
World's largest electric vehicle - prostoalex
https://www.empa.ch/web/s604/e-dumper
======
philipkglass
_Because the vehicle is electric, there is no need to “heat up” the brakes
when descending. This is because the enormous electric engine acts as a
generator and recharges the battery pack. That same energy is then used to
help the vehicle travel back up the hill. Phys reports, “If all goes as
planned, the electric dumper truck will even harvest more electricity while
traveling downhill than it needs for the ascent. Instead of consuming fossil
fuels, it would then feed surplus electricity into the grid.”_

Clever. It can do this because it travels uphill empty and comes downhill
full.

~~~
Z1nfandel
I thought the same, but then it made me wonder how many mines are built such
that you are hauling ore down instead of up?

I don't know enough about mines, and googling "most common mine design" isn't
cutting it. Could anyone weigh in with more insight? The only big mines I've
seen look to be pits, like the Bingham Copper Mine near SLC.

I do remember reading something about ore trains in some Scandinavian country
using regenerative braking to power nearby towns and its own trip back up.

~~~
jandrese
Unless they are using this dump truck to fill in an old pit it doesn't seem
like that should happen very often.

The logistics of feeding the power back to the grid are also a bit wonky. Is
it going to be dragging a cable behind it? Is there an inductive
charge/discharge pad that it drives over? The article has no useful details on
this, and the whole idea seems rather half baked.

~~~
Fjolsvith
Doesn't an electric train have overhead power cables?

~~~
grzm
Depends on the system.

> _An electric locomotive is a locomotive powered by electricity from overhead
> lines, a third rail or on-board energy storage such as a battery or fuel
> cell._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive)

------
sxates
I've heard people say that one reason why we shouldn't bother with electric
cars is that they still generate a lot of carbon from their production supply
chain. All the minerals and metals mined, the parts being shipped around, the
energy in manufacturing, etc.

But things like this demonstrate why that is the wrong way to look at it. We
can, and absolutely should, electrify _everything_. The whole supply chain.

The truck in the mine, the smelting factory, the assembly line, the warehouse,
and the big rig that delivers it to you. There's no reason why every one of
these couldn't run on renewable electricity. The only reason they don't is
because until recently it was more expensive, but that is no longer true. The
total lifecycle carbon impact of everything we make can go to nearly zero as
all these points electrify and as our grid migrates over to renewables.

That it can't happen all at once is no reason not to start.

~~~
hwillis
>I've heard people say that one reason why we shouldn't bother with electric
cars is that they still generate a lot of carbon from their production supply
chain. All the minerals and metals mined, the parts being shipped around, the
energy in manufacturing, etc.

"A lot" = 15% more.[1] Approximately 1 ton of extra emissions, which it takes
a daunting 4,900 miles to pay back- less than 5 months of the average
American's driving. A great deal of this pollution comes from energy use- that
report[1] says that if the grid was powered by 80% green energy then
manufacturing a BEV would produce 25% _less_ pollution than a normal car.

[1]:
[http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cle...](http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-
Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-exec-summary.pdf)

~~~
sxates
Right, all things considered they're still less carbon intensive than and ICE
car, especially with a few hundred thousand miles on the odometer. People seem
to conveniently forget that an ICE car requires a lot of carbon to
manufacture, and then creates even more with every mile driven. So even at the
start the EV is ahead (or as your source says, within 5 months it's ahead).

~~~
hwillis
I'm a little triggered when people bring up BEVs being more intensive to
manufacture. That report I linked was used as the posterchild for why BEVs are
garbage, like Wired's "Tesla's electric cars aren't as green as you might
think"[1]. But the report is amazing! It put to bed fears that electric cars
needed 50% or more as much to make, that they needed to be driven 150,000
miles to break even, etc etc. On top of that it says that BEVs will be
_cleaner_ than conventional cars to build. It was an incredibly great result
to that investigation, but people still turned around and portrayed it was a
bad thing. That really annoyed me, since it was more optimistic than even most
_proponents_ of electric cars had expected. I personally thought electric cars
would always produce more waste just by virtue of weighing more, but they are
so much simpler to create that that isn't true.

[1]: [https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-
not...](https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-
think/)

------
ortusdux
There are ore train cars that use regenerative braking on the way down the
mountain, generating as much as 5x the power needed for the empty trip back
up. Reportedly, they power the mining town at the top of the mountain.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_brake#Conversion_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_brake#Conversion_to_electric_energy:_the_motor_as_a_generator)

------
elihu
> “Nickel manganese cobalt cells are also the choice of the German automobile
> industry when it comes to the next generation of electric cars,” Held said.

Interesting claim. I'm not familiar with NMC batteries.

Here's what wikipedia says:

> Handheld electronics mostly use LIBs based on lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2),
> which offers high energy density, but presents safety risks, especially when
> damaged. Lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4), lithium ion manganese oxide
> battery (LiMn2O4, Li2MnO3, or LMO) and lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide
> (LiNiMnCoO2 or NMC) offer lower energy density, but longer lives and less
> likelihood of unfortunate events in real world use, (eg, fire, explosion,
> ...). Such batteries are widely used for electric tools, medical equipment,
> and other roles. NMC in particular is a leading contender for automotive
> applications. Lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (LiNiCoAlO2 or NCA) and
> lithium titanate (Li4Ti 5O12 or LTO) are specialty designs aimed at
> particular niche roles. The newer lithium–sulfur batteries promise the
> highest performance-to-weight ratio.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-
ion_battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery)

So, it's another kind of lithium-ion battery.

~~~
hwillis
Yeah. It's a subset of Li-ion. Tesla vehicles use NCA and their stationary
storage products use NMC [1]. They are pretty similar but NCA is lighter and
cheaper and NMC has better cycle life (and hence long-term value). It makes
sense to use NMC for this application since weight is a non-issue.

They're both significantly cheaper than LCO (the most common) and because of
that NMC has become a lot more common than it was. They're also much better
behaved (ie happy to put out high-power bursts, temperature-stable, and less
likely to ignite), but last longer than other chemistries like FePO4 (which
not well behaved but quite hard to ignite).

[1]: [http://fortune.com/2015/05/18/tesla-grid-batteries-
chemistry...](http://fortune.com/2015/05/18/tesla-grid-batteries-chemistry/)

------
hownottowrite
The original article:
[https://www.empa.ch/web/s604/e-dumper](https://www.empa.ch/web/s604/e-dumper)

~~~
ghostly_s
Mods, can you change the link in the OP? For those who aren't familiar,
Inhabitat is an _extremely_ click-baity source and almost all their content is
entirely credulous restatements of press releases or articles from other
publications. As someone who follows sustainable architecture issues I
categorically ignore anything they publish.

------
samcheng
I'm surprised they didn't use one of the existing diesel-electric hybrid dump
trucks as a base model. That seems like an easier conversion than converting a
truck with a mechanical transmission.

Here's an example diesel-electric hybrid dump truck:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebherr_T_282B](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebherr_T_282B)

~~~
mulmen
That truck is an order of magnitude larger than the one in the article. I
imagine that at some point hybrid electric power trains become a necessity but
before that they are excessively complicated.

Are there existing hybrid trucks of a similar size to the one in the article?

------
KGIII
I'm not sure the new/changed title is very good. Those giant earth movers, on
tracks, that you see in mines are electric vehicles. They are just plugged in
with giant cables.

Well, some are. I presume some run on other power but I've not seen one.

~~~
Aspos
well, it is not the biggest electric truck even.

~~~
KGIII
I'm not surprised, but I'm unfamiliar with larger trucks that are solely
electric powered.

------
ctz
This is not close to being the world's largest electric vehicle. Early
submarines were electrically powered and more than twice the size (60ft vs
~30ft), eg. the Nautilus of 1886.

~~~
keithpeter
And I thought of the humble metro trainset

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_Metro_rolling_stock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_Metro_rolling_stock)

50-odd tonnes and I've witnessed zero to 80km/h in about 6 to 10 seconds or
so.

But, yes a nice big yellow machine running on batteries is an impressive
milestone.

~~~
dom0
1.3 m/s² is quite something, quite a bit more than a typical tram or S-Bahn
(both ~1 m/s², which is still quite a pull...).

~~~
keithpeter
The drivers only do the high acceleration when the tram is mostly empty and no
standing passengers I've noticed.

For those in Birmingham UK: St Paul's to Jewellery Quarter is a longish bit of
track just outside the city centre.

------
exabrial
There was a copper mine in Arizona I went and toured about 5-7 years ago. The
trucks were `diesel-over-electric` hybrids, but not fully electric. The shovel
at the bottom of the pit was fully electric, with 4160volt 3-phase power lines
delivering hundreds of amps. I believe the electricity was running a massive
hydraulic pump on the shovel, making it also an interesting hybrid.

~~~
pankajdoharey
Such vehicles with Diesel-electric drive trains have existed since 1973.

Like Terex_33-19_"Titan"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terex_33-19_%22Titan%22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terex_33-19_%22Titan%22)

------
jordache
Only 8x? Doesn't seem like that much? Maybe more aligned to the patterns in
which the trucks are used.

~~~
wwarner
Ya, this dump truck: 148 gal, compared to honda fit's 11 gal tank. That's like
13x. Tho the amount of energy on board only affects the range of the vehicle,
so it's not that interesting.

[http://www.ritchiespecs.com/specification?category=Articulat...](http://www.ritchiespecs.com/specification?category=Articulated%20Dump%20Truck&make=CATERPILLAR&model=740&modelid=91910)

------
andrei_says_
Which makes me think: wouldn't it be nice if a Tesla or aforementioned dump
truck could serve as a battery?

An addition or alternative to a powerwall or whatever the tesla home battery's
called?

------
Abishek_Muthian
It's good that they used existing truck base and focussed only on the fuel.
But I couldn't see any data on actual efficiency/mileage, the whole article
was focussed on how big the battery was on the big truck. "Its size and
strength ensure it can transport materials from a mountain ridge to a valley
20 times per day." Is the only data on it's efficiency ?

------
olivermarks
121 tons max loaded weight in original spec
[http://www.ritchiespecs.com/specification?type=con&category=...](http://www.ritchiespecs.com/specification?type=con&category=Rock+Truck&make=Komatsu&model=HD605-7&modelid=93265)

Be interested to know what range they anticipate from the 4.5 tons of
batteries

~~~
dom0
~infty / until the mechanical brakes are worn down after the battery is fully
charged from driving.

~~~
olivermarks
it seems to be a perpetual motion machine then? Just needs consumables such as
brake pads repaired?

The old UK milk floats had a range of 60-80 miles
[http://www.milkfloats.org.uk/faq.html](http://www.milkfloats.org.uk/faq.html)

~~~
dom0
No, perpetual motion means more energy from less. This moves mined rock
downhill, so the work of moving it uphill was done by geological formation.

------
jonathanbull
Mirror:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JTEauvE...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JTEauvESZ4QJ:inhabitat.com/worlds-
first-electric-dump-truck-stores-as-much-energy-as-8-tesla-model-s-
cars/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)

------
basicplus2
Ignoring one these in the electric version of course...

[http://www.hitachiconstruction.com/products/ex8000-6/](http://www.hitachiconstruction.com/products/ex8000-6/)

[https://youtu.be/VI57H89g3PA](https://youtu.be/VI57H89g3PA)

~~~
hwillis
Well yeah. It doesn't really make sense to count it if it has to be plugged
in.

------
pankajdoharey
This is a classic example of stupid science reporting. For decades now the
classic diesel engine locomotive used in trains and the electric trains
themselves are the largest electric vehicles of any kind. The Komatsu heavy
truck is anything but accurate example of "World's largest electric vehicle".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_locomotive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_locomotive)

And by the way all Diesel Submarines and Ships are also electric drive trains.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel%E2%80%93electric_transm...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel%E2%80%93electric_transmission)

~~~
konschubert
It depends on how you define "electric vehicle". It is pretty clear that they
mean "batttery driven, no engine attached". And in that context, their
statement is correct.

~~~
pankajdoharey
A vehicle (from Latin: vehiculum[1]) is a mobile machine that transports
people or cargo. Typical vehicles include wagons, bicycles, motor vehicles
(motorcycles, cars, trucks, buses), railed vehicles (trains, trams),
watercraft (ships, boats), aircraft and spacecraft.[2]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle)

~~~
italophil
Based on that definition the nuclear powered aircraft carriers would the
biggest electric vehicle.

~~~
hwillis
All the nuclear carriers I know of use steam turbines for drive. _Nimitz_ use
four turbines, one for each propeller, driven via gears.

~~~
pankajdoharey
You guys are talking without references, please post some reference without
that its all lame talk.

------
0xFFFE
For vehicle of that size to have a controlled descent using only the magnetic
field (from the generator) as the braking force, it has to be one massive
magnet, no? In which case, it is also adding to the overall weight of the
vehicle.

~~~
ars
It needs the same size motor as the one used to drive it to the top. The
forces are the same, just in the opposite direction.

~~~
0xFFFE
Apologies if it sounds too dumb, but on the descent you have additional mass
of your cargo that needs to be opposed by equal amount of braking force
(magnetic or otherwise), on the ascent you have an unladen truck which needs
lesser energy to move. So essentially the magnet has to be sized for the
descent not for the ascent. Or am I completely missing something?

~~~
ars
It's not dumb at all.

But this truck would need to be able to back up, make u-turns, etc, while
fully loaded.

So the motors must be strong enough to drive it uphill even when fully loaded,
if only simply for the sake of positioning and maneuvers.

------
wayanon
Thank you to all those contributing insightful comments to this and other HN
posts!, it’s why I visit daily.

------
jlebrech
Isn't the ISS bigger?

~~~
delecti
The line can be blurred with space craft, but I'd argue that not having a
destination makes the ISS more of a habitat than a vehicle, even though it's
in constant motion.

------
agjacobson
I

------
gyrgtyn
High tech green energy used to more efficiently strip mine/mountain top
removal. Yay?

~~~
hwillis
In developed nations the use of raw materials is pretty much level- meaning
that if it got cheaper there still wouldn't be that much of an increase in
consumption. So the primary effect of something like this is to clean up
mining that would happen anyway.

In the grand scheme of things it's not that big a deal since the primary
energy used to extract materials is an order of magnitude or two less than the
energy used to process them. But still, the less oil we burn the better!

