amount of energy humans have to put in making said fuel is less than the energy is released when said fuel is consumed.

Up to this point that is almost true but fusion was successful recently if only for a fraction of a nanosecond.

For the last twenty one years of my career I was building devices for chemists to release hydrogen using chemical reactions. And we have at least forum member who has been working on fusion energy.

Who knows with AI maybe computers will figure it out.

Pete

@Craftech posted:

And before the discussion veers off the OP, I don't see why Union Pacific shouldn't be allowed to try battery powered locos if they think it is good for business and good for the environment as they stated in their press releases that I linked.  They have invested a lot of money in it plus some government funding.  Let them test it out.  No?

I don't have any problem with industry choosing to try out new technology voluntarily.  I have a big problem with crazy places like California mandating it before the infrastructure supports it!   If we thought EV's in your driveway pose a significant risk to the capacity of the electrical grid, imagine the load that a yard full of hefty locomotives charging their massive batteries will pose.

Why is it we can't plan this stuff out logically, have at least some of the infrastructure ready before we mandate stupid stuff like this?

@Norton posted:

Up to this point that is almost true but fusion was successful recently if only for a fraction of a nanosecond.

For the last twenty one years of my career I was building devices for chemists to release hydrogen using chemical reactions. And we have at least forum member who has been working on fusion energy.

Who knows with AI maybe computers will figure it out.

Pete

However brief, the sustained fusion was a great accomplishment.  Tremendous.

But.......there is always a but, isn't there.

For the energy input they only calculated the energy input from the lasers. Yes, the fusion released more energy than what was put in by the lasers.  However, the electrical energy to power the lasers was not factored in. Adding it all up it still took more energy than was released. Once fusion is sustained and self-sustaining for longer periods of time the energy balance will change. The key is having fusion self-sustain. 

@WBC posted:

For the energy input they only calculated the energy input from the lasers. Yes, the fusion released more energy than what was put in by the lasers.  However, the electrical energy to power the lasers was not factored in. Adding it all up it still took more energy than was released. Once fusion is sustained and self-sustaining for longer periods of time the energy balance will change. The key is having fusion self-sustain.

I read an argument in regards to the cost of fueling electric vehicles vs. gasoline powered, and somebody brought up the point that gasoline doesn't just show up at the pumps.

@Norton posted:

To my knowledge there is still no way to produce hydrogen that takes less energy than the hydrogen can produce. Lots of people trying though. Same with fusion energy though I understand there have been some microscopic breakthroughs.

Pete

If you are generating a great deal of renewable energy in excess of real time demand then perhaps you point is not as big an issue as one might think.  Crack a little water in you off hours.

I maybe outdated and wrong on this, but my understanding of the UP battery loco experiments in CA was to recharge the batt-loco batts downhill or on the flat so that the battery power would reduce uphill fuel use and emissions by eliminating one diesel from the consist.  In other words, a limited degree of energy storage and retrieval in order to achieve a modest reduction of emissions and fuel consumption.  Neither revolutionary nor risk-free,  but worth exploring, IMO.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I don't have any problem with industry choosing to try out new technology voluntarily.  I have a big problem with crazy places like California mandating it before the infrastructure supports it!   If we thought EV's in your driveway pose a significant risk to the capacity of the electrical grid, imagine the load that a yard full of hefty locomotives charging their massive batteries will pose.

Why is it we can't plan this stuff out logically, have at least some of the infrastructure ready before we mandate stupid stuff like this?

I lived in California for 15 years.  It’s not crazy.  The people are not crazy.  What’s good for the environment is good for everyone.  Ideally I would like to all states adopt a pro human stance.  

@RixTrack posted:

I lived in California for 15 years.  It’s not crazy.  The people are not crazy.  What’s good for the environment is good for everyone.  Ideally I would like to all states adopt a pro human stance.  

Let's just agree to disagree about the policies in California and leave it at that.

@KarlDL posted:

I maybe outdated and wrong on this, but my understanding of the UP battery loco experiments in CA was to recharge the batt-loco batts downhill or on the flat so that the battery power would reduce uphill fuel use and emissions by eliminating one diesel from the consist.  In other words, a limited degree of energy storage and retrieval in order to achieve a modest reduction of emissions and fuel consumption.  Neither revolutionary nor risk-free,  but worth exploring, IMO.

You're NOT wrong.  You can link all the press releases and studies in the world and preconceived notions over facts will mostly rule the discussions.   Union Pacific's CEO flat out states that they WANT to do this to lead the way in the industry and it often goes in one ear and out the other.  Somehow California is forcing them to do this.  A new set of rules in California was passed just LAST WEEK that is pretty strict, but it needs federal approval (which it will not get).  It is loosely worded with a million exceptions and would only apply to locomotives that are more than 23 years old (and not until 2030) despite some articles misquoting it.

By the way, the Pacific Harbor Line began operating battery electric locomotives in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach late last year, and Wabtec tested its FLXdrive locomotives on 18 trips between Barstow and Stockton, California.

There is federal funding to help the efforts.  UP are planning to test them in California AND Nebraska to see how they work in two different climates.   Why California?  Half the nation's railroad operations are in that state.  It's the largest railroad state in the nation.

And, if anyone even bothered to read any of the links they would see that UP will be testing them in RAILYARDS and IF they work out, then for long haul.

John

I can't even stand the idea of battery powered model trains..... I want nothing to do with battery powered lawnmowers, cars, trucks, planes or real trains!  California is the center of all things nutty!!!  😡

had a thought

overhead catenary is superior to battery so why not electrify just in California then have diesels switch out across state lines similar to the northeast corridor

cal trans should pay for the project since the government wants to pass these big laws on emissions

or

we should bring back the electrification proposals of the 1970s which would be even better